{"id":12821,"date":"2008-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008"},"modified":"2016-07-25T20:46:53","modified_gmt":"2016-07-25T15:16:53","slug":"pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Akil Kureshi,&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\nAO\/1820\/2008\t 11\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nAPPEAL\nFROM ORDER No. 18 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 749 of 2008\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nPRAVINBHAI\nBHAGVANBHAI &amp; 1 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPARVATIBEN\nHIRABHAI KESHAVBHAI &amp; 18 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nSI NANAVATI, SR. ADVOCATE for MR LR PATHAN for\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR JIGAR P RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 1, \nRULE\nSERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, 5, \nUNSERVED-EXPIRED (R) for\nRespondent(s) : 3, \nSERVED BY AFFIX.-(R) for Respondent(s) : 4,6 -\n11. \nMR MA SAPA for Respondent(s) : 12 - 16. \nMR KG VAKHARIA, SR.\nADVOCATE for MR MB PARIKH for Respondent(s) : 17, \nNOTICE SERVED BY\nDS for Respondent(s) : 18 -\n19. \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 AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/09\/2008  \nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\t\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned advocates appearing for the parties for final disposal of<br \/>\nthe appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tAppellants<br \/>\nare the original plaintiffs who have instituted Special Civil Suit<br \/>\nNo. 145 of 2002 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Surat.  The<br \/>\nsuit is for declaration and permanent injunction against the<br \/>\ndefendants with respect to land admeasuring 1 acre and 10 gunthas<br \/>\nbearing Survey No. 57\/2 of Village Dabholi, Taluka Choryasi, District<br \/>\nSurat.  The plaintiffs claim to have purchased the suit land through<br \/>\na registered sale deed dated 06.07.2001 from one Parvatiben   the<br \/>\noriginal land owner &#8211; defendant No. 17 in the pending suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIt<br \/>\nappears that there are number of sale transactions allegedly created<br \/>\nwith respect to suit land and this has given rise to the present<br \/>\nlitigation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIn the<br \/>\nabove-mentioned suit, the plaintiffs also filed application Exh. 5<br \/>\nand sought interim injunction restraining the respondents from<br \/>\ninterfering with the use and<br \/>\nenjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiffs and further<br \/>\nrestraining the said defendants from dealing with the land in any<br \/>\nmanner by selling, transferring, till final disposal of the suit<br \/>\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tAfter<br \/>\ninitially granting ex-parte injunction, the learned 5th<br \/>\nAdditional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Surat by the impugned order<br \/>\ndated 10.01.2008 dismissed Exh.5 application of the appellants and<br \/>\nvacated ad-interim injunction granted earlier.  It is this order<br \/>\nwhich the appellants have challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tLearned<br \/>\nSenior Advocate Shri S.I. Nanavati for the appellants and learned<br \/>\nSenior Advocate Mr K.G.Vakharia for the concerned respondent have<br \/>\ntaken me through various documents on record and made detailed<br \/>\nfactual as well as legal submissions.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tOn<br \/>\nbehalf of the appellants, it was pointed out that the original land<br \/>\nowner &#8211; Parvatiben had sold the land to one Nagindasbhai by a<br \/>\nregistered sale deed dated 09.03.1990.  Nagindasbhai in turn executed<br \/>\na Banakhat and also granted irrevocable power of attorney in the year<br \/>\n1997.  Eventually, the land was sold to the appellants by a<br \/>\nregistered sale deed dated 18.09.2001.  Learned Senior Advocate for<br \/>\nthe appellants, therefore, submitted that the appellants have become<br \/>\nowners of the suit land and have also been put in possession thereof.<br \/>\n They are enjoying possession of the suit land since many years.<br \/>\nSuch possession was initially protected by the Trial Court by<br \/>\ngranting ex-parte interim injunction.  Many years thereafter,<br \/>\nhowever, by the impugned order, such injunction was vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIt was<br \/>\ncontended that the concerned defendants claim to have purchased this<br \/>\nvery land through a registered sale deed dated 06.07.2001 executed by<br \/>\nParvatiben &#8211; defendant No. 17 who had no right, title or interest<br \/>\nleft in the suit property after she once sold the same to<br \/>\nNagindasbhai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIt was<br \/>\ncontended that though the Trial Court heavily relied on the<br \/>\nallegation that Nagindasbhai was not an agriculturist and therefore,<br \/>\ncould not have purchased the land in question which was agricultural<br \/>\nland, in the sale deed dated 09.03.1990 itself entered into between<br \/>\nParvatiben and Nagindasbhai, it is clearly mentioned that the<br \/>\npurchaser &#8211; Nagindasbhai is an agriculturist.  He further contended<br \/>\nthat in any case, sale in favour of non-agriculturist<br \/>\neven if opposed to provisions of Section 363<br \/>\nof Bombay Tenancy &amp;<br \/>\nAgricultural Lands Act, 1948 would not be a void transaction,<br \/>\nbut only an invalid transaction and since no one had challenged such<br \/>\nsale transaction, it cannot be treated as non-est.  In this regard,<br \/>\nreliance was placed on a decision of learned Single Judge of this<br \/>\nCourt in the case of Mavjibhai<br \/>\nDharsibhai &amp; Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat &amp; Ors., reported in<br \/>\n1994(2) GLR Page-1168 and another decision in the<br \/>\ncase of Bhagwanbhai<br \/>\nKaramanbhai Bharvad Vs. Arogyanagar Co-Op. Housing Society Limited &amp;<br \/>\nOrs., reported in 2004(1) GLR Page 506.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIt was<br \/>\nfurther contended that in the sale deed executed in favour of the<br \/>\nappellants, it is clearly recorded that possession of the suit<br \/>\nproperty is being handed over to the appellants.  Additionally, my<br \/>\nattention was drawn to various documents on record to urge that the<br \/>\nappellants were enjoying uninterrupted possession of the suit land<br \/>\nsince execution of sale in their favour.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIt was<br \/>\ncontended that at one stage, Parvatiben had filed a Civil Suit<br \/>\nquestioning the sale deed and the power of attorney of Balvantbhai,<br \/>\nshe had later on withdrawn the proceedings by filing a purshis.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tMy<br \/>\nattention was also drawn to the Commissioner&#8217;s Report to urge that in<br \/>\nthe report also, possession of the appellants was reflected.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tOn<br \/>\nthe other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr Vakharia for the concerned<br \/>\nrespondent submitted that they had purchased the land directly from<br \/>\nParvatiben through a registered sale deed.  That Nagindasbhai was not<br \/>\nan agriculturist and sale in his favour was, therefore, invalid.  In<br \/>\nany case, while the sale transaction took place, the Urban Land<br \/>\n(Ceiling &amp; Regulation) Act, 1976 was in operation and in view of<br \/>\nthe provisions contained therein, particularly, Sections 5 and 27,<br \/>\nany such transaction would be void.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tHe<br \/>\nfurther submitted that name of Nagindasbhai was not entered in the<br \/>\nrevenue records and there was other evidence available to show that<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land.  He drew my<br \/>\nattention to the documents signed by Nagindasbhai subsequent to first<br \/>\nsale in his favour, wherein he was described as person involved in<br \/>\ntrading and not as an agriculturist.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tHaving,<br \/>\nthus, heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the<br \/>\nquestion that is required to be decided by this Court at this stage<br \/>\nis whether interim injunction should be granted in favour of original<br \/>\ndefendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tFirstly,<br \/>\none may notice that though there is some doubt about the legality of<br \/>\nthe sale deed executed by Parvatiben in favour of Nagindasbhai on<br \/>\n09.03.1990, so far no one has challenged such sale deed.  All<br \/>\nsubsequent transactions leading upto the final sale<br \/>\nin favour of the present appellants, therefore, at the stage when the<br \/>\nCourt is considering the question of interim injunction, cannot be<br \/>\nknocked down only on the ground that on account of the provisions<br \/>\ncontained in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land and the Urban<br \/>\nLand Ceiling Act, there is some cloud over the legality of the sale<br \/>\ndeed dated 09.03.1990.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tThe<br \/>\nquestion whether Nagindasbhai purchased the land from Parvatiben by a<br \/>\nregistered sale deed dated 09.03.1990 was non-est and void-ab-initio<br \/>\nrequiring no such formal declaration can be concluded only after<br \/>\nconducting the trial. At this stage it would not be possible to hold<br \/>\nand declare that the ultimate sale in favour of the present<br \/>\nappellants which was pursuant to a series of transactions subsequent<br \/>\nto first sale of the land by Parvatiben in favour of Nagindasbhai on<br \/>\n09.03.1990 is void on this score.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tThe<br \/>\nquestion, therefore, needs to be answered is whether there was prima<br \/>\nfacie evidence to hold that the plaintiffs were in actual possession<br \/>\nof the suit land.  I find that the learned Judge heavily relied on<br \/>\nthe invalidity of the sale deed between Parvatiben and Nagindasbhai<br \/>\nto observe that the plaintiffs are not in  lawful possession  of<br \/>\nthe suit land.  Learned Judge appears to be under the impression that<br \/>\nthough the appellants were in possession of the land, such possession<br \/>\ncannot be termed as  lawful possession .  In my view, if there<br \/>\nwas other evidence establishing longstanding possession of the suit<br \/>\nland of the plaintiffs to which they were put in through a registered<br \/>\nsale deed in their favour, such possession could not have been<br \/>\ndescribed as illegal possession.  As already noted, even if there is<br \/>\nsome cloud over the legality of sale in favour of Nagindasbhai, at<br \/>\nthis point of time, if it is found that the plaintiffs were put in<br \/>\npossession of the suit land pursuant to a registered sale deed by a<br \/>\nperson who was prima facie authorised to do so, they cannot be<br \/>\ntreated as rank trespassers.  The central question that calls for<br \/>\nconsideration is whether there was sufficient material to prima facie<br \/>\nbelieve that the plaintiffs were actually enjoying the suit property<br \/>\nthrough physical possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tHere,<br \/>\nI find that quite apart from the narration made in the sale<br \/>\ntransaction itself which is bound to be there in every such<br \/>\ntransaction, there was voluminous evidence to prima facie found that<br \/>\nthe appellants were enjoying possession of the suit land since a<br \/>\nconsiderable period of time.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\t\tIt<br \/>\nis true that the revenue record did not include the name of the<br \/>\nappellants and it is also true that entries in the revenue record<br \/>\nordinarily would give presumption regarding possession.  However, it<br \/>\nis well settled that such presumption is rebuttable<br \/>\nand if there is other evidence suggesting to the contrary, it is open<br \/>\nto the Court to appreciate such material and come to a different<br \/>\nconclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\t\tIn<br \/>\nthe present case, the appellants have produced following documents to<br \/>\ndemonstrate their possession :-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\t\tAt<br \/>\nPage 58\/G of the Appeal from Order, the Court Commissioner&#8217;s Report<br \/>\nis produced in which the Court Commissioner records presence of<br \/>\nboards indicating notice that the land is in possession of the<br \/>\nappellants found at the site.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\t\tAt<br \/>\nPages 47 to 49 of the Appeal from Order, the appellants have<br \/>\nproduced bills from Surat Municipal Corporation regarding Corporation<br \/>\ntaxes. Such bills show the name of appellant No.1.  The taxes appear<br \/>\nto have been paid by the said appellant.  These bills pertain to<br \/>\nperiod from the year 2001 02 onwards.\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tAt<br \/>\nPages 59 and 60 of the Appeal from Order, bills from Surat<br \/>\nElectricity Company have been produced pertaining to the period<br \/>\nbetween 2001 02 wherein also similar possession is emerging.\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv)\t\tSimilarly,<br \/>\nat Page 254 of the paper book separately presented, the appellants<br \/>\nhave produced list of documents presented before the Trial Court.<br \/>\nAlong with the list, there are various documents such as bills,<br \/>\nreceipts, official correspondence prima facie showing that the<br \/>\nappellants were in physical possession of the suit land.  These bills<br \/>\ninclude various tax bills of Municipal Corporation and electricity<br \/>\nbills of Surat Electricity Company for the relevant period.\n<\/p>\n<p>(v)\t\tAt<br \/>\nPage 269 along with the paper book, the appellants have produced<br \/>\nyet another list along with which, some additional documents were<br \/>\nproduced before the Trial Court.  One of the document is of<br \/>\nwithdrawal purshis dated 23.04.2007<br \/>\npresented by Parvatiben seeking withdrawal of her Special Civil Suit<br \/>\nNo. 358 of 2001 challenging the power of attorney given in favour of<br \/>\nDahyabhai and the sale deed made in favour of the appellants herein<br \/>\non the strength of such power of attorney.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\t\tIn<br \/>\nnut shell, I find that there was sufficient evidence before the<br \/>\nTrial Court to hold that prima facie, the appellants were in actual<br \/>\nof the suit land.  The longstanding possession should not have been<br \/>\ndisturbed.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\t\tIn<br \/>\nthe result, the Appeal from Order is allowed.  The impugned order<br \/>\ndated 10.01.2008 passed by learned 5th Additional Senior<br \/>\nCivil Judge, Surat is quashed and set aside.  Status-quo order<br \/>\ngranted ex-parte by the Trial Court is revived and shall continue<br \/>\ntill final disposal of the suit.  It is further provided that even<br \/>\nthe appellants will maintain status-quo with respect to title,<br \/>\npossession and position of the land till disposal of the suit.  It<br \/>\nwould be open for either side to pray for early disposal of the suit<br \/>\nand if such an application is made, the Court shall endeavour to<br \/>\ndispose of the suit early depending on the workload.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tIt is<br \/>\nclarified that all the above observations are made for dealing with<br \/>\ninterim stage of the suit and will not come in the way of either side<br \/>\nin pursuing the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\t\tWith<br \/>\nthese observations, the appeal is disposed of.  In view of disposal<br \/>\nof Appeal from Order, Civil Application No.749 of 2008 does not<br \/>\nsurvive and is disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(Akil<br \/>\nKureshi, J.)<\/p>\n<p>mrpandya*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 2008 Author: Akil Kureshi,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print AO\/1820\/2008 11 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 18 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 749 of 2008 ========================================================= PRAVINBHAI BHAGVANBHAI &amp; 1 &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus PARVATIBEN HIRABHAI [&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-12821","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>Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 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\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-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=\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-25T15:16:53+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-25T15:16:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1911,\"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\\\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-25T15:16:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 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":"Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 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\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-25T15:16:53+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-25T15:16:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008"},"wordCount":1911,"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\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008","name":"Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-25T15:16:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pravinbhai-vs-parvatiben-on-12-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pravinbhai vs Parvatiben on 12 September, 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\/12821","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=12821"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12821\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}