{"id":184033,"date":"2010-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010"},"modified":"2019-02-13T10:56:16","modified_gmt":"2019-02-13T05:26:16","slug":"shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.M.Thaker,&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\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/4342\/2009\t 11\/ 11\tORDER \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 4342 of 2009\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nSHANKARBHAI\nHUNDRAJMAL LALWANI - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nRAJNIKANT\nTRIKAMLAL KOTAK &amp; 2 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nASHISH H SHAH for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nNone for Defendant(s) : 1 -\n3. \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 K.M.THAKER\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nappeal under Section-96 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises from<br \/>\nthe judgment and decree dated 28\/3\/2008 passed by the Court No.15,<br \/>\nCity Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.879 of 2006.  The<br \/>\nappellant is the original plaintiff and the opponents are original<br \/>\ndefendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBy<br \/>\nthe impugned judgment and decree the learned Trial Court has rejected<br \/>\nthe suit which was filed by the appellant herein seeking declaration<br \/>\nthat the registered sale deed dated 2\/7\/2004 is ab initio void or<br \/>\nvoidable.  The plaintiff-appellant has also prayed that the said sale<br \/>\ndeed may be cancelled and the vacant and peaceful possession of the<br \/>\nsuit property (Flat No.F-1 admeasuring about 39 sq. mt. situate in<br \/>\nGangaram Cooperative Housing Society Limited at land bearing survey<br \/>\nNo.39-40 Part, TP Scheme-42 and FP No.751) may be handed over to him.<br \/>\n The learned Trial Court has rejected the suit.  Hence, the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nplaintiff-appellant filed aforesaid suit alleging, inter alia, that<br \/>\nby virtue of an agreement to sell he had agreed to sell the suit<br \/>\nproperty for a sum of Rs.2,50,000\/-.  An agreement to sell was<br \/>\nexecuted on 18\/5\/2004 whereby the opponent nos.1 and 2 had agreed to<br \/>\npay a sum of Rs.2,50,000\/- as the consideration and out of the agreed<br \/>\namount, Rs.11,000\/- was paid by account payee cheque while balance<br \/>\namount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed or at the<br \/>\ntime of handing over the possession of the suit property.  The<br \/>\nplaintiff-appellant further alleged that the sale deed was executed<br \/>\non 10\/6\/2004.  However, the opponent nos.1 and 2, taking disadvantage<br \/>\nof his mental health made him signed the sale deed as if the agreed<br \/>\nconsideration was Rs.91,000\/- only.  The plaintiff-appellant alleged<br \/>\nthat at the time of execution of the sale deed he was paid only<br \/>\nRs.80,000\/- and the opponent nos.1 and 2 did not pay the balance<br \/>\namount of Rs.1,59,000\/- towards the agreed consideration for the<br \/>\ntransaction.  The plaintiff-appellant has also alleged that at the<br \/>\nmaterial point of time he was undergoing treatment for disturbed<br \/>\nmental health and taking disadvantage of the said situation the<br \/>\nopponent nos.1 and 2 committed fraud and got the sale deed executed.<br \/>\nHe, therefore, prayed for declaration that the sale deed was void or<br \/>\nvoidable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nsuit was contested by the opponent nos.1 and 2 by filing written<br \/>\nstatement wherein the said opponents denied all allegations made by<br \/>\nthe appellant-plaintiff and stated inter alia, that they had paid the<br \/>\nentire consideration for the transaction and nothing remained<br \/>\noutstanding or unpaid as per the registered sale deed.  The said<br \/>\nopponents also claimed that the alleged agreement to sell was not a<br \/>\nregistered document and agreement between the parties was as per the<br \/>\nterms mentioned in the registered sale deed executed on 10\/6\/2004.<br \/>\nReplying the allegations, the opponents stated inter alia, that they<br \/>\nhad paid Rs.11,000\/- by account payee cheque on 11\/5\/2004 and they<br \/>\nhad made further payment of Rs.80,000\/- by cheque Nos.144184 and<br \/>\n144185 dated 28\/6\/2004 drawn on Union Bank of India.  The said<br \/>\nopponents also claimed that the balance amount was paid in cash at<br \/>\nthe time of execution of sale deed.  The replying opponents also<br \/>\nasserted that as per the Jantri, the market price at the relevant<br \/>\ntime was to the tune of Rs.1,09,000\/- and that the charges towards<br \/>\nthe stamp duty and registration expenses were also borne by them.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nlight of such rival contentions and pleadings, the learned Trial<br \/>\nCourt framed below mentioned seven issues:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 1)\tWhether<br \/>\nthe suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in law and facts?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2)\tWhether<br \/>\nthe plaintiff proves that he was suffering from mental illness and<br \/>\nwas not in a position to protect his interest as alleged?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3)\tWhether<br \/>\nthe plaintiff proves that the defendant has taken undue advantage of<br \/>\nweak mental health of the plaintiff?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4)\tWhether<br \/>\nthe plaintiff proves that the defendant has got executed the sale<br \/>\ndeed in question under fraud and undue influence as alleged?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5)\tWhether<br \/>\nthe sale deed in question is void ab initio or voidable as alleged?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6)\tWhether<br \/>\nthe plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7)\tWhat<br \/>\norder and decree?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOn<br \/>\nevaluation of the evidence and examination of other material on<br \/>\nrecord, the learned Trial Court replied the issued Nos.1 to 6 in<br \/>\nnegative and dismissed the suit without granting any relief in favour<br \/>\nof the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr. Ashish Shah appearing for the appellant has submitted<br \/>\nthat the opponent nos.1 and 2 had taken disadvantage of the mental<br \/>\nhealth of the plaintiff-appellant who was suffering from depressive<br \/>\ndisorder since around 2002 and was undergoing treatment since May,<br \/>\n2004.  The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the<br \/>\nconsideration for the transaction was Rs.2,50,00\/-, however, the<br \/>\nappellant was paid only Rs.91,000\/- by the opponent nos.1 and 2 and<br \/>\nthat the opponent no.3, the broker, had also acted hands-in-glove<br \/>\nwith the opponent nos.1 and 2 and gave evidence against the<br \/>\nappellant.  The learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon<br \/>\nthe evidence of Dr. Hemang C. Patel who was examined as the witness<br \/>\nof plaintiff-appellant and whose deposition was recorded at Exh.44.<br \/>\nHe submitted that the doctor had stated that the appellant was<br \/>\nsuffering from depressive disorder and was not mentally fit, at the<br \/>\nrelevant time, to take any decision.  He laid stress on the said<br \/>\nevidence of Dr. Hemang Patel and submitted that the learned Trial<br \/>\nCourt committed serious error in not giving due consideration and<br \/>\nweightage to the evidence of Dr. Patel.  The learned counsel<br \/>\nsubmitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have held that the<br \/>\nappellant was not in a position to enter into such transaction at the<br \/>\nrelevant time and for such reason, the sale deed ought to have been<br \/>\ndeclared void or voidable at the instance of the appellant.  The<br \/>\nlearned counsel assailed the impugned judgment as contrary to<br \/>\nevidence on record and prayed that the same may be set aside and<br \/>\ndecree as prayed for may be granted in favour of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tFor<br \/>\nconsidering the submissions of the appellant, by order dated<br \/>\n16\/3\/2010, the Record and Proceedings of the aforesaid suit was<br \/>\ncalled for and I have carefully taken into consideration the Record<br \/>\nand Proceedings pertaining to Civil Suit No.879 of 2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI<br \/>\nhave also carefully scanned the deposition of Dr.Hemang Patel.  It<br \/>\ndeserves to be noted that though the appellant in his claim had<br \/>\nalleged that the opponent nos.1 and 2 had paid only Rs.11,000\/- at<br \/>\nthe time of executing agreement to sell and thereafter Rs.80,000\/-<br \/>\nwhile the sale deed was executed.  However, during his cross<br \/>\nexamination, as rightly observed by the learned Trial Court, the<br \/>\nappellant-plaintiff admitted that the contesting opponent had paid<br \/>\nRs.75,000\/- in cash at the time of\/after execution of the sale deed.<br \/>\nHe also stated in his evidence that a sum of Rs.1,68,000\/- was paid<br \/>\nto him.  There are apparent contradictions between the claim in the<br \/>\nplaint and the oral evidence.  Further more, it is not in dispute<br \/>\nthat the alleged agreement to sell was not registered, though<br \/>\nregistration of agreement to sell is a statutory obligation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis an undisputed fact that after selling the suit property to the<br \/>\nopponent nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff-appellant purchased a larger flat<br \/>\nin the same society and started residing in the said larger<br \/>\naccommodation and that the plaintiff-appellant had handed over vacant<br \/>\npossession of the suit property to the opponent nos.1 and 2 after the<br \/>\nsale deed was executed and registered.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhat<br \/>\nis most pertinent is the fact that it was also admitted by the<br \/>\nplaintiff-appellant that his family comprise, besides him, his wife<br \/>\nand two major sons.  One of the sons is an employee with the Income<br \/>\nTax department and other one is serving in a limited company (Samsang<br \/>\nIndia Ltd.).  It cannot be digested that even the family members<br \/>\nwould not take any steps if the facts as alleged were true and any<br \/>\nfraud was perpetrated, as alleged.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis also pertinent to note that the plaintiff-appellant handed over<br \/>\nthe possession of the suit property to the opponent nos.1 and 2<br \/>\nimmediately after registration of the sale deed on 10\/6\/2004 whereas<br \/>\nthe suit came to be filed two years thereafter i.e. in 2006.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\ntime gap of almost two years coupled with the fact that the appellant<br \/>\nhad handed over the possession of the suit property without any<br \/>\nprotest or condition and purchased another larger premises and then<br \/>\nfiled the suit after two years, belies the claim of the appellant and<br \/>\nexposes the absence of truth and facts in the allegations.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nis unpalatable that not only the plaintiff-appellant but even his<br \/>\nwife and\/or the two sons also did not realize that fraud, as<br \/>\nsubsequently alleged, was committed by the contesting opponent nos.1<br \/>\nand 2.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tHad<br \/>\nit been the correct position then in the first instance the appellant<br \/>\nand his family members would not have parted with the possession and<br \/>\nin any case would not have waited for two years before filing the<br \/>\nsuit.  In the present case the plaintiff-appellant did not take any<br \/>\naction for almost two years even after handing over the possession.<br \/>\nNot only the plaintiff-appellant but any of the family members also<br \/>\ndid not take any action.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nevidence of the broker i.e. opponent no.3 has also gone against the<br \/>\nplaintiff-appellant and he has not been able to establish that the<br \/>\nbroker also acted in collusion with the purchaser and was party to<br \/>\nthe alleged fraud.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nlearned Trial Court has discussed at length the evidence of the<br \/>\nplaintiff, the doctor and the opponents and has evaluated the<br \/>\nallegations of the plaintiff in light of the material on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nlearned Trial Court has enumerated contradictions in the plaintiff&#8217;s<br \/>\nassertion about his mental health viz-a-viz the doctor&#8217;s evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt<br \/>\nalso cannot be overlooked that the alleged agreement to sell was,<br \/>\ndespite statutory obligation, not registered.  As against the said<br \/>\nunregistered document, the document before the learned Trial Court<br \/>\nwas the registered sale deed in respect of which any objection was<br \/>\nnot raised for long span of about two years.  As noticed above, not<br \/>\nonly the plaintiff-appellant but his family members also never raised<br \/>\nany objection.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nthe backdrop of these facts coupled with the evidence of opponent<br \/>\nno.3 supporting the registered sale deed and the defence of opponent<br \/>\nnos.1 and 2, no fault can be found with the conclusion of the learned<br \/>\nTrial Court that the relief prayed for by the plaintiff was not be<br \/>\navailable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOnly<br \/>\non the strength of the evidence of the doctor, the<br \/>\nplaintiff-appellant has come out with allegation of fraud.  In his<br \/>\ndeposition, the plaintiff&#8217;s witness Dr. Hemang Patel has stated that<br \/>\nunless (or only if) the intensity of depressive disorder increase,<br \/>\nordinarily the patient is able to take decisions after evaluating the<br \/>\npros and cons.  Any of the family members have not given evidence<br \/>\nsupporting the plaintiff&#8217;s case that the sale deed was obtained by<br \/>\ntaking disadvantage of his mental ill health.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAfter<br \/>\ncareful examination of the material on record it is not possible to<br \/>\nhold that the learned Trial Court is incorrect in its conclusion or<br \/>\nthat the final order is contrary to evidence.  Actually the factual<br \/>\nbackdrop, particularly the time lag between the date of registration<br \/>\nof the sale deed, handing over the possession of the property<br \/>\nviz-a-viz the presentation of the suit do not support the allegations<br \/>\nand\/or the prayer of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe<br \/>\nplaintiff-appellant has not been able to make out any case to upset<br \/>\nthe decision of the learned Trial Court.  The appeal therefore does<br \/>\nnot deserve to be entertained and is required to be dismissed.  The<br \/>\nappeal is accordingly rejected.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>(K.M.THAKER,<br \/>\nJ.) <\/p>\n<p>(ila)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 2010 Author: K.M.Thaker,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/4342\/2009 11\/ 11 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 4342 of 2009 ========================================================= SHANKARBHAI HUNDRAJMAL LALWANI &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus RAJNIKANT TRIKAMLAL KOTAK &amp; 2 &#8211; Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR [&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-184033","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 2010 - 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\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-13T05:26:16+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-13T05:26:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1953,\"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\\\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-13T05:26:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 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":"Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 2010 - 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\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-13T05:26:16+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-13T05:26:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010"},"wordCount":1953,"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\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010","name":"Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-13T05:26:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankarbhai-vs-rajnikant-on-30-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shankarbhai vs Rajnikant on 30 March, 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\/184033","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=184033"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184033\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184033"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184033"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184033"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}