{"id":175327,"date":"2008-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-09-27T16:48:57","modified_gmt":"2017-09-27T11:18:57","slug":"kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Kj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Kj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/1509\/1983\t 10\/ 10\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 1509 of 1983\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nKJ\nPRAJAPATI - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nRN\nMALECK & 6 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDD VYAS for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR BR SHAH for\nDefendant(s) : 3, \nMR AV TRIVEDI for Defendant(s) : 4 -\n7. \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 29\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tHeard
\nlearned advocate Mr. Vyas appearing on behalf of appellant ?
\nPrajapati Kanchanben Jagjivandas and learned advocate Mr. Sunil B.
\nParikh for learned advocate Mr. B.R. Shah appearing on behalf of
\nNational Insurance Company Limited. Learned advocate Mr. A.V. Trivedi
\nis appearing on behalf of respondents No.4 to 7. Though respondents
\nNo.1 and 2 are served, but, no appearance is filed by them, who are
\nprobably driver and owner.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Vyas submitted that two Claims petitions were filed.
\nMACP No.206 of 1981 was filed by present appellant and another MACP
\nNo.273 of 1981 was filed by mother and brothers of deceased. Both the
\nclaim petitions are decided by the Claims Tribunal, Surendranagar by
\npassing common award. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas raised contention
\nbefore this Court that Tribunal has committed gross error in awarding
\ncompensation between the widow, mother and brothers of the deceased.
\nHe also submitted that under the Hindu Succession Act, a widow and
\nonly mother of the deceased are covered by Class-I category as per
\nSection 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the brothers of the
\ndeceased are not covered by definition of legal representations of
\ndeceased. He also raised contention that the amount is not equally
\ndistributed by the Tribunal amongst the widow, mother and brothers of
\nthe deceased. He submitted that Claims Petition filed by widow
\nclaiming Rs.50,000\/-, but, Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000\/- in
\nfavour of widow i.e. present appellant, Rs.13,400\/- awarded to mother
\nof the deceased and Rs.5,000\/- awarded to each brother of the
\ndeceased. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas submitted that this apportionment
\nmade by Tribunal is contrary to law and therefore, present appeal is
\nfiled. He further raised contention that Tribunal has committed gross
\nerror by not considering the loss of consortium, funeral expenses,
\nfuture prospects and apportionment between the parties and 16
\nmultiplier is also on lower side. He relied upon one decision of
\nKarnataka High Court in case of Smt. Parvathamma and etc. v. C.
\nSubramanyam and Others reported
\nin AIR 2000 Karnataka 309,
\nwhere, Division Bench of Karnataka High Court has examined that claim
\nfor compensation cannot be maintained by second wife of deceased
\nwhose marriage with deceased was void. He relied upon para 14 and 15
\nof the said decision. He also relied upon the decision of Apex Court
\nin case of Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company
\nLimited.<\/a> reported in AIR
\n2007 SC 1474, where, the Apex
\nCourt has held that married daughter of deceased though found as
\ndependent on deceased is entitled to compensation because she is
\nlegal representatives under Section 166. He also raised contention
\nthat question of legal representative is to be considered on the
\nbasis of provisions made in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr. Parikh appearing on behalf of Insurance Company
\nsubmitted that all the claimants are family members. They both have
\nfiled claim petitions which are decided by Tribunal while passing
\ncommon award. Learned advocate Mr. Parikh raised contention that
\nwhatever the contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Vyas before
\nthis Court in appeal, none of the contention was raised by claimant
\nbefore the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the question in
\ndeciding the quantum where entire facts have been discussed by the
\nTribunal in Para 21 and Tribunal has given specific reason that why
\nthis kind of apportionment made between the legal heirs of the
\ndeceased. The reason has been specifically dealt with by Tribunal in
\nPara 21. Therefore, relevant discussion in Para 20 and 21 made by
\nTribunal is quoted as under :\n<\/p>\n
?S20.\t\tThe
\nnext question that would arise for consideration would be about the
\nquantum. The evidence shows that the deceased was about 25 to 26
\nyears of age. The case put up by the applicants in the respective
\npetition is that the deceased was earning Rs.300\/- per month and that
\nhe was provided food, clothes, etc., by his Sheth, namely
\nHemchandbhai Naranbhai. As Hemchandbhai Naranbhai is not examined,
\nthere is no thing to show what was paid to the deceased, by him, and,
\ntherefore, looking to the age of the deceased, the income of the
\ndeceased is estimated at Rs.300\/- per month, as he was doing labour
\nin preparing sweet-meats at the place of Hemchandbhai. The deceased
\nmay be spending Rs.100\/- on his ownself and, therefore, the
\ndependency would come to Rs.200\/- per month and that would come to
\nRs.2,400\/- per annum. The deceased was about 26 years of age. So the
\nmultiplier of 16 years’ would be applicable and the amount would come
\nto Rs.38,400\/-. To this, the applicants are also entitled to
\nRs.5,000\/- by way of loss of expectation of life of the deceased
\nJagjivan and, therefore, in all the applicants are entitled to
\ncompensation of Rs.43,400\/-.\n<\/p>\n
21.\t\tIn
\nclaim petition No.273\/81, the applicant in the widow of the deceased
\nwhile in claim petition No.206\/81, the applicants are the mother and
\nthe brothers of the deceased. Both the claim petitions are
\nconsolidated and disposed of by a common award and the amount is
\napportioned amongst the applicants as per the final award. But
\naccording to Gangaben, the mother of the deceased, Kanchanben, the
\nwidow of the deceased and applicant in claim petition No.273\/81, was
\nnot residing with her son and she had only stayed for 15 days and had
\ngone away and that she and her three sons were maintained by her
\ndeceased son and they had also incurred after the obsequious
\nceremonies of her son. At the same time, she has admitted that
\nKanchan is at the place of her parents. She has no children and she
\nhas not remarried still. In the light of this, the amount that is
\nawarded to the applicants shall have to be apportioned as under, as
\nthe applicants are awarded compensation of Rs.43,400\/- with interest
\nat the rate of six percent per annum from the date of the pauper
\napplications till realisation with proportionate costs and,
\ntherefore, the claim petitions are partly allowed and the following
\naward is passed:?S<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\nbrief facts of the present appeal is that on 22nd February
\n1981, the tractor bear No.GTJ-9788 of the ownership of opponent No.1
\nwas carrying the marriage party from Kherva to Nagadka, the said
\ntractor had dashed with the husband of the applicant who died. The
\nevidence of Kanchanben is recorded at Exh.20. She is the applicant in
\nClaim Petition No.273 of 1981. According to her, the deceased
\nJagjivan was her husband and she was married with her husband only
\nseven years before the accident. After her marriage, they were
\nresiding at Village Charadava. Her husband was serving at the place
\nof Hemchanbhai Naranbhai and was getting Rs.300\/- per month. Her
\nhusband was provided meals of Hemchandbhai Naranbhai. The evidence of
\nGangaben Madhavjibhai in Claim Petition No.206 of 1981 that applicant
\nNo.2 to 4 are her sons and Jagjivan was her elder son, he was serving
\nat the place of Hemchandbhai Naranbhai. The deceased had resided
\nhardly 15 days with her wife ?  present appellant Kanchanben and she
\nwas often gone away to her parental house as she wanted divorce from
\ndeceased and her deceased son had never maintained the appellant. The
\nTribunal has examined the FIR produced at Exh.25 and also Panchnama
\nand relevant papers and come to conclusion that when Jagjivan was
\ngoing on motor cycle towards Nagadka Village and motor cycle was
\ndashed with the tractor by opponent No.2 when in the tractor,
\nopponent No.2 was carrying the marriage party of Jat Rasukkhan
\nAlikhan of Village Kherva. The Panchnama was produced at Exh.26 and
\nTribunal has rightly come to conclusion that because of the
\nnegligence of the tractor driver, accident occurred. The tractor
\nowner has also not tendered any evidence. The insurance policy is
\nproduced at Exh.35 which covered the period of accident. The accident
\noccurred by opponent No.1 during the course of his employment as a
\ndriver. Therefore, in light of this background, Tribunal has awarded
\nRs.10,000\/- to Kanchanben ?  present appellant, because, she wanted
\ndivorce from the deceased and was not residing with her husband and
\nshe remained only 15 days with deceased in seven years of
\nmarriageable life. Therefore, the present appellant was not
\nmaintained by her husband.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIn
\nlight of the aforesaid evidence, the apportionment made by Tribunal
\ngranting Rs.10,000\/- in favour of appellant is reasonable amount
\nwhich cannot consider to be in any manner unreasonable. The present
\nappeal is filed challenging the award passed in MACP No.273 of 1981
\nand not challenged the award passed by Claims Tribunal in MACP No.206
\nof 1981. Therefore, the contention raised by learned advocate Mr.
\nVyas challenging the apportionment in favour of claimants of Claim
\nPetition No.206 of 1981 cannot entertained by this Court. When
\nappellant was not maintained by deceased and only residing together
\nfor 15 days in a span of marriageable life, this being a reasonable
\ncompensation. It is necessary to note that in petition filed by
\nmother of the deceased being MACP No.206 of 1981, the present
\nappellant was not a party to the proceedings and in claim petition
\nfiled by widow ?  present appellant, the rest of the claimants of
\nMACP No.206 of 1981 were also not joined as a party. Therefore, two
\nseparate claim petitions filed by respective claimants and not joined
\nas a party either of claimant in their claim petition. Now, appellant
\nhas no right to challenge the apportionment made by Tribunal in
\nfavour of mother and three brothers of deceased. Therefore,
\ncontention raised by learned advocate Mr. Vyas cannot be accepted and
\ntherefore, same is rejected. The decisions relied upon by learned
\nadvocate Mr. Vays are totally not applicable to the facts of this
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe
\nTribunal has after come to conclusion that income of the deceased is
\nestimated at Rs.300\/- per month, as he was doing labour in preparing
\nsweet-meats at the place of Hemchandbhai.  The deceased may be
\nspending Rs.100\/- on his own self and therefore, the dependency would
\ncome to Rs.200\/- per month and that would come to Rs.2,400\/- per
\nannum. The deceased was about 26 years of age. So, the multiplier of
\n16 years’ would be applicable and the amount would come to
\nRs.38,400\/-. To, this, the applicants are also entitled to Rs.5,000\/-
\nby way of loss of expectation of life of the deceased Jagjivan and
\nafter the death of husband, mother of deceased, Kanchanben – widow of
\ndeceased was not residing with her son and she had only stayed for 15
\ndays and had gone away and that she and her three sons were
\nmaintained by deceased and they had also incurred after the
\nobsequious ceremonies of the deceased. At that occasion, mother of
\ndeceased had admitted that Kanchanben is at the place of her parents.
\nShe has no children and she has not remarried still. In light of
\nthese factual background, Tribunal has taken sufficient care by
\ngiving opportunities to claimants and it cannot consider to be an
\nunreasonable in any manner the apportionment made by Tribunal. To the
\nquestion of loss of consortium, funeral expenses, future prospects
\nand apportionment which was argued now by learned advocate Mr. Vyas.
\nOnly 15 days, the widow of deceased remained with deceased. The
\nquestion of loss of consortium does not arise. For the funeral
\nexpenses future prospects, no such submission was made by lawyer of
\nclaimant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered the income
\nand 1\/3 deduction and Rs.5,000\/- for lost of expectation of live of
\nthe deceased ?  Jagjivan and after considering the entire discussion
\nmade by Tribunal, according to my opinion, after all, it is a
\nreasonable amount of compensation awarded by Tribunal which cannot
\nconsider to be in any manner arbitrary and based on whims. Therefore,
\nthe contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Vyas before this Court
\nfirst time when it was not raised before the Tribunal at the relevant
\ntime though advocate was engaged by appellant before the Tribunal.
\nTherefore, in such circumstances, the contentions raised by learned
\nadvocate Mr. Vyas cannot be accepted and hence, rejected.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe
\ndecisions which have been relied upon by learned advocate Mr. Vyas
\nare not applicable to the facts of this case as the appellant has
\nfiled separate claim petition and all the legal heirs have filed
\nseparate claim petition, for that, question of legal heirs in the
\npetition filed by mother and brother does not arise and present
\nappellant has no right to challenge that claim petition, where, she
\nwas not a party to claim petition filed by mother and brothers of
\ndeceased.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe
\naward passed by Tribunal in the claim petition in favour of mother
\nand brothers, no separate appeal is filed by present appellant. The
\npresent appellant challenged the award passed by Tribunal in her
\nclaim petition only and cannot have legal right to challenge the
\naward passed by Tribunal in case of mother and brothers, for that,
\nseparate appeal is necessary.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tTherefore,
\nthere is no substance in the present appeal. Accordingly, present
\nFirst Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
[H.K.\n<\/p>\n
RATHOD, J.]<\/p>\n
#Dave<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Kj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/1509\/1983 10\/ 10 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1509 of 1983 ========================================================= KJ PRAJAPATI – Appellant(s) Versus RN MALECK & 6 – Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DD VYAS […]<\/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-175327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008 - 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\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-27T11:18:57+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-27T11:18:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2166,\"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\\\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Kj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-27T11:18:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008 - 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\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-27T11:18:57+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-27T11:18:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008"},"wordCount":2166,"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\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008","name":"Kj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-27T11:18:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kj-vs-rn-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kj vs Rn on 29 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175327","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=175327"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175327\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}