{"id":46442,"date":"2008-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008"},"modified":"2017-05-20T10:21:38","modified_gmt":"2017-05-20T04:51:38","slug":"mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   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\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/23498\/2006\t 13\/ 16\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 23498 of 2006\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n \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\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\n \n\nMAHANT\nNARSANGDASJI GURU SANTDASJI - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKISHORBHAI\nKANJIBHAI PATEL &amp; 11 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nMEHUL S SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR SURESH M\nSHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1, \nMR MIHIR JOSHI,SR.ADVOCATE WITH MR\nVIMAL M PATEL for Respondent(s):1, \nNone for Respondent(s) : 2 -\n12. \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 M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 12\/11\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n<p>1.\t\tBy<br \/>\nway of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,<br \/>\nthe petitioner ?  original plaintiff &#8211;  appellant has prayed for an<br \/>\nappropriate Writ to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated<br \/>\n28.02.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rajkot in<br \/>\nCivil Misc.Appeal No.114 of 2005 as well as order dated 22.12.2005<br \/>\npassed by the learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge,<br \/>\nRajkot below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.564 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThe<br \/>\npetitioner herein had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.564 of 2005 in<br \/>\nthe Court of learned Civil Judge, S.D., Rajkot for declaration and<br \/>\npermanent injunction. As per the plaintiff he is Mahant of Kabir<br \/>\nAshram situated at Rajkot. As per his case, he was appointed as<br \/>\nMahant by his Guru Santdasji the then Mahant of the Kabir Ashram vide<br \/>\nhis Will dated 04.04.1984. That Santdasji was appointed as Mahant of<br \/>\nthe Kabir Ashram by his Guru ?  Bhagvandasji Guruharidasji vide Will<br \/>\ndated 16.09.1972. According to the custom of the Kabir Ashram for<br \/>\nbecoming a Mahant one has to take Diksha from the Ashram. That<br \/>\nMahanat Bhagvandasji Guru Haridasji had purchased certain properties<br \/>\nduring his life time, but those were purchased from the followers in<br \/>\nhis capacity as Mahant. Land bearing survey No.329, 384 situated at<br \/>\nGondal Road, Rajkot were purchased from one Premji Gopa Patel in 1955<br \/>\nand similarly land bearing Survey No.325 was purchased in the year<br \/>\n1960 from one Sama Kala. Out of the said properties, certain<br \/>\nproperties were sold by Mahant Bhagvandasji and the amount received<br \/>\nfrom those sale transactions were spent by Mahant Bhagvandasji for<br \/>\nthe development and other activities of the Ashram. After the death<br \/>\nof Bhagvandasji the above said properties were being managed by Guru<br \/>\nSantadasji. Respondent No.1 had obtained letters of administration in<br \/>\nrespect of above said properties on the basis of so called Will of<br \/>\nGuruj Mahant Bhagvandasji.  As per the plaintiff, the properties<br \/>\nwhich were held by Mahant Guru Bhagvandas at the time of his death<br \/>\nvest in the appellant as a successor Mahant as per the Hindu law. It<br \/>\nwas the case on behalf of the petitioner that the Will made by Mahant<br \/>\nBhagvandasji in favour of deceased Kanjibhai Patel is invalid and so<br \/>\nit is to be believed that Mahant Bhagvandasji died intestate and in<br \/>\nthat circumstances as a successor Mahant those properties vest in the<br \/>\nappellant. As per the case of the petitioner, he has acquired the<br \/>\nproperties of Mahant Bhagvandasji on the basis of Will dated<br \/>\n16.09.1972 made by Mahant Bhagvandasji and thereafter also as a<br \/>\nresult of Will made by Mahant Santdasji dated 04.04.1984. That<br \/>\nBhagvandasji had no right or authority to give these properties to<br \/>\nKanjibhai by executing Will and Kanjibhai did not get right over<br \/>\nthose properties mentioned in the Will. That the Will made by<br \/>\nKanjibhai in favour of defendant No.1 is also invalid and void. That<br \/>\ndeceased Kanjibhai Dosabhai obtained letters of administration in<br \/>\nrespect of certain properties pursuant to the order passed by the<br \/>\nJoint Charity Commissioner in Application No.122 of 1994.  That the<br \/>\ndeceased Kanjibhai had also filed  Civil Misc. Application No.48 of<br \/>\n2000 in the Court of Civil Judge, S.D., Rajkot for obtaining letters<br \/>\nof administration of the properties of Mahant Bhagvandasji on the<br \/>\nbasis of Will of Mahant Bhagvandasji and obtained letters of<br \/>\nadministration.  As per the plaintiff, letters of administration were<br \/>\nobtained by deceased Kanjibhai by suppressing real facts made.<br \/>\nRespondent No.1,2 and 3 are the power of attorney of defendant No.1.<br \/>\nAs per the petitioner that the letters of administration obtained by<br \/>\nrespondent No.1 on the basis of Will does not give any right, title<br \/>\nor interest to respondent No.1 in support of those properties.  That<br \/>\nrespondent No.5 Rajkot Municipal Corporation has approved plans and<br \/>\ngive construction permission over the said properties in absence of<br \/>\nany proof regarding ownership. Original defendant Nos.4 to 8 have<br \/>\nrecognized the right of respondent No.1 to 3 arbitrarily by<br \/>\nacknowledging the documents which has no legal force. Respondent<br \/>\nNos.1 to 3 are illegally continuing the construction over those<br \/>\nproperties. The plaintiff made representation before respondent No.4<br \/>\nto 12 to restrain respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 from doing illegal act but<br \/>\nno action were taken by the said respondents. Therefore, the<br \/>\nplaintiff is required to file aforesaid Suit. In the said suit, the<br \/>\npetitioner ?  plaintiff has prayed for declaration that he is<br \/>\nentitle to acquire all the properties of Mahant Bhagvandasji as<br \/>\nsuccessor Mahant; the so-called Will of Mahant Bhagvandasji dated<br \/>\n18.04.1978 in favour of Kanjibhai and the Will executed by Kanjibhai<br \/>\ndated 20.10.1995 in favour of respondent No.1 are illegal, null and<br \/>\nvoid; the defendants have no right, title, interest in the suit<br \/>\nproperty and they have no right to sell, transfer the suit properties<br \/>\non the basis of letters of administration obtained in Civil<br \/>\nMisc.Application No.48 of 2000; the construction permission and<br \/>\nelectric connection given and mutation entry made in revenue record<br \/>\nby the defendant Nos.4 to 10 in respect of suit properties are<br \/>\nillegal and void. The petitioner ?  plaintiff also claimed permanent<br \/>\ninjunction and mandatory injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 to 4<br \/>\nto stop the construction being carried out on the suit land and to<br \/>\nremove the construction which are already carried out on the suit<br \/>\nlands. By way of permanent injunction the petitioner- plaintiff  has<br \/>\nalso prayed restraining respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 from transferring<br \/>\nthe lands of sub-plot of Survey No.325 in any manner to any person<br \/>\nand respondent No.11 be restrained from registering the documents<br \/>\npertaining to transfer of these lands. It is also further prayed to<br \/>\nrestrain respondent Nos.5 to 10 from giving completion certificate in<br \/>\nrespect of the construction done over the suit lands. In the said<br \/>\nsuit the petitioner ?  plaintiff submitted application for interim<br \/>\ninjunction at Exh.5.  The learned trial Court vide order dated<br \/>\n22.12.2005 dismissed Exh.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the<br \/>\norder passed by the learned trial Court passed below Exh.5 in<br \/>\ndismissing the same, the petitioner ?  plaintiff preferred Civil<br \/>\nMisc.Appeal No.114 of 2005 before the learned District Court, Rajkot<br \/>\nand the learned Additional District Judge, Rajkot vide his impugned<br \/>\norder dated 28.02.2006 has dismissed the said appeal confirming the<br \/>\norder passed by the learned trial Court passed below Exh.5. Being<br \/>\naggerieved and dissatisfied with both the aforesaid orders, the<br \/>\npetitioner ?  plaintiff has preferred present Special Civil<br \/>\nApplication under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tMr.S.M.Shah,<br \/>\nlearned Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that<br \/>\nboth the Courts below ought to have considered that normal rule is to<br \/>\npreserve status-quo as on date of the suit. It is further submitted<br \/>\nthat both the Courts have materially erred in not properly<br \/>\nappreciating the scope and ambit of Section 307 of the Indian<br \/>\nSuccession Act.  It is further submitted that properties cannot be<br \/>\ntransferred without prior permission of the Court as contemplated<br \/>\nunder sub-section (2) of Section 307 of the Indian Succession Act. It<br \/>\nis submitted that Mahant Bhagvandasji had no right or authority to<br \/>\ngive properties in question to Kanjibhai by executing Will and<br \/>\nthereby Kanjibhai did not get properties mentioned in the Will. It is<br \/>\nsubmitted that subsequent Will made by Kanjibhai in favour of<br \/>\ndefendant No.1 is also invalid and void. Aforesaid aspects have not<br \/>\nbeen considered by both the courts below. Therefore, it is requested<br \/>\nto allow present Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tPetition<br \/>\nis opposed by Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.Vimal<br \/>\nPatel, learned Advocate for respondent No.1.  It is submitted that on<br \/>\nappreciation of evidence both the Courts below have concurrently held<br \/>\nagainst the petitioner. It is also further submitted that even suit<br \/>\nfiled by the petitioner ?  plaintiff is not maintainable and has no<br \/>\nlocus to file such a suit. It is submitted that suit is filed on<br \/>\ninsufficient court fees of Rs.1000\/- only. It is submitted that total<br \/>\nvalue of the land is more than Rs.30 lacs. It is also further<br \/>\nsubmitted that deceased Kanjibhai had obtained letters of<br \/>\nadministration from the Joint Charity Commissioner as well as from<br \/>\nthe learned Civil Judge, S.D., Rajkot.  It is submitted that the very<br \/>\npetitioner submitted application being Civil Misc. Application No.110<br \/>\nof 2002 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, S.D., Rajkot for<br \/>\nrevocation of Letter of Administration and the Court dismissed the<br \/>\nsaid application on the ground of locus-standi. It is further<br \/>\nsubmitted that against the said order, the petitioner ?  plaintiff<br \/>\npreferred First Appeal No.2629 of 2004 before this Court and the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge of this Court  also dismissed the said<br \/>\napplication by specifically holding that the petitioner has failed to<br \/>\nestablish his interest over the disputed property and therefore, the<br \/>\npetitioner has no locus-standi to file application for revocation of<br \/>\nLetter of Administration. It is submitted that the said order is not<br \/>\nfurther challenged and has become final and therefore, the petitioner<br \/>\nhas no locus to file present suit. It is further submitted that<br \/>\nconsidering Section 211 and 213 of the Indian Succession Act once<br \/>\nLetter of Administration is obtained thereafter, Kanjibhai had<br \/>\nauthority to dispose of the property and accordingly by Will<br \/>\nproperties have been given to respondent No.1. It is submitted that<br \/>\nas such even properties in question are sub-plotted and all of them<br \/>\nare transferred. It is further submitted that even application<br \/>\nsubmitted by the respondents under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of<br \/>\nCivil Procedure is pending. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss<br \/>\npresent Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tIn<br \/>\nreply Mr.Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that<br \/>\ndecision of this Court in First Appeal No.2629 of 2004 would not come<br \/>\nin the way of the petitioner as same was in proceedings initiated by<br \/>\nthe petitioner for revocation of Letter of Administration.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned Advocates for the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tAt<br \/>\nthe outset, it is required to be noted that dispute is with respect<br \/>\nto land bearing Survey No.325. The petitioner ?  plaintiff claims to<br \/>\nbe Mahant of Kabir Ashram on the basis of Will dated 04.04.1984<br \/>\nexecuted by his Guru Santdasji and said Santdasji was appointed as<br \/>\nMahant of Kabir Ashram by his Guru Bhagvandasji vide Will dated<br \/>\n16.09.1972. Deceased Kanjibhai claimed right on the suit property on<br \/>\nthe basis of registered Will executed by Bhagvandasji Guruharidasji.<br \/>\nIt is required to be noted that said deceased Kanjibhai had obtained<br \/>\nLetter of Administration with respect to the suit property by<br \/>\nsubmitting Civil Misc.Application No.48 of 2000 in the Court of<br \/>\nlearned Civil Judge, S.D., Rajkot. It has come on record that it is<br \/>\nnot disputed that the petitioner submitted application being Civil<br \/>\nMisc.Application No.110 of 2002 in the Court of learned Civil Judge,<br \/>\nS.D., Rajkot for revocation of the aforesaid Letter of Administration<br \/>\nand the learned Civil Court has dismissed the said application by<br \/>\nholding that the petitioner ?  plaintiff has no locus-standi.  The<br \/>\norder passed by the learned Civil Court dismissing the application<br \/>\nfor revocation of Letter of Administration was challenged by the<br \/>\npetitioner before this Court by way of First Appeal No.2629 of 2004<br \/>\nand the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2004<br \/>\ndismissed First Appeal by specifically observing and holding that so<br \/>\nfar as PTR maintained by the office of Charity Commissioner which is<br \/>\non record, it does not mention three Survey Nos.325, 329 and 384 of<br \/>\nRajkot therefore, those properties were exclusively belonged to<br \/>\nMahant Bhagvandasji as exclusive owner. Learned Single Judge has also<br \/>\nspecifically observed and held that the petitioner ?  plaintiff has<br \/>\nno locus standi for filing revocation of Letter of Administration.<br \/>\nRelevant observations made by the learned Single Judge in aforesaid<br \/>\nFirst Appeal are as under :\n<\/p>\n<p>?S14.\tIt  is  true<br \/>\nthat so far as PTR maintained by the office of Charity Commissioner<br \/>\nwhich  is  on  record,  it does not mention  three  S.Nos.325, 329<br \/>\nand 384 of Rajkot, which are subject  matter  of  dispute  in  these<br \/>\n     proceedings. Therefore,  there is no manner of doubt in coming<br \/>\nto the conclusion that those properties bearing S.Nos.325, 329 and<br \/>\n384 were exclusively belonged to  Mahant Bhagvandasji as  exclusive<br \/>\nowner. It appears from the      record that said Mahant  Bhagvandasji<br \/>\n had  executed two Wills.  One Will was unregistered and it was<br \/>\nexecuted in favour of Santdasji as successor-in-office of Mahant and<br \/>\nalso  the properties of the Ashram Trust while the second Will was<br \/>\nregistered and it was executed in favour of  the father of<br \/>\nrespondent  No.1  herein  and  in  the  said registered Will<br \/>\nspecifically these three S.Nos.325, 329 and 384 are mentioned.<br \/>\nTherefore, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that<br \/>\nMahant Bhagvandasji had bequeathed properties  bearing three<br \/>\nS.Nos.325, 329 and 384 in favour of father of respondent No.1 by<br \/>\nregistered      Will  and on the basis of the said registered Will<br \/>\nfather of respondent No.1 herein had absolute ownership  of  the<br \/>\nproperties  bearing S.Nos.325, 329 and 384 and thereafter<br \/>\nfather of respondent No.1 has executed Will in favour  of respondent<br \/>\nNo.1  and he has become absolute owner of the said S.Nos.  on the<br \/>\nbasis of the said Will. Respondent No.1  has  applied for obtaining<br \/>\nLetter of Administration by filing CMA No.48 of 2000 which came to be<br \/>\nallowed. It is also evident that before deciding CMA No.48 of 2000, a<br \/>\npublic notice was issued which is at page 78  which  was       also<br \/>\nnever objected by the present appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8230;..xxxx&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>23.\tOn overall view of<br \/>\nthe matter, this Court  is  of the  opinion  that  appellant has<br \/>\nfailed to establish his interest over the dispute properties  bearing<br \/>\n S.Nos.325, 329  and  384  of Rajkot. Therefore, obviously, the<br \/>\nappellant has no locus standi  to  file  application  for  revocation<br \/>\n of the Letter of Administration and the trial Judge has rightly<br \/>\nrejected the application filed by the      appellant  which  does<br \/>\nnot  call for any interference by this Court in the appeal filed<br \/>\nunder Section  96  of  the Code  read with Section 299 of the Indian<br \/>\nSuccession Act,      1925.??\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tIt<br \/>\nis also required to be noted at this stage that even learned Single<br \/>\nJudge has considered the submission on behalf of the petitioner with<br \/>\nrespect to Will executed by Bhagvandasji in favour of Santdasji. Said<br \/>\njudgment and order in aforesaid First Appeal has become final and<br \/>\nsame is not further carried to appeal. Now considering above findings<br \/>\nand considering above fact that deceased Kanjibhai obtained Letter of<br \/>\nAdministration with respect to suit property on the basis of Will<br \/>\nexecuted by Bhagvandas in favour of Kanjibhai and thereafter,<br \/>\nKanjibhai executed Will in favour of defendant No.1 and finding of<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge in aforesaid First Appeal that the<br \/>\npetitioner ?  plaintiff has no locus-standi and considering above<br \/>\nwhen both the Courts below have refused to grant injunction, it<br \/>\ncannot be said that both the Courts below have committed any error or<br \/>\nillegality. On the contrary both the Courts below are justified in<br \/>\nnot granting injunction as prayed for. The petitioner-plaintiff has<br \/>\nno locus and\/or interest on the land in question. In view of above<br \/>\nfact that deceased Kanjibhai had obtained Letter of Administration<br \/>\nfrom the competent Court and he subsequently transferred the said<br \/>\nproperty by Will in favour of defendant No.1, section 307 of the<br \/>\nIndian Succession Act would not be applicable as contended on behalf<br \/>\nof the petitioner. Section 211 and Section 213 of the Indian<br \/>\nSuccession Act is very much clear. Once the Letter of Administration<br \/>\nis obtained, the person who obtained Letter of Administration can<br \/>\ndeal with the properties as per the said order. Under the<br \/>\ncircumstances when it is found that property in question was not<br \/>\ntrust property and was exclusively owned by Mahant Bhagvandasji who<br \/>\nbequeathed the property in favour of deceased Kanjibhai by registered<br \/>\nWill and in turn deceased Kanjibhai bequeathed the property in favour<br \/>\nof defendant No.1 by Will and when the petitioner-plaintiff was never<br \/>\nin possession of the suit property, the petitioner is not entitled to<br \/>\nany injunction as prayed for as he has no interest on the property in<br \/>\nquestion. There are concurrent findings given by both the Courts<br \/>\nbelow on appreciation of evidence and this Court in a petition under<br \/>\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India is not require to<br \/>\nre-appreciate the evidence on record. There is no jurisdictional<br \/>\nerror much less an error of law committed by both the Courts below<br \/>\nwhich calls for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tFor<br \/>\nthe reasons stated above, there is no substance in the present<br \/>\nSpecial Civil Application and deserve to be dismissed and accordingly<br \/>\nit is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>[M.R.Shah,J.]<\/p>\n<p>satish<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/23498\/2006 13\/ 16 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 23498 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may [&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-46442","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>Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008 - 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\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-20T04:51:38+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-20T04:51:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2697,\"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\\\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-20T04:51:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008 - 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\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-20T04:51:38+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-20T04:51:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008"},"wordCount":2697,"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\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008","name":"Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-20T04:51:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-vs-kishorbhai-on-12-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahant vs Kishorbhai on 12 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/46442","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=46442"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46442\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46442"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46442"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46442"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}