{"id":49034,"date":"2008-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-05-24T19:07:30","modified_gmt":"2017-05-24T13:37:30","slug":"bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 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\nAO\/465\/2007\t 10\/ 10\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nAPPEAL\nFROM ORDER No. 465 of 2007\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCIVIL\nAPPLICATION No. 15736 of 2007\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\nBHIMJIBHAI\nNARSHIBHAI MALAVIYA - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nMANIBEN\nMOHANBHAI PATEL &amp; 35 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================\nAppearance : \nMR\nNM KAPADIA for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR ASHISH M DAGLI for\nRespondent(s) : 1 - 30. \n- for Respondent(s) : 0.0.0  \n- for\nRespondent(s) : 0.0.0, 0.0.0, 0.0.0, 0.0.0,0.0.0\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 \n \nCAV\nJUDGMENT \n<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tPresent<br \/>\nAppeal from Order is filed by the appellant original defendant No. 1<br \/>\nto quash and set aside the impugned order dated 1.11.2007 passed by<br \/>\nthe learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat passed below<br \/>\nExhs. 5 and 64 in Special Civil Suit No. 108 of 2007, by which the<br \/>\nlearned trial Court has partly allowed both the applications<br \/>\nsubmitted by the original plaintiffs by directing the plaintiffs as<br \/>\nwell as defendant No.1 to maintain status quo as regards to the title<br \/>\nof the disputed land, which was prevailing on the date of the filing<br \/>\nthe suit till final haring of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tRespondents<br \/>\nherein original plaintiffs have instituted Special Civil Suit No. 108<br \/>\nof 2007 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Surat against the<br \/>\nappellant original defendant No.1 for declaration and permanent<br \/>\ninjunction and for declaration that the sale deed executed in favour<br \/>\nof the defendant No. 1 dated 25.5.2006 is void. It is the case on<br \/>\nbehalf of the plaintiffs that the original plaintiffs No. 1 to 19<br \/>\nhave purchased plots by way of registered sale deed, whereas other<br \/>\nplaintiffs have purchased the plots by way of possession receipt.<br \/>\nDispute is with respect to land bearing revenue Survey No. 20<br \/>\nsituated at Pandeshara, Surat, which was originally belonging to the<br \/>\noriginal defendant No. 4 Ratilal Prabhubhai Patel in the capacity of<br \/>\nland owner and as a power of attorney of other land owners i.e.<br \/>\noriginal defendant Nos. 2 to 7 sold the suit plots to the plaintiffs<br \/>\nunder different sale deed and under possession receipts. Thus,<br \/>\naccording to them they became the absolute owner of the plots . As<br \/>\nper the plaintiffs inspite of the above, the original defendant Nos.<br \/>\n2 to 7 sold away the entire land bearing survey No. 20 to the<br \/>\nappellant herein original defendant No.1  vide registered sale deed<br \/>\ndated 25.5.2006 and though the defendants were knowing about the<br \/>\nearlier transaction they executed the sale deed in favour the<br \/>\ndefendant No.1 and as the defendant No.4 and others were trying to<br \/>\ndisturb the possession, the aforesaid suit came to be filed for the<br \/>\naforesaid relief. In the said suit the plaintiffs submitted<br \/>\napplication for interim injunction at Exh. 5 praying for injunction<br \/>\nrestraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs from using<br \/>\nthe plots in question and disturbing their possession. The appellant<br \/>\noriginal defendant No.1 also submitted the application below Exh. 64<br \/>\npraying for injunction that the plaintiffs, their agents and servants<br \/>\nshould be restrained from entering into the suit land and further<br \/>\nrestrained them from obstructing the appellant-defendant No.1 from<br \/>\nusing occupying and enjoying the possession and ownership of the<br \/>\nappellant-defendant No.1 qua the land of Revenue Survey No. 20 of<br \/>\nvillage Pandesara, Surat. Both the applications came to be heard by<br \/>\nthe learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, who by his<br \/>\nimpugned order dated 1.11.2007 partly allowed both the applications<br \/>\nat Exhs. 5 and 64 directing the plaintiffs as well as defendant No. 1<br \/>\nto maintain status quo with respect to title of the disputed land.<br \/>\nBeing aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by<br \/>\nthe learned trial Court passed below Exhs. 5 and 64, the appellant<br \/>\nherein original defendant No.1 has preferred the present Appeal from<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tShri<br \/>\nN.M. Kapadia, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellant-defendant No.1, Shri Dagli, learned advocate has appeared<br \/>\non behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 original plaintiffs and Shri<br \/>\n R. J. Goswami, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondents No. 14 to 36. Shri Kapadia, learned advocate for the<br \/>\nappellant-defendant No.1 has submitted that the learned trial Court<br \/>\nhas materially erred in not allowing the application Exh. 64 fully<br \/>\nand in not dismissing the application Exh. 5 fully. It is submitted<br \/>\nthat the learned trial Court ought to have appreciated that the<br \/>\nregistered sale deed which is relied upon by the plaintiffs No. 1 to<br \/>\n19 are on agricultural land and no N.A. permission has been obtained.<br \/>\nIt is submitted that so far as  rest of the plaintiffs are concerned<br \/>\nthey have no title at all and they claim to be in possession only on<br \/>\npossession receipt which do not confer any right  on them. It is<br \/>\nfurther submitted that as such the learned trial Court has not<br \/>\nbelieved the prima facie case of the plaintiffs nor has held that the<br \/>\nbalance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs still the<br \/>\nlearned Judge has partly allowed the application Exh. 5. It is<br \/>\nfurther submitted that as such the learned Judge has answered all the<br \/>\nissues which are relevant and important in favour of the defendant<br \/>\nNo. 1 and inspite of that, granted injunction to maintain status quo<br \/>\nwhich is absolutely illegal and improper. It is submitted that grant<br \/>\nof status quo amounts to grant of injunction, therefore, it is<br \/>\nrequested to allow the present appeal from order.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tAppeal<br \/>\nfrom Order is opposed by Shri Dagli, learned advocate for the<br \/>\noriginal plaintiffs. It is submitted that original plaintiffs No. 1<br \/>\nto 19 have purchased the plots by registered sale deed executed by<br \/>\ndefendant No. 1 as a owner on his behalf as well as a power of<br \/>\nattorney of them co-owners and other plaintiffs are in possession<br \/>\npursuant to the possession receipt, the learned trial Court rightly<br \/>\ndirected both the parties to maintain status quo, which is just and<br \/>\nproper and considering the equity  and to strike the balance and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the same is not required to be interfered by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. On going<br \/>\nthrough the impugned  order, it is crystal clear that there is a<br \/>\nspecific findings given by the learned trial Court that the<br \/>\npossession of the disputed land is of defendants and that defendant<br \/>\nNo. 1 is in possession of the open land i.e. disputed land. The said<br \/>\nfinding is given considering the documentary evidence, revenue<br \/>\nrecords etc. justifying that the possession of the defendant No.1 has<br \/>\nbeen confirmed by the defendant No. 2 to 7 since 1990. The aforesaid<br \/>\nspecific finding with respect to the possession of the defendant<br \/>\nNo.1, original plaintiffs have not challenged the same. Even in para<br \/>\n27, the learned trial Court has specifically held that it is prima<br \/>\nfacie proved that  (i) Plaintiffs do not prove possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)Plaintiffs are not agriculturists.(iii). Disputed land is not<br \/>\nN.A. land (iv) Sale deeds which are executed in favour of various<br \/>\nplaintiffs are against the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and<br \/>\nConsolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. (v). The plaintiffs have<br \/>\nmisrepresented that suit land is constructed upto plinth level and<br \/>\nthere are internal way in disputed property. (vi). The plaintiffs<br \/>\nhave not joined other plot holders who have filed appeal before<br \/>\nRevenue Court and that the plaintiffs have also not joined other<br \/>\npurchaser of the disputed land as stated in mark 88\/5. The learned<br \/>\ntrial Court has also given specific finding that the plaintiffs are<br \/>\nclaiming through power of attorney, however the said power of<br \/>\nattorney is ineffective. In para 29, it is specifically held by the<br \/>\nlearned trial Court that plaintiffs are not entitled to get<br \/>\ninjunction as  prayed for. Inspite of the above, the learned trial<br \/>\nCourt has granted order of status quo against the appellant-defendant<br \/>\nNo.1. It cannot be disputed that grant of status quo tantamount to<br \/>\ngranting of injunction. It is also required to be noted that<br \/>\nplaintiffs No. 1 to 19 are claiming on the basisof the sale deed<br \/>\nexecuted by the defendant No.4 for himself and as a power of attorney<br \/>\non behalf of the other co-owners. However, it has come on record that<br \/>\ntwo co-owners have not signed the power of attorney and \/ or are not<br \/>\nparty to the transaction. Considering the above specific findings, it<br \/>\nappears that learned trial Court has committed an error in directing<br \/>\nboth the parties to maintain status as regards the title of the<br \/>\ndisputed land. It is required to be noted that as such, the learned<br \/>\ntrial Court has in the operative portion of the order not stated<br \/>\nanything with respect to the possession. As stated above, there is a<br \/>\nspecific finding given by the learned trial Court that the defendant<br \/>\nNo.1 is in  possession which is not challenged by the original<br \/>\nplaintiffs. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the<br \/>\nlearned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside, however it<br \/>\nis to be observed that any transaction hereinafter by any of the<br \/>\nparties should be subject to the ultimate outcome of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tFor<br \/>\nthe reasons stated above, Appeal from order succeeded. The impugned<br \/>\norder passed by the learned 10th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat<br \/>\ndated  1.11.2007 passed below Exhs. 5 and 64 in Special Civil Suit<br \/>\nNo. 108 of 2007, by which the defendants more particularly, defendant<br \/>\nNo.1  is directed to maintain status quo is hereby quashed and set<br \/>\naside with a observations and directions that any transaction<br \/>\nhereinafter by any of the parties inclusive of the defendant No.1<br \/>\nshall be subject to the ultimate outcome of the suit. Appeal from<br \/>\nOrder is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as<br \/>\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                             (M.R.SHAH,<br \/>\nJ.)<\/p>\n<p>kaushik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print AO\/465\/2007 10\/ 10 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 465 of 2007 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15736 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ===================================================== [&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-49034","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>Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 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\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-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=\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-24T13:37:30+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-24T13:37:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1494,\"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\\\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008\",\"name\":\"Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-24T13:37:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 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":"Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 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\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-24T13:37:30+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-24T13:37:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008"},"wordCount":1494,"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\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008","name":"Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-24T13:37:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhimjibhai-vs-maniben-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhimjibhai vs Maniben on 21 October, 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\/49034","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=49034"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49034\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49034"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49034"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49034"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}