{"id":253450,"date":"2010-12-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-18T07:40:36","modified_gmt":"2016-08-18T02:10:36","slug":"vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&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\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSA\/81\/1991\t 9\/ 9\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSECOND\nAPPEAL No. 81 of 1991\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \n\n\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n \n \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================\n \n\nSHRIMATI\nKAXMIBEN LALJI WD\/O SOLANKI LALJI HADHU & 2 \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSMT.\nRATANBA VAGHI SOLANKI WIDOW \n\n \n\n========================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR YS MANKAD for Appellants  \nMR\nCH VORA for Respondent \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 H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 21\/12\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
[1]\tIn
\npresent Second Appeal, following substantial question of law is
\nraised and involved which is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“2(A)\tWhether
\non facts and circumstances of case suit as for declaration and
\ninjunction is maintainable ?\n<\/p>\n
[2]\tCivil
\nSuit No.30 of 1980 filed by Solanki Lalji Hathubhai before  Civil
\nJudge (J.D.), Mundra at Kutch with a prayer of declaration and
\npermanent injunction is to be granted against original defendant,
\nrespondent herein. The suit filed by the plaintiff was allowed vide
\njudgment and decree dated 24.04.1984 by Civil Judge (J.D.), Mundra at
\nKutch with a direction to respondent and their agent and heirs not to
\ndisturb the possession and occupancy of plaintiff by defendant in
\nsuit land. Against which Regular Civil Appeal was preferred by
\nrespondent – Solanki Vaghji Tejmal registered as No.76 of 1984
\nwhich has been decided issue whether in present nature of merely
\nrelief of declaration and permanent injunction, suit is maintainable
\nor not. While deciding issue Nos.3 and 4, the Appellate Court has
\ncome to conclusion that  original plaintiff, appellant herein was not
\nin possession of suit land, but on the contrary, defendant –
\nappellant before lower Appellate Court who is in actual possession of
\nsuit land. These discussions made in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 are
\nrelevant, therefore, quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
“12.\tThe
\nplaintiff has filed suit for declaration and injunction he prayed for
\ndeclaration that he is owner and possessor of  suit fields and suit
\nVadi and they are in their personal cultivation. He also prayed for
\npermanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering or
\nobstructing or dispossessing him from suit fields and suit Vadi. So
\ndeceased plaintiff has prayed for relief of declaration as well as
\npermanent injunction alleging that he is having possession of suit
\nfields and suit Vadi but when it is found that actual and physical
\npossession of suit fields & Vadi are not with plaintiff and it is
\nwith defendant, plaintiff should have prayed for further relief of
\npossession in suit. In view of provisions of Sec.34 of the Specific
\nRelief Act, it is settled principle that injunction is a
\ndiscretionary relief and it cannot be claimed by plaintiff when he is
\nout of possession, he does not ask for possession against defendant
\nwho is actually in possession.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tThe
\nSupreme Court in case of Ram Saran and another Vs. Smt. Ganga Devi,
\nAIR 1972 Supreme Court 2085, the Supreme Court held that “plaintiff
\ncan make a suit for possession but plaintiff may ask for recovery of
\npossession, if defendant is in possession. But plaintiff’s suit for
\ndeclaration only without a prayer of recovery of possession shall be
\nbad if  defendant is in possession of some of suit properties.
\nTherefore, it appears that suit of the plaintiff is bad and without
\nrelief for possession. The plaintiff’s suit is for mere declaration
\nof his title. The plaintiff who is oustered possession if institute a
\nsuit against defendant who is in possession for declaration of title
\nwith a prayer for injunction, the Court in   exercises of its
\ndiscretion will not grant to  plaintiff his prayer for injunction
\neven if injunction could be considered during further relief of
\nwithin the meaning of proviso to Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act as
\nhe could have prayed for recovery of possession. This view is
\nsupported by the decision of Calcutta High Court in case of reported
\nin A.I.R. 1942, Calcutta 245. Therefore, ti clearly appears to me
\nthat relief of injunction against  defendant cannot be granted in the
\nsuit and  suit and  trial Court has committed an error in granting
\nrelief of injunction in favour of plaintiff. Miss B. G. Bhanshali,
\nhas relied on M. Kallappa Setty V. M. Lakhminarayan Rao, AIR 1972
\nS.C. 2299. In that case Supreme Court held that :-\n<\/p>\n
“The
\nplaintiff can on the strength of his possession resist interference
\nfrom persons who have no better title than himself to  suit property.
\nOnce it is accepted, as trial Court and  first appellate court have
\ndone that  plaintiff was in possession of the property every since
\n1947 then his possession has to be protected as against interference
\nby some one who is not proved to have a better title than himself to
\nthe suit property. On  findings arrived at by  fact finding Courts as
\nregards possession,  plaintiff was entitled to the second relief
\nasked for by him even if he has failed to prove his title
\nsatisfactorily. Therefore, in our opinion, the High Court was not
\nright in interfering with  judgment of  trial court as affirmed by
\nfirst appellate court regarding relief No.2.”\n<\/p>\n
In that
\ncase second relief was to effect that granting permanent injunction
\nrestraining defendant from entering in  suit properties and
\ndisturbing plaintiff’s possession and also from constructing  house
\nby unlawful obtaining a licence from  Municipality. This ruling of
\nSupreme Court is not helpful to  plaintiff in this case. The
\nplaintiff in that case was in possession of  property and defendant
\nwas disturbing his possession, it is not so in this case. In this
\ncase, defendant is alleged to be in exclusive possession of suit
\nfield and Vadi since before filing of the suit. The Delhi High Court
\nin case of Phirayalal Kapur Vs. Jia Rani and another, AIR 1973 Delhi
\n186 held that :- ” a possessory title is good against every on
\nwho does not have a better one. Possession is a heritable and
\ntransferable right”. So,  possessory title is good against
\nevery one who does not have a better title. In this case, it is
\nadmitted fact that on the date of suit, defendant was in possession
\nof  suit and it is categorical admission on behalf of  deceased
\nplaintiff – Lalji Hadhu. Therefore, I hold that  relief for
\ninjunction against defendant could not be granted in favour of
\nplaintiff in this suit and therefore held that plaintiff is entitled
\nfor relief of permanent injunction to that effect decree is required
\nto be modified. Therefore, I hold that  suit is not maintainable
\nbecause Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act forbids to grant
\ndeclaration in event of commission i.e. suit for bare declaration
\nwithout further relief for possession or other consequential relief
\nis not tenable and, therefore,  suit is liable to be dismissed and
\nplaintiff cannot be granted any relief to him in the suit. Therefore,
\nI answer issue Nos.3 and 4 in  negative.”\n<\/p>\n
[3]\tIn
\nview of aforesaid reasoning given by Appellate Court that merely suit
\nfor grant of declaration and permanent injunction in absence of
\npossession of suit land and also without further relief for
\npossession or other consequential relief is not tenable. Therefore,
\nappeal has been allowed and  judgment and decree passed by trial
\nCourt has been set aside and accordingly in result suit, has been
\ndismissed with cost vide judgment and decree dated 24.01.1991. In the
\npresent appeal filed by the appellant – original plaintiff
\nwhere aforesaid substantial question of law formulated by this Court
\nat the time of admitting Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
[4]\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.C. H. Vora appearing on behalf of respondent brought to
\nnotice of this Court order passed by this Court in Civil Application
\nNo.896 of 1991 in Second Appeal No.81 of 1991 on 28.11.1991 [Coram :
\nHon’ble Mr.Justice N. B. Patel] which is relevant, therefore, quoted
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
“The
\njudgment of the appellate court shows that said court recorded a
\nclear finding that the plaintiffs were not in actual possession of
\nthe suit land on the date of the filing of the suit. Despite this
\nposition, if it is correct, the plaintiffs filed the suit for a
\nprohibitory injunction and obtained a temporary injunction. The
\nplaintiffs earned a decree from the trial court, but that decree is
\nreversed by the first appellate court.\n<\/p>\n
As an
\ninterim measure, the first appellate court had directed the parties
\nto maintain status quo as to the possession of the suit lands. The
\nplaintiffs, who have lost in the first appellate court, have filed
\nthe present appeal and they again seek a temporary injunction to
\nensure till the disposal of the appeal. It is, therefore, prima facie
\nrequired to be considered whether the plaintiffs were in possession
\nof the suit lands on the date of the suit and unless it can be prima
\nfacie found that they were in possession of the suit land on the date
\nof the suit, they cannot be granted temporary injunction. If the
\nplaintiffs were not in actual possession of the suit and they had
\nobtained possession or prevented the defendant from entering the suit
\nland under the guise of the temporary injunction obtained by them on
\na misrepresentation of fact, they cannot again be granted temporary
\ninjunction merely because their appeal is admitted. The judgment of
\nthe appellate court shows that in the notice, which the plaintiffs
\nhad given prior to the filing of the suit, they had made a clear
\naverment that the defendant was appropriating all the produce from
\nthe agricultural land since quite some time prior to the filing of
\nthe suit and was even not permitting them to enter the suit land.
\nPrima facie, therefore, the finding of the appellate court that even
\nthough the plaintiffs may have title to the suit property, they were
\nnot in actual possession of the suit lands on the date of the filing
\nof the suit cannot be ignored. In the circumstances, therefore, the
\nplaintiffs’ prayer for temporary injunction is rejected, even though
\ntheir appeal is admitted. Rule discharged. Ad-interim relief vacated.
\nNo order as to costs.”\n<\/p>\n
[5]\tIn
\nview of aforesaid interim order passed by this Court prima facie this
\nCourt has observed that plaintiffs may have title to  suit property,
\nbut they were not in actual possession of  suit land on the date of
\nfiling of suit cannot be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
[6]\tLearned
\nadvocate Mr.C. H. Vora has submitted that recently also, this aspect
\nhas been examined by Apex Court in case of Mehar Chand Das Vs. Lal
\nBabu Siddique and others,
\nreported in AIR 2007 S.C. 1499.\n<\/p>\n
The relevant discussions in paragraph Nos.9 to 12 are quoted as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
9.\tSection
\n34<\/a> of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Discretion
\nof Court as to declaration of status or right.- Any person entitled
\nto any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may
\ninstitute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny,
\nhis title to such character or right, and the Court may in its
\ndiscretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the
\nplaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:\n<\/p>\n
Provided
\nthat no Court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff,
\nbeing able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title,
\nomits to do so.”\n<\/p>\n
10. In this
\ncase, it stands admitted that the appellant was treated to be a
\ntenant by the respondents. The suit property, according to the
\nrespondents, was a tenanted one. The possession of the appellant,
\ntherefore, was denied and disputed. It is furthermore admitted that
\nthe suit for eviction which was filed by him, was as noticed
\nhereinbefore, dismissed by the Civil Court on 27.5.1977.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe
\ndefendant-appellant, therefore, had been in possession of the suit
\nproperty. In that view of the matter the plaintiffs-respondents could
\nseek for further relief other than for a decree of mere declaration
\nof title.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThe
\nHigh Court, in our opinion, committed a manifest error in not relying
\nupon the decision of this Court in Vinay Krishna (supra). The said
\ndecision categorically lays down the law that if the plaintiff had
\nbeen in possession, then a suit for mere declaration would be
\nmaintainable: the logical corollary whereof would be that if the
\nplaintiff is not in possession, a suit for mere declaration would not
\nbe maintainable.”\n<\/p>\n
[7]\tIn
\nview of aforesaid decision of  Apex Court and also considering facts
\nas referred to by this Court in aforesaid interim order that
\nplaintiff may have title upon suit land but plaintiff is not in
\npossession of suit land on the date of filing suit. On the contrary,
\ndefendant was in possession of suit land. It is also necessary to
\nnote that no consequential relief of recovering possession and other
\nbenefits has been claimed by plaintiff before trial Court, while
\nfiling Civil Suit, except that declaration and permanent injunction.
\nTherefore, such a nature of suit under Section 34<\/a> of Specific Relief
\nAct is also not maintainable. Therefore, according to my opinion,
\ncontentions raised by learned advocate Mr.Y. S. Mankad appearing on
\nbehalf of appellant cannot be accepted and lower Appellate Court has
\nnot committed any error while allowing appeal and dismissing Civil
\nSuit filed by plaintiff on the ground that possession of suit land is
\nwith original defendant and not with plaintiff. Therefore, question
\nof law which has been formulated by this Court is answered
\naccordingly. There is no substance in Second Appeal and, therefore,
\nSecond Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim relief, if
\nany, granted earlier stands vacated.\n<\/p>\n
[
\nH. K. RATHOD, J. ]<\/p>\n
vijay<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court ========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SA\/81\/1991 9\/ 9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 81 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be […]<\/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-253450","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 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\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-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=\"2010-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-18T02:10:36+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-18T02:10:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2159,\"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\\\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010\",\"name\":\"========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-18T02:10:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 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":"========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 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\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-18T02:10:36+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-18T02:10:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010"},"wordCount":2159,"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\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010","name":"========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-18T02:10:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vs-smt-ganga-devi-on-21-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"========================================= vs Smt. Ganga Devi on 21 December, 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\/253450","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=253450"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253450\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253450"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253450"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253450"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}