{"id":259201,"date":"2010-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-20T12:38:47","modified_gmt":"2018-10-20T07:08:47","slug":"maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Md Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">   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\nFA\/1976\/1984\t 5\/ 8\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 1976 of 1984\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE MD SHAH\n \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 be\n\t\t\treferred 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 \n\nMANIBEN\nW\/O ANANDILAL HARILAL &amp; 2 - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nSAHEBRAO\nSHANKARRAO DABHADE. &amp; 20 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nKV SHELAT for\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 3. \nMR VC DESAI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2, 2.2.1,\n2.2.2, 4.2.1,4.2.2 - 5,5.2.2 - 6, 6.2.2,6.2.3 - 7, 7.2.2, 7.2.3,7.2.4\n- 12, 12.2.2, 12.2.3, 12.2.4,12.2.5 - 18, 18.2.2, 18.2.3,\n18.2.4,18.2.5 - 21. \nNone for Defendant(s) : 3,\n15, \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 MD SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 22\/07\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr.Shelat submitted that the appellant no.1 Maniben W\/o<br \/>\nAnandilal Harilal has expired and appellants no.2 and 3 are her legal<br \/>\nheirs and prays to delete the name of appellant no.1. Amendment to be<br \/>\ncarried forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t\tThe<br \/>\nappellants herein are the original defendants and the defendants<br \/>\nherein are the original plaintiffs in Civil Suit No.200 of 1982. (For<br \/>\nthe sake of convenience and brevity they shall be referred to as the<br \/>\n original plaintiffs  and  original defendants .) <\/p>\n<p>\t\tThis<br \/>\nappeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed on<br \/>\n20.7.1983 in Civil Suit No.200 of 1982 by the learned City Civil<br \/>\nJudge, Court No.6, Ahmedabad whereby the suit of the plaintiff was<br \/>\npartly allowed and the defendants were ordered to pay Rs.8869\/- only<br \/>\nin lieu of the deficit land of 159.65 sq.yards i.e.133.46 sq.mtrs.<br \/>\nwith future interest calculated at the rate of 7?% over the<br \/>\nprincipal amount of Rs.7240\/- from 1.2.1982 till its payment or<br \/>\nrealization. It was also further ordered that the plaintiffs shall<br \/>\nretain possession to the extent of 58.88 sq.yards i.e. 49.07 sq.mtrs.<br \/>\nof land out of the deficit land of 218.53 sq.yards i.e. 182.53<br \/>\nsq.mtrs. as owners which is a part of sub-plot no.7\/2\/2 of Maninagar<br \/>\nTown Planning Scheme No.4 situated in Rajpur-Hirapur, Taluka City,<br \/>\nDistrict and Sub-district Ahmedabad whose possession was to be<br \/>\nretained by the defendants as owners which was by way of<br \/>\nproportionate land of common plot and roads and which came to the<br \/>\nshare of Prabhudas Acharya.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t\tThe<br \/>\ncase of the plaintiffs in brief was that the defendants no.2 and 3<br \/>\nare the sons of defendant no.1 and one Anandilal Harilal. Said<br \/>\nAnandilal and his mother Bai Jiba entered into an agreement to sale<br \/>\nof part of their land of sub-plot no.7\/2\/2 of Maninagar T.P.Scheme<br \/>\nNo.4 situated in Rajpur-Hirpur, Taluka city District and sub-district<br \/>\nAhmedabad to one Mohanlal Vajibhai Patel on 26.5.1961 and he<br \/>\norganized a society by name Vasundhara colony and constructed<br \/>\ntenements and in pursuance of the said agreement, they or their<br \/>\npredecessors-in-title purchased the same and they were put in<br \/>\npossession of those tenements as owners thereof. As certain terms and<br \/>\nconditions of the said agreement were breached, Anandilal and his<br \/>\nmother instituted Civil Suit No.434 of 1964 for cancellation of the<br \/>\nsaid agreement and for possession of that part of the sub-plot of<br \/>\nland after removal of superstructures standing thereon. The Court<br \/>\npassed decree dated 22.12.1976 in that suit directing the<br \/>\npredecessors-in-title to deliver possession of the said part of the<br \/>\nsub-plot of land after removing the superstructures within six months<br \/>\nof the passing of the decree with a further direction to pay mesne<br \/>\nprofit to the tune of Rs.25,346\/- with interest and also future mesne<br \/>\nprofits till the date of possession. Against the said judgment and<br \/>\ndecree, First Appeal No.5 of 1977 was preferred before this Court and<br \/>\nduring the pendency of the appeal, the parties arrived at amicable<br \/>\nsettlement and by that settlement, Anandilal and his mother sold them<br \/>\npart of the sub-plot no.2 of final plot no.7\/2 which was in their<br \/>\npossession by stating that the same admeasured 5080-52 sq.yards and<br \/>\nthose vendors retained 218-53 sq.yards of land for common plot and<br \/>\nroads of that sub-plot over and above sub-plot no.1 admeasuring 456<br \/>\nsq.yards out of total area of final plot no.7\/2 admeasuring 5755-05<br \/>\nsq.yards and they or their predecessors-in-title paid Rs.2,29,897\/-<br \/>\nin all in lumpsum for sale of the part of the sub-plot no.2<br \/>\nadmeasuring 5080-52 sq.yards and consent decree in terms of this<br \/>\nsettlement was passed by this Court on 23.1.1979. The vendors got the<br \/>\naforesaid amount and by way of the aforesaid consent decree, they or<br \/>\ntheir predecessors-in-title became the owners of the said piece of<br \/>\nland.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\t\tIt<br \/>\nis further the case of the plaintiffs that thereafter the said piece<br \/>\nof land was got measured through the office of District Land Records,<br \/>\nAhmedabad on 19.12.1979 and it was at that time detected that the<br \/>\nsame admeasured only 4861.99 sq.yards instead of 5080.52 sq.yards and<br \/>\nthus there was a deficit of 218.53 sq.yards. Therefore, the present<br \/>\nsuit was instituted to recover the possession of the deficit land<br \/>\nadmeasuring 218-53 sq.yards in the alternative its price of<br \/>\nRs.43,706\/- along with the costs of the suit from the defendants.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t\tThe<br \/>\ndefendants filed written statement and submitted that the plaintiffs<br \/>\nor their predecessors-in-title were already in possession of the part<br \/>\nof the sub-plot no.7\/2\/2 since the years 1961-62-63 and as per the<br \/>\nterms of the settlement, they were allowed to retain possession<br \/>\nthereof as owners for the lumpsum of Rs.2,29,897\/- and so there was<br \/>\nno question of delivering possession of any additional land to them<br \/>\non account of any deficit found therein. They also contended that the<br \/>\nplaintiffs&#8217; suit is barred by res-judicata or estoppel. They<br \/>\nultimately prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t\tAfter<br \/>\nhearing the arguments of learned advocates at length and after<br \/>\nconsidering the documentary as well as oral evidence led by the<br \/>\nparties, the learned trial Judge passed the order as stated<br \/>\nhereinabove against which the original defendants filed the present<br \/>\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned advocates for the parties and perused the record and<br \/>\njudgment of the learned trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t\tLearned<br \/>\nadvocate Mr.Shelat for the appellants-original defendants submitted<br \/>\nthat the suit was not maintainable in the eye of law and the same was<br \/>\nbarred under Section 11 and Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code as<br \/>\npreviously the suit was filed between the same parties which was<br \/>\ndecided by the trial Court against which the appeal was filed and<br \/>\nduring the pendency of the appeal, the matter was amicably settled<br \/>\nbetween the parties and therefore the decree of the trial Court was<br \/>\nset aside and trial Court was directed to draw the decree in terms of<br \/>\nthe written compromise placed on record and therefore the trial Court<br \/>\ncommitted error in entertaining the suit. It was also argued by<br \/>\nlearned advocate Mr.Shelat that there is no question of handing over<br \/>\nany portion of the land to the defendants as the land admeasuring<br \/>\n5080.52 sq.yards was actually in the possession of the defendants. He<br \/>\nalso argued that the findings of the learned Judge are against the<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence and merely based on surmises and conjectures and<br \/>\nit is wrongly held that the defendants are bound to deliver the<br \/>\npossession of 58.88 sq.yards of land to the plaintiffs. That the<br \/>\ntrial Court has materially erred in going behind the decree and order<br \/>\nof this Court in connection with the subject matter of the suit and<br \/>\nprayed that this appeal may be allowed and the decree of the learned<br \/>\ntrial Court may be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t\tAs<br \/>\nagainst this, learned advocate Mr.Desai for the respondents-original<br \/>\nplaintiffs submitted that the judgment and decree of the learned<br \/>\ntrial Court is legal and proper and need not be interfered with. It<br \/>\nis argued by him that on basis of the compromise arrived at between<br \/>\nthe parties, title of the property was passed to the parties but as<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs received less land than they were entitled to get, the<br \/>\nonly remedy with them was to file the suit to get the possession of<br \/>\nthe deficit land or to get the market price of that land. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe suit was not barred under Section 11 and Section 47 of the Civil<br \/>\nProcedure Code. He therefore prayed to dismiss the appeal and confirm<br \/>\nthe judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\t\tIt<br \/>\nis an admitted position that at the time of measurement by the office<br \/>\nof District Land Records, it was found that the part of sub-plot<br \/>\nno.7\/2\/2 which was sold and in possession of the plaintiffs and their<br \/>\npredecessors-in-title admeasured only 4114.66 sq.mtrs. instead of<br \/>\n4248-12 sq.mtrs. and there was deficit of 218.53 sq.yards of land.<br \/>\nThis fact is proved through the evidence of P.W.1 Mahendrakumar<br \/>\nNavinchandra who was working as Surveyor in the office of the<br \/>\nDistrict Lands Records. When the title is obtained by the plaintiffs<br \/>\nas per the terms of compromise and through sale deed and when there<br \/>\nis deficit land as per the compromise, then there is no remedy for<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs except to file a suit and it is rightly held by the<br \/>\ntrial Court that the principles of res-judicata or estoppel are not<br \/>\nattracted in the present case and the suit is tenable.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\t\tWhen<br \/>\nthe suit is tenable and it is proved through documentary evidence as<br \/>\nwell as oral evidence that the defendants delivered possession of<br \/>\n218.53 sq.yards of land less of sub-plot no.7\/2\/2 of Maninagar Town<br \/>\nPlanning Scheme no.4, the learned trial Court has rightly held that<br \/>\nthe defendants are bound to deliver possession of the deficit land<br \/>\nbut that is not possible to the extent of 58.88 sq.yards and so the<br \/>\nplaintiffs are entitled to recover Rs.8869\/- only in respect of the<br \/>\ndeficit land of 159.65 sq.yards in lieu of the price of the said land<br \/>\nand not Rs.43,706\/- as claimed by them. Learned advocate for the<br \/>\nappellants failed to show any illegality or perverseness in the<br \/>\njudgment and order of the learned trial Court and this Court has no<br \/>\nreason to interfere with the said judgment and decree.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t\tIn<br \/>\nview of the above, this appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(<br \/>\nM.D.Shah, J )<\/p>\n<p>srilatha<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 2010 Author: Md Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/1976\/1984 5\/ 8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1976 of 1984 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be [&hellip;]<\/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-259201","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-20T07:08:47+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-20T07:08:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1560,\"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\\\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-20T07:08:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 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":"Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-20T07:08:47+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-20T07:08:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010"},"wordCount":1560,"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\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010","name":"Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-20T07:08:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maniben-vs-sahebrao-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maniben vs Sahebrao on 22 July, 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\/259201","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=259201"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/259201\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=259201"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=259201"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=259201"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}