{"id":189687,"date":"2011-10-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011"},"modified":"2016-04-29T00:39:04","modified_gmt":"2016-04-28T19:09:04","slug":"nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Bankim.N.Mehta,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/14659\/2011\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 14659 of 2011\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nNISHABEN\nUPENDRASINH RAJPUT - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nRAJESHBHAI\nNAVINBHAI SOLANKI &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nDHIRAJ M PATEL for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 1 -\n2. \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 BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 03\/10\/2011 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has filed this petition under Arts. 226 &amp; 227 of the<br \/>\n\tConstitution of India and challenged the order dated 4\/4\/2009 passed<br \/>\n\tby learned Civil Judge at Bardoli in Civil Suit No. 65\/2008 and<br \/>\n\tconfirmed by learned Additional District Judge, Surat at Vyara on<br \/>\n\t25\/8\/2011 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 19\/2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>According<br \/>\n\tto petitioner original plaintiff, she is an owner and occupier of<br \/>\n\tsuit property. As she was in need of finance, in December, 2007,<br \/>\n\trespondent no. 1 original defendant no. 1 advanced an amount of Rs.<br \/>\n\t40,000\/- to her husband and obtained her signature on typed stamp<br \/>\n\tpaper but she was not aware that the writing was a special Power of<br \/>\n\tAttorney and on the basis of the same, respondent no. 1 original<br \/>\n\tdefendant no. 1 would execute sale deed in favour of his wife<br \/>\n\trespondent no. 2 defendant no. 2.  On the basis of said forged Power<br \/>\n\tof Attorney, respondent no. 1 executed sale deed in respect of the<br \/>\n\tsuit property on 7\/10\/2008 in favour of his wife respondent no. 2<br \/>\n\tand it was registered with Sub Registrar, Palsana.  Therefore,<br \/>\n\tSpecial Civil Suit No. 65\/2008 was filed in the Court of learned<br \/>\n\tPrincipal Civil Judge, Bardoli for declaration that the special<br \/>\n\tPower of Attorney is forged and to declare that the sale deed dated<br \/>\n\t7\/10\/2008 in favour of respondent no. 2 executed by respondent no. 1<br \/>\n\tis without consideration, null and void and with symbolic possession<br \/>\n\tand other reliefs.  The petitioner also filed Injunction Application<br \/>\n\texh 5 and sought interim relief to restrain the respondents from<br \/>\n\tselling, mortgaging or gifting away the suit property to anyone and<br \/>\n\tto restrain them from obstructing her actual possession and to<br \/>\n\tmaintain status quo till final disposal of the suit. The respondents<br \/>\n\toriginal defendants contested the Injunction Application by filing<br \/>\n\treply.  After hearing learned advocates for the parties, the Trial<br \/>\n\tCourt dismissed the Injunction Application by order dated 4\/4\/2009.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 19\/2009 in<br \/>\n\tthe Court of learned Principal District Judge, Vyara.  The Appellate<br \/>\n\tCourt after hearing learned advocates for the parties, dismissed the<br \/>\n\tappeal and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.  Being<br \/>\n\taggrieved by the decision, the petitioner has filed this petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>I<br \/>\n\thave heard learned advocate Mr. Patel for the petitioner at length<br \/>\n\tand in great detail. I have also perused the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr. Patel submitted that the sale deed in question was<br \/>\n\texecuted by forging Power of Attorney and the Power of Attorney had<br \/>\n\tno actual possession of the the property in question.  Therefore,<br \/>\n\tthe sale deed executed by him was not a legal document and<br \/>\n\tpossession was not given to the respondents as claimed in the sale<br \/>\n\tdeed. He also submitted that the respondents in the written<br \/>\n\tstatement have admitted that the petitioner broke open the lock and<br \/>\n\ttook illegal possession of the suit property by placing his luggage<br \/>\n\tin the suit property and  panchnama in that regard was also made.<br \/>\n\tThis contention itself indicates that the petitioner was in actual<br \/>\n\tpossession of the suit property.  Therefore, the Courts below<br \/>\n\tcommitted error in passing the impugned orders.  Therefore, this<br \/>\n\tCourt is required to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction to set<br \/>\n\taside these orders.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned<br \/>\n\tadvocate Mr. Patel for the petitioner has relied upon the alleged<br \/>\n\tadmission made in the written statement by the respondents but it<br \/>\n\tappears from the contentions raised in written statement, copy of<br \/>\n\twhich, is produced by the petitioner with compilation at Annexure<br \/>\n\t&#8220;F&#8221;, that the respondents also raised a contention that<br \/>\n\ton the day of execution of sale deed, actual possession of the suit<br \/>\n\tproperty was handed over to them and thereby they were in actual<br \/>\n\tpossession of the suit property. Learned advocate Mr. Patel admitted<br \/>\n\tthat the sale deed was produced at Mark 18\/10 in the Trial Court and<br \/>\n\tthere was a recital that the possession of the suit property is<br \/>\n\thanded over to the purchaser on the date of execution of sale deed.<br \/>\n\tThis clearly indicates that at the time of execution of the sale<br \/>\n\tdeed, possession of the suit property was handed over to the<br \/>\n\trespondents.  Therefore, petitioner could not be in possession<br \/>\n\tthereof subsequent thereto. It is also admitted fact that except the<br \/>\n\tCommissioner&#8217;s report there is no evidence produced by the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner to show that she was in actual possession of the suit<br \/>\n\tproperty on the date of filing of the suit.  Learned advocate Mr.<br \/>\n\tPatel submitted that he had produced Tax Bill and Electricity Bill<br \/>\n\tin respect of the suit property to show possession of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner.  However, in view of the fact that the sale deed mark<br \/>\n\t18\/10 indicated that the actual possession was handed over to the<br \/>\n\tpurchaser, it is difficult to believe that the petitioner was in<br \/>\n\tlegal possession of the suit property on the  date of filing of the<br \/>\n\tsuit.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\talso emerges that according to respondents, the petitioner after<br \/>\n\texecuting sale deed broke open the lock and took possession of the<br \/>\n\tsuit property.  It also appears from the prayer 16(c) made in the<br \/>\n\tsuit, copy of which, is produced along with compilation, that the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner has sought relief that possession of the respondents was<br \/>\n\tsymbolic.  This clearly indicates that the petitioner was not in<br \/>\n\tactual possession of the suit property on the date of filing of the<br \/>\n\tsuit.  The petitioner has not produced any cogent evidence before<br \/>\n\tthe trial Court to show that she was in legal and actual possession<br \/>\n\tof the suit property.  In view of allegations of the respondents<br \/>\n\tthat the petitioner broke open the lock and took possession it can<br \/>\n\tnot be said that the petitioner made out her prima facie case of<br \/>\n\tlegal possession.  Therefore, the petitioner was not in legal<br \/>\n\tpossession of the suit property. Learned advocate Mr. Patel<br \/>\n\tsubmitted that the power of Attorney Holder had no authority to sell<br \/>\n\tthe suit property and that he was not in actual possession of the<br \/>\n\tsuit property and hence, he could not have given possession to the<br \/>\n\tpurchaser.  In my view, the question whether the Power of Attorney<br \/>\n\tHolder was in possession or that the power of attorney was forged,<br \/>\n\tare the questions which can be decided at the time of trial only.<br \/>\n\tAt this juncture, the Court is required to consider prima facie case<br \/>\n\tabout actual possession of the suit property.  As observed earlier,<br \/>\n\tit emerges that the possession of the suit property was handed over<br \/>\n\tto the respondents at the time of execution of sale deed but<br \/>\n\tthereafter the petitioner allegedly broke open the lock and entered<br \/>\n\ton to the suit property. Therefore, possession of the petitioner can<br \/>\n\tnot be said to be a legal possession. While considering grant of<br \/>\n\tequitable relief, the Court can not protect possession obtained by<br \/>\n\tillegal method.  The equitable jurisdiction can not be exercised in<br \/>\n\tfavour of such litigant who has taken law in his hands.  Therefore,<br \/>\n\tpossession of the petitioner can not be protected by the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>As<br \/>\n\tregards Commissioner&#8217;s report, it is also settled proposition that<br \/>\n\tpossession can not be decided on the basis of Commissioner&#8217;s report.<br \/>\n\t Therefore, Commissioner&#8217;s report do not help the petitioner to<br \/>\n\tprima facie establish that she was in  legal possession of the suit<br \/>\n\tproperty.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the above, the Court belows were justified in refusing the<br \/>\n\tequitable relief of injunction.  I do not find any reason to<br \/>\n\texercise extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.  Therefore, the<br \/>\n\tpetition is required to be dismissed.  Accordingly, it is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(BANKIM<br \/>\nN. MEHTA, J)<\/p>\n<p>asma<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011 Author: Bankim.N.Mehta, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/14659\/2011 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 14659 of 2011 ========================================================= NISHABEN UPENDRASINH RAJPUT &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus RAJESHBHAI NAVINBHAI SOLANKI &amp; 1 &#8211; Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : [&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-189687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011 - 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\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-28T19:09:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-28T19:09:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1245,\"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\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-28T19:09:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011 - 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\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-28T19:09:04+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-28T19:09:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011"},"wordCount":1245,"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\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011","name":"Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-28T19:09:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nishaben-vs-rajeshbhai-on-3-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nishaben vs Rajeshbhai on 3 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189687","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=189687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}