{"id":142332,"date":"2008-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2"},"modified":"2018-01-09T16:16:09","modified_gmt":"2018-01-09T10:46:09","slug":"patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Patel vs Patel on 9 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Patel vs Patel on 9 September, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&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\nSA\/202\/2008\t 2\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSECOND\nAPPEAL No. 202 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nPATEL\nNATHALAL SHIVRAM &amp; PATEL SHIVRAM VIRCHAND KARTA &amp; 8 -\nAppellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPATEL\nCHANDRAKANT SHANTILAL S\/O DECEASED JOITIBEN D\/O &amp; 8 -\nDefendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nAJ SHASTRI for\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 9. \nNone for Opponents(s) : 1 - 4, 4.2.1, 4.2.2,\n4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5,4.2.6 -\n9. \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\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/09\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>This<br \/>\n\tappeal has been filed by the appellants ?  original plaintiffs.<br \/>\n\tThe appellant No.1 had filed a suit before the learned Civil Judge<br \/>\n\t(JD), Unjha, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 232 of 1990.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tcase of the appellants before the learned trial Court was that<br \/>\n\tagricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No. 2190, admeasuring     1<br \/>\n\tacre and 25 gunthas, situated in village Upera, Taluka Unjha was<br \/>\n\tmutated in the name of Ishwarbhai Virchandbhai Patel, who was the<br \/>\n\teldest son of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of Virchandbhai.  The<br \/>\n\tsaid land was running in the name of Ishwarbhai Virchandbhai Patel<br \/>\n\tsince 1937-38.  Narotambhai Virchandbhai and Shivabhai Virchandbhai<br \/>\n\tPatel were the younger brothers of Ishwarbhai Virchandbhai Patel.<br \/>\n\tThe case of the   appellants was that the respondent no.4 (original<br \/>\n\tdefendant no.4) though not the direct and legal heir of Ishwarbhai<br \/>\n\tVirchandbhai Patel, got mutated an entry in his name in respect of<br \/>\n\tthe land in question.  It was also the case of the appellants that<br \/>\n\ttheir father Shivabhai Virchandbhai was a minor in the year 1936-37<br \/>\n\tand since he was the brother of Ishwarbhai Virchandbhai, the<br \/>\n\tappellants have got a legal right in the suit land.  On coming to<br \/>\n\tknow that the respondents have got mutated an entry in their favour<br \/>\n\tin the revenue records and that the suit land is likely to be<br \/>\n\ttransferred, the appellants filed the said suit against the<br \/>\n\trespondents with a prayer to restrain them from transferring the<br \/>\n\tsuit land to any other person, in any manner, and further seeking<br \/>\n\tthe relief of declaration to the effect that if any sale deed has<br \/>\n\tbeen executed on 26.7.1996, the same be declared as illegal and<br \/>\n\tvoid.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\trespondents contested the suit by filing their written statement<br \/>\n\tvide exh.53 wherein the facts stated by the plaintiffs were denied.<br \/>\n\tIt was stated by the respondents that the deceased Ishwarbhai<br \/>\n\tVirchandbhai was the father of respondent nos. 1 to 3 and that<br \/>\n\trespondent no.4 had purchased the suit land from their self-acquired<br \/>\n\tincome, in a public auction, and hence the appellants do not have<br \/>\n\tany share in the suit land.  It was further stated that at the<br \/>\n\trelevant point of time, Ishwarbhai Virchandbhai Patel handed over<br \/>\n\this share of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.2190 to the<br \/>\n\trespondent no.4, by way of oral partition and since then, all the<br \/>\n\trespondents are in actual possession of the suit land in the<br \/>\n\tcapacity of original owners and that the revenue entries have been<br \/>\n\tmutated in the  revenue records in the name of the respondents, who<br \/>\n\tare in possession of the land and are carrying on agricultural<br \/>\n\tactivities thereupon.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tlearned trial Judge framed as many as 14 issues and after hearing<br \/>\n\tthe parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on<br \/>\n\trecord, has dismissed the suit of the appellants with costs, by<br \/>\n\tjudgment and decree dated 20.4.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the appellants preferred an<br \/>\n\tappeal before the learned Principal Judge, Mehsana, which was<br \/>\n\tregistered as Regular Civil Appeal No.43 of 2001. The first<br \/>\n\tappellate Court, after considering the judgment of the learned trial<br \/>\n\tCourt, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants by judgment and<br \/>\n\tdecree dated 5.2.2008, hence the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave heard Mr.A.J.Shastri, learned counsel for the appellants and<br \/>\n\thave perused the judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as<br \/>\n\tthat of the first appellate Court.  Mr. A.J.Shastri, learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate has submitted that the Courts below have not examined the<br \/>\n\tissues in detail and some material issues, which are involved in the<br \/>\n\tappeal and have been specifically raised, have not been considered<br \/>\n\tin the right perspective.  He has submitted that the appellant no.1<br \/>\n\twas the son of Shivram Virchand, who is the third son of Virchand<br \/>\n\tBecharbhai.  It is further submitted that the father of the<br \/>\n\tappellant no.1 is the younger brother of Inswarbhai Virchandbhai, in<br \/>\n\twhose name the suit land was mutated, being the eldest son of the<br \/>\n\tHUF.  Therefore the appellants have got a right in the suit land and<br \/>\n\tare entitled to claim their share in it and, therefore, the appeal<br \/>\n\tmay be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis evident from a perusal of the judgment and decree of the learned<br \/>\n\ttrial Court that a specific finding of fact has been recorded to the<br \/>\n\teffect that the suit land is not in the possession of the appellant<br \/>\n\tno.1, as per his own admission in cross-examination.  Moreover, the<br \/>\n\tsaid land bearing Revenue Survey No. 2190, is mutated in the name of<br \/>\n\trespondent no.4.  The learned trial Judge has recorded a finding,<br \/>\n\tarrived at on the basis of evidence on record, that the suit land<br \/>\n\twas running in the name of Ishwarbhai Virchandbhai Patel in the year<br \/>\n\t1937-38 and hence, he alone has become the owner of the suit land.<br \/>\n\tIt is further recorded by the learned trial Judge that Ishwarbhai<br \/>\n\tVirchandbhai Patel has purchased the suit land in a public auction.<br \/>\n\tThere is also a finding that the suit land was purchased by<br \/>\n\tMadhabhai Kanabhai Patel from Ishwarbhai Virchandbhai Patel and<br \/>\n\tsubsequently, mutation entry no. 323 has been effected in the<br \/>\n\trevenue record, which has remained unchallenged till date, and the<br \/>\n\tname of Madhabhai Kanabhai continued to appear in the revenue<br \/>\n\trecords till the filing of the suit. The learned trial Judge has<br \/>\n\tcome to conclusion that the appellants have not specifically<br \/>\n\tmentioned their share and have not prayed for the relief of<br \/>\n\tpartition and hence they do not become entitled to obtain any share<br \/>\n\tfrom the disputed land, especially since they are not found to be in<br \/>\n\tpossession of land bearing Survey No. 2190.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tabove-mentioned findings of fact recorded by the learned trial Judge<br \/>\n\thave been confirmed by the first appellate Court and, therefore,<br \/>\n\tthere are concurrent findings of fact against the appellants.<br \/>\n\tAnother noteworthy feature of the case is that the appellant No.1 ?<br \/>\n\toriginal plaintiff had filed the suit against the<br \/>\n\trespondents? original defendants, for a declaration that he has got<br \/>\n\ta share in the land bearing revenue survey no.2190 and had also<br \/>\n\tprayed for the permanent relief of restraining the respondents from<br \/>\n\ttransferring the suit property to anybody, in any manner whatsoever.<br \/>\n\t During the pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended and the<br \/>\n\trelief of declaration and permanent injunction was prayed for.<br \/>\n\tHowever, the plaintiff did not pray for the relief of partition and<br \/>\n\tpossession of the suit property. The learned first appellate Court<br \/>\n\thas recorded that a suit for permanent injunction, without any<br \/>\n\talternative relief of partition is not sustainable and therefore the<br \/>\n\trelief prayed for by the appellants has rightly not been granted by<br \/>\n\tthe learned trial Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tthe light of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, I am<br \/>\n\tof the considered view that concurrent findings of fact have been<br \/>\n\trecorded by the Courts below, which are based on cogent and reliable<br \/>\n\tevidence on record. No question of law, much less a substantial<br \/>\n\tquestion of law arises for the consideration of the Court.  There is<br \/>\n\tno perversity or infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact<br \/>\n\trecorded by the Courts below so as to warrant interference.  The<br \/>\n\tappeal, therefore, cannot be accepted, and is dismissed.  The<br \/>\n\tparties shall bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>(Smt.\n<\/p>\n<p>Abhilasha Kumari,J)<\/p>\n<p>Jayanti*<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Patel vs Patel on 9 September, 2008 Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SA\/202\/2008 2\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 202 of 2008 ========================================================= PATEL NATHALAL SHIVRAM &amp; PATEL SHIVRAM VIRCHAND KARTA &amp; 8 &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus PATEL CHANDRAKANT SHANTILAL [&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-142332","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Patel vs Patel on 9 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\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patel vs Patel on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-09T10:46:09+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patel vs Patel on 9 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-09T10:46:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":1207,\"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\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Patel vs Patel on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-09T10:46:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patel vs Patel on 9 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Patel vs Patel on 9 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\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patel vs Patel on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-09T10:46:09+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patel vs Patel on 9 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-09T10:46:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2"},"wordCount":1207,"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\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2","name":"Patel vs Patel on 9 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-09T10:46:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-vs-patel-on-9-september-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patel vs Patel on 9 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/142332","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=142332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}