{"id":230768,"date":"2010-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-21T04:19:22","modified_gmt":"2018-06-20T22:49:22","slug":"allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Allarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Allarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/12664\/2009\t 7\/ 7\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 12664 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 12666 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nALLARAKHA\nHAJI SHAIKH - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMUKTABEN\nLALJIBHAI TAKODARA & 88 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nSP MAJMUDAR for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nNOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3,5 -\n7,10 - 16,18 - 19,19.2.1 - 20,23 - 26,29 - 31,35 - 37,39 - 42,44 -\n48,51 - 55,57 - 58,61 - 76,78 - 80,83 - 86,88 - 89. \nNOTICE\nUNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 4,8 - 9,17 - 18,20.2.2 - 22,27 - 28,32 -\n34, 38, 43,49 - 50, 56,59 - 60, 77, 82, 87, \nNOTICE SERVED BY DS\nfor Respondent(s) : 7, 10,23 - 26, 30,35 - 37,39 - 40, 42, 46,51 -\n55, 61, 65, 67, 70,80 - 81, 83,88 -\n89. \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 RAVI R.TRIPATHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 23\/04\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
\t\tThe
\npetitioners-original defendants are before this Court being aggrieved
\nby an order passed below Exh.125 in Regular Civil Suit No.476 of 2005
\n and order passed below Exh.90 in Regular Civil Suit No.525 of 2005,
\nwhereby the learned Judge allowed the application and ordered that
\n Documents referred in this application be given tentative
\nexhibit with an objection of other side, subject to prove the same in
\naccordance with settled provisions of Indian Evidence Act….\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe
\norders dated 29\/10\/2009 passed by the learned 7th
\nAdditional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in the above referred two
\nRegular Civil Suits, are challenged before this Court and it is
\nemphatically submitted that though the learned Judge has recorded in
\nparagraph No.5 and considered the judgment of the Hon’ble the Apex
\nCourt in the matter of Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of
\nGujarat reported in GLR 2001 (3) at Page No.2024 and more
\nparticularly the observations made by the Hon’ble the Apex Court in
\nparagraph No.13 and 15 which are quoted in the said paragraph,
\nrelevant part of which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 ….. When so recast, the
\npractice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an
\nobjection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the
\nadmissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial
\ncourt can make a note of such objection and mark the objected
\ndocument tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the
\nobjected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be
\ndecided at the last stage in the final judgment.  If the Court finds
\nat the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the
\nJudge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from
\nconsideration.   In the Court’s view there is no illegality in
\nadopting such a course.  (However the Court makes it
\nclear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a
\ndocument the Court has to decide the objection  before
\nproceeding further.)….  (emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tThe
\nlearned Judge has ordered to give ‘tentative exhibit’ to all the
\ndocuments mentioned in application Exh.125 and Exh.90.  The learned
\nAdvocate for the petitioner submitted that the documents pertain to
\nfour different transactions and for every transaction three documents
\nare sought to be produced by Exh.125. He submitted that the document
\nout of the three documents of each of those four transactions is a
\ncopy of the ‘registered sale-agreement’; whereas the second document
\nis the ‘receipt’ and the third document is the ‘allotment letter’.
\nThe learned Advocate submitted that so far as ‘receipt’ and
\n‘allotment letter’ are concerned they stand on a different footing,
\nbut so far as ‘registered sale-agreement’ is concerned, it is the
\ndocument to which the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble the Apex
\nCourt squarely apply. The defendant raised an objection qua these
\ndocuments that there is deficient stamp duty, and submitted that as
\nper law laid down by the Hon’ble the Apex Court, the Court has to
\ndecide the said objection, before proceeding further.  The learned
\nAdvocate submitted that to that extent the order is bad and is
\nrequired to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThe
\npetition was filed on 11\/11\/2009.  Notice was issued on 02\/12\/2009.
\nThe Court at the time of issuing notice has recorded in paragraph
\nNo.3 as under.\n<\/p>\n
 3.\t\tThe
\nlearned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned
\norder, whereby the tentative exhibit numbers are directed to be given
\nto the documents in question, without deciding the objections raised
\nby the petitioner regarding deficiency of stamp duty, is against the
\nsettled principles of law, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in
\n Bipin
\nShantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.
\n2001(3)GLR 2024.  The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn
\nthe attention of this Court to the observations of the Supreme Court
\nin Paragraph-14 of the above-mentioned judgment, wherein it has been
\nheld that if the objection relates to stamp duty of a document, the
\nCourt has to decide such objection first, before proceeding further.
\nIt is further submitted that this judgment of the Supreme Court has
\nnot been appreciated in its proper perspective, by the Court below,
\nwhile passing the impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
4.1\t\tThe
\nCourt had granted interim-relief whereby the proceeding of Regular
\nCivil Suit No.476 of 2005 came to be stayed and they continued to be
\nstayed till date. Thereafter, as the notices were not served to some
\nof the respondents on 03\/02\/2010 the Court ordered for issuance of
\nfresh notice.  Again on 03\/03\/2010 the Court granted permission to
\nfile Civil Application
\nfor praying for permission to serve the unserved respondent by
\n‘substituted service’.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tToday
\nalso the cause-list shows that Notice is served to respondents
\nNo.1-3,5-6,7,11-16,18,19-20\/B;\n<\/p>\n
whereas notice has remained unserved to respondents
\nNo.4,8-9,17,18\/A,20\/B-22,27-28; whereas the notice is served by
\nDirect Service to respondents No.7,10,23-26,30,35-37.  It is also
\nrecorded in the remarks column that respondent No.18\/A has sold house
\nas per the affidavit of Direct Service filed. Respondent No.20\/B, 21,
\n34, 32, 33, 22, 27, 17, 56, 38, 43, 9, 87, 4, 77, 49, 50, 82 have
\nopen plots and no houses are constructed yet as per affidavit of
\nDirect Service. This is with regard to Special Civil Application
\nNo.12664 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n
5.1\t\tSo
\nfar as Special Civil Application No.12666 of 2009 is concerned,
\nremarks column shows that notice unserved to respondents No.1 to 3,
\n5, 9 to 11, who were not found as per Bailiff’s Report.  It is also
\nmentioned in the cause-list that notice is unserved to respondents
\nNo.1 to 3, 5, 9 to 11.  It is also mentioned that notices are served
\nby affixing to respondents No.4, 7 and 8 and notice is served by
\nRegistered Post A.D. to respondent No.6.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tTaking
\ninto consideration the aforesaid details
\nabout the service of notice, issued by this Court and taking into
\nconsideration a fact that matter is covered by a decision of the
\nHon’ble the Apex Court and taking into consideration the fact that
\ndecision was not only referred to by the learned Judge but the
\nlearned Judge has taken note of the said, this Court is of the
\nopinion that an inadvertent mistake has crept in the operative part
\nof the order and therefore the order passed below Exh.125 in Regular
\nCivil Suit No.476 of 2005 challenged in Special Civil Application
\nNo.12664 of 2009, as well as, order passed below Exh.90 in Regular
\nCivil Suit No.525 of 2005 challenged in Special Civil Application
\nNo.12666 of 2009 are required to be quashed to that extent. It is
\naccordingly quashed. The documents which bear deficit stamp duty
\nviz., Mark 3\/114, 3\/44, 3\/56 and 3\/162 in Regular Civil Suit No.476
\nof 2005 and Mark 3\/17 in Regular Civil Suit No.525 of 2005 are the
\ncopies of the registered sale-agreements cannot be given tentative
\nexhibit numbers. As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble the Apex
\nCourt in paragraph Nos.13 and 15 of the judgment in the matter of
\nBipin Shantilal
\nPanchal (Supra),
\nthe learned Judge has to decide the objection raised by defendant qua
\nthese documents before proceeding further.  So far as other documents
\nare concerned, the order of giving tentative exhibit to those
\ndocuments remain unaltered. The learned Judge is directed to follow
\nthe procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble the Apex court with regard to
\nsuch documents.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tIn
\nthe result, both the petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid
\ndirection. Order dated 29\/10\/2009 passed in Regular Civil Suit NO.476
\nof 2005 and Regular Civil Suit No.525 of 2005 stands altered to that
\nextent.  In the event the respondents herein   original plaintiffs
\nhave any objection against this order, they may approach this Court
\non or before 30\/06\/2010.\n<\/p>\n
(RAVI
\nR TRIPATHI, J.)<\/p>\n
sompura<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Allarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010 Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/12664\/2009 7\/ 7 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12664 of 2009 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12666 of 2009 ========================================================= ALLARAKHA HAJI SHAIKH – Petitioner(s) Versus MUKTABEN […]<\/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-230768","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAllarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010 - 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\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Allarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-20T22:49:22+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Allarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-20T22:49:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1251,\"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\\\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Allarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-20T22:49:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Allarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Allarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010 - 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\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Allarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-20T22:49:22+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Allarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-20T22:49:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010"},"wordCount":1251,"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\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010","name":"Allarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-20T22:49:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/allarakha-vs-muktaben-on-23-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Allarakha vs Muktaben on 23 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230768","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=230768"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230768\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230768"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230768"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230768"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}