{"id":214323,"date":"1996-01-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-01-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996"},"modified":"2017-09-04T11:21:51","modified_gmt":"2017-09-04T05:51:51","slug":"naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996","title":{"rendered":"Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1184, \t\t  1996 SCC  (7) 278<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Ramaswamy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswamy, K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nNARANBHAI DAYABHAI PATEL &amp; ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSULEMAN ISUBJI DADABHAI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/01\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nBENCH:\nRAMASWAMY, K.\nG.B. PATTANAIK (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 AIR 1184\t\t  1996 SCC  (7) 278\n JT 1996 (1)   626\t  1996 SCALE  (1)611\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment<br \/>\nof the\tDivision Bench\tof the\tGujarat High Court in L.P.A.<br \/>\nNo. 10\/76 dated July 27, 1979. The undisputed facts are that<br \/>\nthe Bombay  Tenancy &amp;  Agricultural Lands,  Act,  1948\t(for<br \/>\nshort, &#8216;the Tenancy Act&#8217;) was amended from time to time. The<br \/>\nAmendment Act,\t1956 had  come into force on August 1, 1956.<br \/>\nBy operation  of Section  32 of\t the Tenancy Act, the tenant<br \/>\nhas become  a deemed purchaser w.e.f. April 1, 1957 which is<br \/>\nenvisaged by  the Act  as the  &#8220;Tillers&#8221; day&#8221;. The erstwhile<br \/>\nland-holder, the  respondent on December 12, 1956 terminated<br \/>\nthe tenancy  of the  appellants and  filed  the\t Trust\tdeed<br \/>\nbefore the  Assistant Charity  Commissioner under Section 18<br \/>\nof the\tBombay Public  Trusts Act,  1950 (Bom.\tAct XXIX  of<br \/>\n1950) (for  short, &#8216;the\t Act&#8217;) for  registration. On January<br \/>\n31, 1957, the Trust was registered without any notice to the<br \/>\nappellants. Against  the said  registration, the  appellants<br \/>\ncarried the  matter in\tappeal to  the Charity\tCommissioner<br \/>\nunder Section 70 of the Act. But the Charity Commissioner by<br \/>\nhis order  dated August 8, 1957 dismissed the appeal holding<br \/>\nthat &#8220;It is difficult to accept this argument&#8221;. A trust is a<br \/>\nmode of\t transfer known to law and if the legislature really<br \/>\nwanted a  transfer by  way of a trust also to be prohibited,<br \/>\nit could have so mentioned. A gift as defined in Section 122<br \/>\nof the Transfer of Property Act &#8220;cannot be said to include a<br \/>\ntrust&#8221;. Against\t the said  judgment,  the  appellants  filed<br \/>\nbefore the  District Judge an appeal on October 4, 1957. The<br \/>\nAssistant Judge, Surat in Misc. Appln. No. 64 of 1957 by his<br \/>\norder dated  August 18,\t 1967 held  that &#8220;From the aforesaid<br \/>\ncomments, it  will be  seen that a distinction is made about<br \/>\nthe vesting  declaration  and  it  has\tnot  been  mentioned<br \/>\ntherein that  the vesting  declaration would tantamount to a<br \/>\ngift.&#8221; Accordingly,  it\t had  confirmed\t the  order  of\t the<br \/>\nAssistant Commissioner.\t The appellants\t further carried the<br \/>\nmatter in  appeal. The\tlearned single Judge in First Appeal<br \/>\nNo. 347\t of 1968  by judgment and decree dated September 22,<br \/>\n1975 set aside the order and held submissions. We record the<br \/>\nvaluable assistance  rendered by  him.\tThe  question  is  :<br \/>\nwhether the  creation of the trust on the facts of this case<br \/>\nis valid  in law?  It is  seen that, as found by the learned<br \/>\nsingle Judge  of the High Court, pursuant to the proceedings<br \/>\ntaken under  Section 32\t declaring that\t the appellants were<br \/>\nthe  deemed   purchasers,  they\t became\t deemed\t tenants  on<br \/>\nTillers&#8217; day  on April\t1, 1957.  The order  was allowed  to<br \/>\nbecome final.  Therefore, it binds the respondent, erstwhile<br \/>\nowner of the land. The lands stood vested in the appellants.<br \/>\nThe respondent,\t thereby got  divested his  right  as  owner<br \/>\nsince the  tenant became  owner by  statutory purchase.\t The<br \/>\nquestion then  is :  whether the  respondent could  create a<br \/>\ntrust bequeathing the property as gift to the trust to which<br \/>\nhe also\t is the\t beneficiary? It  is contended by Shri Mukul<br \/>\nMudgal, learned counsel that in view of the judgment of this<br \/>\nCourt in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1184385\/\">Maneksha Ardeshir  Irani &amp; Anr. vs. Manekji Edulji<br \/>\nMistry &amp;  Ors.<\/a> [(1975)\t2 SCR  341], the tenant has no right<br \/>\nunder Section  88-B of\tthe  Act  to  be  heard\t before\t the<br \/>\npermission is granted by the Collector under the Tenancy Act<br \/>\nand that,  therefore, though the Mamlatdar granted the order<br \/>\nunder Section  32, the appellant had no right to be heard in<br \/>\nthe matter.  We are  unable to agree with Shri Mudgal in his<br \/>\ncontention that\t the  Mamlatdar\t in  his  proceedings  under<br \/>\nSection 32  had held  that the\tappellants became the deemed<br \/>\npurchasers  by\toperation  of  Section\t32.  The  respondent<br \/>\nallowed that  order to\tbecome final.  Therefore,  the\tland<br \/>\nhaving been  vested in\tthe tenant by statutory operation of<br \/>\nSection 32,  the creation  of  the  trust  and\tregistration<br \/>\nthereof under  Section 18  of the  Act is  not valid in law.<br \/>\nFurther a Letters Patent Appeal was carried and the Division<br \/>\nBench reversed\tthe findings and held that there cannot be a<br \/>\ntransfer by a single person in his capacity as an individual<br \/>\nand at\tthe same  time as  a trustee  beneficiary and  that,<br \/>\ntherefore, it cannot be construed to be a gift under Section<br \/>\n122 of\tthe Transfer  of Property  Act. The  creation of the<br \/>\ntrust and registration thereof under Section 18 are valid in<br \/>\nlaw. Thus this appeal by special leave has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Since the\trespondent, though  served, had not appeared<br \/>\neither through\tcounsel or  in person and since an important<br \/>\nquestion of  law has  arisen, we requested Sri Mukul Mudgal,<br \/>\nthe learned  counsel to\t assist this  Court as amicus curiae<br \/>\nand he\thas rendered  valuable assistance by making thorough<br \/>\nstudy and filing written Ardeshir Erani&#8217;s case, [supra] this<br \/>\nCourt had held at page 344 thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;The appellant  at no  stage denied  the<br \/>\n     fact that\tthe lands are the property of<br \/>\n     a Trust.  The  inquiry  is\t between  the<br \/>\n     Collector and  the Trust. The conclusive<br \/>\n     evidence clause  in  the  Section\tmeans<br \/>\n     that it  is a  rule  of  evidence\twhich<br \/>\n     would not\trender it necessary for it to<br \/>\n     prove  again  the\tcompliance  with  the<br \/>\n     requirements.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The High Court in that case had held that the appellant<br \/>\nhad at\tno stage  denied the  fact that\t the lands  were the<br \/>\nproperties of  the trust.  In the  backdrop of\tthose facts,<br \/>\nthis Court  concluded that the tenant was not entitled to be<br \/>\nheard. As stated earlier, when the tenant has a pre-existing<br \/>\nright and  he is  divested of that right and by operation of<br \/>\nthe provisions\tof the\tAct he\tis precluded  to file a suit<br \/>\nchallenging the\t correctness  of  the  registration  of\t the<br \/>\ntrust, certainly,  he is  a  person  vitally  interested  to<br \/>\ndefend his  right,  title  and\tinterest  in  the  property.<br \/>\nTherefore, he  is a  person interested\tto be  heard  before<br \/>\nregistration of\t the trust.  In this  case,  admittedly,  no<br \/>\nnotice was  issued nor\twas he\theard. It  is clear from the<br \/>\nproceedings that,  as a\t fact, the registration was taken up<br \/>\nby the\tAssistant Charity  Commissioner on  January 31, 1957<br \/>\nand on\tthe same  day the  registration. It is seen that the<br \/>\norder of Mamlatdar passed under Section 32 had become final.<br \/>\nThereby, the  erstwhile land  owner had been divested of his<br \/>\ntitle to  the property w.e.f. April 1, 1957. All to which he<br \/>\nis entitled  is the  compensation in  the manner  prescribed<br \/>\nunder  the  Act.  It  is  true\tthat  at  the  time  of\t the<br \/>\nregistration of\t the  trust,  strictly\tthe  tenant  is\t not<br \/>\nentitled to  be heard  provided he has no pre-existing right<br \/>\nin the\tland, the subject matter of bequeath. In the enquiry<br \/>\nunder Section  88-B, question  relating to two aspects would<br \/>\narise in  registration of  trust of the kinds covered by the<br \/>\nAct, viz.,  of the  factum of  the creation of the trust and<br \/>\nthe  utilisation   of  the  income  derived  from  the\tland<br \/>\nbequeathed to  the trust towards charitable purpose. In that<br \/>\nenquiry by the Collector on these two aspects, certainly the<br \/>\ntenant has  no right  to say  in the  matter. But  in a case<br \/>\nwhere the  tenant has  a pre-existing right and his right is<br \/>\nsought to be divested in creating the trust, certainly he is<br \/>\nan  interested\t person\t to   be  vitally  affected  by\t the<br \/>\nregistration  of   the\t trust.\t  Consequently,\t  when\t the<br \/>\nproceedings under  Section 18  of  the\tAct  was  taken,  as<br \/>\nenvisaged in  Section 19  of the  Act, the  tenant being  an<br \/>\ninterested person  is entitled\tto be heard. In Maneksha was<br \/>\ngranted. The enquiry contemplated under Section 19 was given<br \/>\na ceremonial  send off\twithout being  complied with.  Under<br \/>\nthose circumstances,  the learned  single Judge was right in<br \/>\nconcluding that\t since the order passed under Section 32 was<br \/>\nnot assailed by the respondent, the appellants were entitled<br \/>\nto be  heard before  granting registration for the trust and<br \/>\nvesting the same in the trust.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The question  then is  : whether the Division Bench was<br \/>\nright in  interfering with  the order?\tIt is contended that<br \/>\nclause 15  of the Letters Patent Act is not available to the<br \/>\nrespondent and\tthat, therefore,  the Letters  Patent Appeal<br \/>\nwould not  lie.\t This  point  is  squarely  covered  by\t the<br \/>\njudgment of  this Court\t in <a href=\"\/doc\/1672214\/\">Ramchandra\tGoverdhan Pandit vs.<br \/>\nCharity Commissioner  of State\tof  Gujarat<\/a>  [(1987)  2\t SCR<br \/>\n1083]. In  that case  on suo motu enquiry under the Act, the<br \/>\nDeputy Commissioner  had held  that the\t properties were  of<br \/>\npublic\tinterest.   On\tappeal,\t  the  Charity\tCommissioner<br \/>\nconfirmed and  dismissed the appeal. Appeal under Section 72<br \/>\nof the\tAct was\t preferred to  the District  Court  and\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Court dismissed the same. When the first appeal was<br \/>\nfiled in  the High Court, the learned single Judge dismissed<br \/>\nthe appeal.  In the Letters Patent Appeal the question arose<br \/>\n: whether  an appeal  would lie\t against the decision of the<br \/>\nlearned single\tJudge. This  Court examined  the controversy<br \/>\nand concluded at page 1089, thus :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;The power\t of this  District  Court  in<br \/>\n     exercising jurisdiction under Section 72<br \/>\n     is a  plenary power. It is true that the<br \/>\n     Commissioner is  not subordinate  to the<br \/>\n     District Court  but the  District\tCourt<br \/>\n     has powers to correct, modify, review or<br \/>\n     set  aside\t  the  order  passed  by  the<br \/>\n     Commissioner. All the characteristics of<br \/>\n     an appeal\tand  all  the  powers  of  an<br \/>\n     appellant Court  are  available  to  the<br \/>\n     District\tCourt\twhile\tdeciding   an<br \/>\n     application under\tSection 72. To decide<br \/>\n     this case\twe must be guided not only by<br \/>\n     the nomenclature used by the Section for<br \/>\n     the proceedings  but by  the essence and<br \/>\n     content of\t the proceedings.  That being<br \/>\n     so, we  have no  hesitation to hold that<br \/>\n     the  proceedings\tbefore\tthe  District<br \/>\n     Court under  Section 72(1)\t are  in  the<br \/>\n     nature of\tan appeal  and that  District<br \/>\n     Court exercises  appellant\t jurisdiction<br \/>\n     while  disposing\tof  a\tmatter\tunder<br \/>\n     Section 72(1).  Consequently, the Single<br \/>\n     Judge of  the High\t Court while deciding<br \/>\n     the  appeal,   from  the  order  of  the<br \/>\n     District Court  deals with a matter made<br \/>\n     by the District Judge in the exercise of<br \/>\n     an appellate  jurisdiction\t by  a\tCourt<br \/>\n     subject to\t the superintendence  of  the<br \/>\n     High Court\t and hence  clause 15  of the<br \/>\n     Letters Patent is directly attached.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     Consequently, this\t Court had  held  that\tthe  Letters<br \/>\nPatent Appeal  against the  decision of\t the learned  single<br \/>\nJudge did  not lie.  The same  ratio applies to the facts in<br \/>\nthis case.  Leave of the learned single Judge was admittedly<br \/>\nnot obtained  for filing the appeal. Consequently, since the<br \/>\nappeal of  the learned\tsingle Judge arises under the Act by<br \/>\nvirtue\tof   the   statutory   conferment   of\t supervisory<br \/>\njurisdiction, by  operation of\tearlier part of clause 15 of<br \/>\nthe Letters Patent Act would vest in him. The Letters Patent<br \/>\nAppeal would  not lie  to  the\tDivision  Bench\t unless\t the<br \/>\ncertificate of the learned single Judge has been granted for<br \/>\nleave to  appeal. In  that view,  the appeal to the Division<br \/>\nBench was incompetent and is accordingly set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 AIR 1184, 1996 SCC (7) 278 Author: K Ramaswamy Bench: Ramaswamy, K. PETITIONER: NARANBHAI DAYABHAI PATEL &amp; ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: SULEMAN ISUBJI DADABHAI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/01\/1996 BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214323","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996 - 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\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-04T05:51:51+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-04T05:51:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1801,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996\",\"name\":\"Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-01-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-04T05:51:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996 - 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\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-04T05:51:51+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996","datePublished":"1996-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-04T05:51:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996"},"wordCount":1801,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996","name":"Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-01-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-04T05:51:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/naranbhai-dayabhai-patel-anr-vs-suleman-isubji-dadabhai-on-11-january-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Naranbhai Dayabhai Patel &amp; Anr vs Suleman Isubji Dadabhai on 11 January, 1996"}]},{"@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\/214323","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=214323"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214323\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214323"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214323"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214323"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}