{"id":217061,"date":"2009-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009"},"modified":"2018-06-07T12:34:23","modified_gmt":"2018-06-07T07:04:23","slug":"c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Anoop V.Mohta<\/div>\n<pre>ssm\n sm         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                   WRIT PETITION NO. 3297 OF 1993\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n      Shashikant Narottam Lade,\n      (Since deceased through his L.Rs.)\n\n\n\n\n                                           \n      1-A) Smt. Sheela Shashikant Lade,\n           Age 45 years.\n\n      1-B) Mrs. Jayshree Jaywant Lade,\n\n\n\n\n                                          \n           Age 29 years.\n\n           R\/o. Shradha Shanti Niwas,\n           6\/10, Bharati Nagar, Opposite\n           M.H.B.Colony, Building No.6,\n\n\n\n\n                               \n           Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli (E),\n           Mumbai-400 083.\n                    \n      1-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati,\n           Age 27 years, R\/o. at and post\n           Jhardi Kapdivad,\n           Tq. Umargaon, Dist. Valsad,\n                   \n      1-D) Miss. Alka Shashikant Lade,\n           Age 24 years,\n\n      1-E) Miss. Jayshree Shashikant Lade,\n           Age 22 years,\n        \n\n\n      1-F) Mr.Chetan Shashikant Lade,\n     \n\n\n\n           Age 20 years,\n\n           Appellants Nos. 1A, 1D to 1F\n           residents of Bakshsingh Chawl,\n           Chal No.1, Room No.1, Kurar Village,\n\n\n\n\n\n           Malad (East), Mumbai-400 097.     ...Petitioners.\n\n\n             Vs.\n\n\n\n\n\n      1.   Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal\n\n      2.   Harbhajansingh B. Ajimal,\n           (Heirs and Legal representatives\n           of deceased Bakshishsingh B. Ajimal,\n           13, Pushpa Park, 1st Road,\n           Malad (East),\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:15:47 :::\n                                            ( 2 )\n\n\n\n\n             Bombay - 400 097.                               ...Respondents.\n                                                            (Heirs of Orig.\n                                                             Plaintiff).\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n     Mr.P.J.Thorat a\/w Mr.V.A.Thorat a\/w.                    Mr.R.A.Thorat\n     for the Petitioners.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n     Mr.Harbhajansingh B.                Ajimal, Respondent No.2, in\n     person, present.\n\n\n                                    CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n                                    DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2009.\n\n\n     JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>                  The     Petitioners who are legal heirs of Original<\/p>\n<p>     Tenant,<\/p>\n<p>                    have challenged the impugned Judgment and Order<\/p>\n<p>     whereby the Appellate Court by reversing the trial Court<\/p>\n<p>     Judgment and Order, granted decree of eviction in favour<\/p>\n<p>     of      the     Respondent&#8217;s           legal   heirs      of     the      original<\/p>\n<p>     landlord.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.      The reasoning given by the Appellate Court is based<\/p>\n<p>     upon     the       material         available on record         including          the<\/p>\n<p>     evidence        which         need no interference, as the              Appellate<\/p>\n<p>     Court        right       in    holding that the Original             tenant        was<\/p>\n<p>     defaulter          and     not ready and willing to pay                the     rent,<\/p>\n<p>     though        demanded by a statutory notice dated 1st                        April,<\/p>\n<p>     1976.         The trial Court was wrong in holding that                        there<\/p>\n<p>     was no proper service of the notice, though held that he<\/p>\n<p>     was     in     arrears         of    rent of   suit    premises         from       1st<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                       ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:15:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n                                             ( 3 )<\/p>\n<p>     October,        1975.          The Respondents \/ Landlords                   had     sent<\/p>\n<p>     notices        including         of his advocate.           The      notices         were<\/p>\n<p>     sent     by registered post acknowledgement due and a                                copy<\/p>\n<p>     was     sent under certificate of posting also, apart                                from<\/p>\n<p>     ordinary        post.      The notice was also pasted on the outer<\/p>\n<p>     door     of     the       suit      premises.        The        registered         packet<\/p>\n<p>     received back with the postal remark &#8220;not claimed&#8221;.                                    All<\/p>\n<p>     those     notices and postal endorsements are also part                                  of<\/p>\n<p>     the record and exhibited collectively.                           The Respondents-\n<\/p>\n<p>     Landlords,          therefore, had taken all possible steps                            and<\/p>\n<p>     methods<\/p>\n<p>     circumstances,<br \/>\n                    to<\/p>\n<p>                           serve<\/p>\n<p>                               as<br \/>\n                                      the<\/p>\n<p>                                      there<br \/>\n                                                notice.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n                                                 is no\n                                                                In\n\n                                                           contrary\n                                                                       the    facts\n\n                                                                             material\n                                                                                            and\n\n                                                                                              on\n                          \n     record        except      mere denial, I am of the view                      that      the\n\n     notice        was duly served.             I have already taken such view\n\n     in      the     matter         of      same    Respondents          against         other\n      \n\n\n     similarly situated tenant.                    (Krishna Ramchandra Jadhav @\n   \n\n\n\n     Yadav    &amp;     Ors.       Vs.       Smt.    Shankari B.          Ajimal,        2005(4)\n\n     ALL    MR     185).\n                   185)         On       this      aspect,      there        is    no     much\n\n     difference           in    the       present      case.           The        Judgment,\n\n\n\n\n\n     therefore,          relied by the learned counsel appearing                            for\n\n     the    Petitioners in Parvatibai Maruti Hande Vs.                                 Satish\n\n     Mohanram Prajapati,\n<\/pre>\n<p>              Prajapati 2002 (Supp.) Bom.C.R.522 and Lalmani<\/p>\n<p>     Ramnath       Tiwari       Vs.       Bhimrao         Govind       Pawar,        2001(2)<\/p>\n<p>     Mh.L.J.        342, have no merit because of its distinct and<\/p>\n<p>     distinguishable            facts       itself.       In the present case,                  I<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:15:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n                                            ( 4 )<\/p>\n<p>     see     there        is no reason to interfere with the                       Judgment<\/p>\n<p>     and     Order        passed by the Appellate Court whereby it                            is<\/p>\n<p>     held     that        the     notice     is duly served.              There        is     no<\/p>\n<p>     perversity or illegality in deciding the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>     3.     Having once held that the notice was duly served and<\/p>\n<p>     as     admittedly           the   Petitioners \/ Tenant not                  paid       the<\/p>\n<p>     arrears       and         never intended to pay the same inspite                         of<\/p>\n<p>     service of notice and as there is no dispute with regard<\/p>\n<p>     to     the arrears of rent, the grant of decree of eviction<\/p>\n<p>     on     the<\/p>\n<p>     followed.<\/p>\n<pre>\n                   ground\n                           \n                          The\n                                  of   default and arrears\n\n                                  Appellate       Court, therefore,\n                                                                         of     rent\n\n                                                                                 right\n                                                                                            must\n\n                                                                                              in\n                          \n<\/pre>\n<p>     granting the said decree on that ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>     4.      The     Petitioners           failed    to prove          that      the        Suit<\/p>\n<p>     Premises        is        situated on the Government land and                      falls<\/p>\n<p>     within       the ambit of Maharashtra Slum Area                        (Improvement<\/p>\n<p>     Clearance            Redevelopment)          Act,      1971.         (for         short,<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;Maharashtra              Slum Area Act&#8221;).          The burden lies upon the<\/p>\n<p>     Petitioners           \/     tenants    to prove, if           they       wanted        the<\/p>\n<p>     protection,           of which in the present case they failed to<\/p>\n<p>     do     so.      There        is   evidence      of     a    witness         from        the<\/p>\n<p>     Competent        Authority        including certificate from                      Deputy<\/p>\n<p>     Collector,           Encroachment       to     show        that      C.T.S.            No.<\/p>\n<p>     354\/103       to 106 are not covered under Section 4A of                               the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:15:47 :::<\/span><br \/>\n                                          ( 5 )<\/p>\n<p>     Maharashtra Slum Area Act and therefore, the premises in<\/p>\n<p>     question is not entitled for any protection as prayed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     5.     Taking       all     this into account, I see there                   is      no<\/p>\n<p>     reason to interfere with the impugned Order of decree of<\/p>\n<p>     eviction      as        passed.      The     Petition      is,        therefore,<\/p>\n<p>     dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     6.     The stay of decree of possession as granted by this<\/p>\n<p>     Court is also stand vacated.                Rule discharged.             No order<\/p>\n<p>     as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>     7.     The    learned counsel appearing for the                     Petitioners<\/p>\n<p>     seek   stay        of     this     judgment for eight          weeks.           I    am<\/p>\n<p>     inclined      to        grant     the same on the       condition          of       not<\/p>\n<p>     creating      any       third     party     right or     interest          in       the<\/p>\n<p>     property and to deposit arrears of rent, if any.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                   (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                      ::: Downloaded on &#8211; 09\/06\/2013 14:15:47 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court -C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009 Bench: Anoop V.Mohta ssm sm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3297 OF 1993 Shashikant Narottam Lade, (Since deceased through his L.Rs.) 1-A) Smt. Sheela Shashikant Lade, Age 45 years. [&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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217061","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-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>-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009 - 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\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-07T07:04:23+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-07T07:04:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":598,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009\",\"name\":\"-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-07T07:04:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009 - 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\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-07T07:04:23+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-07T07:04:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009"},"wordCount":598,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009","name":"-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-07T07:04:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mrs-bhavna-mukesh-prajapati-vs-smt-shankari-b-ajimal-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"-C) Mrs. Bhavna Mukesh Prajapati vs Smt. Shankari B. Ajimal on 20 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/217061","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=217061"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217061\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217061"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217061"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217061"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}