{"id":228985,"date":"2011-07-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-08-20T07:53:21","modified_gmt":"2018-08-20T02:23:21","slug":"gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
     1407wp3182.11.odt                                                                                1\/6\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                          \n                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                                 WRIT PETITION NO.3182\/2011\n\n     PETITIONERS :-                 Gaimukh Deosthan.  A Private Trust,\n                                    Through its Occupants\/Manager,\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n                                    1. Shri Manoharprasad Raghuvirprasad Pande,\n                                       aged about 76 years, \n                                       Occupation : Agriculturist,\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n                                       Resident of Pandey Layout, \n                                       Nagpur. \n                          ig        2. Shri Mukeshprasad S\/o Ishwariprasad Pande,\n                                       Aged about 52 years,\n                                       Occupation: Agriculturist,\n                        \n                                       R\/o. Sanjeevan Apartment,\n                                       Shankarnagar, Nagpur. \n\n                                               ...VERSUS... \n      \n\n\n     RESPONDENT :-                  1. Yogesh S\/o Ishwarprasad Pande,\n                                       Aged about 58 years,\n   \n\n\n\n                                       Occupation: Business,\n\n                                    2. Mrs. Meena W\/o Yogesh Pande,\n                                       Aged about 55 years,\n\n\n\n\n\n                                       Occupation: Household, \n\n                                    3. Akshay S\/o Yogesh Pande,\n                                       Aged 31 years,\n                                       Occupation: Business,\n\n\n\n\n\n                                         All resident of Buty Chawl,\n                                         Sitabuldi, Nagpur. \n\n     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
                     Shri P. V. Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioners.
\n                 Shri Ramesh Darda, learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     —————————————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:26 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      1407wp3182.11.odt                                                                        2\/6\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n                                              CORAM : R. M. SAVANT J.\n                                              DATED  : 14.07.2011 \n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     O R A L    J U D G M E N T\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \n     1)      Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and \n\n     heard. \n\n\n\n\n                                           \n     2)      This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of \n                       \n<\/pre>\n
     India   takes   exception   to   the   order   dated   19\/03\/2011   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
     learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, by which order the <\/p>\n
     application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioners came to <\/p>\n
     be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     3)      The facts involved in the above petition in brief can be stated thus –\n<\/p>\n
             The   petitioner-Trust   was   created   by   one   Ganpatrao   Pande.     The <\/p>\n
     petitioner-Trust   was   having   its   properties   at   several   places   the   said <\/p>\n
     properties included the property known as Ganesh Bhuvan, Civil Lines, <\/p>\n
     Nagpur.   It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents herein are <\/p>\n
     not at all concerned with the said property, Ganesh Bhuvan.  It is further <\/p>\n
     the   case   of   the   petitioners   that   the   respondents   entered   into   the   said <\/p>\n
     premises of  Ganesh  Bhuvan and took forcible  possession of an area of <\/p>\n
     3000   sq.ft.   on   05\/05\/2004.     This   resulted   in,   the   plaintiffs-petitioners <\/p>\n
     filed Special Civil Suit No.777\/2004 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:26 :::<\/span>
\n      1407wp3182.11.odt                                                                         3\/6<\/p>\n
     Act.   It is the case of the plaintiffs that though the suit has been filed <\/p>\n
     under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, through inadvertence the prayer <\/p>\n
     for   restoration   of   possession   and   removal   of   illegal   construction   and <\/p>\n
     encroachment remained to be made.  It is further the case of the plaintiffs <\/p>\n
     that the defendants considering that it was a suit under Section 6 of the <\/p>\n
     Specific Relief Act and therefore, being also one for possession, filed the <\/p>\n
     written statement accordingly.  In the said suit the plaintiffs filed affidavit <\/p>\n
     on evidence and further examination-in-chief on behalf of the plaintiffs <\/p>\n
     was   also   recorded.     It   appears   that   the   respondents   herein   moved   an <\/p>\n
     application   for   dismissal   of   the   suit   on   the   ground   that   there   was   no <\/p>\n
     prayer   for   possession   in   the   suit   and,   therefore,   the   suit   filed   under <\/p>\n
     Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act was not maintainable.  The petitioners <\/p>\n
     thereafter on 16th October, 2010 moved an application for amendment of <\/p>\n
     the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
     4)      As indicated above, the trial Court has rejected the said application <\/p>\n
     by the impugned order dated 19\/03\/2011.  The sum and substance of the <\/p>\n
     reasons cited by the trial Court is that in moving the said application for <\/p>\n
     amendment, there was considerable delay and since the suit is fixed for <\/p>\n
     hearing, the said amendment could not be allowed.  The trial Court also <\/p>\n
     held that the amendment now sought to be introduced could not be said <\/p>\n
     to be on the basis of subsequent events which had taken place.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:26 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      1407wp3182.11.odt                                                                            4\/6\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n     5)      Heard the learned counsel for the parties. \n\n<\/pre>\n
             Learned counsel for the petitioners  Shri Vaidya contended that it is <\/p>\n
     through sheer inadvertence that the prayer for possession remained to be <\/p>\n
     incorporated in the plaint, though the suit is one filed under Section 6 of <\/p>\n
     the   Specific   Relief   Act.     It   is     further   sought   to   be   contended   by   Shri <\/p>\n
     Vaidya that since the defendants are aware that the suit is one filed under <\/p>\n
     Section   6   of   the   Specific   Relief   Act,   the   incorporation   of   a   prayer   for <\/p>\n
     possession would cause them no prejudice and would make no material <\/p>\n
     difference as they have already filed their written statement dealing with <\/p>\n
     the said aspect.\n<\/p>\n
             Per   contra,   the   order   passed   by   the   trial   Court   is   supported   by <\/p>\n
     Shri   Darda,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   Nos.1   to   3   on  the <\/p>\n
     ground that the prayer for possession, if now allowed to be introduced, <\/p>\n
     would be barred by limitation and, therefore, the prayer, which is barred <\/p>\n
     by limitation, cannot be permitted.\n<\/p>\n
             It is further submitted by Shri Darda that in an Appeal from Order, <\/p>\n
     this Court by order dated 6th April, 2010 has protected the possession of <\/p>\n
     the respondents herein in respect of an area of 7000 sq.ft. and lastly Shri <\/p>\n
     Darda contended that the issue of limitation which the respondents want <\/p>\n
     to urge in respect of the suit, as originally filed by the petitioners, would <\/p>\n
     be taken away.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:26 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
      1407wp3182.11.odt                                                                               5\/6\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n     CONSIDERATION :\n\n     6)       It is required to be noted that the suit filed by the petitioners is on \n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n<\/pre>\n
     the basis of a forcible possession allegedly taken by the respondents on <\/p>\n
     05\/05\/2004.     The   suit,   therefore,   being   one   under   Section   6   of   the <\/p>\n
     Specific   Relief   Act,   it   is   intrinsic   to   such   a   suit   that   the   possession   be <\/p>\n
     restored to the plaintiff, if he succeeds in proving that there was a forcible <\/p>\n
     dispossession.   Therefore,   the   contention  of   the   learned   counsel  for   the <\/p>\n
     petitioners Shri Vaidya, viz. it is crucial inadvertence that the said prayer <\/p>\n
     for possession was not made, though the suit is one filed under Section 6 <\/p>\n
     of the Specific Relief Act, therefore, deserves acceptance.  In so far as the <\/p>\n
     contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, it <\/p>\n
     would always be open for the respondents to urge the issue of limitation <\/p>\n
     and merely because the amendment application is allowed, the said right <\/p>\n
     of the respondents cannot be said to be taken away.  It is well settled by <\/p>\n
     the catena of judgments of this Court and the Apex Court that the Court <\/p>\n
     should be liberal in allowing the amendment, more so when they would <\/p>\n
     result in a just decision of a case.\n<\/p>\n
     7)       In my view, the application for amendment so as to introduce a <\/p>\n
     prayer for possession is necessary for a just decision in the said suit.  As <\/p>\n
     otherwise if the said prayer is not introduced, it would not finally and <\/p>\n
     effectively determine the controversy between the parties.  In that view of <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:26 :::<\/span>
\n      1407wp3182.11.odt                                                                       6\/6<\/p>\n
     the matter, the above petition is required to be allowed and accordingly <\/p>\n
     allowed.  Resultantly the impugned order dated 19\/03\/2011 is set aside <\/p>\n
     and the amendment application Exhibit-83 is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
     8)       The   respondents   would   be   at   liberty   to   file   additional   written <\/p>\n
     statement, if so advised consequent to the amendment.\n<\/p>\n
     9)       Rule   is   accordingly   made   absolute   in   the   aforesaid   terms   with <\/p>\n
     parties to bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            JUDGE <\/p>\n
     KHUNTE<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:30:26 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 July, 2011 Bench: R. M. Savant 1407wp3182.11.odt 1\/6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3182\/2011 PETITIONERS :- Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust, Through its Occupants\/Manager, 1. Shri Manoharprasad Raghuvirprasad Pande, aged about 76 years, Occupation : […]<\/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-228985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 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\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-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=\"2011-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-20T02:23:21+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-20T02:23:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":966,\"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\\\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-20T02:23:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 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":"Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 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\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-20T02:23:21+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-20T02:23:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011"},"wordCount":966,"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\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011","name":"Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-20T02:23:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gaimukh-deosthan-a-private-trust-vs-yogesh-on-14-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gaimukh Deosthan. A Private Trust vs Yogesh on 14 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\/228985","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=228985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228985\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}