{"id":106973,"date":"2010-07-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-29T19:40:16","modified_gmt":"2015-07-29T14:10:16","slug":"heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nCRA\/11\/2010\t 11\/ 11\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nREVISION APPLICATION No. 11 of 2010\n \n\nwith\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No.3293 of 2010\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nHEIRS\nOF DECEASED JAGDISH CHANDRA YADAV &amp; 3 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nDECEASED\nDAHYABHAI CHIMANLAL DIED THROUGH HEIRS &amp; 2 - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nNV GANDHI for\nApplicant(s) : 1 - 2, 4,DELETED for Applicant(s) : 3, \nMR VK JOSHI\nfor Opponent(s) : 1 -\n3. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 20\/07\/2010 \nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe applicants being<br \/>\n\tlegal heirs of the ori. defendant have filed this Civil Revision<br \/>\n\tApplication under Section-29(2) of the Bombay Rent Act challenging<br \/>\n\tthe judgment and order passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small<br \/>\n\tCauses Court, Ahmedabad on 23.11.2009 in Civil Appeal No.26 of 1999<br \/>\n\tsetting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned Judge of<br \/>\n\tSmall Causes Court, Ahmedabad  on 31.12.1998 in H.R.P. Suit No.3657<br \/>\n\tof 1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis Court has issued<br \/>\n\tnotice on 21.1.2010 and interim relief in terms of para-6(B) was<br \/>\n\tgranted whereby the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate<br \/>\n\tBench of the Small Causes Court was stayed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHeard Mr. N.V.Gandhi,<br \/>\n\tlearned advocate appearing for the applicants   ori. defendants<br \/>\n\tand Mr. V.K.Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the opponents<br \/>\n\tori. plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is the case of the<br \/>\n\tapplicants   ori. defendants that they are the tenants of the<br \/>\n\tproperty bearing No. B-1 Mukhivas, Mithakhali having Census<br \/>\n\tNo.1430\/1, Survey No.1454\/1, Ahmedabad. The applicant Nos.1 and 2<br \/>\n\tare residing in the said premises. The applicant No.3 expired and<br \/>\n\thence he was not shown as necessary party in the memo of Appeal. The<br \/>\n\tapplicant No.4 is daughter of the deceased tenant and she was also<br \/>\n\tnot shown as necessary party in the Appeal. The opponents   ori.<br \/>\n\tplaintiffs are owner of the said premises. They preferred H.R.P.Suit<br \/>\n\tNo.3657 of 1988 for eviction before the Small Causes Court,<br \/>\n\tAhmedabad on the ground of arrears of rent. The trial Court vide<br \/>\n\tjudgment and decree dated 31.12.1998 dismissed the said Suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBeing aggrieved by the<br \/>\n\tsaid judgment and decree of the trial Court the opponents   ori.<br \/>\n\tplaintiffs preferred Civil Appeal No.26 of 2009 before the Appellate<br \/>\n\tBench of the Small Causes Court, Ahmedabad. The Appellate Bench vide<br \/>\n\tits judgment and order dated 23.11.2009 quashed and set aside the<br \/>\n\tjudgment and decree dated 31.12.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt is this order which is<br \/>\n\tunder challenge in the present Civil Revision Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.N.V.Gandhi, learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate appearing for the applicants submitted that the order and<br \/>\n\tjudgment passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court is<br \/>\n\tcontrary to law laid down by this Court in the case of  Naranbhai<br \/>\n\tNathabhai Koli Vs. Modhia Panalal Maganlal, reported in 1982 (2) GLR<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t98<\/span><br \/>\n\tand in the case of  Somabhai Kalidas Patel Vs.<br \/>\n\tBachubhai Sankalchand Modi, reported in 1986 GLH (Guj.) 22.<br \/>\n\tHe<br \/>\n\thas further submitted that the applicants are entitled to the<br \/>\n\tprotection granted under Section-12(3)(b) of the Act. As the<br \/>\n\tapplicants have paid rent no issue is framed<br \/>\n\tby the trial Court. He has further submitted<br \/>\n\tthat the specific issue with regard to standard rent was framed by<br \/>\n\tthe trial Court and hence the applicants were anxious to know about<br \/>\n\tthe exact amount of standard rent. He has further submitted that the<br \/>\n\tapplicants have deposited arrears of rent from 1.5.1983 to<br \/>\n\t30.11.1988 and purshis to that effect was also filed before the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court. Mr.Gandhi further submitted that the applicants had<br \/>\n\tdeposited municipal tax in its entirety despite the fact that they<br \/>\n\tare only liable to pay 60% of the municipal tax. In  the above facts<br \/>\n\tand circumstances of the case Mr.Gandhi has submitted that the<br \/>\n\tapplicants cannot be said to be tenants in arrears.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.Gandhi<br \/>\n\tfurther submitted that the statutory requirements laid down under<br \/>\n\tthe Bombay Rent Act have not been fulfilled. Notice was not served<br \/>\n\ton the applicants and the Appellate Court has proceeded merely on<br \/>\n\tthe<br \/>\n\tbasis of assumption.  It was explained in detail as to why notice<br \/>\n\tcould not be served on the applicants. In absence of service of<br \/>\n\tnotice no decree could have been passed by the Appellate Court under<br \/>\n\tSection-12(3)(b) of the Bombay Rent Act and the applicants cannot be<br \/>\n\tevicted on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. He has,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, submitted that the Civil Revision Application deserves to<br \/>\n\tbe admitted and stay granted by this Court should continue till<br \/>\n\tfinal disposal of this Civil Revision Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tV. K. Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, on the<br \/>\n\tother hand, has submitted that the Appellate Court has at length<br \/>\n\tdiscussed the issue regarding non-payment of rent and issuance of<br \/>\n\tnotice by the opponents and non-acceptance of this notice by the<br \/>\n\tapplicants.  He has submitted that the rent was outstanding since<br \/>\n\t1983 to 1998.  The notice was issued by the original plaintiffs.<br \/>\n\tThere<br \/>\n\tare adequate evidence on record to show that the opponents have<br \/>\n\ttried to serve notice on different occasions. However, on all the<br \/>\n\toccasions the applicants were not found at the address given. The<br \/>\n\tCourt has, therefore, refused on the footing that the notice was<br \/>\n\tawaited. It is settled legal position that, refusal is as goods as<br \/>\n\tacceptance of the notice and rebuttal of presumption as found by the<br \/>\n\ttrial Court is not justified in view of the documentary evidence on<br \/>\n\trecord. He has further submitted that the issue regarding standard<br \/>\n\trent was wrongly framed by the Trial Court as that issue has already<br \/>\n\tbeen settled between the parties in the previous Suit and as per<br \/>\n\toutcome of the previous suit the standard rent was fixed at Rs.70\/-.<br \/>\n\tDespite this fact, the same has not been paid by the applicants.  He<br \/>\n\thas further submitted that the condition precedents laid down in<br \/>\n\tSection 12(3)(b) are violated and, therefore, the Appellate Court<br \/>\n\thas rightly come to the conclusion<br \/>\n\tthat the applicants are tenants in arrears of rent and hence the<br \/>\n\tsaid order cannot be interferred with by this Court while exercising<br \/>\n\tits jurisdictional power under Section 29(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHaving heard the learned<br \/>\n\tadvocates appearing for the parties and having considered the<br \/>\n\timpugned orders passed by the Courts below in light of the documents<br \/>\n\tproduced on record, the Court is of the view that the Appellate<br \/>\n\tCourt has rightly come to the conclusion that the applicants are<br \/>\n\ttenants in arrears of rent. Admittedly the applicants have not paid<br \/>\n\tthe rent from 1983 to 1998.  Notices were issued which have also not<br \/>\n\tbeen accepted and immediately on filing of the Suit within one month<br \/>\n\tthe applicants have not deposited rent in the Court.  The issues<br \/>\n\twere framed in December, 1989.  It is true that one of the issue is<br \/>\n\twith regard to standard rent. However, that issue has already been<br \/>\n\tdecided between the parties in the earlier Suit.  Even after framing<br \/>\n\tof the issue the amount was paid in 1990 and thereafter, and hence<br \/>\n\tas per provisions contained in Section 12(3)(b) of the Act the<br \/>\n\tapplicants have not paid the amount of rent. As per the decision of<br \/>\n\tthe Apex Court in the case of  Vasant Ganesh Damle V\/s.<br \/>\n\tShrikant Trimbak Datar and another, (2002) 4 SCC 183,<br \/>\n\twherein the Apex Court has held that the first date of hearing<br \/>\n\tcannot be stretched to be any date beyond the date when the issues<br \/>\n\tare framed in the suit. The object is to protect the bonafide<br \/>\n\ttenants from being evicted on the grounds of default by affording<br \/>\n\tthem further opportunity to make the payment of the arrears of rent<br \/>\n\tat least two times during the subsistence of tenancy. The provision<br \/>\n\tis not intended to confer a right without circumspection, to be<br \/>\n\tavailed of by the tenant at any point of time according to his<br \/>\n\tconvenience. The Court further<br \/>\n\tobserved that it is not possible to agree with the contention that<br \/>\n\tunder Section 23 (3), the words such other date as the Court may fix<br \/>\n\twould also include the date fixed by the Appellate Court in terms of<br \/>\n\tSection 107 of CPC. The Court thereafter held that the appellant was<br \/>\n\trightly held to be in arrears of rent for more than six months from<br \/>\n\tthe date of filing of the suit and had failed to apply before the<br \/>\n\tTrial Court on the first day of suit for depositing the arrears of<br \/>\n\trent. This issue was considered by the Court in its recent decision<br \/>\n\tin Civil Revision Application No.240 of 2009 and other cognate<br \/>\n\tmatters decided on 12.7.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t Considering<br \/>\n\tthe settled legal position the Court is of the view that the<br \/>\n\tapplicants are tenants in arrears of rent and Appellate Court has<br \/>\n\trightly passed the decree of eviction in favour of the opponents<br \/>\n\tori. plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t This Civil Revision<br \/>\n\tApplication is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged. Interim<br \/>\n\trelief granted earlier stands vacated without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t In view of the order<br \/>\n\tpassed in Civil Revision Application, the Civil Application does not<br \/>\n\tsurvive and it is accordingly disposed off.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t    (K. A. PUJ, J.)<\/p>\n<p>kks <\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010 Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CRA\/11\/2010 11\/ 11 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 11 of 2010 with CIVIL APPLICATION No.3293 of 2010 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106973","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-29T14:10:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-29T14:10:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1405,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-29T14:10:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-29T14:10:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-29T14:10:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010"},"wordCount":1405,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010","name":"Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-29T14:10:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/heirs-vs-deceased-on-20-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Heirs vs Deceased on 20 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106973","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=106973"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106973\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106973"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106973"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106973"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}