{"id":182018,"date":"2008-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-20T14:53:36","modified_gmt":"2018-03-20T09:23:36","slug":"arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nAO\/315\/2007\t 13\/ 13\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nAPPEAL\nFROM ORDER No. 315 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 11425 of 2007\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nAPPEAL\nFROM ORDER No. 315 of 2007\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \n=====================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=====================================================\n\n\n \n\nARJANBHAI\nPOPATBHAI HAPALIYA &amp; 2 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nHARIBHAI\nKANJIBHAI THUMAR - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nRUTURAJ NANAVATI for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. \nMR HARIN P RAVAL for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nMR MEHUL S SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMR\nSURESH M SHAH for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n===================================================== \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 28\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tAdmit.\n<\/p>\n<p>Shri Mehul Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice on behalf<br \/>\nof the respondent. With the consent of the learned advocates for the<br \/>\nrespective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tPresent<br \/>\nAppeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure is filed by the appellants original defendants challenging<br \/>\nthe order dated 18.8.2007 passed by the learned 7th Additional Senior<br \/>\nCivil Judge, Rajkot below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 57 of 2007<br \/>\nby which the learned trial Court has partly allowed the application<br \/>\nExh. 5 submitted by the respondent original plaintiff by directing<br \/>\nthe appellants-defendants to maintain status quo with respect to the<br \/>\nsuit land.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tRespondent<br \/>\nherein original plaintiff had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 57 of<br \/>\n2007 in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot for<br \/>\nspecific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.2.2007<br \/>\nexecuted by the original defendant No.1 with respect to the land<br \/>\nbearing survey No. 431 paiki plot No. 49 admeasuring 332.8 sq.yds. As<br \/>\nper the plaintiff, original defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the<br \/>\naforesaid property in question vide agreement to sell dated 21.2.2007<br \/>\nfor a sale consideration of Rs. 8,75,000\/- but as per the plaintiff<br \/>\nhe has paid Rs. 2,51,000\/- in cash towards part sale consideration<br \/>\nand the defendant No.1 was required to execute the sale deed within<br \/>\n90 days on getting the title clearance certificate. It is submitted<br \/>\nthat inspite of the aforesaid agreement to sell in existence the<br \/>\ndefendant No.1 sold the suit property in question in favour of the<br \/>\ndefendants No.2  and 3 by two different sale deeds by dividing the<br \/>\nland into to portion vide sale deed dated 7.3.2007 and, therefore,<br \/>\nthe plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of<br \/>\nthe aforesaid agreement to sell dated 21.2.2007 for declaration that<br \/>\ndefendants No.2 and 3 have not got any title and that they are<br \/>\nrequired to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In the<br \/>\nsaid suit, the plaintiff submitted the application Exh. 5 for interim<br \/>\ninjunction restraining the defendants more particularly, defendants<br \/>\nNo.2 and 3 from transferring \/ alienating the suit property and \/ or<br \/>\nrestraining them from put up any construction and \/ or changing the<br \/>\nnature of the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.<br \/>\nAfter considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective<br \/>\nparties, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 18.8.2007<br \/>\npartly allowed the application at Exh. 5 by directing the respective<br \/>\nparties to maintain status quo. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with<br \/>\nthe order passed by the learned trial Court below Exh. 5,<br \/>\nappellants-defendants have preferred the present Appeal from Order.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tShri<br \/>\nN.D. Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants<br \/>\nhas vehemently submitted that the learned trial Court has materially<br \/>\nerred in directing the appellants to maintain status quo with respect<br \/>\nto the suit property. It is submitted that appellants have purchased<br \/>\nthe property in question by registered sale deed on payment of full<br \/>\nsale consideration and they are bonafide purchaser and, therefore,<br \/>\nthey cannot be restrained from developing the land. It is further<br \/>\nsubmitted that in fact, the agreement to sell itself is disputed and<br \/>\nthe plaintiff has failed to prove the part sale consideration. It is<br \/>\nsubmitted that when the Satakhat and the consideration has been<br \/>\ndisputed the original plaintiff is prima facie required to prove the<br \/>\npayment of part sale consideration as alleged to have been paid at<br \/>\nthe time of execution of the agreement to sell. It is submitted that<br \/>\nthe appellants No. 1 and 2 have purchased the property in question<br \/>\nfor a sale consideration of Rs. 25,11,000\/- against the consideration<br \/>\nof Rs. 8,75,000\/- mentioned in the alleged agreement to sell dated<br \/>\n21.2.2007. It is submitted that even the appellants have also<br \/>\nobtained necessary permission for construction after getting lay out<br \/>\nplans sanctioned by the Competent Authority. Shri Nanavati, learned<br \/>\nSenior Advocate has relied upon the decision of this Court in the<br \/>\ncase of Khimjibhai Harjivanbhai Patadia Vs. Patel Govindbhai<br \/>\nBhaagvanbhai &amp; Ors. reported in 2006(4) GLR, 3058 and<br \/>\nrelying upon the said judgment, it is submitted that when the<br \/>\nexecution of the agreement to sell and the consideration in the said<br \/>\nagreement to sell is disputed and the amount is alleged to have been<br \/>\npaid by cash, the persons who claiming right or interest on the<br \/>\nstrength of agreement to sell has to prima facie satisfy the Court<br \/>\nwith respect to source and the payment of aforesaid amount and,<br \/>\ntherefore, when no prima facie evidence is produced, the plaintiff<br \/>\nhas failed to prove the consideration. Therefore, it is submitted<br \/>\nthat the learned trial Court has committed an error in partly<br \/>\nallowing the application Exh. 5 directing the appellants to maintain<br \/>\nstatus quo. Shri Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that<br \/>\neven appellants are ready and willing to deposit an amount of Rs. 5<br \/>\nlacs to show their bonafides. So that if ultimately any order adverse<br \/>\nto them is passed, in that case, appropriate order can be passed by<br \/>\nthe learned trial Court to compensate the plaintiff. By making above<br \/>\nsubmissions and relying upon the aforesaid decision, it is requested<br \/>\nto allow the present appeal from order by quashing and setting aside<br \/>\nthe order passed by the learned trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tAppeal<br \/>\nfrom Order is opposed by Shri Mehul Shah, learned advocate for the<br \/>\nrespondent-original plaintiff. It is submitted that there was<br \/>\nagreement to sell in favour of the the plaintiff dated 21.2.2007<br \/>\nexecuted by the defendant No.1 and at the time of execution of the<br \/>\nagreement to sell an amount of Rs. 2,5,1,000\/- was paid towards sale<br \/>\nconsideration and subsequently the defendant No. 1 has sold the suit<br \/>\nland in favour of the defendants No. 2 and 3 by dividing the same<br \/>\ninto two parts and, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly<br \/>\ngranted interim injunction directing the defendants to maintain<br \/>\nstatus quo. It is submitted that as such with respect to the very<br \/>\nproperty in question a Civil Suit No. 988 of 1984 was pending and the<br \/>\ndefendant has not pointed out even the same to the defendants No. 2<br \/>\nand 3 therefore. it is rightly observed by the learned trial Court<br \/>\nthat defendants No. 2 and 3, have not taken due care and diligence<br \/>\nbefore purchasing the property in question for sale consideration of<br \/>\nhuge amount of 25,11,000\/-. It is submitted that to avoid any further<br \/>\nmultiplicity of proceedings the learned trial Court has rightly<br \/>\npassed the order directing the defendants to maintain status quo. It<br \/>\nis submitted that when the learned trial Court has exercised<br \/>\ndiscretion judicially, the same is not required to be interfered with<br \/>\nby this Court, therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present<br \/>\nappeal from order.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tIn<br \/>\nreply, Shri Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the<br \/>\nappellants has submitted that so far as the suit of 1984 is concerned<br \/>\noriginal defendant No. 1 is not party to the said suit and even in<br \/>\nthe said suit the suit plot is not the subject matter and there was<br \/>\nno injunction against defendant No.1 in the aforesaid suit of 1984.<br \/>\nIt is further submitted that appellants No. 1 and 2 have purchased<br \/>\nthe property in question after verifying the relevant document.<br \/>\nTherefore, it is requested to allow the present appeal from order.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned advocates for the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tAt<br \/>\nthe outset, it is required to be noted that original plaintiff is<br \/>\nclaiming the right on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated<br \/>\n21.2.2007 and it is the case on behalf of the plaintiff that he has<br \/>\npaid Rs. 2,51,000\/- towards sale consideration by cash at the time of<br \/>\nexecution of the agreement to sell dated 21.2.2007. It is required to<br \/>\nbe noted that agreement to sell as well as alleged sale consideration<br \/>\nhas been disputed. Under the circumstances, when the part sale<br \/>\nconsideration is alleged to have been paid by cash and when the<br \/>\nagreement to sell as well as consideration has been disputed, it is<br \/>\nfor the plaintiff to even prima facie  satisfy the Court by producing<br \/>\nbooks of account, passbook etc,. which the plaintiff has failed to<br \/>\nproduce. As held by learned Single Judge  in the case of Khimjibhai<br \/>\nHarjivanbhai Patadia (supra)<br \/>\nhowever in the agreement to sell movable property receipt issuing the<br \/>\npart payment and consideration amount by the purchaser is mentioned<br \/>\nand the said receipt is seriously disputed by the seller plaintiff<br \/>\nhas to even produce prima facie evidence to show as to in which<br \/>\nmanner he has paid the said part consideration in cash. In the<br \/>\npresent case, the plaintiff has not produced anything to show that<br \/>\nwhether he has withdrawn the said amount from any bank or he has<br \/>\nborrowed the money from anyone. Therefore, it can be safely presumed<br \/>\nthat theory of so-called payment is not at all believable.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tAppellants<br \/>\nNo. 1 and 2 have purchased the property in question for a sale<br \/>\nconsideration of Rs. 25,11,000\/- by registered sale deed. It is<br \/>\nrequired to be noted that in the alleged agreement to sell dated<br \/>\n21.2.2007 in favour of the plaintiff the sale consideration is of Rs,<br \/>\n8,75,000\/- and against which the sale consideration shown in the<br \/>\nregistered sale deed in favour of the appellants No.1 and 2 dated<br \/>\n17.3.2007,the same is of Rs. 25,11,000\/- i.e. approximately 17 lacs<br \/>\nmore and that too within a period of one month. It is also required<br \/>\nto be noted that even appellants have also obtained the necessary<br \/>\npermission from the competent authority for putting up the<br \/>\nconstruction on the land in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.<br \/>\nIt is an admitted position that the alleged agreement to sell dated<br \/>\n21.2.2007 alleged to have been in favour of the plaintiff is not<br \/>\nregistered. Under the circumstances, when the appellant Nos. 1 and 2<br \/>\nhave purchased the property in question for sale consideration of Rs.<br \/>\n25,11,000\/- by registered sale deed, they are the bonafide purchaser<br \/>\nof the property in question and, therefore, they cannot be restrained<br \/>\nfrom developing the land and putting up the construction. Under the<br \/>\ncircumstances, it appears that learned trial Court has committed an<br \/>\nerror in allowing the application Exh. 5 directing the appellants to<br \/>\nmaintain status quo. Shri Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing<br \/>\nfor the appellants has submitted that appellants are ready and<br \/>\nwilling to deposit sum of Rs. 5 lacs in the trial Court to show their<br \/>\nbonafide and it is requested that they may be permitted to develop<br \/>\nthe land in question as they have incurred substantial expenses and<br \/>\nhave paid the huge amount of Rs. 25,11,000\/- towards sale<br \/>\nconsideration. Considering the above and more particularly, when the<br \/>\nplaintiff has failed to prima facie satisfy the Court with respect to<br \/>\nthe payment of Rs. 2,51,000\/- alleged to have been paid towards sale<br \/>\nconsideration at the time of execution of the agreement to sell dated<br \/>\n21.2.2007 and on the other hand the appellants No. 1 and 2 are the<br \/>\nbonafide purchaser who have purchased the property in question by<br \/>\nregistered sale deed for sale consideration of Rs. 25,11,000\/-, the<br \/>\nimpugned order passed by the learned trial Court directing the<br \/>\nappellants to maintain status quo is required to be quashed and set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tFor<br \/>\nthe reasons stated above, the Appeal from Order succeeds. The<br \/>\nimpugned order dated 18.8.2007 passed by the learned 7th Additional<br \/>\nSenior Civil Judge, Rajkot below Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 57<br \/>\nof 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the appellants are<br \/>\ndirected to deposit an amount of Rs. 5 lacs with the trial Court on<br \/>\nor before 28.11.2008 to show their bonafide as per the statement made<br \/>\nby the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants and on<br \/>\nsuch deposit the learned trial Court is directed to invest the same<br \/>\nin Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of 5<br \/>\nyears.\n<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL<br \/>\nAPPLICATION NO. 11425 OF 2007<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nview of the order in Appeal from Order, no order in Civil<br \/>\nApplication.\n<\/p>\n<p>                          (M.R.SHAH,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>kaushik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print AO\/315\/2007 13\/ 13 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 315 of 2007 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11425 of 2007 In APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 315 of 2007 For [&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-182018","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 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\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-20T09:23:36+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\\\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-20T09:23:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1946,\"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\\\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-20T09:23:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 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":"Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 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\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-20T09:23:36+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\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-20T09:23:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008"},"wordCount":1946,"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\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008","name":"Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-20T09:23:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arjanbhai-vs-haribhai-on-28-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arjanbhai vs Haribhai on 28 August, 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\/182018","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=182018"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182018\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182018"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182018"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182018"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}