{"id":203772,"date":"2010-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010"},"modified":"2015-07-13T04:24:04","modified_gmt":"2015-07-12T22:54:04","slug":"ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 March, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSA\/123\/2009\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSECOND\nAPPEAL No. 123 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 3799 of 2009\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSECOND\nAPPEAL No. 123 of 2009\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\nGANGA\nYAMUNA TUBE-WELL COMPANY &amp; 7 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nJAYKISHAN\nTUBE-WELL COMPANY - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nNK MAJMUDAR for\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 8. \nNone for Defendant(s) :\n1, \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 M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\npresent  Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure has been preferred by the appellants-original defendants of<br \/>\nSpecial Civil Suit No. 43\/1977 challenging the judgement and decree<br \/>\npassed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mehsana dated<br \/>\n25\/03\/1980 in  Special Civil Suit No. 43\/1977 confirmed by the<br \/>\nlearned appellate Court by impugned judgement and order dated<br \/>\n07\/05\/2007 by the learned Additional District Judge, Mehsana in<br \/>\nRegular Civil Appeal No. 123\/2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tThe<br \/>\nrespondent-original plaintiff had instituted Special Civil Suit No.<br \/>\n43\/1977 against the appellants-original defendants for recovery of<br \/>\nRs. 50,000\/- alleged to have been due and payable by the<br \/>\nappellants-original defendants to the respondent-original plaintiff.<br \/>\nAt the outset, it is required to be noted that the transaction in<br \/>\nquestion was dated 30\/05\/1974 and the suit to recover the balance<br \/>\namount of Rs. 50,000\/-  was filed in the month of June, 1977.<br \/>\nHowever, at the relevant time, defendants nos. 6, 7 and 8 were not<br \/>\njoined as party defendants and they came to be joined as defendants<br \/>\nnos. 6, 7 and 8 subsequently, more particularly, vide order dated<br \/>\n12\/10\/1977.  The learned trial Court framed the issues at Exh. 65 and<br \/>\non appreciation of evidence on record as well as documentary held<br \/>\nthat the respondent-original plaintiff has proved that the<br \/>\nrespondent-original plaintiff firm is registered under the<br \/>\nPartnership Act and it proved that Rs. 50,000\/-  is remaining and\/or<br \/>\ndue and payable by the appellants-original defendants to the<br \/>\nrespondent-original plaintiff.  Though the respondent-original<br \/>\nplaintiff claimed interest at the relevant time at the rate of 12%<br \/>\nper annum, the learned trial  Court granted interest at the rate of<br \/>\n9% per annum. Specific issue was also raised that the suit was barred<br \/>\nby limitation against defendants nos. 6, 7 and 8, who were joined<br \/>\nsubsequently as party defendants on 12\/10\/1977.  The learned trial<br \/>\nCourt considered the fact that last payment was made to the<br \/>\nrespondent-original defendant on 21\/09\/1974 and the balance remaining<br \/>\nwas Rs. 50,000\/-, which was paid by cheque on 18\/12\/1974 and<br \/>\npresented in the Bank but it was dishonoured and, therefore,<br \/>\nconsidering the above extended period of limitation, the learned<br \/>\ntrial Court held that the suit against defendants nos. 6, 7 and 8 is<br \/>\nwithin the period of limitation and is not barred by limitation and<br \/>\nfinally the learned trial Court even decreed the suit for an amount<br \/>\nof Rs. 68,000\/- with 9% interest from the date of the suit till the<br \/>\ndate of realisation.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the<br \/>\njudgement and order passed by the learned trial Court, the<br \/>\nappellants-original defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.<br \/>\n123\/2005 before the learned Additional District Judge, Mehsana, which<br \/>\ncame to be heard by the learned Additional District Judge, who passed<br \/>\nthe impugned judgement and order dated 07\/05\/2007  dismissing the<br \/>\nsaid appeal confirming the judgement and decree passed by the learned<br \/>\ntrial Court.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgement and<br \/>\norder passed by both the Courts below, the appellants-original<br \/>\ndefendants have preferred the present Second Appeal under Section 100<br \/>\nof the Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tShri<br \/>\nSuthar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellants-original defendants has submitted that the following<br \/>\nsubstantial questions of law arise for determination of this Court in<br \/>\nthe present Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>(i)\tWhether<br \/>\nboth the Courts below have erred in holding that the suit was not<br \/>\nbarred by limitation?\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)\tWhether<br \/>\nthe Courts below has substantially erred in shifting the burden of<br \/>\nproof upon the appellants-original defendants?\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)\tWhether<br \/>\nboth the Courts below have erred in awarding interest at the rate of<br \/>\n9% per annum to the respondent-original plaintiff in absence of<br \/>\ncondition to that effect?\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tShri<br \/>\nSuthar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellants-original defendants has submitted that as defendants nos.<br \/>\n6, 7 and 8 were joined as defendants on 12\/10\/1977 and the suit<br \/>\ntransaction was of  30\/05\/1974, the last date of limitation to file<br \/>\nthe suit was 30\/05\/1977 and, therefore,  the suit against defendants<br \/>\nnos. 6, 7 and 8  was barred by limitation. It  is further submitted<br \/>\nthat at the time when the amendment application was allowed and the<br \/>\ndefendants were joined as defendants nos. 6, 7 and 8, it was without<br \/>\nprejudice to the rights and contentions of defendants nos. 6, 7 and 8<br \/>\nwith respect to limitation and, therefore, it is submitted that both<br \/>\nthe Courts below have materially erred in holding that the suit is<br \/>\nwithin the period of limitation and\/or not barred by limitation.  It<br \/>\nis further submitted that the respondent-original plaintiff firm came<br \/>\nto be dissolved on 11\/11\/1977 and, therefore, in view of the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Partnership Act, more particularly, Section 69 of<br \/>\nthe Partnership Act, the suit was<br \/>\nnot maintainable and, therefore, both the Courts below have<br \/>\nmaterially erred in decreeing the suit.  Lastly, it is submitted that<br \/>\nboth the Courts below have materially erred in awarding the interest<br \/>\nat the rate of 9%.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tHaving<br \/>\nheard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellants-original defendants  and considering the judgement and<br \/>\norder passed by both the Courts below, the present Second Appeal<br \/>\ndeserves to be dismissed as the same has no substance at all.  The<br \/>\ncontention on behalf of the appellants-original defendants with<br \/>\nrespect to the suit being barred by limitation against defendants<br \/>\nnos. 6, 7 and 8 is concerned, it is to be noted that, as observed by<br \/>\nthe learned trial Court, the last payment made by the<br \/>\nappellants-original defendants was on 21\/09\/1974 and the remaining<br \/>\nbalance amount of Rs. 50,000\/-  was paid by cheque  on 18\/12\/1974,<br \/>\nwhich was presented in the Bank but was dishonoured, which is at Exh.<br \/>\n80 and, therefore, the limitation would start from the last date of<br \/>\npayment i.e.  18\/12\/1974 and\/or from the date of receipt of the memo<br \/>\nof dishonour of said cheque.  Defendants nos. 6, 7 and 8 were joined<br \/>\nas party defendants on 12\/10\/1977 and, therefore, the period of<br \/>\nlimitation would start from 18\/12\/1974.  Defendants nos. 6, 7 and 8<br \/>\nwere joined as party defendants within a period of three years from<br \/>\n08\/12\/1974 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit against<br \/>\nthe defendants was barred by limitation.  Now<br \/>\nso far as the contention and\/or submissions on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellants-original defendants that after filing of the suit the<br \/>\nrespondent-original plaintiff  firm came to be dissolved on<br \/>\n11\/11\/1977 and, therefore, in view of Section 69 of the Partnership<br \/>\nAct the suit was not maintainable and\/or both the Courts below could<br \/>\nnot have passed the decree has no substance at all.  In the present<br \/>\ncase, Section 69 of the Partnership Act would not be applicable at<br \/>\nall.    Section 69 of the Partnership Act provides that no suit shall<br \/>\nbe instituted in any Court by or on behalf of any person suing as a<br \/>\npartner in a firm against the firm or any person  alleged to be or to<br \/>\nhave been a partner in the firm unless the firm is registered and the<br \/>\nperson suing is or has been shown in the Register of the Firms as a<br \/>\npartner in the firm.  It is not in dispute that at the relevant time<br \/>\nwhen the suit was instituted the respondent-original plaintiff firm<br \/>\nwas registered one and, therefore, what is required to be  considered<br \/>\nis when the suit was instituted and not the subsequent development,<br \/>\nand, therefore, Section 69 of the Act has no application at all.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tNow<br \/>\nso far the submissions on behalf of the appellants-original<br \/>\ndefendants with respect to awarding the interest at the rate of 9%<br \/>\nper annum is concerned, as such there are concurrent findings of fact<br \/>\ngiven by both the Courts below  with respect to the same.  Even<br \/>\notherwise, the said aspect has been dealt with by the learned trial<br \/>\nCourt while deciding issue no. 3 and the learned trial Court has,<br \/>\nwhile awarding the interest at the rate of 9%, relied upon the<br \/>\ndecision of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the case of THAWARDAS<br \/>\nPHERUMAL &amp; ANR Vs. UNION OF INDIA reported<br \/>\nin AIR 1955 SC 468<br \/>\nas well as the provisions of<br \/>\nSection 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  In the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, the said findings is not required to be<br \/>\ninterfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 100<br \/>\nof the Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above, there is no substance in the present Second<br \/>\nAppeal, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p> CIVIL<br \/>\nAPPLICATION No. 3799\/2009 <\/p>\n<p>\tIn<br \/>\nview of the order passed in Second Appeal, no order in Civil<br \/>\nApplication.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(M.\n<\/p>\n<p>R. SHAH, J.)<\/p>\n<p>siji<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 March, 2010 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SA\/123\/2009 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 123 of 2009 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3799 of 2009 In SECOND APPEAL No. 123 of 2009 For Approval and [&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-203772","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>Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 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\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-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=\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-12T22:54:04+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-12T22:54:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1364,\"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\\\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-12T22:54:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 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":"Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 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\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-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":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-12T22:54:04+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-12T22:54:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010"},"wordCount":1364,"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\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010","name":"Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-12T22:54:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganga-vs-jaykishan-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ganga vs Jaykishan on 9 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\/203772","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=203772"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203772\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}