{"id":80550,"date":"2008-06-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008"},"modified":"2017-02-09T11:21:25","modified_gmt":"2017-02-09T05:51:25","slug":"vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Jayant Patel,&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\/1616\/1993\t 16\/ 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. 1616 of 1993\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\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\nVASUDHA\nWD\/O VINAYAK GOKGHALE - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nPRABHAT\nCOLONY CO.OP.HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. &amp; 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nAY KOGJE for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4 NOTICE SERVED for\nPetitioner(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4  \nRULE SERVED for\nRespondent(s) : 1, \nMR NV SOLANKI for Respondent(s) :\n2, \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 JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 19\/06\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nCAV\nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tshort facts of the case appears to be that as per the petitioner,<br \/>\n\tVinayak Vishnu Gokhale (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Original<br \/>\n\tPetitioner&#8217;) paid an amount of Rs.650\/- on 5.3.1979 to the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1 Society for becoming the member.  On 11.4.1979, the<br \/>\n\toriginal petitioner further deposited an amount of Rs.9,600\/- with<br \/>\n\tthe Society and ultimately a further amount was also paid and<br \/>\n\treceipt was issued by the Society on 19.5.1979 for the amount of<br \/>\n\tRs.17,802\/-, which included the earlier amount deposited.  As per<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner, the share certificate was also issued, copy whereof<br \/>\n\tis produced at Annexure D, by the society vide certificate No.94 for<br \/>\n\tholding five shares by Jitendra Chunilal, which in turn were<br \/>\n\ttransferred in favour of the original petitioner on 10.7.1979.  It<br \/>\n\tis further case of the petitioner that on 21.4.1980 the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.1 Society has also passed the Resolution for allotment of &#8216;A&#8217;<br \/>\n\tType Block No.5 to the original petitioner.  It is further case of<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner that the revenue entry was also mutated for such<br \/>\n\tpurpose and as the petitioner was desirous to take loan, the<br \/>\n\tcertificate was also issued by the Society for holding of &#8216;A&#8217; Type<br \/>\n\tBlock No.5 and the payment made for such purpose and clear<br \/>\n\tmarketability of the title of the Society vide Certificate dated<br \/>\n\t21.4.1980.  It is also the case of the petitioner that another<br \/>\n\tcertificate came to be issued on 14.3.1980 by the Society to the<br \/>\n\teffect that if the property is mortgaged by the original petitioner,<br \/>\n\twithout prior approval of Anyonya Sahakari Bank Limited, the same<br \/>\n\tshall not be transferred to anyone else.  It is also the case of the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner that the petitioner subsequently paid the additional<br \/>\n\tamount to the society and the notice was also issued by the society<br \/>\n\tto the petitioner, calling upon him to pay the remaining amount of<br \/>\n\tRs.9,964\/- and, therefore, the petitioner contends that the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner was admitted as the member and the aforesaid block was<br \/>\n\tallotted by the society to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tappears that as per respondent No.2, the President of the society<br \/>\n\tallotted the very block to respondent No.2 and it is the case of the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2 that based on the documents issued, including that<br \/>\n\tof the share-certificate and the payment made in the year 1982, the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2 obtained a loan from the State Bank of India and at<br \/>\n\tthat stage, the respondent No.2 came to know that the President of<br \/>\n\tthe society had also issued similar share certificates, etc.,  to<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner and, therefore, respondent No.2 had filed Lavad Suit<br \/>\n\tNo.646 of 1983 before the Registrar&#8217;s Board of Nominee for<br \/>\n\tprotecting the possession and prohibiting the interference in the<br \/>\n\tfurther construction.  In the said suit, the petitioner was not<br \/>\n\timpleaded as the party.  The pertinent aspect is that in the said<br \/>\n\tsuit, the society had filed the reply and it was stated that by way<br \/>\n\tof a temporary measure, the papers were given, but the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 herein had agreed that he would accept any block, which might<br \/>\n\tbe allotted by the society and the society had to allot block<br \/>\n\tNo.11\/A and Block No.5\/A, which was subject matter of the suit was<br \/>\n\tallotted to the original petitioner herein.  The aforesaid pleadings<br \/>\n\tof the society in the aforesaid suit support the case of the<br \/>\n\toriginal petitioner.  However, the fact remains that the original<br \/>\n\tpetitioner did not take any action during the period of 1983 onwards<br \/>\n\tand only in the year 1985, the original petitioner preferred Lavad<br \/>\n\tSuit No.1161 of 1985 before the Registrar&#8217;s Board of Nominees for<br \/>\n\tthe relief, inter alia, of declaration that the property of Block<br \/>\n\tNo.5\/A admeasuring 700 sq. ft. of the Society is belonging to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner and the defendant be directed to entrust the vacant<br \/>\n\tpossession of the property.  It appears that pending the aforesaid<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2 has withdrawn Suit No.646 of 1983, which was for the<br \/>\n\tinjunction.  It appears that the learned Nominee tried the suit and<br \/>\n\tultimately passed the judgement and the award dated 30.12.1991,<br \/>\n\twhereby the suit was not accepted but it was directed that the<br \/>\n\tdefendant No.1 society shall refund the amount, which was deposited<br \/>\n\tby the plaintiff and credited in the account of the society or in<br \/>\n\talternative, it was also directed that if there is any vacant block<br \/>\n\tin the society or if in future there is availability of the vacant<br \/>\n\tblock, the same be allotted to the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetitioner carried the matter before the Gujarat Cooperative<br \/>\n\tTribunal in appeal and the Tribunal vide its decision dated 30th<br \/>\n\tSeptember, 1992 dismissed the appeal and it is under these<br \/>\n\tcircumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by<br \/>\n\tpreferring the present petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>Heard<br \/>\n\tMr.Kogje, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and<br \/>\n\tMr.Solanki, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.<br \/>\n\tRespondent No.1 society was served but has chosen not to appear.<br \/>\n\tThe learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made, the<br \/>\n\trecord and evidence of the suit proceedings, available to the Court<br \/>\n\tduring the course of the final hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tdoes appear from the record produced on behalf of the petitioner<br \/>\n\tthat the payment was made by the original petitioner towards<br \/>\n\tmembership and towards construction in part and the share<br \/>\n\tcertificate also came to be transferred in favour of the petitioner.<br \/>\n\t It also appears that Block No.5 was initially allotted to the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner and the said fact is supported by the pleadings of the<br \/>\n\tsociety made in the proceedings of Lavad Suit No.646 of 1983, copy<br \/>\n\twhereof is produced at Ex. 17 in the suit proceedings. Therefore,<br \/>\n\tthe aforesaid documents go to show that the original petitioner was<br \/>\n\tadmitted as the member and was also initially allotted Block No.5.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, the interest to that extent can be said to have been<br \/>\n\tcreated of the petitioner in the aforesaid part of the property of<br \/>\n\tthe Society.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tdeserves to be recorded that in a housing cooperative society, the<br \/>\n\townership of the property of the society vests to the society and<br \/>\n\tthe allotment of the plot or block, as the case may be, is being<br \/>\n\tmade by the society.  In the present case, as it appears, to be the<br \/>\n\tscheme for not only the allotment of the plot, but also for making<br \/>\n\tconstruction of a tenement and allotment of the tenement, after<br \/>\n\tcompleting the construction by the society, the possession after<br \/>\n\tallotment was to be entrusted to the member, who has been allotted<br \/>\n\tthe block.  The documents produced in the proceedings of the suit go<br \/>\n\tto show that the original petitioner was admitted as a member and<br \/>\n\twas allotted Block No.5\/A, but it also appears that the actual<br \/>\n\tpossession of  Block No.5\/A was not handed over to the petitioner on<br \/>\n\taccount of either non-completion of the construction or non-payment<br \/>\n\tof the remaining amount by the petitioner to the society.<br \/>\n\tTherefore, the right, if any, of the petitioner could be said to<br \/>\n\thave been created in the property of the society to that extent<br \/>\n\tonly.  It also appears that in the year 1982 the respondent No.2 has<br \/>\n\talso paid the amount towards membership and construction to<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1 Society and the actual possession is entrusted by<br \/>\n\tthe society to respondent No.2.  Not only that, but the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 has obtained loan and at that time, as per respondent No.2, the<br \/>\n\ttitle clearance certificate was also obtained.  It also appears that<br \/>\n\tthe Society did complete construction as agreed and the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 had to complete the construction.  As stated by the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 in the affidavit-in-rejoinder, all construction after plinth<br \/>\n\tlevel is made by him and it is further stated that the additional<br \/>\n\tconstruction is also made by him by investing the total amount of<br \/>\n\tapproximately Rs.3,50,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>It<br \/>\n\tis not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 had<br \/>\n\tknowledge about the rights so created of the petitioner over Block<br \/>\n\tNo.5.  On the contrary, as per the petitioner, since he was working<br \/>\n\toutside Vadodara, when he inquired respondent No.2 was in possession<br \/>\n\tand was making construction and at that stage, he informed<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2 that the Block was already allotted to him and<br \/>\n\tpossibly that situation has given rise to the filing of the earlier<br \/>\n\tsuit in the year 1983 being Lavad Suit No.646 of 1983 preferred by<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2.  It is also an admitted position that the original<br \/>\n\tpetitioner did not take any civil action for prohibiting the<br \/>\n\tconstruction or development by respondent No.2 and only in the year<br \/>\n\t1985 by the present suit, prayed for declaration and the entrustment<br \/>\n\tof the possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tnormal circumstances, if a particular plot or a block is already<br \/>\n\tallotted by the society to a particular person, right of such person<br \/>\n\tto that extent in the property of the society may stand created, but<br \/>\n\tit is not an interest created as if the transfer of the ownership to<br \/>\n\tthe fullest extent by the society to the concerned person or the<br \/>\n\tmember.  In a given case, if the society on account of the default<br \/>\n\tby the member has cancelled the allotment and has not handed over<br \/>\n\tthe possession of the block to such member, it may give cause to the<br \/>\n\taggrieved member to approach before appropriate forum for<br \/>\n\tenforcement of such right, but thereby, it cannot be said that once<br \/>\n\tthe allotment is made but the same is actually not acted upon, the<br \/>\n\tsociety will lose all interest over the property.  Further, if the<br \/>\n\tpossession is already haded over after allotment of the same to the<br \/>\n\tmember concerned, it may stand on a different footing and the right<br \/>\n\tof such member in such property of the Society may stand<br \/>\n\tcrystallized to a greater extent, but the possession not handed over<br \/>\n\twould not stand on the same footing.\n<\/p>\n<p>Apart<br \/>\n\tfrom the above, as per the petitioner as well as respondent No.2,<br \/>\n\tthe President of the Society has cheated both of them namely; the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner as well as respondent No.2.  It was submitted by the<br \/>\n\tlearned Advocate for the petitioner as well as respondent No.2 that<br \/>\n\tmoney is collected by the President of the society from the<br \/>\n\tpetitioner and also from respondent No.2 and such action on the part<br \/>\n\tof the President of the Society has created the present situation,<br \/>\n\twhereby the petitioner as well as respondent No.2, both, are made to<br \/>\n\tsuffer.\n<\/p>\n<p>There<br \/>\n\tis no reliable, cogent evidence on record to show that respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 became member and obtained possession of Block No.5\/A with the<br \/>\n\tconscious knowledge that the original petitioner was already<br \/>\n\tallotted the same block.  The documents produced on behalf of the<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2, on the contrary, go to show that respondent No.2<br \/>\n\tacted in bonafide for becoming the member of the society and also<br \/>\n\tfor getting the allotment of the block.  As the society did not<br \/>\n\tcomplete the construction, respondent No.2 had to make the<br \/>\n\tconstruction at his cost.  Therefore, it appears that the respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 can be said as having acted in bonafide for becoming member and<br \/>\n\tfor getting the allotment of Block No.5\/A.  The aforesaid is coupled<br \/>\n\twith the circumstances that not only the construction is completed,<br \/>\n\twhich was agreed to be made by the Society, as on today, as per the<br \/>\n\trespondent, he has incurred an expense of about Rs.3.50 lac for<br \/>\n\tcompleting the construction and for making additional construction.\n<\/p>\n<p>However,<br \/>\n\tit appears that even if the respondent No.2 has acted in bonafide<br \/>\n\tand has acquired the property of Block No.5\/A from the Society, the<br \/>\n\trights so created of the original petitioner on account of the act<br \/>\n\tand the agreement already undertaken by the society prior thereto,<br \/>\n\tshall not stand vanished and it would be required for the society to<br \/>\n\tcompensate the loss, if any, caused on account of its action of<br \/>\n\tallotment of one block to two persons, more particularly when both<br \/>\n\tsuch persons have acted in bonafide and the action of the society,<br \/>\n\tmay be by itself or through its President, has put both such persons<br \/>\n\tto peril.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that when respondent<br \/>\n\tNo.2 has acted in bonafide, the Court may not grant relief for<br \/>\n\ttreating the allotment made to respondent No.2 as cancelled and for<br \/>\n\tentrustment of the property to the original petitioner.  However, it<br \/>\n\twould be required for the society to honour its liability towards<br \/>\n\tthe action done by it and also to compensate the petitioner by<br \/>\n\tpaying suitable interest upon the amount paid for becoming the<br \/>\n\tmember and towards construction to be made by the society over Block<br \/>\n\tNo.5\/A.  In the event, the Society has no property available like<br \/>\n\tcommon plot or liquid fund in the Bank etc., since, as observed<br \/>\n\tearlier, the rights to that extent over the property of the society<br \/>\n\tare read as created in favour of the petitioner over Block No.5\/A,<br \/>\n\tit would be required for the respondent No.2 to pay such amount to<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner and then to recover from the society as and when<br \/>\n\tcommon property or the fund is available, as the case may be.  Such<br \/>\n\ta course appears to be in the interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>If<br \/>\n\tthe views taken by the learned Nominee as well as by the Tribunal<br \/>\n\tare examined in light of the aforesaid observations, it does appear<br \/>\n\tthat the Nominee as well as the Tribunal have committed error in not<br \/>\n\tconsidering the record and the material for creation of such rights<br \/>\n\tof the petitioner over such property to that extent, nor have both<br \/>\n\tthe lower Authorities considered that even if respondent No.2 has<br \/>\n\tacted in bonafide once the right is said to have been created to<br \/>\n\tthat extent in the property of the society, which is allotted to<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2, in the event of failure on the part of the society<br \/>\n\tto discharge its obligation, since respondent No.2 has acquired the<br \/>\n\tproperty, such liability should reach to the subsequent allottee,<br \/>\n\twho is respondent No.2 reserving liberty to him to recover from the<br \/>\n\tproperty or from the funds of the society in future.  Therefore, it<br \/>\n\tcan be said that both the lower Authorities have committed error<br \/>\n\tapparent on the face of record to that extent and hence, the<br \/>\n\tjudgements of both the lower authorities deserve to be modified to<br \/>\n\tthat extent.\n<\/p>\n<p>In<br \/>\n\tview of the aforesaid, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed only to<br \/>\n\tthe extent that the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover the<br \/>\n\tamount of Rs.20,551\/- with the interest at the rate of 8% per annum<br \/>\n\tfrom 1982 till actual payment, from the common property and funds of<br \/>\n\trespondent No.1 Society.  It is further observed that in the event<br \/>\n\tof non-availability of common property or funds of the Society, the<br \/>\n\tplaintiff shall be entitled to recover the aforesaid amount from<br \/>\n\trespondent No.2, who is allotted property of Block No.5\/A of the<br \/>\n\tSociety.  It is also observed that in the event respondent No.2 has<br \/>\n\tpaid such amount pursuant to the aforesaid decree on account of<br \/>\n\tnon-availability of the common property or funds of the society, to<br \/>\n\tthe petitioner, the respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to recover<br \/>\n\tthe said amount from respondent No.2 society as and when common<br \/>\n\tproperty or funds of the society are available.  The other reliefs<br \/>\n\tas prayed in the suit are not granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>The<br \/>\n\tpetition is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.  Rule made<br \/>\n\tabsolute accordingly.  Considering the facts and circumstances,<br \/>\n\tthere shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>19.6.2008\t\t\t\t\t\t(Jayant\nPatel, J.)\n \n\n\nvinod\n\n    \n\n \n\t   \n      \n      \n\t    \n\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n\t   \n      \n\t  \t    \n\t\t   Top\n\t   \n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 2008 Author: Jayant Patel,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/1616\/1993 16\/ 16 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1616 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 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-80550","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>Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 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\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-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=\"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-09T05:51:25+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\\\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-09T05:51:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2561,\"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\\\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-09T05:51:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 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":"Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 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\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-09T05:51:25+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\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-09T05:51:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008"},"wordCount":2561,"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\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008","name":"Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-09T05:51:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasudha-vs-prabhat-on-19-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vasudha vs Prabhat on 19 June, 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\/80550","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=80550"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80550\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}