{"id":220901,"date":"2011-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011"},"modified":"2015-08-20T08:15:48","modified_gmt":"2015-08-20T02:45:48","slug":"mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Mamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSA\/198\/1996\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \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. 198 of 1996\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nMAMLATDAR\n& 1 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKISHOR\nVALLABH - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nJANAK RAVAL AGP for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR YOGESH S LAKHANI for\nDefendant(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 KS JHAVERI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 07\/07\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tIdentical
\nissue was involved in another appeal being Second Appeal No.47\/1997,
\nwhich came to be disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order
\ndated 22.04.1997. The said judgment reads as under;\n<\/p>\n
    “This  Second  Appeal which
\nis filed under section
\n       100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 has  arisen  from
\n      the  suit  brought by the respondent for declaration that
\n      the orders passed by Mamlatdar, Ranavav on March  10,1981
\n      and  March  30,1981  as  well  as order passed by Gujarat
\n      Revenue Tribunal on July 2,1985  are  void,  illegal  and
\n      without   jurisdiction   and   for  perpetual  injunction
\n      restraining the  defendants  from  interfering  with  his
\n      possession of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
      2.\t   Survey no.219, admeasuring 4 acres is situated at
\n      village Dharampur,  Taluka  :     Ranavav,   District   :
\n      Junagadh.  The  land was hilly, rocky and uneven.  It was
\n      the case of the respondent that he was in  possession  of
\n      the  suit land for a period of more than 30 years and had
\n      spent a huge amount to improve the land.    According  to
\n      the  respondent,  he  had dug a well on the suit land and
\n      had also grown fruit-bearing  trees  as  well  as  flower
\n      trees on   the   land.    The  Mamlatdar,Ranavav  started
\n      proceedings for evicting the  respondent  from  the  suit
\n      land.   He  passed  orders  on  March  10,1981  and March
\n      30,1981 directing the respondent to  remove  encroachment
\n      made by him over the suit land.  Against the said orders,
\n      respondent  preferred  an appeal before Revenue Tribunal,
\n      but the  same  was  dismissed  on  July  2,1985.      The
\n      respondent  thereupon served a notice under section 80 of
\n      the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 and filed Regular  Civil
\n      Suit no.    198\/86  in  the  Court of learned Civil Judge
\n      (S.D.) at  Porbandar  claiming  a  declaration  that  the
\n      orders  passed by the Mamlatdar, Ranavav on March 10,1981
\n      and March 30,1981 as well as order passed by the  Gujarat
\n      Revenue  Tribunal  on  July  2,1985 were illegal, without
\n      jurisdiction  and  against  the  principles  of   natural
\n      justice.   He  also  prayed to grant perpetual injunction
\n      retraining the appellants from dispossessing him from the
\n      suit land and from interfering with his possession of the
\n      suit land.\n<\/p>\n
      3.\t   Appellant  no.1  contested suit by filing written
\n      statement at exh.13;  whereas  appellant  no.2  contested
\n      suit by   filing   written  statement  at  exh.29.    The
\n      appellants  in  their   respective   written   statements
\n      contended  that  as the State Government was owner of the
\n      land, suit filed by the respondent was not  maintainable.
\n      It  was  averred  therein  that  the respondent had taken
\n      possession of the suit land only in the year 1976-77 and,
\n      therefore, the respondent had not  become  owner  of  the
\n      land by  adverse  possession.    What  was claimed in the
\n      written statement was that on  preliminary  investigation
\n      it was found that the respondent had illegally encroached
\n      upon the disputed land and, therefore, orders dated March
\n      10,1981   and  March  30,1981  were  passed  against  the
\n      respondent calling upon him to remove  encroachment  made
\n      by him unauthorisedly over the suit land.  It was pleaded
\n      in   the   written  statement  that  suit  filed  by  the
\n      respondent  was  barred  by  the  period  of   limitation
\n      prescribed by  law.    By  filing written statements, the
\n      appellants demanded dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
      4.\t   Having regard to the pleadings of parties,  Trial
\n      Court framed  8  issues  for  determination.  In order to
\n      prove  his  case,  the  respondent  examined  himself  at
\n      exh.30.   He  also examined Nathabhai Samatbhai at exh.36
\n      and Malde Karna at exh.38 in support of his case  pleaded
\n      in the  plaint.   On behalf of the appellants, Rameshbhai
\n      Rambhai Maghera, Governemnt Circle Inspector  discharging
\n      duties  in  the Office of Mamlatdar, Ranavav was examined
\n      at exh.40.        Jerambhai    Harshadbhai    who     was
\n      Talati-cum-Mantri  of village Dharampur was also examined
\n      at exh.41 by  the  appellants  in  support  of  the  case
\n      pleaded in  the  written  statements.    The parties also
\n      produced  documentary  evidence  in  support   of   their
\n      respective claims.    On  appreciation of evidence led by
\n      the parties, Trial Court held that the respondent  proved
\n      that he was cultivating and was in possession of the suit
\n      land since  more  than  30  years.  It was deduced by the
\n      Trial Court that  the  order  passed  by  the  Mamlatdar,
\n      Ranavav and the order passed by the Revenue Tribunal were
\n      illegal,  ultra  vires  and  against  the  principles  of
\n      natural justice.  The  Trial  Court  negatived  the  plea
\n      raised  by  the appellants that the suit was liable to be
\n      defeated for non-joinder of necessary parties.  The Trial
\n      Court did  not  uphold  the  contentions  raised  by  the
\n      appellants   that  the  suit  was  barred  by  period  of
\n      limitation.  Ultimately, the Trial Court  concluded  that
\n      the  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  have  declaration  and
\n      injunction as prayed for.  In view of these  conclusions,
\n      Trial  Court decreed the suit by judgment and order dated
\n      May 2,1992.\n<\/p>\n
      5.\t   Feeling  aggrieved  by  the   above-referred   to
\n      decree,the  appellants preferred Regular Civil Appeal no.
\n      33\/92  in  the  Court  of  learned  Assistant  Judge   at
\n      Porbandar.    The   learned  Assistant  Judge,  Porbandar
\n      dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated December
\n      28,1993, giving rise to the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      6.\t   Miss   Kuberaben  Valikarimvala,  learned  A.G.P.
\n      contended  that  the  respondent  had  not  adduced   any
\n      evidence that he was cultivating and was in possession of
\n      the  suit  land  for  a  period of more than 30 years and
\n      therefore, second appeal should be entertained.   It  was
\n      argued  that  two  orders  of  Mamlatdar as well as order
\n      passed by the Tribunal were  neither  illegal  nor  ultra
\n      vires  nor against the principles of natural justice and,
\n      therefore, the declaration and injunction as  prayed  for
\n      should not  have  been granted by the Courts below.  What
\n      was emphasised by the learned Counsel for the  appellants
\n      was that the respondent was in unauthorised possession of
\n      the  land in question and had no right to retain the same
\n      and, therefore, the declaration  as  well  as  injunction
\n      granted  by  the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
\n      It was also emphasised that  suit  could  not  have  been
\n      decreed  by  the Courts below, as it was barred by period
\n      of limitation.\n<\/p>\n
      7.\t   In  my  view,there  is no substance in any of the
\n      contentions raised on behalf of the  appellants  and  the
\n      second appeal  cannot  be entertained.  It is an admitted
\n      fact that the respondent has no title over the suit land.
\n      According to him, he is in possession of  the  suit  land
\n      for  more  than  30  years  and on expiry of period of 30
\n      years had become owner of the same by adverse possession.
\n      The claim of the appellants on the other hand is that the
\n      respondent had taken illegal possession of the suit  land
\n      in  the  year 1976-77 and, therefore, was not entitled to
\n      claim title over the suit land on the ground  of  adverse
\n      possession.   The clinching evidence on the record of the
\n      case establishes that  the  land  was  hilly,  rocky  and
\n      uneven.   It is also an admitted fact that the respondent
\n      had spent a huge amount for improving the land and making
\n      it cultivable.  The fact that the respondent had dug well
\n      over the suit land or that  he  had  grown  fruit-bearing
\n      trees  or flower trees on the suit land is not in dispute
\n      in the present appeal.   In  order  to  substantiate  his
\n      claim  that  he  was in possession of the land in quetion
\n      for a period  of  more  than  30  years,  the  respondent
\n      examined himself at exh.30.  In his deposition on oath he
\n      has  clearly stated that he was in possession of the land
\n      in question for a period of more than 30  years  and  had
\n      dug well,  grown  fruit  bearing trees etc.  on the land.
\n      Though he was cross-examined at length, nothing has  been
\n      brought on record to discredit his version that he was in
\n      possession  of  the land in question for a period of more
\n      than 30  years.    Apart  from  his  own  evidence,   the
\n      respondent  also  led  evidence of Nathabhai Samatbhai at
\n      exh.36.   This  witness   has   got   agricultural   land
\n      admeasuring  20  acres at village Dharampur just adjacent
\n      to the land which is in  possession  of  the  respondent.
\n      This  witness has also asserted before the Court that the
\n      respondent is in possession of the disputed land  for  30
\n      to  40 years and had developed the same by incurring huge
\n      expenditure.  The witnesss has  given  particulars  about
\n      the   fruit-bearing   trees   which  were  grown  by  the
\n      respondent on  the  suit  land.    The  respondent   also
\n      examined another  witness  i.e.  Malde Karna at exh.38 in
\n      support of his case.  This witness also asserted  in  his
\n      evidence  that  the  respondent  was in possession of the
\n      suit land for a period of more than 35 to 40 years.   The
\n      witness  has  stated  that the land in question was waste
\n      land full of rocks, but the respondent had  improved  the
\n      same  by spending huge amount and had made it cultivable.
\n      Though the witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent
\n      are cross-examined by the appellants,  nothing  has  been
\n      elicited  during  cross-examination  to  discredit  their
\n      assertion made on oath.\n<\/p>\n
      8.\t   The appellants on the  other  hand  had  examined
\n      Rameshbhai Rambhai at exh.40 and Jerambhai Harshadbhai at
\n      exh.41  to  establish  their case that the respondent had
\n      taken illegal possession of the land in question  in  the
\n      year 1976-77.    From the evidence of Rameshbhai Maghera,
\n      it is evident that at the relevant time he was serving as
\n      Revenue Circle Inspector  in  the  Office  of  Mamlatdar,
\n      Ranavav.   There  is no manner of doubt that he had given
\n      deposition on the strength of record of the case and  had
\n      no  personal  knowledge  pertaining  to land in question.
\n      This witness had produced two orders dated March  10,1981
\n      and March 30,1981 passed by Mamlatdar, Ranavav asking the
\n      respondent  to  remove  encroachment made by him over the
\n      suit land.  In cross-examination by the respondent,  this
\n      witness  admitted  that he had joined service in the year
\n      1983 and knew nothing as to when the  respondent  was  in
\n      possession of  the  suit land.  The witnesses admitted in
\n      his  deposition  that  except  office  record,he  had  no
\n      personal   knowledge   about  the  case  pleaded  by  the
\n      respondent  and  statement  that   the   respondent   had
\n      illegally  taken  possession of the suit land in the year
\n      1976-77 was made because of the contents  of  two  orders
\n      passed by   Mamlatdar,  Ranavav.    Again,  the  evidence
\n      tendered by Jerambhai Harshadbhai at exh.41 shows that he
\n      was  Talati-cum-Mantri   of   village   Dharampur   since
\n      December, 1991.    This  witness  also  admitted  in  his
\n      deposition that he had no personal  knowledge  about  the
\n      contents  of  orders  passed by Mamlatdar, Ranavav asking
\n      the respondent to remove encroachment made over the  suit
\n      land.   There is no manner of doubt that this witness has
\n      given deposition on the strength of entries made  in  the
\n      revenue record and had no personal knowledge at all.\n<\/p>\n
      9.\t   On  appreciation   of   evidence   led   by   the
\n      parties,the   fact   finding  courts  have  come  to  the
\n      conclusion that the respondent was in possession  of  the
\n      suit land  for  a  period  of  more than 30 years.  While
\n      recording  the  finding  that  the  respondent   was   in
\n      possession  of the suit land for a period of more than 30
\n      years both the Courts have relied  on  testimony  of  the
\n      witnesses  examined  by the respondent who had first hand
\n      information pertaining to the  suit  land.    Though  the
\n      Mamlatdar,   Ranavav   had   passed   orders  asking  the
\n      respondent to remove encroachment on the footing that the
\n      respondent had encroached upon the land illegally in  the
\n      year 1976-77.  Jerambhai Harshadbhai, who was examined by
\n      the  appellants  at  exh.41  has stated in his deposition
\n      that the respondent had made encroachment over  the  suit
\n      land before  two  years.    As  noticed  earlier,  he was
\n      appointed in the year 1983 and if his case is believed to
\n      be true, then two orders  passed  by  Mamlatdar,  Ranavav
\n      would  lose all their sanctity because encroachment would
\n      be in the year 1981  and  not  in  the  year  1976-77  as
\n      claimed by  the appellants.  In view of Village Form no.7
\n      & 12 relating  to  survey  no.219  of  village  Dharampur
\n      produced  at  exhs.43 & 44, fact finding courts have held
\n      that State Government was not in possession of  the  land
\n      and  even  as  per the village record land was given on a
\n      Patta of 25 years from 1951-52 to Porbandar Municipality.
\n      This belies the claim of the appellants  that  the  State
\n      Government was  in  possession  of  the  suit  land.   By
\n      applying the test of preponderance of probabilities,  the
\n      first  appellat  Court,whic  is  final court of facts has
\n      held that the respondent succeeded in  establishing  that
\n      he  was in possession of land in question for a period of
\n      more than 30 years and no  error  was  committed  by  the
\n      Trial Court in holding that the respondent proved that he
\n      was  in  possession of the disputed land for more than 30
\n      years.   The  Supreme  Court  time  out  of  number   has
\n      emphasised that it is not for the High Court reappreciate
\n      evidence  while  hearing  second appeal and to substitute
\n      findings recorded by fact finding  Courts.    It  is  not
\n      brought  to  the notice of the Court that while recording
\n      the finding that respondent  was  in  possession  of  the
\n      disputed property for a period of more than 30 years, any
\n      evidence  led  by  the  appellants  is  either ignored or
\n      misconstrued by the Courts below.  The  question  whether
\n      the  respondent was\/is in possession of the suit land for
\n      a period of more than 30 years or not  is  essentially  a
\n      question  of  fact and not of law much less a substantial
\n      question of law.  As the finding that the  respondent  is
\n      in  possession of the suit land for a period of more than
\n      30 years is based on proper appreciation of evidence, the
\n      same is hereby upheld.\n<\/p>\n
      10.\t   The next question which requires determination is
\n      whether  the  respondent became owner of the suit land by
\n      adverse possession on expiry of period of 30 years.   The
\n      evidence  of  the  respondent clearly establishes that he
\n      had dug well on the suit land and had grown fruit-bearing
\n      trees as  well  as  flower  trees.    His  evidence  also
\n      indicates  that  the  land which was hilly and uneven was
\n      improved by him by incurring huge expenditure and it  was
\n      made cultivable.  The assertion of the respondent that he
\n      had  dug well on the suit land or had grown fruit-bearing
\n      trees on the suit land or  that  he  had  made  the  land
\n      cultivable   after   spending   huge   amount   is  amply
\n      corroborated by the evidence of two  witnesses  who  have
\n      been examined by  him  at exhs.36 & 38.  Mr.  J.S.Parmar,
\n      Talati-cum-Mantri  of  Dharampur   Gram   Panchayat   had
\n      prepared a  rojkam  on  February  21,1991.   The original
\n      rojkam is produced on the record of the case  at  exh.34.
\n      In  the  rojkam it is mentioned that land was a hilly one
\n      and the respondent had spent a huge amount  and  improved
\n      the same.     It  is  also  mentioned  therein  that  the
\n      respondent had dug a well on the suit land and had  grown
\n      fruit-bearing  trees  in  an  area  admeasuring  4 acres.
\n      Exh.34  indicates  that  Talati-cum-Mantri  had  prepared
\n      rojkam in  presence  of  four  independent  panchas.  The
\n      rojkam  prepared  by   Talati-cum-Mantri   also   clearly
\n      establishes  that  substantial  acts  were  done  by  the
\n      respondent to the knowledge  of  officers  of  the  State
\n      Government  indicating  that  he was in possession of the
\n      land openly, peacefuly and without interruption from  any
\n      one.   Adverse  possession  as  the  words  imply,must be
\n      actual possession of another’s  land  with  intention  to
\n      hold it  and  claim it as his own.  It must commence with
\n      the wrongful dispossession of the rightful owner at  some
\n      particular time.    It must commence in wrong and must be
\n      maintained against  right.    It  must  be   actual,open,
\n      notorious  hostile  under claim of right, continuous, and
\n      exclusive and maintained for the statutory period.   Mere
\n      possession,  however  long does not necessarily mean that
\n      it is adverse to the  true  owner.    Adverse  possession
\n      really  means  a hostile possession which is expressly or
\n      impliedly in denial of the title of the true  owner,  and
\n      in  order to constitute adverse possession,the possession
\n      proved must be adequate in continuity, in  publicity  and
\n      in  extent  so  as to show that it is adverse to the true
\n      owner.  Having regard to the substantial acts done by the
\n      respondent with reference to disputed land, there  is  no
\n      manner  of doubt that the respondent was holding the land
\n      on his own behalf.  The  possession  had  commenced  with
\n      wrongful dispossession  of  the  rightful  owner.  It was
\n      actual, open, notorious, hostile under  claim  of  right,
\n      continuous and exclusive and maintained for the statutory
\n      period.   The  hostile possession was expressly in denial
\n      of the title of the State Government.   It  was  possible
\n      for  the  appellants  to  use  the  land and exercise due
\n      diligence by taking action to oust the adverse possessor.
\n      However, inspite of several substantial acts having  been
\n      done by the respondent openly and notoriously, no attempt
\n      at any point of time was made by the appellants to remove
\n      the respondent from the possession of the suit land.  The
\n      possession  of  the  respondent was overt and without any
\n      attempt of concealment.  When he dug  well  on  the  suit
\n      land  and grew fruit-bearing trees and flower trees , his
\n      intention was to claim exclusive title to  the  property.
\n      Therefore,  the  finding recorded by both the Courts that
\n      the respondent has become owner of the land  in  question
\n      by adverse possession cannot be termed as erroneous so as
\n      to  warrant  interference  of  the  Court  in the present
\n      appeal.  In the case of Nair Service Society  Ltd.    vs.
\n      K.C.Alexander and others<\/a>,  A.I.R.    1968  S.C.  1165 the
\n      respondent had filed suit for  possession  of  properties
\n      mentioned in   the  plaint.    The  defendant  which  was
\n      appellant before Supreme Court contended that plaintiff’s
\n      lands  were  Government   Reserve   and   plaintiff   was
\n      dispossessed by  Government  from  those lands.  Suit was
\n      partly decreed by the Trial Court.  High  Court  reversed
\n      the  decree  of  the  Trial  Court and decreed it against
\n      appellant.  While interpreting Articles 64 &  65  of  the
\n      Limitation  Act,1963, the Supreme Court has held as under
\n      :-\n<\/p>\n
       \t   “A  person  in  possession  of  land  in  assumed
\n              character  of  owner and exercising peaceably the
\n              ordinary rights of ownership has a perfectly good
\n              title against all  the  world  but  the  rightful
\n              owner.   And  if the rightful owner does not come
\n              forward and assert his title by  the  process  of
\n              law   within   the   period   prescribed  by  the
\n              provisions   of   the   statute   of   limitation
\n              applicable  to  the  case,  his right is for ever
\n              extinguished and the possessory owner acquires an
\n              absolute title.  In the event of  disturbance  of
\n              possession  by  a  third party and not the owner,
\n              the plaintiff  can  maintain  a  possessory  suit
\n              under  the  provisions  of Specific Relief Act in
\n              which title would be immaterial  or  a  suit  for
\n              possession  within 12 years in which the question
\n              of title could be raised.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      11.\t   In my view, the principle  laid  down  by
\n      the  Supreme  Court in the above quoted decision squarely
\n      applies to the facts of the present case.  The respondent
\n      was  in  possession  of  land  in  question  in   assumed
\n      character of  owner.  He exercised peaceably the ordinary
\n      rights of ownership,but the rightful owner  i.e.    State
\n      did  not come forward and assert its title by the process
\n      of law within the period prescribed by the provisions  of
\n      statute of  limitation.  Under the circumstances, rightof
\n      the State is forever extinguished and the respondent  who
\n      was\/is  in  possession  of  the  land,  has  acquired  an
\n      absolute title to the land.  As the respondent has become
\n      owner by adverse  possession,  Second  Appeal  cannot  be
\n      entertained.\n<\/p>\n
      12.\t   Again,  so  far   as   two   orders   passed   by
\n      Mamlatdar,Ranavav and the order passed by Gujarat Revenue
\n      Tribunal  are  concerned,  it  is relevant to notice that
\n      those  orders  were  passed  on  the  footing  that   the
\n      respondent  had  made  encroachment over the suit land in
\n      the year 1976-77, which is not found  to  be  correct  at
\n      all.   Accordingly,  when  the proceedings were initiated
\n      against the respondent for removal of encroachment, State
\n      Government was not owner of the property in  question  at
\n      all  and,  therefore,  no  proceedings  could  have  been
\n      initiated for removal of encroachment.  The  Trial  Court
\n      as  well  as first appellate Court have rightly concluded
\n      that the orders passed by the Mamlatdar as well as by the
\n      Gujarat Revenue Tribunal are null, void and  illegal  and
\n      no  case  is  made  out  for  interfering  with  the said
\n      conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
      13.\t   On  overall  view  of  the  matter,  I  am of the
\n      opinion that as correct conclusions have been arrived  at
\n      by  the  fact finding Courts, the Second Appeal cannot be
\n      entertained and is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tFor  the  foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and it \tis summarily dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
2.\tAgainst the aforesaid judgment, appeal being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.3978\/1998 came to be preferred before the Apex Court, which was rejected vide order dated 06.02.1998.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIn view of the above, this appeal will be governed by the principle laid down in Second Appeal No.47\/1997 disposed of on 22.04.1997. Hence, this appeal stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
[K.\n<\/p>\n
S. JHAVERI, J.]\t<\/p>\n
Pravin\/*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Mamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011 Author: Ks Jhaveri, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SA\/198\/1996 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 198 of 1996 ========================================================= MAMLATDAR & 1 – Appellant(s) Versus KISHOR VALLABH – Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JANAK RAVAL […]<\/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-220901","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011 - 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\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-20T02:45:48+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T02:45:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3410,\"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\\\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Mamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T02:45:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Mamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011 - 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\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-20T02:45:48+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T02:45:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011"},"wordCount":3410,"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\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011","name":"Mamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T02:45:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mamlatdar-vs-kishor-on-7-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mamlatdar vs Kishor on 7 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/220901","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=220901"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220901\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220901"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220901"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220901"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}