{"id":243751,"date":"2011-10-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011"},"modified":"2018-07-22T19:53:02","modified_gmt":"2018-07-22T14:23:02","slug":"hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Hiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Hiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Harsha Devani,<\/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\nCA\/10202\/2009\t 17\/ 17\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION - FOR INTERIM RELIEF No.10202 of 2009\n \n\nIn\n\n\n \n\nSECOND\nAPPEAL No.253 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nHIRABEN\nD\/O SOMABHAI BAPUBHAI & 2 - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nVIMLABEN\nMANIBHAI PATEL & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n========================================= \nAppearance\n \nMR SURESH M\nSHAH for\nApplicant(s): 1 - 3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5,3.2.6  \nNone\nfor Respondent(s): 1, 4, \nMR AJ PATEL for MR DIPUM S RAMI for\nRespondent(s): 1.2.1,1.2.2  \nSERVED BY AFFIX.(N) for Respondent(s):\n2 - 3. \nMR SUNIT SHAH for MR RISHIT P BHATT for Respondent(s): 2 -\n3. \nRULE SERVED for Respondent(s): 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4,\n4.2.5,4.2.6  \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\tMS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/10\/2011 \n\n \n\n \nC.A.V.\nORDER \n<\/pre>\n
1.\t\tBy
\nthis application, the applicants (original plaintiffs –
\nappellants) have prayed for a direction for maintaining status quo as
\nregards the suit property pending hearing and final disposal of
\nSecond Appeal No.253\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tThe
\napplicants herein have preferred the above referred appeal
\nchallenging the judgment and decree dated 29th
\nJuly, 2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court
\nNo.3, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Regular Civil Appeal No.13\/2007 whereby
\nthe appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 19th
\nOctober, 2006 passed by the learned 6th
\nAdditional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) whereby he has
\ndismissed the suit filed by the appellants – plaintiffs
\nhas been confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
S.M. Shah, learned advocate for the applicants invited attention to
\nthe order dated 20th
\nNovember, 2009 passed in Second Appeal No.253\/2009 whereby the appeal
\nhas been admitted on the following two substantial questions of law:-\n<\/p>\n
Whether
\n\tthe suit is time barred?\n<\/p>\n
Whether,
\n\tin the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale deed Exh.118 is
\n\tvoid or voidable in law?\n<\/p>\n
3.1\t\tIt
\nwas submitted that in the suit, in 2001, order of status quo was
\ngranted which continued till the life of the suit till the appeal was
\nfiled, that thereafter status quo continued till the life of the
\nappeal and till the appeal period. It was submitted that the second
\nappeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation and came
\nto be admitted on 20th
\nNovember, 2009 hence, there was no delay on the part of the
\nappellants. However, from the date of expiry of the appeal period,
\nthere was no interim relief operating in favour of the applicants
\ntill date. It was submitted that considering the fact that at the
\nstage of suit as well as appeal, the applicants had been granted
\ninterim relief, it is a matter of consistent practice to grant status
\nquo once the appeal is admitted.  Reliance was placed upon the
\ndecision of this court in the case of Nagji
\nUka vs. Administrator of Sakedi Agri. Co-op. So. Ltd. & Ors.,
\n1977 G.L.T.\n<\/p>\n
83, wherein the court
\nhad held that once the revision application was entertained by the
\nState Government, according
\nto justice, common sense and sound judgment, the further proceedings
\nought to have been stayed, for, the revision application would become
\nentirely infructuous unless interim relief is granted. That to refuse
\ninterim relief after entertaining a revision application would be to
\ndeny a just relief to the litigant pending the hearing of the case.
\nDiscretion in the matter of grant of interim relief could not be said
\nto have been judicially exercised by refusal of such relief. Reliance
\nwas also placed upon the decision of this court in the case of Salim
\nAhmed Mathada and Anr. vs. Aminabai Hussein Bela, 1995
\n(2) G.L.H. (U.J.) 22,
\nfor the proposition that where the learned Judge feels that the case
\nis one where the interim relief is not required to be granted, it is
\nalways open to set down the entire appeal for hearing and decide the
\nsame on merits. The court held that by rejecting the application
\nExh.5, the learned Judge had rendered the Miscellaneous Civil
\nApplication meaningless and, therefore, on that count alone, the
\nrevision application was allowed. Reliance was placed upon the
\ndecision of this court in the case of Bhanubhai
\nMohanlal Bhatt and Another vs. M\/s. Vinayak Developers, Bhuj. through
\nits partners, 1996
\n(1) G.L.H. (U.J.) 28,
\nwherein the court has held that if the appellate court while deciding
\nAO under Order 43 and while hearing Exh.5 application, finds that
\nthere is no case made out for grant of interim relief and or
\nmaintenance of status quo, then it must immediately set down the
\nappeal for hearing and must decide the appeal alongwith the
\napplication. The very ground which convinced him for rejecting
\napplication would be the ground for rejecting and\/or dismissing the
\nappeal. The court observed that it had failed to understand this
\nnature of exercise of power by the Extra Assistant Judge who rejects
\nExh.5 application in CMA
\nwhile admitting the appeal to be decided in future virtually thereby
\nhe renders the appeal meaningless. Reliance was also placed upon an
\nunreported decision dated 16th
\nNovember, 2009 passed by this court in Special Civil Application
\nNo.11755\/2009 in the case of Real
\nShopping Centre vs. State of Gujarat<\/a> through Secretary, Revenue Dept.
\n(Appeals) wherein
\nthe court had observed that when revision application is pending for
\nfinal hearing, if the parties are not directed to maintain status
\nquo, the revision application would be likely to become infructuous
\nand accordingly directed that the revision application be decided and
\ndisposed of within a stipulated time and in the meantime without
\nprejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the parties
\nwere directed to maintain status quo as on that date so as to meet
\nthe ends of justice. An unreported decision of this court dated 18th
\nOctober, 2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.9667\/2010 in the
\ncase of Navinchandra
\nHansrajbhai  Lakhiyar vs. Jamnagar Municipal Corporation<\/a>
\nwas also relied upon wherein the court had observed that having
\nregard to the fact that the first appellate court had prima facie
\nfound merits in the appeal and, therefore, admitted the appeal for
\nfinal hearing and having regard to the fact that the interim relief
\ngranted by the trial court which remained in operation throughout the
\nsuit proceedings for about four years, it would be in the fitness of
\nthings if the parties are directed to maintain status quo during the
\npendency of the appeal.  Another unreported decision of this court
\ndated 30th
\nAugust, 2010 rendered in the case of Kumbhar
\nShivaben Mehabhai vs. State of Gujarat through Special Secretary,
\nSpecial Civil
\nApplication No.5154\/2010,
\nwas cited wherein
\nthe court had directed the Special Secretary to take up the revision
\napplication within a period of one year from the date of application
\nand had directed both the sides to maintain status quo till the
\nrevision is heard and decided.\n<\/p>\n
3.2\t\tIt
\nwas submitted that it is a consistent practice of this Court to grant
\nstatus quo in a case where an appeal is admitted so as not to render
\nthe appeal infructuous and as such, today at this stage, interim
\nrelief should not be refused to the applicants and status quo as on
\ntoday should be directed to be maintained. Reference was made to the
\ndecision of this High Court in the case of Ibrahim
\nShah Mohamad vs. Noor Ahmed Noor Mohamed,<\/a> 1983
\n(2) GLR 961, for the
\nproposition that when the Court is seized with a matter pertaining to
\nproperty, if pending the litigation the property changes hands, it
\nwould be necessary for the plaintiff or somebody else to bring on
\nrecord all the parties, meaning thereby, delaying further proceedings
\nfor bringing them on record, having their say and thus delaying the
\npassing of the final decree. The court should always lean towards
\nseeing that there is no multiplicity of proceedings and also that the
\nproceedings should go on as far as possible so smooth that the
\ndecision can be arrived at between the parties who are on record as
\nearly as possible. The court accordingly thought it fit to grant
\ninjunction in the said case. Strong reliance was placed upon the
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maherwal
\nKhewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot vs. Baldev Dass, AIR<\/a>
\n2005 SC 104, for the
\nproposition that unless and until a case of irreparable loss or
\ndamage is made out by a party
\nto the suit, the Court should not permit the nature of the property
\nbeing changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the
\nproperty which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party
\nwho may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of
\nproceedings. In the facts of the said case, the High Court  found
\nthat no case of irreparable loss had been made out except for
\ncontending that the legal proceedings are likely to take a long time
\nand, therefore, the respondent should be permitted to put the
\nscheduled property to better use. The Supreme Court held that the
\nlower appellate court and the High Court were not justified in
\npermitting the respondent to change the nature of the property by
\nputting up construction as also by permitting alienation of the
\nproperty, whatever may be the condition on which the same is done. In
\nthe event the appellants’ claim being found baseless ultimately, it
\nis always open for the respondent to claim damages or, in an
\nappropriate case, the Court may itself award damages for the loss
\nsuffered, if any, in this regard. It was submitted that if the Court
\nis of the view that the case is not one for grant of interim
\ninjunction, the appeal should be fixed for final hearing, but once
\nthe Court has found merit by framing substantial question of law, the
\ninterim relief should be granted.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tOpposing
\nthe application, Mr. A.J. Patel, learned advocate for the respondents
\nNo.1.2.1 and 1.2.2 submitted that for the purpose of granting interim
\nrelief, the facts of the case are required to be examined so as to
\nascertain whether this is a case where discretion is required to be
\nexercised in favour of the applicants. It was submitted that the
\nCourt would be required
\nto consider the merits of the case to find out whether there was any
\nchance of the applicants ultimately succeeding and as to whether any
\nirreparable loss is likely to be caused to the applicants.  In the
\nfacts of the present case, the applicants do not deserve any sort of
\nequitable relief and that, in any case, if they succeed, the price of
\nthe land can always be evaluated and they can be compensated in terms
\nof money. In support of his submission, the learned advocate placed
\nreliance upon the decision of this High Court in the case of Veetrag
\nHolding Co. Ltd. vs. Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd.,<\/a> 1996
\n(3) G.L.R. 536,
\nwherein the court has held that when it comes to grant of equitable
\nrelief when the suit is filed after such a long time, it cannot be
\nsaid that the remedy of interim injunction was the necessary remedy
\nand there was no other remedy available to the party concerned in
\nthis behalf. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State
\nof Maharashtra vs. Digambar,<\/a> (1995)
\n4 SCC 683, was cited
\nfor the proposition that where the High Court grants relief to a
\ncitizen or any person under Article 226 of the Constitution against
\nany person including the State without considering his blame worthy
\nconduct, such as lapses or undue delay, acquiescence or waiver, the
\nrelief so granted becomes unsustainable even if relief was granted in
\nrespect of alleged deprivation of his legal right by the State. It
\nwas submitted that in the facts of the present case, the registered
\nsale deed was executed on 2nd
\nApril, 1947 between deceased Ramabhai Somabhai and deceased Manibhai
\nSomabhai Patel. The said sale deed came to be challenged by the
\nplaintiffs in the year 2001 after a period of more than fifty years
\nduring which period, the lands remained with the defendants. It was
\nsubmitted that
\nconsidering the belated stage at which the suit came to be instituted
\nfor challenging the registered sale deed dated 2nd
\nApril, 1947 as well as considering the fact that both the courts
\nbelow have found that the plaintiffs’ suit is barred by limitation,
\nthis is not a case where the Court is required to exercise discretion
\nin favour of the original plaintiffs by granting any sort of interim
\nrelief in their favour.  Reliance was also placed upon decision of
\nthe Supreme Court in the case of
\nColgate
\nPalmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd.,<\/a>
\n(1999) 7 SCC, for the
\nproposition that while considering the question of grant of
\ninjunction, the Court ought not to ignore the factum of strength of
\none party’s case being stronger than the others. In conclusion, it
\nwas submitted that the applicants do not deserve any sort of
\nequitable relief and if ultimately they succeed, the price of land
\ncan always be evaluated and they can be compensated in terms of
\nmoney.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tOpposing
\nthe application, Mr. Sunit Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf
\nof the respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that the decisions on which
\nreliance had been placed upon by the learned advocate for the
\napplicants would not carry the case of the applicants any further
\ninasmuch as there is a change in jurisprudence as regards grant of
\ninterim relief. It was submitted that apart from the normal
\nparameters which are required to be taken into consideration while
\nconsidering the question of grant of interim relief, viz., balance of
\nconvenience, prima facie case and irreparable injury, the Court is
\nalso required to take into consideration an additional factor namely,
\nconduct of the parties. It was submitted that the impugned registered
\nsale deed came to be executed in the year 1947. Till the year 2001,
\nthe property was totally free and there was no injunction. That
\nstatus quo was operating qua the suit property only since 2001 till
\n2009. It was further submitted that the suit property belonged to
\nSomabhai and upon his death, devolved upon Ramabhai, Manilal,
\nManguben, Hiraben who are children of Somabhai as well as upon
\nRukhiben, wife of Somabhai.  It was submitted that at the time of
\nexecution of sale deed, Ramabhai was 20 years old and as such, he was
\nan adult and, therefore, the case of the plaintiffs that the
\nagreement had been entered between minors is devoid of merit. It was
\nfurther pointed out that during their life time, Rukhiben, Ramabhai,
\nor Manilal had not challenged the sale deed. Thus, the persons
\naffected did not challenge the transaction at the relevant time. It
\nwas further submitted that the heirs of Ramabhai have not challenged
\nthe sale deed and that it is the two daughters of Somabhai as well as
\nthe heirs of deceased Manilal who have challenged the sale deed. It
\nwas submitted that in the circumstances, the applicants not being
\nfull owners of the suit property would not be entitled to an order of
\ninjunction qua the entire suit property. It was urged that when
\nManilal himself did not challenge the transaction, the question that
\narises for consideration is whether his heirs have any right to
\nchallenge the said transaction. It was emphatically argued that in
\nthe year 2001, when the status quo was granted in favour of the
\napplicants, they had an opportunity to prove their case but they
\nfailed; the second opportunity was available at the stage of the
\nfirst appeal, at which stage also they had failed.  In the suit,
\ninjunction has been granted as the trial was yet to take place. Now,
\nthe trial has taken place and the applicants have failed. The
\napplicants have further failed in first appeal. Therefore, initially
\nopportunity is one aspect of the matter and opportunity in the second
\nappeal is another and as such having failed before two courts below,
\nthe applicants are not entitled to the grant of any interim relief.\n<\/p>\n
5.1
\n\t\tNext, it was submitted that on the factual aspect, namely
\npossession of the suit properties, both the courts below are with the
\ndefendants and as such, there is no question as regards possession.
\nIt was submitted that in the circumstances, there is hardly any
\nchance of the applicants succeeding in the appeal. In support of his
\nsubmissions, the learned advocate placed reliance upon the decision
\nof the Supreme Court in the case of Mandali
\nRanganna and Others vs. T. Ramachandra and Others,<\/a> (2008)
\n11 SCC 1, wherein the
\ncourt held thus:\n<\/p>\n
“21.\n<\/p>\n
While considering an application for grant of injunction, the court
\nwill not only take into consideration the basic elements in relation
\nthereto viz. existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience
\nand irreparable injury, it must also take into consideration the
\nconduct of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
22.
\nGrant of injunction is an equitable relief. A person who had kept
\nquiet for a long time and allowed another to deal with the properties
\nexclusively, ordinarily would not be entitled to an order of
\ninjunction. The court will not interfere only because the property is
\na very valuable one. We are not, however, oblivious of the fact that
\ngrant or refusal of injunction has serious consequence depending upon
\nthe nature thereof. The courts dealing with such matters must make
\nall endeavours to protect the interest of the parties. For the said
\npurpose, application of mind on the part of the courts is imperative.
\nContentions raised by the parties must be determined objectively.\n<\/p>\n
27.
\nWe, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice would
\nbe subserved if while allowing the respondents to carry out
\nconstructions of the buildings, the same is made subject to the
\nultimate decision of the suit. The trial court is requested to hear
\nout and dispose of the suit as early as possible. If any third-party
\ninterest is created upon completion of the constructions, the deeds
\nin question shall clearly stipulate that the matter is sub judice and
\nall sales shall be subject to the ultimate decision of the suit. All
\nparties must cooperate in the early hearing and disposal of the suit.
\nThe respondents must also furnish sufficient security before the
\nlearned trial Judge within four weeks from the date which, for the
\ntime being, is assessed at rupees one crore.”\n<\/p>\n
5.2
\n\t\tReliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
\nthe case of
\nKishorsinh Ratansinh Jadeja vs. Maruti Corporation and Others,<\/a> (2009)
\n11 SCC 229, wherein
\nthe court was of the view that the respondent No.1 therein could be
\ncompensated in terms of money and no irreparable loss and injury
\nwould be caused to it on account thereof. The court was further of
\nthe view that if the owners of the property remain restrained from
\ndeveloping the same, it is they who will suffer severe prejudice, as
\nthey will be deprived of the benefit of the user of their land during
\nthe said period. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is
\nagainst the grant of such an injunction. The court observed that the
\nsuccess of the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent
\ndepends to a large extent on tenuous proof of genuineness of the
\nagreement sought to be enforced after 19 years, despite the finding
\nof the trial court that the suit was not barred by limitation. The
\ncourt was of the view that the conduct of respondent No.1 also
\nbecomes relevant, inasmuch as, having slept over its rights for more
\nthan 19 years, it would be
\ninequitable on its prayer to restrain the owners of the property from
\ndealing with the same, having particular regard to the fact that a
\nlarge portion of the land had already been conveyed to as many as 280
\npurchasers who were in the process of erecting constructions
\nthereupon.\n<\/p>\n
5.3\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Sunit Shah further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of
\nthe present case, the court may, if it so deems fit, direct deposit
\nof certain amount subject to the result of the suit and that all
\ntransactions shall be subject to the result of the appeal. However,
\nno case has been made out for grant of status quo and that
\nirreparable loss would be caused to the respondents herein if the
\nrelief as prayed for is granted to the applicants.  The factors such
\nas balance of convenience, irreparable injury as well as conduct of
\nthe applicants all lean in favour of the respondents and as such, the
\napplicants are not entitled to the relief claimed in the application
\nand the application deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tIn
\nrejoinder, Mr. S. M. Shah learned advocate for the applicants
\nsubmitted that the second appeal has been admitted after the court
\nfound prima facie merit in the case and accordingly substantial
\nquestions of law came to be formulated. It was submitted that insofar
\nas the delay is concerned, though the suit had been instituted in
\n2001, it is a fact that interim relief was granted in favour of the
\napplicants and that the same had continued. It was submitted that the
\ninterim relief has operated for a period of nine years against the
\nrespondents hence, they can wait for some more time and as such, the
\napplication deserves to be allowed by ordering the parties to
\nmaintain status quo as on today.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tIn
\nthe backdrop of the aforesaid facts and contentions, it is an
\nadmitted position that it is apparent that the plaintiffs before the
\ntrial court are Hiraben, Manguben and the heirs of deceased Manilal
\nSomabhai whereas defendants are the heirs of deceased Manibhai
\nSomabhai Patel who had purchased the suit land by virtue of the
\nregistered sale deed dated 2nd
\nApril, 1947 executed by deceased Rambhai Somabhai in his favour. A
\nperusal of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well
\nas the lower appellate court indicates that both the courts below
\nhave, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, found as a matter
\nof fact that the possession of the suit property was with the
\ndefendants; and have also found that the suit was barred by
\nlimitation inasmuch as the sale deed dated 2nd
\nApril, 1947 had been challenged by instituting the suit in the year
\n2001. True it is that this court has admitted the appeal against the
\njudgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court by framing
\ntwo questions of law, viz., (i) whether the suit is time barred; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii) whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sale
\ndeed Exh.118 is void or voidable in law. However, in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the present case, considering the delay in
\ninstituting the suit, as well as the conduct of the applicants in not
\napproaching the court at the earliest, this court is of the view that
\nin the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the
\nabove referred decisions on which reliance had been placed upon by
\nthe learned advocate for the defendants No.2 and 3, the applicants by
\ntheir conduct are disentitled from the grant of the relief prayed for
\nin the present application.\n<\/p>\n
The defendants have been holding the suit property as owners by
\nvirtue of the sale deed executed way back on 2nd
\nApril 1947 which has not been challenged by the owners at the
\nrelevant time. It is at a belated stage in the year 2001, that is,
\nafter a period of more than fifty years that the
\napplicants-plaintiffs have challenged the same. Both fact findings
\ncourts below have found that the suit is barred by limitation and
\nthat possession of the suit lands is with the defendants. In the
\naforesaid premises, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of
\nKishorsinh
\nRatansinh Jadeja vs. Maruti Corporation and Others<\/a>
\n(supra), if the defendants herein are restrained from developing the
\nsuit property, they would suffer severe prejudice as they would be
\ndeprived from the benefit of the user of their land during the period
\nwhen the appeal is pending before this court. The balance of
\nconvenience and inconvenience is, therefore, against the grant of any
\norder of status quo.  In the present case, apart from the fact that
\nthe courts below have found that the suit is barred by limitation,
\nthe success of the suit only depends upon the question as to whether
\nthe sale deed in question was void or voidable. Considering the fact
\nthat Rambhai Somabhai who had executed the sale deed in favour of
\nManibhai Somabhai was a major having attained the age of 20 years at
\nthe time when the sale deed was executed, this Court is of the view
\nthat on this count also the balance of convenience leans in favour of
\nthe respondents. In the circumstances, in the light of the decision
\nof the Supreme Court in the case of Mandali
\nRanganna and Others vs. T. Ramachandra and Others<\/a>
\n(supra), the interest of justice would be subserved if no order of
\nstatus quo is granted in favour of the applicants however, endeavour
\nis required to be made to
\nprotect the interest of the parties. In the circumstances, interest
\nof the parties would be taken care of by observing that the action if
\nany taken by the defendants in relation to the suit property would be
\nsubject to the result of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tFor
\nthe foregoing reasons, the court is of the view that the applicants
\nare not entitled to the grant of the relief of status quo as prayed
\nfor in the application.  However, Mr. A.J. Patel and Mr. P.M. Bhatt,
\nlearned advocate for the respondents No.1.2.1, 1.2.2, 2 and 3 on
\ninstructions of some of the respondents who are present before the
\ncourt state that the respondents will not part with the possession of
\nthe disputed land nor will they create any third party rights during
\nthe pendency of the second appeal.  In the light of the aforesaid
\nstatement made by the learned advocates for the respondents No.1.2.1,
\n1.2.2, 2 and 3, no order for furnishing security is required to be
\nmade.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tIn
\nview of the above discussion, the application fails and is
\naccordingly rejected subject to the aforesaid statement made on
\nbehalf of the respondents No.1.2.1, 1.2.2, 2 and 3 as recorded
\nhereinabove.  There shall be no order as to costs.  Liberty to apply
\nin case of difficulty qua respondent No.4.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(
\nHarsha Devani, J. )<\/p>\n
hki<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Hiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 2011 Author: Harsha Devani, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print CA\/10202\/2009 17\/ 17 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION – FOR INTERIM RELIEF No.10202 of 2009 In SECOND APPEAL No.253 of 2009 ========================================= HIRABEN D\/O SOMABHAI BAPUBHAI & 2 – […]<\/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-243751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 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\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-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=\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-22T14:23:02+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-22T14:23:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":4206,\"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\\\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Hiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-22T14:23:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 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":"Hiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 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\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-22T14:23:02+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-22T14:23:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011"},"wordCount":4206,"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\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011","name":"Hiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-22T14:23:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hiraben-vs-vimlaben-on-18-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hiraben vs Vimlaben on 18 October, 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\/243751","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=243751"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243751\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}