{"id":192624,"date":"2010-06-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010"},"modified":"2019-04-06T06:15:59","modified_gmt":"2019-04-06T00:45:59","slug":"maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Maganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Maganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nAO\/120\/2008\t 9\/ 9\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. 120 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 4494 of 2008\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nAPPEAL\nFROM ORDER No. 120 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nAPPEAL\nFROM ORDER No. 121 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 4495 of 2008\n \n\nIn\n \n\n\nAPPEAL\nFROM ORDER No. 121 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nAPPEAL\nFROM ORDER No. 138 of 2008\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 5493 of 2008\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nAPPEAL\nFROM ORDER No. 138 of 2008\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \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\nMAGANBHAI\nBHAYABHAI GELANI & 4 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJAGADGURU\nSHRI VALLABHACHARYA VISHVAKALYAN TRUST & 11 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=============================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nAJ YAGNIK for Appellant(s) : 1 - 5 in AO No. 120\/2008 &\n138\/2008.                    MR SHALIN N MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1 -\n4 in AO  No. 121\/2008 \nMR PR NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 1, 3, \nMR\nAY KOGJE for Respondent(s) : 2, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS for\nRespondent(s) : 4 - 12. \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\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 14\/06\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n
1.\tAs
\nthese Appeal from Orders arise out of one order passed by the learned
\ntrial Court below Exh. 5, but by different appellants-original
\ndefendants, they are being disposed of by this common judgement and
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
1.1\tAppeal
\nfrom Order No. 120\/2008 under   Order   43   Rule 1 (r) of the Code
\nof Civil Procedure has been preferred by the appellants-original
\ndefendants nos. 3 to 7 to quash and set aside the impugned judgement
\nand order dated 15\/12\/2007 passed by the learned 11th
\nAdditional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class,
\nSurat  below Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit  No. 480\/2004 (old) and
\nSpecial Suit No. 225\/2007 (new) by which the learned trial Court has
\nallowed the said interim injunction application submitted by
\nrespondents nos. 1 to 4-original plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
1.2.\tAppeal
\nfrom Order No. 121\/2008 has been preferred by the appellants-original
\ndefendants nos. 8 to 11 to quash and set aside the aforesaid order
\npassed below Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit  No. 480\/2004 (old) and
\nSpecial Suit No. 225\/2007 (new).\n<\/p>\n
1.3.\tAppeal
\nfrom Order No. 138\/2008 has been preferred by the appellants-original
\ndefendant no. 14 to quash and set aside the aforesaid order passed
\nbelow Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit  No. 480\/2004 (old) and Special
\nSuit No. 225\/2007 (new).\n<\/p>\n
2.\tRespondents
\nnos. 1 to 4 herein-original plaintiffs had instituted Regular Civil
\nSuit No. 480\/2004, which has been subsequently given new Special Suit
\nNo. 225\/2007, in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division),
\nSurat for declaration and permanent injunction declaring that the
\nappellants-original defendants do not have right and\/or interest in
\nthe suit property in the campus of Jagadguru Vallabhacharya Vidyadham
\n run by respondent no. 1-original plaintiff  no. 1 Public Trust   and
\nto declare that the original plaintiffs have a right to use,
\nadminister the aforesaid trust and the school premises.  In the said
\nsuit, respondents nos. 1 to 4-original plaintiffs also prayed for
\npermanent injunction restraining the appellants-original defendants
\nfrom interfering them from \/using\/occupying the school\/suit premises.
\n In the said suit, original plaintiffs submitted interim injunction
\napplication under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
\nProcedure below Exh. 5 restraining the appellants-original defendants
\nfrom obstructing the original plaintiffs from using the school
\npremises and the suit property.  It was contented on behalf of the
\noriginal plaintiffs that original plaintiff no. 1-Trust, through
\ntheir trustees, is running the school since 1991, after obtaining
\nrequisite permission from the State Government and the District
\nEducation Officer and they are also running ‘gaushala’ in the said
\npremises and the appellants-original defendants are trying to disturb
\ntheir possession without following due procedure of law.  The interim
\ninjunction application was resisted  by the appellants-original
\ndefendants nos. 3 to 11 by filing reply at Exh. 32.  It was submitted
\nthat one Saurashtra Vaishnav Seva Samaj entered into agreement to
\nsell to purchase the suit property\/land vide sale deed dated
\n01\/01\/1995 and,
\nthereafter, the respondents-original
\nplaintiffs-land owners executed the sale deed in favour of Saurashtra
\nVaishnav Seva Samaj vide registered sale deed dated 26\/07\/2004 and,
\ntherefore, the respondents-original plaintiffs have no right, title
\nor interest in the suit property in question.  It was submitted that
\nas their Guru Shri Balkrushnaraiji Govindraiji Maharaj, who was the
\nhead of Vaishnav Samaj and with whose guidance the Saurashtra
\nVaishnav Seva Samaj was functioning, was permitted to use the suit
\nproperty, however, it is submitted that the respondents-original
\nplaintiffs have no right, title or interest in the suit property in
\nquestion. After hearing the learned advocates appearing on behalf of
\nthe respective parties and considering the documentary evidence on
\nrecord and having found that the respondents-original plaintiffs,
\nmore particularly, original plaintiff no. 1 is in possession of the
\nsuit property in question and is running the school, after obtaining
\nnecessary permission from the competent authority,  and the
\n‘gaushala’, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated
\n15\/12\/2007 has been pleased to allow the interim injunction
\napplication, Exh. 5 granting the interim injunction in terms of
\nparagraph 5 of the interim injunction application restraining the
\nappellants-original defendants from obstructing the original
\nplaintiffs in using, administering the suit property and restraining
\nthe appellants-original defendants from entering into the suit
\npremises and also restraining the appellants-original defendants from
\nputting up any construction and\/or transferring the suit property
\ntill the final disposal of the suit.  Being aggrieved and
\ndissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned trial
\nCourt below Exh. 5 dated 15\/12\/2007 in Regular Civil Suit No.
\n480\/2007 (old) and Special Suit No. 225\/2007 (new), the
\nappellants-original
\ndefendants nos. 3 to 7, 8
\nto 11 and 14 have preferred the present Appeal from Orders.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tShri
\nAnand Yagnik, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the
\nappellants-original defendants nos. 3 to 7 of Appeal from Order No.
\n120\/2008 and appellant-original defendant no. 14 of Appeal from Order
\nNo. 138\/2008, Shri Shalin Mehta, learned advocate has appeared on
\nbehalf of the appellants-original defendants nos. 8 to 11 of Appeal
\nfrom Order No. 121\/2008 and  Shri P.R. Nanavati, learned advocate
\nhas appeared on behalf of the original plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe
\nlearned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective
\nappellants-original defendants have submitted that the learned trial
\nCourt has materially erred in allowing the application, Exh. 5 and
\ngranting the injunction as prayed for in favour of the original
\nplaintiffs and against the appellants-original defendants.  It is
\nsubmitted that as the original plaintiffs have no right, title or
\ninterest on the disputed suit property in question and only the
\nreligious head was permitted to use the suit property for  charitable
\npurpose,  who can be said to be the permissive user, the learned
\ntrial Court is not justified in granting the injunction, more
\nparticularly, when there was a ‘satakhat’\/agreement in favour of
\nSaurashtra Vaishnav Seva Samaj in the year 1995 and the registered
\nsale deed came to be executed in favour of Saurashtra Vaishnav Seva
\nSamaj in the year 2004.  It is submitted that the shops were also
\nconstructed by the purchaser, after obtaining necessary permission
\nfrom the Surat Municipal Corporation, and, therefore, the learned
\ntrial Court has committed an error in granting the injunction
\nrestraining the appellants-original defendants
\nfrom using the suit property.  It is further submitted that though
\nthe original plaintiffs have failed to establish the possessional
\ntitle  on the entire disputed property, the learned trial Court has
\npassed the impugned order granting the interim injunction and
\nallowing the application, Exh. 5, which deserves to be quashed and
\nset aside and, therefore, it is requested to allow the present Appeal
\nfrom Orders.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tAll
\nthese Appeal from Orders are opposed by Shri P.R. Nanavati, learned
\nadvocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiffs.  It is
\nsubmitted that when admittedly the original plaintiffs are in
\noccupation and possession of the disputed suit property and are
\nrunning the school\/educational Institution since 1991-1992, after
\nobtaining permission from the District Education Officer and others
\nand are also running the ‘gaushala’, the learned trial Court has
\nrightly exercised the discretion judiciously and has rightly granted
\nthe interim injunction, which is not required to be interfered with
\nin exercise of the appellate jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tShri
\nP.R. Nanavati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original
\nplaintiffs has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
\nin the case of WANDER LTD. AND ANR Vs. ANTOX INDIA P. LTD.
\nreported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 wherein
\nit is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that;\n<\/p>\n
“The
\nappellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of
\nfirst instance and substitute its own discretion except where the
\ndiscretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or
\ncapriciously or perversely or where the Court had ignored the settled
\nprinciples of law regulating
\ngrant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions.  An appeal against
\nexercise of discretion is said to be an appeal or principle.
\nAppellate Court  will not
\nreassess the material and seek to reach a conclusion different from
\nthe one reached by the Court below solely on the ground that if it
\nhad considered the matter at the trial stage it would have come to a
\ncontrary conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
 If the discretion has been exercised by the trial Court reasonably
\nand in a judicial manner the fact that the appellate Court would have
\ntaken a different view may not justify interference with the trial
\nCourt’s exercise of discretion.”\n<\/p>\n
6.1.\tIn
\nview of the above decision, it is submitted by Shri P.R. Nanavati,
\nlearned advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiffs  that
\nas held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court if it is found that the learned
\ntrial Court has exercised the discretion judiciously, the same is not
\nrequired to be interfered with by the appellate Court and, therefore,
\nit is requested to dismiss the present Appeal from Orders.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tHeard
\nthe learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties
\nat length.  It is to be noted that the original plaintiffs have
\ninstituted the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.  It is
\nan admitted position that the original plaintiffs are in occupation
\nand possession of the disputed suit property atleast since many years
\nand are running the educational Institution, after obtaining
\nnecessary permission from the competent authority.  It is also to be
\nnoted that in some part of the property ‘gaushala’ is also being run
\nby the original plaintiffs.  The original plaintiffs, more
\nparticularly, original plaintiff
\nno. 1,  was permitted to use the property for educational
\nInstitution, other religious and charitable purpose, which is not
\ndisputed by the appellants-original defendants.  Under the
\ncircumstances, when the learned trial Court has exercised the
\ndiscretion in favour of the original plaintiffs and has granted the
\ninjunction as prayed for restraining the appellants-original
\ndefendants from obstructing the original plaintiffs from using the
\nsuit property during the pendency of the suit, it cannot be said that
\nthe learned trial Court has committed any error as the original
\nplaintiffs are in possession and are running the Institution\/school
\nsince many years, and, therefore, the balance of convenience is in
\nfavour of the original plaintiffs.  If the interim injunction as
\nprayed for is not granted there shall be irreparable loss to the
\noriginal plaintiffs.  Under the circumstances, it appears that no
\nillegality has been committed by the learned trial Court in granting
\nthe injunction.  As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
\nWANDER LTD. AND ANR
\n(Supra), unless it is
\nfound that the learned trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction
\nperversely and\/or non-judiciously, the appellate Court should not
\ninterfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court.  It is to
\nbe noted that the suit is  yet to be decided by the learned trial
\nCourt.  Under the circumstances, any further order on merits would
\nprejudice the case of either parties to the suit.  Suffice it to say
\nthat the learned trial Court has rightly exercised the discretion in
\nfavour of the original plaintiffs, as admittedly the original
\nplaintiffs are running the  educational institution, after obtaining
\npermission from the competent authority and are running the
\n‘gaushala’ in the suit property since many years.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tUnder
\nthe circumstances and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present
\nAppeal from Orders  are required to be dismissed and are dismissed
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
 CIVIL
\nAPPLICATION Nos.4494\/2008, 4495\/2008 & 5493\/2008<\/p>\n
\tIn
\nview of dismissal of the Appeal from Orders, no order in the Civil
\nApplications.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(M.R.\n<\/p>\n
SHAH, J.)<\/p>\n
siji<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Maganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print AO\/120\/2008 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 120 of 2008 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 4494 of 2008 In APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 120 of 2008 With […]<\/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-192624","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMaganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-06T00:45:59+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\\\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-06T00:45:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1839,\"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\\\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Maganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-06T00:45:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 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":"Maganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-06T00:45:59+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\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-06T00:45:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010"},"wordCount":1839,"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\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010","name":"Maganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-06T00:45:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maganbhai-vs-jagadguru-on-14-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maganbhai vs Jagadguru on 14 June, 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\/192624","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=192624"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192624\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192624"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192624"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192624"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}