{"id":140184,"date":"2008-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-26T13:20:27","modified_gmt":"2015-08-26T07:50:27","slug":"bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 September, 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\nAO\/248\/2008\t 13\/ 14\tJUDGMENT \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. 248 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 8448 of 2008\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nAPPEAL\nFROM ORDER No. 248 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nAPPEAL\nFROM ORDER No. 249 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 8467 of 2008\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nAPPEAL\nFROM ORDER No. 249 of 2008\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\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 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\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nBHARTIBEN\nATULKUMAR PATEL - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKALPANABEN\nJITENDRA PATEL D\/O DECD. CHHOTALAL D PATEL &amp; 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nPY DIVYESHVAR for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMr. D. F. Amin for MR DHAVAL M BAROT for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 2 -\n4. \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: 17\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tAs<br \/>\nboth these Appeal from Orders arise out of the same order passed by<br \/>\nthe learned trial Court, they are being disposed of by this common<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tAppeal<br \/>\nfrom Order No.248 of 2008 is filed by the appellant-original<br \/>\ndefendant No.1 and Appeal from Order No.249 of 2008 is filed by the<br \/>\noriginal defendant Nos.2 and 3, challenging the order passed by the<br \/>\nlearned 12th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara dated<br \/>\n13th May, 2008 below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.256 of<br \/>\n2007 alongwith the application Exh.5 directing the defendants to<br \/>\nmaintain status-quo with respect to Plot No.24 of Urmi Society,<br \/>\nProductivity Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tRespondent<br \/>\nNo.1-Kalpanaben Jitendra Patel in each of the Appeal from Order and<br \/>\noriginal plaintiff had  instituted Special Civil Suit No.256 of 2007<br \/>\nin the Court of learned Civil Judge, (SD), Vadodara for partition of<br \/>\nthe suit property, contending inter-alia that the plaintiff has been<br \/>\nliving in United State since quite longtime and original defendant<br \/>\nNo.1 is the sister of the plaintiff and she is also the citizen of<br \/>\nUnited States.  However, nowadays most of the time she is living in<br \/>\nIndia at Ahmedabad.  Defendant No.2 is a business entity named as<br \/>\nVaibhav Corporation and they are engaged in building construction<br \/>\nactivity at Vadodara.  As per the plaintiff, she and defendant<br \/>\nNo.1(appellant of Appeal from Order No.248 of 2008) are the daughters<br \/>\nof deceased ?  Chhotabhai Dahyabhai Patel, who was permanently<br \/>\nresiding at Ahmedabad and their father had immovable property at<br \/>\nAhmedabad and Vadodara.  One of such properties is Plot No.24 of Urmi<br \/>\nSociety, Productivity Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara. The said plot is<br \/>\nad-measuring 11,544 square feet.  Their father-Chhotabhai expired in<br \/>\nthe year 1966 at Ahmedabad and he survived by his wife Kantaben and<br \/>\ntwo daughters i.e. original plaintiff and defendant No.1.  He had no<br \/>\nother heirs at the time of death of deceased-Chhotabhai. In the year<br \/>\n1966 original plaintiff was the minor and therefore it was submitted<br \/>\nthat all the properties of their father-Chhotabhai were the joint<br \/>\nfamily property and each had equal share.  It is further averred in<br \/>\nthe plaint that in spite of that and without any partition amongst<br \/>\nthe heirs of deceased-Chootabhai, the original defendant No.1 sold<br \/>\nthe property bearing Plot No.24 of Urmi Society, Productivity Road,<br \/>\nAlkapuri, Vadodara in favour of Vaibhav Corporation.  It is submitted<br \/>\nthat prior thereto, the original plaintiff had served a notice upon<br \/>\nthe defendant No.1 and even the public notice was also given and in<br \/>\nspite of that original defendant No.1 sold the property in favour of<br \/>\ndefendant Nos.2 and 3 and in spite of public notice defendant Nos.2<br \/>\nand 3 purchased the same.  Therefore, the aforesaid suit came to be<br \/>\nfiled and in the said suit, the original plaintiff submitted the<br \/>\napplication at Exh.5 for interim injunction restraining the defendant<br \/>\nfrom making any change of any nature and also restraining them from<br \/>\ndigging pits, making any construction or making any change in the<br \/>\nnature and in the position of and transferring plot No.24 of Urmi<br \/>\nSociety, Productivity Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara and further<br \/>\nrestraining them from disturbing rights of co-owners of said plot and<br \/>\n disturbing plaintiff&#8217;s legal and joint possession as co-owner in any<br \/>\nmanner till final disposal of the suit.  Initially, the learned trial<br \/>\nCourt passed  the ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 25\/05\/2007<br \/>\nrestraining the defendants from making construction work in the suit<br \/>\nproperty and also further restraining them from transferring the suit<br \/>\nproperty to any third party and the defendants were directed to<br \/>\nmaintain status-quo position in respect of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tApplication<br \/>\nExh.5 was opposed by original defendant No.1 by submitting reply at<br \/>\nExh.45.  It was submitted on behalf of the defendant No.1 that the<br \/>\nname of the defendant No.1 was entered into in the record of the<br \/>\nsociety vide Resolution dated 02\/03\/1975 and she has got the absolute<br \/>\nownership right which was given by their father. It was further<br \/>\nsubmitted that the said resolution was in the knowledge of the<br \/>\nplaintiff as well as original defendant No.4 (mother) and the said<br \/>\nresolution is not challenged. It was further submitted  that<br \/>\ndefendant No.1 had sold \/ transferred her share in the said plot in<br \/>\nfavour of defendants Nos.2 and 3 by registered sale-deed dated<br \/>\n14\/05\/2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tApplication<br \/>\nExh.5 was also opposed by the original defendant Nos.2 and 3 while<br \/>\nsubmitting the reply at Exh.49 and further submitting that they have<br \/>\npurchased the property in question by registered sale-deed for a sale<br \/>\nconsideration of Rs.2.30 Crores and even the same was purchased after<br \/>\ngiving public advertisement in local newspaper on 15\/10\/2006 and<br \/>\nafter obtaining title clearance certificate.  Therefore, it was<br \/>\nrequested to dismiss the application Exh.5 and vacate the ex-parte<br \/>\ninterim injunction.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tThe<br \/>\nlearned trial Court after considering the submissions made on behalf<br \/>\nof respective parties and prima-facie considering the the fact that<br \/>\nthe original plaintiff had a share in the property in question and<br \/>\nthe original defendant No.1 had no authority to sale the share of the<br \/>\nplaintiff as well as original defendant No.4, granted application<br \/>\nExh.5 by directing the defendants to maintain status-quo.  Being<br \/>\naggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial<br \/>\nCourt dated 13\/05\/2008 below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.256 of<br \/>\n2007, the original defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 have<br \/>\npreferred the present Appeal from Orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tLearned<br \/>\nAdvocates appearing on behalf of respective appellants have<br \/>\nvehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially<br \/>\nerred in holding that the property in question is a joint family<br \/>\nproperty and the original plaintiff and defendant No.4 have also<br \/>\nshare and they are the co-owners.  It is also further submitted that<br \/>\nthe learned trial Court has materially erred in not appreciating the<br \/>\nfact that the name of the original defendant No.1 was entered into<br \/>\nregister of the society in the year 1975 and since then the said<br \/>\nproperty was in exclusive possession and in ownership of defendant<br \/>\nNo.1 and therefore the plaintiff as well as defendant No.4 had no<br \/>\nshare in the property in question.  It is also further submitted that<br \/>\nby learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respective<br \/>\nappellants that the learned trial court has not property appreciated<br \/>\nthe fact that suit for partition is filed only qua Plot No.24 and not<br \/>\nwith respect to any other properties.  It is submitted by<br \/>\nMr.Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf original<br \/>\ndefendant Nos.2 and 3 that they have purchased the property in<br \/>\nquestion by registered sale-deed on payment of full sale<br \/>\nconsideration after obtaining title clearance certificate and after<br \/>\ngiving public notice and they are the bona-fide purchasers and<br \/>\ntherefore it is requested to allow the appeal from order and vacate<br \/>\nthe order of status-quo.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tOn<br \/>\nthe other hand, both Appeal from Orders  are opposed by Shri D F Amin<br \/>\nand Shri Dhaval Barot, learned Advocates appearing on behalf of<br \/>\noriginal plaintiff and it is submitted that the property in question<br \/>\nwas purchased by deceased-Chhotabhai, the father of the plaintiff and<br \/>\ndefendant No.1 and the name of defendant No.1 was got entered into<br \/>\nthe register of the society by the defendant No.1, affecting the<br \/>\nrights of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.4.  It is submitted<br \/>\nthat as rightly observed by the learned trial Court that prima-facie<br \/>\nthe plaintiff and the defendant No.4 have also share in the property<br \/>\nin question and therefore the defendant No.1 had no right or<br \/>\nauthority to sale and \/ or transfer their share.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nlearned trial Court has rightly granted the order of status-quo,<br \/>\notherwise there will be multiplicity of proceedings and once the<br \/>\ndefendant Nos.2 and 3 are permitted to put up the construction and to<br \/>\nchange the nature of the property in that case, if the suit is<br \/>\ndecreed, it will not be possible to get the decree executed and third<br \/>\nparty rights will be created and therefore the learned trial Court<br \/>\nhas rightly granted the order of status-quo. By making above<br \/>\nsubmissions, it is requested to dismiss both the appeal from orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned Advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties.  It<br \/>\nappears that the suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition.  It<br \/>\nalso appears that the disputed property in question viz., Plot No.24<br \/>\nof Urmi Society, Productivity Road, Alkapuri, Vadodara  was purchased<br \/>\nby the father of the original plaintiff and defendant No.1 and<br \/>\nhusband of defendant No.4-deceased-Chhotabhai.  The said<br \/>\ndeceased-Chhotabhai expired in the year 1966.  Neither there is a<br \/>\nwill in favour of any party nor there is any evidence that there was<br \/>\na partition amongst the heirs of deceased-Chhotabhai.  Hence, the<br \/>\nplaintiff and the defendant No.4 had also share in the disputed<br \/>\nproperty in question.  All the three i.e. plaintiff, defendant Nos.1<br \/>\nand 4 are the co-sharers and therefore unless and until the property<br \/>\nis partitioned, one of the sharer cannot sale the property in<br \/>\nquestion.  Therefore, the original defendant No.1 had no right and \/<br \/>\nor authority to sale the entire property in question.  It is also<br \/>\nrequired to be noted that initially the suit was filed for partition,<br \/>\nhowever, subsequently plaint has been amended and the declaration is<br \/>\nsought that sale-deed executed in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is<br \/>\nnot binding upon the plaintiff and original defendant No.4.  It is<br \/>\nalso required to be noted that the original defendant No.1 ?<br \/>\nherself had filed suit No.1737 of 2007 against the plaintiff and<br \/>\ndefendant No.4 claiming that she had 1\/3 share in plot No.A\/2 Adashya<br \/>\nAppartment.  Therefore, with respect to some other property, the very<br \/>\ndefendant had claimed that she had 1\/3 share share and so far as plot<br \/>\nNo.24 is concerned, she claims to be the absolute owner which cannot<br \/>\nbe accepted.  Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly held<br \/>\nthat defendant No.1 could not have sold the entire property defeating<br \/>\nrights of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.4.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tNow,<br \/>\nso far as submission made on behalf of defendant Nos.2 and 3 that<br \/>\nthey are bona-fide purchasers of the property in question on payment<br \/>\nof sale consideration, it is required to be noted that the power of<br \/>\nattorney holder of the plaintiff served a legal notice upon the<br \/>\noriginal defendant No.1, Chairman \/ Secretary of  Urmi Society,<br \/>\nPrakashbhai Khatri of Vaibhav Corporation-original defendant Nos.2<br \/>\nand 3 and Sub-Registrar, Vadodara, submitting that if any transaction<br \/>\nis done with the original defendant No.1 with respect to disputed<br \/>\nproperty and \/ or any agreement and \/ or writing with respect to the<br \/>\nproperty in question with original defendant No.1 defeating the<br \/>\nrights of the plaintiff would be null and void and not binding upon<br \/>\nthe plaintiff. The said legal notice is dated 09\/04\/2007 and in spite<br \/>\nof that the original defendant Nos.2 and 3 have purchased the<br \/>\nproperty in question by registered sale-deed dated 25\/05\/2007 only<br \/>\nfrom original defendant No.1.  Thus, when in spite of the aforesaid<br \/>\nnotice dated 09\/04\/2007, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have purchased the<br \/>\nproperty in question only from defendant No.1 with open eyes, they<br \/>\ncannot be said to be the bona-fide purchasers.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\t\tNow,<br \/>\nso far as submission made on behalf of defendants No.2 and 3 that<br \/>\nthey have given the public notice with respect to title clearance on<br \/>\n15\/10\/2006, it is to be noted that even thereafter and prior to the<br \/>\nexecution of the sale-deed dated 02\/05\/2007, the power of attorney<br \/>\nholder of the plaintiff had served a notice on 09\/04\/2007 upon the<br \/>\noriginal defendant No.1 as well as one Prakashbhai Khatri of Vaibhav<br \/>\nCorporation ?  defendant No.3 and therefore as rightly observed by<br \/>\nthe learned trial Court, merely because the plaintiff had not<br \/>\nsubmitted the objection pursuant to the public notice dated<br \/>\n15\/102\/006, the rights of the plaintiff would not be affected in view<br \/>\nof the subsequent notice dated 09\/04\/2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\t\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe above, the learned trial Court has held that there is a<br \/>\nprima-facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of<br \/>\nplaintiff and if the property in question is permitted to be<br \/>\ntransferred and \/ or defendants are permitted to put up construction<br \/>\nin that case the third party rights will be created and the nature of<br \/>\nthe property will be changed and therefore the learned trial Court<br \/>\nhas held that if the injunction is not granted then the plaintiff<br \/>\nwould suffer irreparable loss.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\t\tConsidering<br \/>\nthe above when the learned trial Court has granted application Exh.5,<br \/>\ndirecting the defendants to maintain status-quo, it cannot be said<br \/>\nthat the learned trial Court has committed any error.  In the facts<br \/>\nand circumstances of the case, when the property in question is of<br \/>\nthe joint ownership of the three i.e. plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and<br \/>\n4, all have equal share in the property in question and, in spite of<br \/>\nnotice when the defendant Nos.2 and 3 have purchased the property<br \/>\nfrom original defendant No.1 without there being any partition and<br \/>\ninterim injunction has been granted, the same is not required to be<br \/>\ninterfered with by this Court.  During the pendency of the suit, the<br \/>\ndefendant Nos.2 and 3 cannot be permitted to put up the construction<br \/>\nand change the nature of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\t\tFor<br \/>\nthe reasons stated herein above, both the Appeal from Orders fail and<br \/>\nthey are required to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of the dismissal of Appeal from Order, no order in Civil<br \/>\nApplications.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.\t\tWhile<br \/>\nconcluding the order, it is required to be observed that looking to<br \/>\nthe dispute between the two sisters, this Court tried best to resolve<br \/>\nthe dispute amicably but looking to the conduct and attitude of the<br \/>\nhusband of defendant No.1, the compromise could not be arrived at.\n<\/p>\n<p>(M.R.SHAH,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>sompura<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 September, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print AO\/248\/2008 13\/ 14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 248 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8448 of 2008 In APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 248 of 2008 With [&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-140184","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 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\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-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=\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-26T07:50:27+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-26T07:50:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2225,\"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\\\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-26T07:50:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 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":"Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 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\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-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":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-26T07:50:27+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-26T07:50:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008"},"wordCount":2225,"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\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008","name":"Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-26T07:50:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhartiben-vs-kalpanaben-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhartiben vs Kalpanaben on 17 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\/140184","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=140184"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140184\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140184"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140184"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140184"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}