{"id":112602,"date":"2008-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-08T14:35:32","modified_gmt":"2017-11-08T09:05:32","slug":"chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&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\nSCA\/9771\/2008\t 4\/ 7\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 9771 of 2008\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\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 be\n\t\t\treferred 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\t it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================================\n\n \n\nCHHAYABEN\nPRAKASHBHAI PILLAI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSTATE\nOF GUJARAT &amp; 5 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nKH BAXI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR VIPUL MISTRY AGP for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone\nfor Respondent(s) : 2,5 - 6. \nMR PRANAV G DESAI for Respondent(s) :\n3 - 4. \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 M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 29\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>Present<br \/>\n\tSpecial Civil Application is filed by the petitioner ?  original<br \/>\n\tplaintiff  under Article 227  of the Constitution of India for<br \/>\n\tappropriate writ, order and\/or direction to quash and set aside the<br \/>\n\tjudgement and order dtd.30\/6\/2008 passed by the learned Presiding<br \/>\n\tOfficer, FTC No.10, Vadodara in Misc.Civil Appeal No.38 of 2008 in<br \/>\n\tallowing the appeal and  by quashing and setting aside the order<br \/>\n\tdtd.16\/2\/2008 passed by the learned trial court below application<br \/>\n\tEx.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.  957 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner herein ?  original plaintiff  filed Regular Civil Suit<br \/>\n\tNo.  957 of 2007 against the respondents for declaration and<br \/>\n\tpermanent injunction with a prayer to declare the plaintiff as owner<br \/>\n\tby adverse possession.  It was the case on behalf of the petitioner<br \/>\n\tthat one ?SSamrat Hotel?? is situated in Sayajiganj area, near<br \/>\n\tRailway Station, Vadodara and there was open portion of land on the<br \/>\n\tback side of the said Samrat Hotel, which was known as ?SGarden??<br \/>\n\tadmeasuring 5 feet X 8 feet  and the plaintiff was running her<br \/>\n\tbusiness in the name and style as ?SSamrat Tava Center?? since<br \/>\n\tmany years, which is not coming within road and it is not encroached<br \/>\n\tby land owners. It was the case of the plaintiff that the Vadodara<br \/>\n\tMunicipal Corporation removed the structure \/ Tava Center, along<br \/>\n\twith other 142 Cabin Holders and the said Tava Center was removed by<br \/>\n\tthe Corporation illegally and a notice was given to the Corporation<br \/>\n\tthat their Tava Center has been removed\/demolished illegally and<br \/>\n\tthey will put the superstructures again and as there was no reply,<br \/>\n\tthe plaintiff again put Tava Center and thereafter, she filed the<br \/>\n\taforesaid suit. In the said suit an  application at Ex.5 was<br \/>\n\tsubmitted  for temporary injunction restraining the Corporation from<br \/>\n\tinterfering  and disturbing the  use and occupation and in legal<br \/>\n\tpossession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit place known as<br \/>\n\t?SSamrat Tava Center?? without due process of law.  The learned<br \/>\n\ttrial court allowed the application Ex.5 vide order dtd.16\/2\/2008 by<br \/>\n\tdirecting the original defendant No.3 Corporation to maintain<br \/>\n\tstatus-quo position of the suit property known as ?SSamrat Tava<br \/>\n\tCenter?? till final disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved by the<br \/>\n\tsaid order passed by the learned trial court below application Ex.5<br \/>\n\tallowing the application Ex.5, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 ?<br \/>\n\tVadodara Municipal Corporation and its Commissioner preferred Civil<br \/>\n\tMisc.Appeal No.39 of 2008 which came to be heard by the learned<br \/>\n\tPresiding Officer, FTC No.10, Vadodara, who vide his judgement and<br \/>\n\torder dtd.30\/6\/2008 allowed the said appeal by quashing and setting<br \/>\n\taside the order passed by the trial court below application Ex.5.<br \/>\n\tBeing aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the petitioner ?<br \/>\n\toriginal plaintiff has preferred present Special Civil Application<br \/>\n\tunder Article 227  of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.K.H.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBaxi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has<br \/>\n\tvehemently submitted that  the learned appellate court has<br \/>\n\tmaterially erred in allowing the appeal by quashing and setting<br \/>\n\taside the order passed by the trial court below application Ex.5<br \/>\n\twhen the plaintiff is already running the Tava Center on the suit<br \/>\n\tland\/place. It is submitted that as such the trial court while<br \/>\n\tallowing the application Ex.5 directed to maintain status quo which<br \/>\n\twas not required to be interfered with, as the plaintiff was running<br \/>\n\tthe Tava Center since many years.  It is further submitted that as<br \/>\n\tsuch there was already a dispute between the railway authority and<br \/>\n\tthe Corporation with regard to ownership of the suit land and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, the Corporation had no authority to remove the Tava<br \/>\n\tCenter. It is submitted that the Tava Center of the  petitioner<br \/>\n\tcame to be removed by the Corporation  illegally along with other<br \/>\n\t142 cabin holders, who had approached this Court and lost. It is<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that  so far as the petitioner is concerned her case<br \/>\n\tcannot be compared with the case of other 142 cabin holders who lost<br \/>\n\tbefore this Court. Therefore, it is requested to allow present<br \/>\n\tSpecial Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mr.Pranav<br \/>\n\tG.Desai, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the  Corporation<br \/>\n\thas vehemently submitted that as such the son of the petitioner had<br \/>\n\talso filed Special Civil Application before this Court along with<br \/>\n\tother 142 cabin holders who lost and having lost before this Court,<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner ?  plaintiff ought not to have filed the suit. It is<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that even there was no reference of filing of the Special<br \/>\n\tCivil Application by the son of the plaintiff in the suit and there<br \/>\n\twas suppression of material facts. It is submitted that  the Tava<br \/>\n\tCenter of the petitioner was removed after the order passed by this<br \/>\n\tHonourable Court in Special Civil Application along with other 142<br \/>\n\tcabin holders.  It is submitted that considering the above when the<br \/>\n\tappellate court has allowed the appeal and quashed and set aside the<br \/>\n\torder passed by the trial court below application Ex.5, it cannot be<br \/>\n\tsaid that  the appellate court has committed any error.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tthe learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>At<br \/>\n\tthe outset, it is required to be noted that the petitioner had no<br \/>\n\ttitle over the land in question  and is an encroacher on the land in<br \/>\n\tquestion. It is also required to be noted that the son of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner had filed Special Civil Application before this Court<br \/>\n\talong with other 142 cabin holders, who lost and the learned Single<br \/>\n\tJudge of this Court directed that it will be open for the<br \/>\n\tCorporation to take appropriate action and demolish the cabin.<br \/>\n\tThereafter, the Tava Center run by the petitioner came to be<br \/>\n\tdemolished\/removed. However, the petitioner, again  without any<br \/>\n\tauthority restored the Tava Center. Filing of the Special Civil<br \/>\n\tApplication by the son of the petitioner before this Court and<br \/>\n\thaving lost, is not mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint. It is<br \/>\n\tnot the case of the petitioner that the son of the petitioner filed<br \/>\n\tSpecial Civil Application for some other cabin and\/or place. Once<br \/>\n\thaving lost before this Court, it was not open for the petitioner to<br \/>\n\tfile the suit. At least filing of the petition and having lost<br \/>\n\tbefore this Court ought to have mentioned in the plaint as well as<br \/>\n\tin the application at Ex.5. Thus, there is  suppression of the<br \/>\n\tmaterial fact by the petitioner. A person who approaches the Court<br \/>\n\tand prays for discretionary relief, must come  with clean hands.<br \/>\n\tConsidering the above when the appellate court has allowed the<br \/>\n\tappeal by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the trial<br \/>\n\tcourt below application Ex.5, it cannot be said that the learned<br \/>\n\tappellate court has committed any error. In the facts and<br \/>\n\tcircumstances of the case and considering the fact that the son of<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner has lost before this Court in Special Civil<br \/>\n\tApplication in respect of very suit land\/place, present Special<br \/>\n\tCivil Application deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly<br \/>\n\tdismissed. Notice is discharged. In the facts and circumstances of<br \/>\n\tthe case, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\n<\/p>\n<p>SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n<p>rafik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/9771\/2008 4\/ 7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9771 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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-112602","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>Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008 - 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\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-08T09:05:32+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-08T09:05:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1176,\"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\\\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-08T09:05:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008 - 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\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-08T09:05:32+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-08T09:05:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008"},"wordCount":1176,"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\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008","name":"Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-08T09:05:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhayaben-vs-state-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chhayaben vs State on 29 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/112602","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=112602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}