{"id":154564,"date":"2010-04-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-03T08:01:39","modified_gmt":"2016-11-03T02:31:39","slug":"premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Premlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Premlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/7242\/2009\t 17\/ 17\tORDER \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. 7242 of 2009\n \n\n \n=================================================\n \n\nPREMLATABEN\nWD\/O DECEASED MAHENDRAKUMAR DESAI & 2 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJAYANTIBHAI\nRAMDAS PATEL & 5 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDC DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3. \nMr.BHARAT B. NAIK, SENIOR\nADVOCATE WITH Mr.AMIT M. PANCHAL WITH Mr.DHAVAL M BAROT for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nMR UDAYAN P VYAS for Respondent(s) : 2   6.\n \n\nMr.ASIM\nPANDYA for the proposed\nrespondents. \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 RAVI R.TRIPATHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 13\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Mr.D.C. Dave for the petitioners; learned senior
\nadvocate Mr.Bharat Naik appearing with learned advocates Mr.Amit M.
\nPanchal and Mr.Dhaval M. Barot for respondent no.1; learned advocate
\nMr.Udayan P. Vyas for respondents no.2 to 6; and learned advocate
\nMr.Asim Pandya for the proposed respondents, as he stated that he has
\nfiled a Civil Application for being impleaded as party in this
\npetition.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\npresent petition is filed praying that,<\/p>\n
\t [A]\tThat
\nthis Hon ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Certiorari or a writ
\nin the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
\ndirection quashing and setting aside the order dated 7\/5\/2007 passed
\nby 5th Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara, in Review
\nApplication No. 169 of 2006 as modified by an order dated 28\/5\/2007
\npassed by 5th Addl.  Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara, in Review
\nApplication No. 89 of 2007 and further the judgment and Consent
\ndecree dated 9\/4\/2007 passed by 5th Addl.  Civil Judge
\n(SD), Vadodara, in Special Civil Suit No. 116 of 2007, being null,
\nvoid, unlawful and non-est, incapable of existence in the eye of law
\nand are not binding to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
\t[B]\tThat, this
\nHon ble Court be pleased to carry out or caused to be carried out a
\ndetail inquiry right from the grant of probate in respect of alleged
\nWill till the disbursement of the amount of compensation in favour of
\nthe Respondent no.1 herein and upon the submission of the report,
\ntake such stringent and coercive steps against the errant as the
\ninterest of justice may demand.\n<\/p>\n
\t[C]\tThat,
\npending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this
\nHon ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation and operation
\nof order dated 7\/5\/2007 passed by 5th Addl. Civil Judge
\n(SD), Vadodara, in Review Application No. 169 of 2006 as modified by
\nan order dated 28\/5\/2007 passed by 5th Addl. Civil Judge
\n(SD), Vadodara, in Review Application No. 89 of 2007 and further the
\njudgment and Consent decree dated 9\/4\/2007 passed by 5th
\nAddl.  Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara, in Special Civil Suit No. 116 of
\n2007 and there upon be pleased to further direct the Respondent No.1
\nherein to deposit the entire amount of compensation taken away in the
\nRegistry of this Hon ble Court.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.D.C. Dave for the petitioner s could not justify as to
\nhow come after having contested the matter in SCA No.1592\/ 09, a copy
\nof memo of petition is at page 216, wherein the reliefs prayed for
\nwhich are as under:\n<\/p>\n
 [A]\tThis
\nHon ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or
\ndirections declaring the  action of the respondent no.2 in disbursing
\nthe amount of compensation to the respondent no.4 being malafide,
\ncollusive, contrary to law and without jurisdiction and hence
\nviolative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
\t[B]\tThis
\nHon ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or
\ndirections declaring the  action of the respondent no.2 of not
\nconsidering the objections of the petitioners submitted in response
\nto notice u\/s. 9 of the Act and their request for reference u\/s. 30
\nof the Act being malafide, collusive and contrary to the known
\nprocedure of law.\n<\/p>\n
\t[C]\tThis
\nHon ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate order or
\ndirections, directing respondent no.1 to take appropriate actions
\nagainst respondent no.2 for his malafide acts and omissions and to
\nrecover from him personally the amount disbursed by him in favour of
\nthe respondent no.4 in violation of law.\n<\/p>\n
\t[D]\tPending
\nadmission and final disposal of the present petition, the Respondents
\nmay be jointly and severally be directed to redeposit the amount of
\ncompensation disbursed in favour of the respondent no.4 in this
\nHon ble Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t[E]\tThis
\nHon ble Court may be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of
\nclause (d).\n<\/p>\n
Incidentally,
\nthis petition was heard and decided with SCA No.2923\/ 09, a copy of
\nwhich is produced at Annexure R-1, page 164.  It will be appropriate
\nto note that SCA No.2923\/ 09  was filed by the very petitioners who
\nare the petitioners in this petition.  The reliefs prayed for in that
\npetition are as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t [A]\tThat
\nthis Hon ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or a writ
\nin the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
\ndirection declaring that the action of the Special Land Acquisition
\nOfficer (Unit-1), Vadodara, the respondent nos. 2 herein, in making
\nthe Final Award dated 11\/12\/2008 under Section 11 of the Land
\nAcquisition Act, 1894 and thereupon depositing the amount of
\ncompensation to the extent of 18.90% coming to the share of the
\npetitioners and other heirs and legal representatives of the deceased
\nMahendrakumar Desai in the District Court, Vadodara, whereas
\ndisbursing the amount of compensation to the extent of balance 81.90%
\ncoming to the share of the Respondent no.3 herein, is unlawful,
\nunjust, discriminatory, arbitrary and in patent violation of the
\nprovisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in violation of the
\nfundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Art. 14 and
\nArt. 31A of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
\t[B]\tThat, this
\nHon ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or a writ in the
\nnature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
\ncommanding the Respondent no.1 and the respondent no.2 herein to
\nbring back forthwith to the State Exchequer the amount of
\ncompensation released and disbursed in favor of the Respondent no.3
\nherein, pursuant to the Final Award dated 11\/12\/2008 approved by the
\nRespondent no.1 and declared by the Respondent no.2 under section 11
\nof the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\nadvocate Mr.Dave submitted that the reliefs sought for in those
\npetitions are even if similar, the present petition can be pressed
\ninto service. His main contention is that even by consent the parties
\ncannot confer a jurisdiction on a court and that being so, the orders
\nunder challenge in this petition are non est in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
The
\ncontention though seems to be very convincing, it cannot be accepted
\nfor the reason that the parties cannot be allowed to litigate the
\nsame matter again and again and go on filing petitions one after the
\nother.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.Dave submitted that the case of the petitioners is that
\ntheir alleged consent was obtained by ‘fraud’ and  in the alternative
\nby ‘coercion’.  This Court is of the opinion that before making any
\nsuch submission, the party has to be sure as to whether, ‘consent was
\nobtained by executing threats’ and this amounts to, ‘perpetrating
\nfraud on the court’.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tLearned
\nsenior advocate for respondent no.1 submitted that this is nothing
\nbut ‘an afterthought,’ inasmuch as no complaint whatsoever in any
\nform much less, criminal complaint for the so called threats having
\nbeen executed and thereby coercing the petitioners to grant consent
\nso as to perpetrate fraud on the court, is brought on record.\n<\/p>\n
6.
\nLearned senior advocate for respondent no.1 herein also drew
\nattention of the Court to SCA No.20703\/ 07, a copy of which is
\nproduced at Annexure R\/7 at page 285 and the reliefs prayed for in
\nthat petition are at page 304, being paras 17.  Reliefs being (a),\n<\/p>\n
(b) and (c).\n<\/p>\n
\t [A]\tThat
\nthis Hon ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or a writ
\nin the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
\ndirection commanding the respondent no.2 to incorporate the names of
\nthe petitioners in the Draft Award as persons entitled to
\ncompensation to the extent of 18.10% solely on the basis of judgment
\nand consent decree dated 9\/4\/2007 passed in Special Civil Suit No.
\n116 of 2007 and on the basis of an order dated 28\/5\/2007 passed in
\nReview Application no. 89 of 2007, both in the Court of 5th
\nAddl. Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara, disregarding whether the names of
\nthe petitioners appear in the property card in respect of the said
\nland.\n<\/p>\n
\t[B]\tAlternatively,
\nif the respondent no.2 has already submitted the Draft Award for the
\napproval of the Respondent no.1, then this Hon ble Court be pleased
\nto issue writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any
\nother appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent
\nno.1 to incorporate the names of the petitioners in the Draft Award
\nas persons entitled to compensation to the extent of 18.10% solely on
\nthe basis of judgment and consent decree dated 9\/4\/2007 passed in the
\nSpecial Civil Suit No.116 of 2007 and on the basis of an order dated
\n28\/5\/2007 passed in Review Application No. 89 of 2007, both in the
\nCourt of 5th Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara,
\ndisregarding whether the names of the petitioners appear in the
\nProperty Card in respect of the said land.\n<\/p>\n
\t[C]\tThat this
\nHon ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or a writ in the
\nnature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction
\ncommanding the Respondent no.3 to finalise Entry No. 577 entered in
\nthe Property Card showing the names of the petitioners as persons
\nentitled to the said land to the extent of 18.10% by certifying the
\nsame.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\nsenior advocate for respondent no.1 submitted that these reliefs were
\nsought placing reliance on ‘consent’ which is now contended to have
\nbeen obtained under coercion, by executing threats and perpetrating
\nfraud on the court.  Learned senior advocate for respondent no.1
\ninvited attention of the Court to order passed in SCA No.20703\/ 07, a
\ncopy of which is available at page 98.  It will be appropriate to
\nreproduce  the order passed by the learned Judge of this Court
\n(Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Akshay H. Mehta) dated 27\/8\/07:\n<\/p>\n
 1.\t\tThe sole
\ngrievance that has been made by the petitioner in this petition is
\nthat in view of the decree passed between the parties in litigation
\nwhich has even gone up to the Apex Court and the apportionment has
\nbeen determined in the concerned decree, the Special Land Acquisition
\nOfficer, while making the award,               is not willing to take
\nthe same into consideration and observe in his award that the
\npetitioner is entitled to receive 18.10% of the total compensation
\nfor the land under acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tI have
\nheard Mr. B. J. Shelat learned Senior advocate appearing with Mr.
\nUdayan Vyas learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Krunal Pandya
\nlearned A.G.P., for  respondents no. 1 to 3 and Mr. H.S. Mulia
\nlearned advocate for respondent no. 4. I have also perused the record
\nof this petition. It clearly appears that there is no dispute that
\nthe petitioner is entitled to receive 18.10% of the total
\ncompensation which may be awarded to the owners of the land under
\nacquisition. Hence, respondent no. 2 is directed to make award
\nindicating the apportionment of the compensation and observe that the
\npetitioner will be entitled to receive 18.10% of the total
\ncompensation that may be awarded under the land acquisition
\nproceedings, in respect of the lands in question.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tWith the
\naforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of. In the event
\nthe award has been forwarded to respondent no. 1, the aforesaid
\ndirections will be complied with by respondent no. 1.\n<\/p>\n
In
\nlight of the aforesaid discussion the Court finds that the present
\npetition is nothing but abuse of process of the court. Therefore, the
\npetition deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost, but in light of
\nthe fact that the matter is having a chequered history and
\nproceedings are pending before the Hon’ble the Apex Court, this Court
\nrestrains itself from passing any order qua cost.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.Vyas vehemently submitted that so far as respondents no.2
\nto 5 are concerned they are the daughters, whereas, respondent no.6
\nis son who is staying abroad. He submitted that he adopts arguments
\nmade by the learned advocate for the petitioners, more particularly,
\nthe argument that, ‘by consent of the parties, no jurisdiction can be
\nconferred on the court’. In support of this submission he places
\nreliance on a decision of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of
\n Bahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. Vs. P.J. Pappu and another,
\nreported in A.I.R. 1966 SC 634.  He placed reliance on para 32 of the
\nsaid judgement.\n<\/p>\n
The
\nlearned advocate next relied upon  a decision of the Hon’ble the Apex
\nCourt in the matter of  Kiran Singh and others Vs. Chaman Paswan
\nand others, reported in A.I.R. 1954 SC 340. He relied upon
\nthe observations made  by the Apex Court in para 6, which read as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
 The  answer
\nto these contentions must depend  on  what\t the position  in  law is
\nwhen a Court entertains a suit  or  an appeal\tover  which  it has no
\njurisdiction,  and  what\t the effect\tof section II of the Suits
\nValuation Act is on that position.   It is a fundamental principle
\nwell\t established that  a decree passed by a Court without
\njurisdiction  is  a nullity,  and that its invalidity could be set up
\n whenever and  wherever  it is sought to be enforced or  relied
\nupon, even  at  the  stage of execution  and\teven in  collateral
\nproceedings.   A  defect  of  jurisdiction,  whether  it  is
\npecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the
\nsubject-matter of the action, strikes at the very  authority of the
\nCourt to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by
\nconsent of parties.  If the question now under consideration fell to
\nbe’ determined only on the application of general principles
\ngoverning the matter, there can be  no doubt  that  the  District
\nCourt of Monghyr  was  coram non judice, and that its judgment and
\ndecree would be nullities. The  question  is what is the effect of
\nsection 11  of\t the Suits Valuation Act on this position.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe
\nquestion of conferring jurisdiction by consent of the parties is well
\nsettled by not only the aforesaid decision but various other
\ndecisions of the Hon’ble the Apex Court. The question is as to
\nwhether to the facts of the present case, the same are applicable,
\nmore particularly, when the petition is filed by the petitioners
\nlacks bona fides.  It is nothing but playing hot and cold in the same
\nbreath. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid
\ndecisions of the Hon’ble the Apex Court are of no help to respondents
\nno.2 to 6.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.A.J. Pandya, who sought permission to intervene on the
\nground that, his clients are third generation and are having interest
\nin co-parcenery property. The fact that the Division Bench of this
\nCourt has referred to SCA No.7242\/ 09 in its judgement and order
\ndated 4.12.09, in para 9.3, there is no justification for which the
\nclients of Mr.A.J. Pandya should have waited so long for filing CA.
\nToday, when this matter is taken up for consideration  on a request
\nmade by learned advocate for respondent no.1 on the ground that
\ninterim relief obtained as back as on 16.7.09  is operating till date
\nwithout any effective hearing of the matter, they have come forward
\nto intervene.\n<\/p>\n
On
\nthis short ground that, though clients of Mr.Pandya knew about
\npendency of the present matter being SCA 7242\/ 09 as back as in the
\nmonth of December 2009, there is no reason for which they should have
\nwaited for filing a CA in the present petition, they do not deserve
\nany consideration.  Not only delay and laches is there on their part,
\nbut their conduct shows that they were sitting on the fence waiting
\nfor the outcome of the present proceedings. They wanted to intervene
\nat a stage when they feel that it is necessary to stall the hearing
\nof the petition.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIn
\nfact, the learned advocate for respondent no.1 invited attention of
\nthe court  to the fact that the clients of Mr.Pandya have already
\nfiled Special Civil Suit No.516\/ 08 in the Court of the learned
\nSenior Civil Judge, Vadodara and incidentally this Court has already
\nissued directions to hear and decide that suit. In light of that the
\nrequest of the learned advocate Mr.Pandya to defer hearing of this
\npetition is declined.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.Dave for the petitioners relied upon a decision of the
\nHon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of  Chandrabhai K. Bhoir
\nand others Vs. Krishna Arjun Bhoir and others, reported in
\n2009 (1) GLH 675.  The learned advocate relied upon para 17, which
\nreads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 A probate
\nwhen granted binds the whole world. It is a judgment in rem. The
\nExecutor, therefore, has to administer the estate of the testator in
\nterms of the will and not on the basis of the settlement arrived at
\nby and between the parties which would be inconsistent with the terms
\nof the Will. In case of any conflict between the terms of the Will
\nand the settlement, the former will prevail. The court, thus, in
\nexercise of its jurisdiction under section 302 of the Act can enforce
\nonly the terms of the will and not the terms of the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
So
\nfar as the proposition of law is concerned there cannot be any
\ndispute.  But the question is as to whether this petition is required
\nto be entertained at the hands of the present petitioners, whose bona
\nfides as discussed hereinabove are not found to be clear.\n<\/p>\n
In
\nresponse to the aforesaid submission made by the learned advocate for
\nthe petitioners, learned senior advocate for respondent no.1 relied
\nupon the provision of sec.299 of the Succession Act, whereby an
\nappeal is required to be filed against the order of the learned
\nDistrict Judge and the learned senior advocate submitted that in
\nlight of that the present petition is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe
\nlearned senior advocate for respondent no.1 relied upon a decision of
\nthe Hon’ble the Apex Court in the matter of  State of Uttar
\nPradesh and another Vs. Pramod Kumar Shukla and another,
\nreported in (2008) 12 SCC 267.  The learned senior advocate for
\nrespondent no.1 relied upon the observations made by the Hon’ble
\nthe Apex Court in paras 12, which read as under:\n<\/p>\n
 12.\tThe High
\nCourt seems to have completely lost sight of the nature of the
\ncontroversy and the dispute. Whether there was any fraud practised
\ncould not have been decided in the Writ Petition. Under Section 7 of
\nthe Cinema Act the power to revoke and cancel the license is
\navailable to the appropriate authority. It appears that the High
\nCourt has not examined the question as to what is the effect of
\nGirija’s death. It has also not examined the acceptability of the
\nclaim of Pramod Kumar Shukla that he was the owner of the Cinema Hall
\nin which capacity he had applied for the permanent licence. These
\nhave considerable bearing on the subject matter of dispute. The High
\nCourt has come to an abrupt conclusion without analyzing the factual
\nand applicable legal position. That being so, we set aside the
\nimpugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh
\ndisposal in accordance with law. We request the High Court to dispose
\nof the matter within 4 months from today.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe
\nlearned senior advocate for respondent no.1 relied upon a proposition
\nof law laid down by the Hon’ble the Apex Court to the effect that,
\n‘when  it is stated that fraud is perpetrated on the Court, it is
\nalways required that the matter is tried in an appropriate forum
\nwherein the parties can lead necessary evidence and other party gets
\nan opportunity to cross examine so as to decide the veracity of the
\nevidence’.  In that view of the matter the petition is found without
\nany substance.  The conduct of the petitioners is self speaking about
\ntheir ill designs. It is the petitioners who approached this Court by
\nfiling SCA No.20703\/ 07 and after having obtained favourable order
\ntherein and after having pocketed fruits flowing from that order they
\nhave now thought fit to challenge the so called ‘consent’ by filing
\nthe present petition and the reliefs are sought as set out
\nhereinabove. This shows that the petition deserves to be dismissed
\nwith cost, but as stated hereinabove the Court restrains itself from
\npassing any order of cost.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe
\npetition is dismissed.  Notice is discharged. Ad interim relief
\ngranted earlier is vacated.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tAt
\nthe request of Mr.A.J. Pandya, learned advocate it is clarified that
\nany observations made in this order shall not influence the court
\nbelow while the clients of Mr.Pandya pursue their suit.  It is
\nexpected that the same will be decided by the concerned Court in
\naccordance with law on its own merits.\n<\/p>\n
(RAVI
\nR. TRIPATHI, J.)<\/p>\n
karim<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Premlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010 Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/7242\/2009 17\/ 17 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7242 of 2009 ================================================= PREMLATABEN WD\/O DECEASED MAHENDRAKUMAR DESAI & 2 – Petitioner(s) Versus JAYANTIBHAI RAMDAS PATEL & 5 […]<\/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-154564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPremlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Premlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-03T02:31:39+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Premlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-03T02:31:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3388,\"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\\\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Premlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-03T02:31:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Premlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Premlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Premlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-03T02:31:39+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Premlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-03T02:31:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010"},"wordCount":3388,"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\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010","name":"Premlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-03T02:31:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/premlataben-vs-jayantibhai-on-13-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Premlataben vs Jayantibhai on 13 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154564","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=154564"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154564\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}