Bombay High Court
Shri. Tukaram Gopal Pagar (Since Decd) ... vs Shri. Sampat Laxman Ugale (Since Decd) ... on 20 April, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
VIDYA
SURESH
2026:BHC-AS:18553-DB
AMIN LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC
Digitally signed by
VIDYA SURESH
AMIN
Date: 2026.04.20
19:39:36 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6827 OF 2012
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.299 OF 2013
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.300 OF 2013
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.6896 OF 2026
1. Shri. Tukaram Gopal Pagar (since deceased)
Thr. LRs Ganpat Tukaram Pagar & Ors.
2. Chandrabhagabai Tukaram Pagar
3. Mhalsabai B. Mandalik
4. Anjana Nandkumar Mandalik
5. Radha Sanjay Aher
6. Vimal Bhalchandra Shewale
7. Gayatri Vilas Mandalik
All r/o. At Post Jopul, Tal. Dindori
District Nashik. ...Appellants
VS
1. Shri. Sampat Laxman Ugale (since deceased)
Thr. LRs.
1-a. Shri Kashinath Sampat Ugale
1-b. Shri Ranganath Sampat Ugale
Both r/o. At Post Jopul, Tal. Dindori,
District Nashik
2. Anant Gopal Kulkarni (since deceased)
Thr. LRs. And Representatives.
2-a Laxman Gopal Kulkarni (since deceased)
Thr. LRs. And Representatives.
2-a-a. Sonali Raghvendra Pujari
R/o. Flat No.403, C Wing,
Page 1 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 :::
LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC
MSEB Staff Quarter, Swastik Chamber
Umeshri Bappa Chowk, Chembur
Mumbai 400 071.
2-a-b. Nilima Pravin Karandikar
R/o. Flat No.10, Chetan Apartment,
Hirawadi Road, Opp. Diplaxmi Office
Old Adgaon Naka Panchavati
Nashik 422 003.
2a-c. Aditi Avinash Gaidhani
House No.1714 Gaidhani Wada
Somwar Peth Nashik 422 001.
3. Shri Ravji Govind Kulkarni
C/o. Jopulkar Diesel Services
Old Agra Road, Pimpalgaon Baswant
Tal. Niphad District Nashik ...Respondents
__________
Ms. Neeta Karnik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek V. Salunke, for
Appellants/Applicants.
Mr. Harshad E. Palwe, for Respondents.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 16 March 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON: 20 April 2026.
---------------
JUDGMENT (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7 January 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ Petition No.6827 of 2012 filed by the appellants has been rejected. The Appellants are asserting rights in respect of the land bearing Survey Nos.41/1 and 42 (old Gat No.153) admeasuring 1 acre 35 gunthas situated at Village Jopul, Taluka Dindori, District Nashik. (for short 'the said land').
2. Respondent No.1 - Sampat Laxman Ugale, since deceased was Page 2 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 ::: LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC represented by his legal heirs and representatives. Respondent no. 2- Anant Gopal Kulkarni (since deceased) was represented by his legal heir and representative and respondent no. 3-Mr. Ravji Govind Kulkarni are the owners /landlords of the said land.
3. The case of the appellants is that Mr. Tukaram Gopal Pagar (since deceased) was the tenant of the said land right from the year 1959-1960, who claimed tenancy rights from one of the owners - Anant Gopal Kulkarni.
4. In the year 1975, the appellant - Mr. Tukaram Gopal Pagar filed an application for fixing purchase price under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'BT&AL Act') in tenancy Case No.284 of 1977 which, according to the appellants, was allowed by an order dated 31 May 1977 whereby the purchase price was fixed for Rs.8617/-. It is appellant's case that on 4 March 1980, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short 'MRT') confirmed the rights when it was held that the tenancy of the appellant was created in 1959-60. It is the appellant's contention that the decision of the Competent Tenancy Authority that the appellant was inducted on the land as a tenant right from 1959-60 found endorsement in such order passed by the MRT. It is hence, contended that the appellant was declared as owner of the said land, as the entire purchase price was paid.
5. On such backdrop, it is the appellants' contention that on 17 April 1982, a certificate was issued in favour of the appellants under Section 32-M of the BT&AL Act which indicated that the appellants had become the owner. The Page 3 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 ::: LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC appellants have contended that on account of various collateral proceedings initiated by ex-tenants, there is now an order of restoration of the possession of the said land, under Sections 37 read with 39 of the BT&AL Act, in favour of one of the earlier tenants namely respondent No.1 - Mr. Sampat Laxman Ugale. In such context, the appellants have contended that in respect of the said land there were three persons who claimed to be tenants namely Mr. Popal Ganpat Ugale, Mr. Pandurang Laxman Ugale and Mr. Sampat Laxman Ugale, who claimed tenancy rights in Gat No.153. Such claim for tenancy was asserted on the basis of mutation entries where their names were recorded as tenants.
6. The appellants have contended that all these tenants had handed over possession to the respective owners unconditionally under a compromise, however, they have started claiming that they were nonetheless having a right of restoration of the possession on the ground that the landlords have not used the land for cultivation and had transferred the same to the appellants in the year 1972. The tenants, however, alleged that under the provisions of Section 37 read with Section 39 of the BT&AL Act, they were entitled to restoration of possession. It is the appellant's case that initially three applications were filed by three tenants namely Application No.8 of 1980 filed by Popat Pandurang Ugale; Application No.9 of 1980 filed by Pandurang Laxman Ugale, and Application No.10 of 1980 filed by Sampat Laxman Ugale. It is contended that all these applications were rejected by Tahasildar on 18 July 1981 on the ground that incidental proceedings in respect of the appellant's rights who claimed to have become owners of the tenanted premises from the year 1959-60, were sub judice Page 4 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 ::: LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC and pending before this Court.
7. After rejection of the the said three applications by the Tahasildar on the ground that they cannot be proceeded, an appeal was filed by respondent No.1/ ex-tenant before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) being Appeal no. 13 of 1981. The other two ex-tenants had also filed appeals before the Sub-Divisional Officer. These appeals are stated to have been dismissed on 17 October 1981 by the SDO.
8. It is the appellants' contention that only respondent No.1 - Sampat Laxman Ugale had filed a Revision Application before the MRT being Revision Application No.61 of 1982. The other two parties namely Popat Pandurang Ugale and Pandurang Laxman Ugale did not file any revision application.
9. On 14 March 1983, the MRT allowed the revision application filed by respondent No.1 and directed the Tahasildar to hold an enquiry on the allegations against the appellant and the original landlord, that there was breach of Section 37 of the BT&AL Act, and to examine whether respondent No.1 was entitled to restoration of the land. On such order being passed on 14 July 1983, the proceedings, only in respect of respondent No.1-Sampat Laxman Ugale, were remitted back to Tahasildar and it was re-numbered as Application No.18 of 1984.
10. It is contended by the appellants that it so transpired that the MRT decided the revision application of respondent No.1 - Sampat Laxman Ugale vide order dated 14 July 1983. The other tenants namely Popat Pandurang Ugale Page 5 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 ::: LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC and Pandurang Laxman Ugale again applied on 9 August 1984 for restoration of possession of the suit land. These two applications were, however, rejected by Tahasildar by an order dated 24 January 1985. On such backdrop, both the said tenants have filed appeals before the SDO who allowed the appeals of the said two tenants namely Popat Pandurang Ugale and Pandurang Laxman Ugale by an order dated 15 May 1985 who remanded the case back to the Tahasildar. Such order of the SDO was challenged by the appellants before the MRT who confirmed the decision of the SDO by an order dated 26 June 1987.
11. On such backdrop, the appellants filed Writ Petition No.6299 of 1987 and 6300 of 1987 in this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 26 June 1987 (supra) passed by the MRT which confirmed the decision of the SDO. In such writ petitions, the appellant has also reiterated and asserted his right to become a tenant as his tenancy rights being created in the year 1959-60. The said writ petitions were listed before the learned Single Judge of this Court. By an order dated 11 August 2000 the writ petitions were allowed when it was held that two tenants namely Pandurang Laxman Ugale and Popat Laxman Ugale were not entitled to reopen their applications for restoration of the land. In such judgment, the right of the appellant to be the tenants right from the year 1959- 60 was asserted, is the appellant's case.
12. It is the appellant' case that in the meantime after the order of remand was passed on 14 July 1983 by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the ex-tenant - respondent No.1 - Sampat Laxman Ugale prosecuted his application for restoration which was renumbered as 18 of 1984 before the Tahasildar. Page 6 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 ::: LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC
13. On 27 October 1988, the said application was allowed by the Tahasildar when it was held that the petitioner's landlord - respondent No.2 had committed breach by creating tenancy in favour of the petitioner in the year 1972, therefore, respondent No.2 - Sampat Laxman Ugale was held entitled to restoration of the possession of the suit land to him.
14. The appellant in the said circumstances had filed Appeal No.2 of 1989 before the SDO which was also dismissed on 25 May 1989. Against such orders passed by the SDO dismissing the petitioner's appeal, the petitioner filed Revision Application No.214 of 1989 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal challenging the order of restoration of possession passed by the authorities below. By an order dated 8 May 2012, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, however, dismissed the petitioner's revision application. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.6827 of 2012 before this Court, challenging the said orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and inter alia praying for the following substantive reliefs:
"(a) Issue an appropriate Wirt/Order, for quashing and setting aside the impugned Judgment and order is dated 08.05.2012 passed by the Learned President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Revision Application No.TNA/214/B/1989.
(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned Judgment and Order is dated 08.05.2012 passed by the Learned President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Revision Application No.TNA/214/B/1989 may kindly be stayed."
15. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, by the impugned order dated 7 January 2013, rejected the said writ petition. The Page 7 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 ::: LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC said order is required to be noted, which reads thus:
"1 The Petitioners challenge the concurrent orders passed by the learned Tehsildar thereby allowing the application filed by the Respondent No.1 for restoration of the suit land in view of the provisions of Section 37 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the said Act") and the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer dismissing the Appeal and the order passed by the earned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissing the revision.
2 Shri Hardas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that as a matter of fact the land of which the Petitioners were tenant was surrendered by the Respondent No.1 to the original landlord and as such the provisions of Section 37 of the said Act would not be applicable.
3 It it submitted that if the land is surrendered by the original tenant to the landlord, there cannot be any embargo for transfer of the said land as provided under the said Act. As a matter of fact, in the earlier proceedings the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal itself has directed a certificate under Section 32M to be granted in favour of the Petitioners and as such the order of restoration of possession is not sustainable.
4 Shri Gite, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1,1A and 1B, on the contrary, submits that perusal of record would reveal that there was a termination of tenancy as per the provisions of Section 31 of the said Act, and as such, it was not permissible for the original landlord to give possession of the said land to the Petitioners. It is submitted that the original landlord namely Anant G. Kulkarni had committed breach of Section 31 of the said Act and as such the order of restoration has rightly been passed by the Tehsildar which has been upheld up to the revisional stage.
5 A perusal of the material on record would reveal that the Respondent No.1 on tiller's day was tenant of the land in which the original Respondent Nos.1 and 3 had half share. Insofar as the land falling to the share of the original Respondent No.3 i.e. Ravji is concerned, he had offered his share to the present Respondent No.1 and the land was accordingly sold by said Ravji to Sampat. However, it appears that insofar as the Respondent No.1 is concerned, there was a termination by him insofar as his share is concerned. The termination under Section 31 can be only on two grounds; one for cultivating personally and the second, for any non agricultural purpose.
6 All the authorities had concurrently found that insofar as the share of Anant G. Kulkarni is concerned, the same was terminated. It is further to be noted that though it is the contention of the present Petitioners that they were in cultivation of the land since 1961, they had produced nothing on record to substantiate the said claim and the revenue record shows that their names were entered for the first time in the year 197273. In that view of the matter, no error could be found with the concurrent findings of fact that the Respondent Anant Kulkarni has inducted the present Petitioners in breach of the provisions of Section 37 read with Section 31 of the said Act.
7 Insofar as the reliance on the order passed by the learned Tehsildar directing the certificate to be issued in favour of the Petitioners under Section Page 8 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 ::: LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC 32M of the said Act is concerned, all the authorities had concurrently found that the present Respondent No.1 was never the party to the said proceedings and as such the said order could not bound the present Respondent No.1. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. The above Writ Petition is accordingly rejected."
16. Ms. Neeta Karnik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in assailing the aforesaid order has limited submissions. She submits that this was a case where certainly the provisions of Section 37 were not applicable. She submits that the appellants, who had claimed to be a tenant right from 1959-60, was in fact accepted by different authority and more particularly, certification under Section 32(M) was issued in favour of the appellants which indicated that the appellants had become the owner by the statutory process. It is her submission that the findings recorded in such proceedings could not have been completely discarded on the reasons which are set out in the impugned order.
17. Ms. Karnik would next submit that the purpose of initiation of the proceedings under Section 37 of the BT&AL Act would mandate two aspects, namely that the proceedings were required to be initiated by giving notice under Section 31 of the BT&AL Act as also there should be an order to that effect on the basis that the landlord is restored the possession on the condition that he would personally cultivate the said land. It is her submission that in the present case, there is no order, neither notice nor any condition is recorded in any order placed on record by respondent No.1 to show that there is breach of the condition of the order of restoration of possession of the landlord. It is her submission that in the absence of any legal and valid order or document on record, the provisions of Section 37 could not have been attracted and applied by Page 9 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 ::: LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC any of the tenancy authorities. She would accordingly submit that the rights of the appellant, which are in fact statutorily recognized, have been completely overlooked in the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order.
18. On the other hand, Mr. Palwe, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 would support the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal whereby the petitioner's revision application filed against respondent No.1 as also the owner, was rejected.
19. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we are not persuaded to accept the contention as urged on behalf of the appellant inasmuch as, there is material on record which clearly goes to show that respondent No.1 Mr. Sampat on the tillers day (1 April 1957) was the tenant of the said land i.e. prior to the claim of tenancy by Tukaram Gopal Pagar - appellant who asserted tenancy from the year 1959-60. There are concurrent findings of the authorities that insofar as the deceased Anant Gopal Kulkarni (landlord) was concerned, the tenancy was terminated. Although the appellant contended that they were cultivating the land since 1960-61, there was no material on record to substantive such claim and as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge. There is also finding of fact that the revenue record shows that the name of the appellant was entered in the year 1972-73. It is in these circumstances, learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order has observed that there are concurrent finding of fact that respondent No.2- Anant Gopal Page 10 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 ::: LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC Kulkarni had inducted the appellant in breach of Section 37 read with Section 31 of the BT&AL Act.
20. For convenience, the provisions of Section 31 and 37 of the BT&AL are required to be noted, which read thus:
"Section 31. Landlord's right to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation and non-agricultural purpose.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 14 and 30 but subject to sections 31A to 31D (both inclusive), a 11[landlord (not being a landlord within the meaning of Chapter III-AA) may], after giving notice and making an application for possession as provided in sub-section (2), terminate the tenancy of any land (except a permanent tenancy), if the landlord bona-fide requires the land for any of the following purposes :--
(a) for cultivating personally, or
(b) for any non-agricultural purpose.
(2) the notice required to be given under sub-section (1) shall be in writing, shall state the purpose for which the landlord requires the land and shall be served on the tenant on or before the 31st day of December 1956. A copy of such notice shall, at the same time, be sent to the Mamlatdar. An application for possession under section 29 shall be made to the Mamlatdar on or before the 31st day of March 1957.
(3) Where a landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to mental or physical disability 1 [* *] then such notice may be given 2 [and an application for possession under section 29 may be made,]--
(i) by the minor within one year from the date on which he attains majority;
(ii) by the successor-in-title of a widow within one year from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist;
(iii) within one year from the date on which mental or physical disability ceases to exist; and 3 [* * * *] Provided that where a person of such category is a member of a joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if at least one member of the joint family is outside the categories mentioned in the sub-section unless before the 31st day of March 1958 the share of such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on inquiry is satisfied that the share of such person in the land is separated, having regard to the area, assessment, classification and value of the land, in the same proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family property, and not in a large proportion.
.. ... ... ... ... .. ... ..
Section 37. Landlord to restore possession if he fails to cultivate within one year.-- (1) If after the landlord takes possession of the land after the termination of the tenancy 3 [under section 31], 4 [33B or section 34 of this Act as it stood Page 11 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 ::: LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC immediately before the commencement of the Amending Act, 1956] he fails to use it for any of the purposes specified in the notice given under 5 [section 31], 6 [33 B or section 34 of this Act as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Amending Act, 1956] within one year from the date on which he took possession or ceases to use it at any time for any of the aforesaid purposes within twelve years from the date on which he took such possession, the landlord shall forthwith restore possession of the land to the tenant whose tenancy was terminated by him, unless he has obtained from the tenant his refusal in writing to accept the tenancy on the same terms and conditions or has offered in writing to give possession of the land to the tenant on the same terms and conditions and the tenant has failed to accept the offer within three months of the receipt thereof.
(2) After the tenant has recovered possession under sub-section (1) he shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, hold such land on the same terms and conditions on which he held it at the time his tenancy was terminated. (3) If the landlord has failed to restore possession of the land to the tenant as provided in sub-section (1) he shall be liable to pay such compensation to the tenant as may be determined by the Mamlatdar for the loss suffered by the tenant on account of eviction.
(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to a landlord who becomes a serving member of the armed forces; and on that account, fails to use the land, or ceases to use it, for any of the purposes specified in the notice referred to in sub- section (1) and within the period specified in that sub-section."
21. The scheme of Section 37 of the BT&AL Act contemplates that where possession is obtained by the landlord on the ground of personal cultivation under Section 31, such possession is subject to the statutory condition that the landlord shall personally cultivate the land, failing which the tenant becomes entitled to seek restoration of possession. The concurrent findings on record clearly indicate that these conditions were breached insofar as Respondent No.2 - Anant Gopal Kulkarni had inducted the appellants on the said land and had also transferred possession of the same within 12 years from the date of taking over possession, thereby failing to cultivate the land personally. It is on such breach that the proceedings under Section 37 came to be initiated and culminated in an order of restoration in favour of respondent No.1. Once such prior rights were subsisting and stood recognized in such proceedings, Respondent No.2 could not Page 12 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 ::: LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC have been said to be on a clean slate to induct the appellants as tenants. Thus the claim as made by the appellants to assert tenancy and claim ownership in the said land through Respondent No.2 cannot be accepted.
22. In the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant cannot take a position contrary to the record, and which would in fact amount to superseding the prior rights of respondent No.1- Sampat Laxman Ugale. The jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was certainly not to re-appreciate the evidence and to reach to a different finding and conclusion. This is what the appellant desired before the learned Single Judge by urging such pleas as asserted in the writ petition.
23. We are also not persuaded to accept the contention as urged by Ms.Karnik that as Section 32M certificate was issued in favour of the appellant, it was required to be given a weightage inasmuch as in Section 32M proceedings, as rightly held by the Court, respondent No.1 Sampat Laxman Ugale was not a party, when the appellant obtained such certificate under Section 32M. In such circumstances, the said certificate would not bind respondent No.1 and moreover. the certificate cannot bring about a situation that the rights of respondent No.1 which stood statutorily recognized are in any manner superseded or would stand extinguished.
24. We accordingly find that the observations as made by the learned Single Judge are borne out of the record. In any event, it is a plausible view which in fact settled the old dispute which time and again appears to be unsuccessfully Page 13 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 ::: LPA-243-13-CAL299-13=CAL300-13=IAST 6896=26.DOC resurrected by the appellant.
25. We find no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly rejected. No costs.
26. In view of disposal of the appeal, Civil Applications as well as Interim Application do not survive and are accordingly disposed of.
27. At this stage, Ms. Karnik, learned senior counsel for the appellants seeks continuation of the ad-interim order. At her request, ad-interim order, if any operating, shall continue for a period of eight weeks from today.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Page 14 of 14 P. V. Rane ::: Uploaded on - 20/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2026 20:34:31 :::