{"id":198674,"date":"2010-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-04T13:38:33","modified_gmt":"2018-05-04T08:08:33","slug":"iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Iqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Iqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/5178\/2009\t 12\/ 12\tJUDGMENT \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. 5178 of 2009\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHON'BLE\nSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\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\nIQBALBHAI\nHUSHENBHAI PADAYA - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMAHESHKANT\nDHIRAJLAL VASAVADA & 6 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nPRANAV M RAVAL for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR SATYAM Y CHHAYA for\nRespondent(s) : 1,3 - 5. \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2,6 -\n7. \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\nHON'BLE\n\t\t\tSMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
1.\tRule.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.Satyam Y.Chhaya, learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule
\nfor the respondents Nos.1,3,4 and 5. Respondents Nos.2,6 and 7 are
\nduly served, but none appears on their behalf.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThis
\npetition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
\nConstitution of India, challenging order dated 30-12-2008 passed by
\nthe District Court, Junagadh, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.45 of
\n2007,whereby the order dated 20-6-2007 passed by the Trial Court
\nbelow application at Exh.5, in Regular Civil Suit No.38 of 2006,has
\nbeen confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\npetitioner, who is the plaintiff,has instituted the above-mentioned
\nSuit for declaration and grant of permanent injunction against the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tBriefly
\nstated, the case of the petitioner in the Suit is that a registered
\nSale Deed dated 4-2-2000 in respect of land bearing Revenue Survey
\nNo.1391\/14 admeasuring 202 sq.mts., situated near Link Guest
\nHouse,Mangrol,  was executed by him  in favour of respondents
\nNos.1,3,4 and 5 (defendants Nos.1,3,4 and 5 in the Suit). The sale
\nconsideration mentioned in the Sale Deed is Rs.71,000\/- and there is
\nno dispute regarding the fact that the said respondents have paid an
\namount of Rs.71,000\/- to the petitioner. However, it is the case of
\nthe petitioner that the parties had orally agreed that the sale
\nconsideration would be Rs.5,71,000\/- and the concerned defendants
\nhave assured the petitioner that they would pay an additional amount
\nof Rs.5,00,000\/- in a few days, but the said amount was not paid and
\npossession of the land was taken over by the respondents. The
\nconcerned respondents, further sold the suit land to respondent No.6,
\nfor a sale consideration of Rs.70,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
4.1\tIn
\nthe Suit the petitioner has, inter alia prayed for the grant of a
\nmandatory injunction against the respondents, directing them to hand
\nover the possession of the suit land to him, till the dispute between
\nthe parties is resolved and the full amount of consideration is paid
\nto him. Another prayer is that the respondents be restrained from
\ntransferring or alienating the suit land till the final decision of
\nthe Suit. Along with the Suit, the petitioner filed an application at
\nExh.5, with almost the same prayers, except that the prayer to hand
\nover the property to the petitioner was prayed for as an interim
\nprayer, during the pendency of the Suit. The Trial Court has rejected
\nthe application at Exh.5 by passing order dated 20-6-2007, which has
\nbeen confirmed by the District Court in Appeal, by way of the
\nimpugned order, giving rise to the filing of the petition.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tMr.Pranav
\nM.Raval, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
\nrespondents Nos.1,3,4 and 5,in whose favour the Sale Deed has been
\nexecuted by the petitioner, have cheated him on several times, by
\nentering  into fraudulent transactions. It is submitted that though
\nthe amount of sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed is
\nRs.71,000\/-, the said respondents had orally agreed to pay an
\nadditional amount of Rs.5,00,000\/- for the land which, has not been
\npaid. On the assurance that the amount would be paid within two to
\nthree days, the petitioner has handed over possession of the suit
\nland to them. It is further submitted that the impugned orders of
\nboth the courts below are erroneous, inasmuch as they are not based
\non any proper reasoning and a material error has been committed while
\npassing the same. It is submitted that the Courts below have not
\ntaken into consideration the aspect that the respondents had agreed
\nto pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000\/- to the petitioner and, at least,
\nthe prayer regarding maintenance of status-quo, qua the suit land
\nought to have been granted during the pendency of the suit,
\ntherefore,the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and
\nthe petition allowed. No other submission has been made by the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tOn
\nthe other hand, Mr.Satyam Y.Chhaya,learned counsel for  respondents
\nNos.1,3,4 and 5, while opposing the petition, has submitted that the
\npetitioner has not challenged the Sale Deed dated 4.2-2000 executed
\nby him in favour of respondents Nos.1,3,4 and 5 and nor has the
\nsubsequent Sale Deed, by which the land has been sold by the said
\nrespondents to respondent No.6, been challenged. Instead,  a Suit for
\ndeclaration,valued at Rs.300\/-only, has been filed by paying Court
\nFees.  It is further submitted that the story that the concerned
\nrespondents had agreed to pay an additional amount of Rs.5,00,000\/-
\nto the petitioner is false and in any case there is no material on
\nrecord to prove this aspect. It is contended  that there is no
\ndispute that the amount of sale consideration, that has been
\nmentioned in the Sale Deed, has already been paid to the petitioner,
\ntherefore, the sale transaction is complete. Defending the orders of
\nthe Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court, Mr.Satyam
\nY.Chhaya,learned counsel submits that  the Courts below have rightly
\nnot granted the prayers made in the application at Exh.5 by the
\npetitioner as the first prayer is for grant of mandatory injunction
\nand the second prayer, which seeks to restrain the respondents from
\nalienating the suit property, would amount to a serious transgression
\nof the rights of the true owners of the property which cannot be done
\nin the absence of any adverse material on record. It is, urged that
\nthe petition may be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tI
\nhave heard the learned counsel  for the respective parties, perused
\nthe averments made in the petition,contents of the impugned order and
\nother material on record. From a perusal of the impugned judgments of
\nthe Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court it is clear that the
\ncase of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. According to the
\npetitioner, the dispute is regarding non-payment of the amount of
\nRs.5,00,000\/-  towards sale consideration to him. The orders of the
\nTrial Court as well the lower Appellate Court have been passed on the
\nbasis of a proper scrutiny of material on record. Both the Courts
\nbelow have arrived at the findings that there is no material on
\nrecord to show that the respondents,who purchased the land from the
\npetitioner by way of Sale Deed dated 4-2-2000, have orally agreed to
\npay an additional amount of Rs.5,00,000\/- to him. The Sale Deed is a
\nRegistered one and shows that the sale consideration is Rs.71,000\/-.
\nThe  land which is the subject matter of the  Sale Deed admeasures
\nonly 202 sq.mts. The said land has also been sold by the respondents,
\nwho  purchased it, to  respondent  No.6. In the absence of any
\nmaterial on record to show that an additional amount of Rs.5,00,000\/-
\nwas to be paid to the petitioner, both the courts below have come to
\nthe conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to prove that a
\nprima facie case exists in his favour or that the balance of
\nconvenience or factor of irreparable loss is also on his side. On the
\ncontrary,it has been observed by the lower Appellate Court in the
\nimpugned order that had the petitioner been cheated by the said
\nrespondents at an earlier point of time,as is being submitted, he
\nwould not have parted with the possession of the land by accepting
\nRs.71,000\/-, relying on the say of the respondents that the remaining
\namount of Rs.5,00,000\/- would be paid in two or three days. It has
\nbeen rightly stated by both the Courts below that the case of the
\npetitioner can only be decided, after leading evidence during trial
\nand no mandatory interim injunction, of the nature prayed for, can be
\ngranted to  him in the absence of a prima facie case in his favour.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIf
\nthe prayers made in the application at Exh.5 are perused, it is
\nevident that the first prayer is for interim injunction of a
\nmandatory  nature. In  Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden,<\/a>
\n(1990)2 SCC 117, the Supreme Court has laid  down certain
\nguidelines,clarifying in what circumstances such interim mandatory
\nrelief can be granted. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced
\nherein-below:\n<\/p>\n
\t 16.
\nThe relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted
\ngenerally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last
\nnon-contested status which  preceded the pending controversy until
\nthe final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the
\nundoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the
\nrestoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party
\ncomplaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party
\nwho fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause
\ngreat injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was
\ngranted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds
\nor would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable
\nharm,courts have evolved certain guidelines. Generally stated these
\nguidelines are:\n<\/p>\n
the
\n\tplaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a
\n\thigher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required
\n\tfor a prohibitory injunction.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally
\n\tcannot be compensated in terms of money.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tbalance of convenience is in  favour of the one seeking such relief.\n<\/p>\n
Being
\n\tessentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an
\n\tinterlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest in the
\n\tsound judicial discretion of the court to be exercised in the light
\n\tof the facts and circumstances in each case. Though the above
\n\tguidelines are neither exhaustive nor complete or absolute rules,
\n\tand there may be exceptional circumstances needing action, applying
\n\tthem as prerequisite for the grant or refusal of such injunctions
\n\twould be a sound exercise of a judicial discretion.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tApplying
\nthe principles of law enunciated in the above-mentioned case to the
\nfacts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is clearly evident
\nthat the petitioner has not been able to prove that he has a prima
\nfacie case in his favour, leave alone a strong prima facie case.
\nSimilarly, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner
\nwould suffer irreparable loss or injury  which cannot be compensated
\nin terms of money or that the balance of convenience is in his
\nfavour. In such circumstances and in view of the material on record,
\nit cannot be said that any error of law or jurisdiction has been
\ncommitted by the courts below in refusing to grant the prayers made
\nby the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tAs
\nregards the second prayer restraining the respondents from
\ntransferring or alienating the land, this prayer has also not been
\ngranted for the same reasons,as above. As is rightly submitted by
\nMr.Satyam Y.Chhaya, learned counsel  for the respondents Nos.1,3,4
\nand 5, the  owners of the land cannot be restrained from enjoying the
\nland  in the absence of any material on record, which would justify
\nthe passing of  a restraint order,such as prayed for by the
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThere
\nare concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below
\nagainst the petitioner. The said findings have been arrived at after
\nproper scrutiny of the material on record and are supported by clear
\nand cogent reasons. As no error of law or jurisdiction has been
\ncommitted by the lower Appellate Court in passing the impugned order,
\nconfirming the order of the Trial Court, interference of this court
\nis not warranted. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
\nRule is discharged.\n<\/p>\n
   \t\t           \t(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J)<\/p>\n
arg<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Iqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 2010 Author: Abhilasha Kumari,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/5178\/2009 12\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5178 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI ===================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers […]<\/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-198674","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nIqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 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\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Iqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-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=\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-04T08:08:33+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\\\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Iqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-04T08:08:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1934,\"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\\\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Iqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-04T08:08:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Iqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 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":"Iqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 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\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Iqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-04T08:08:33+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\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Iqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-04T08:08:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010"},"wordCount":1934,"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\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010","name":"Iqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-04T08:08:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbalbhai-vs-maheshkant-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Iqbalbhai vs Maheshkant on 4 February, 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\/198674","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=198674"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198674\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198674"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198674"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}