{"id":8979,"date":"1999-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999"},"modified":"2015-09-03T08:53:34","modified_gmt":"2015-09-03T03:23:34","slug":"ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999","title":{"rendered":"Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: M Rao<\/div>\n
Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao., S. Saghir Ahmad.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nASHWIN KUMAR   K. PATEL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUPENDRA J. PATEL & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t11\/03\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nM. Jagannadha Rao. & S. Saghir Ahmad.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.\n<\/p>\n
\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
    This  is  an  appeal by the plaintiff in  the  suit\t and
\narises\tout  of\t an  application   for\tgrant  of  temporary
\ninjunction   filed  under  Order  39   Rule  1\tCPC  by\t the
\nplaintiff-appellant.  The suit 337 of 1996 is now pending in
\nthe  Court  of\tthe Civil Judge (S.D.), Baroda.\t  The  trial
\nCourt  granted\ttemporary injunction (wrongly  described  as
\npermanent  injunction)\tby order dated 2.8.1997\t restraining
\ninterference  with the appellant’s possession in respect  of
\n8138  sq.meters\t in Survey No.224 and 246 of  Akota,  Baroda
\nDistrict.   On appeal by defendants 15 to 19, the High Court
\nof  Gujarat by orders dated 23.2.1998 in A.O.  409 of  1997,
\nallowed\t the appeal and remitted the matter to the  District
\nCourt  and  directed that meanwhile, the status quo  on\t the
\nspot  be  maintained.\tThe defendants 1 to 14\tsupport\t the
\nplaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tappears\t that the defendants 1 to 14 are  the  legal
\nheirs  of  the\towner, one Gulam Husain Momin  who  died  on
\n12.5.1971.   The  plaintiff  claims  that  the\tsaid  owners
\nexecuted   an  (Unregistered)  agreement   of\tsale   dated
\n14.10.1980  in his favour and received Rs.25,000 on that day
\nand later received various amounts on various days totalling
\nRs.5,75,000 and the sale of the 8138 sq.meters was initially
\nat  the\t rate  of  Rs.1.85  per\t sq.   meter.\tLater  by  a
\nsubsequent  agreement dated 6.4.1996, the rate according  to
\nthe  plaintiff was changed to Rs.44.35 per sq.\tmeter and  a
\nfurther\t sum of Rs.  1 lakh was paid.  Plaintiff claimed  to
\nbe  in\tpossession.   The suit was filed  on  15.6.1996\t for
\nperpetual injunction restraining the defendants 15 to 19 and
\n28  from entering into any sale transaction or agreement  or
\ntransfer  of  the  suit\t land and  for\tnot  obstructing  or
\ninterfering with plaintiff’s possession of suit land.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t defendants  15\t to  19 and 28\tcontested  the\tsuit
\nclaiming  that\tunder a registered agreement of\t sale  dated
\n16.7.1991  entered into by defendants 15 and 28, as power of
\nattorney  holders under a registered power of attorney dated
\n16.7.1991,  the\t abovesaid vendors agreed to sell  the\tsame
\nproperty  to whomsoever defendants 15 and 28 would sell\t and
\npossession  was\t also given by a receipt dated 16.7.1991  to
\ndefendants  15 and 28.\tThereafter, it is said that the said
\npower  of attorney holders sold this property to  defendants
\n15 to 19 under five sale deeds dated 17.4.1996.\t Here it may
\nbe  noted that it is the case of the owners that by a public
\nnotice dated 26.3.1996, the said owners (defendants 1 to 14)
\nhad cancelled the power of attorney dated 16.7.1991 and that
\neven  the agreement dated 16.7.1991 was not true.  It is the
\ncase  of the owners, defendants 1 to 14 that they had  given
\npossession  to\tthe  plaintiff\tand even on  date  of  suit,
\n15.6.96,  the  plaintiff  was  in  possession.\t These\twere
\nbroadly, the rival contentions.\n<\/p>\n
    In the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff,
\nthe  trial  Court held that the land being new tenure  land,
\nthe  agreements entered into by the owners in favour of\t the
\nplaintiff  on  14.10.1980 and 6.4.1996, even if\t true,\twere
\nvoid  as the requisite permission of the competent authority
\nwas  not obtained.  For the same reason, the agreement dated
\n16.7.1991 by defendants 15 and 28 in favour of defendants 15
\nto  20,\t even  if true, and sale-deeds\tdated  17.4.1996  by
\ndefendants  15 and 28 in favour of defendants 15 to 19\twere
\nalso  void.   However,\ton the question of  possession,\t the
\ntrial Court relied upon the case of the owners (defendants 1
\nto  14)\t to  the effect that they had put the  plaintiff  in
\npossession.   Hence,  irrespective of title,  the  plaintiff
\nhad, at any rate, “permissive possession” and the defendants
\n15  to 19 and 28 were not in possession and the latter could
\nnot interfere with plaintiff’s possession.\n<\/p>\n
    The High Court, while dealing with this appeal preferred
\nby  defendants\t15 to 19, observed that the trial Court\t had
\nmainly\trelied\tupon  a compromise  decree  dated  14.8.1992
\nbetween\t the owners(defendants 1 to 14) and defendants 20 to
\n25  in\tan  earlier suit, bearing Suit No.1384\/88  filed  by
\ndefendants  20\tto 25 against the owners on the basis of  an
\nagreement  dated 14.10.1980, allegedly executed by the\tsame
\nowners.\t According to the High Court, while it was true that
\nthe  said defendants 20 to 25 accepted the possession of the
\nowners defendants 1 to 14, the said admission related to the
\ndate of compromise dated 26.4.1990 and not to 14.8.1992 when
\nthe  compromise\t was recorded and hence the trial Court\t was
\nwrong in thinking that the present defendants 15 to 19 could
\nnot  have come into possession on 16.7.1991 from the owners.
\nAccording  to  the High Court, the Trial Court was wrong  in
\nthinking  that there was an admission by defendants 20 to 25
\nof  the\t possession of the owners, defendants 1 to 14 as  on
\n14.8.92,  the date when the compromise was recorded and also
\nin  thinking  that defendants 15 to 19 could not  have\tcome
\ninto  possession  on  16.7.1991.   The\tadmission,  if\tany,
\nrelated\t to  26.4.90 the date of compromise and\t there\twas,
\naccording  to the High Court, no inconsistency with the case
\nof  defendants\t15 to 19 of possession being given  to\tthem
\nunder  the agreement dated 16.7.1991.  Further, the  finding
\nof  the\t trial\tCourt that the property was new\t tenure\t was
\nchallenged  even  by  the plaintiff by filing A.O.   476  of
\n1997.  The High Court said that `this also makes the factual
\nfoundation  of the trial Court’s order erroneous’.  For\t the
\nabove  reasons,\t the High Court set aside the order  of\t the
\ntrial  Court and remitted the matter for fresh decision.  It
\nis  against the above order that the plaintiff has preferred
\nthis appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t point for consideration is whether the order of the
\nHigh  Court  in remitting the matter to the trial Court\t was
\nnecessary?   Question  also  is whether\t this  court  should
\nremand the case to the High Court in the event of this Court
\nholding\t that  the remand by the High Court was\t not  called
\nfor?   If not, whether the order of the trial Court is to be
\nsustained?\n<\/p>\n
    In our view, the High Court should not ordinarily remand
\na  case under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC to the lower Court merely
\nbecause\t it considered that the reasoning of the lower Court
\nin  some  respects  was wrong.\tSuch remand orders  lead  to
\nunnecessary delays and cause prejudice to the parties to the
\ncase.\tWhen  the  material was available  before  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tit should have itself decided the appeal one way  or
\nother.\t It could have considered the various aspects of the
\ncase  mentioned\t in  the  order\t of  the  trial\t Court\t and
\nconsidered  whether the order of the trial Court ought to be
\nconfirmed  or  reversed or modified.  It could\thave  easily
\nconsidered  the\t documents and affidavits and decided  about
\nthe  prima-facie case on the material available.  In matters
\ninvolving  agreements of 1980 (and 1996) on the one hand and
\nan  agreement  of 1991 on the other, as in this\t case,\tsuch
\nremand\torders would lead to further delay and\tuncertainty.
\nWe  are, therefore, of the view that the remand by the\tHigh
\nCourt was not necessary.\n<\/p>\n
    We\thave  also considered whether, on that\taccount,  we
\nshould\t send  back  the  matter  to  the  High\t Court\t for
\nconsideration  of  the appeal.\tWe are of the view that,  on
\nthe  facts  of this case, this Court can decide whether\t the
\ntemporary  injunction  granted by the trial Court should  be
\nconfirmed  or  not.   We are, therefore, not  remitting\t the
\nmatter to the High Court because a further remand would lead
\nto delay and perhaps one more special leave petition to this
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t facts\tset out earlier show that the plaintiff\t has
\nrelied\tupon  an  agreement  of sale  dated  14.10.1980\t and
\naccording  to the plaintiff the agreement of sale stipulated
\na  rate of Rs.1.85 per sq.meter and the plaintiff has paid a
\nsum  of\t Rs.5,75,000 and the said agreement was modified  on
\n6.4.1996  fixing the rate at Rs.44.85 per sq.meter and it is
\nsaid  one more lakh of rupees were paid thereafter, in\tall,
\nRs.7  lakhs and possession receipt was issued.\tThe  owners,
\ndefendants  1  to  14, supported the  plaintiff’s  case\t and
\nstated that they had put the plaintiff in possession.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t case  of the owners further was that the  agreement
\ndated  16.7.1991 set up by defendants 15 to 19 was not\ttrue
\nand  valid and that the power of attorney dated 16.7.1991 in
\nfavour\tof defendants 15 and 28 stood revoked so far as\t the
\n11th  defendant was concerned, as the 11th defendant died on
\n25.2.1994.   The  trial\t Court also held that the  power  of
\nattorney  was  prima facie not an irrevocable one.  It\talso
\nheld that the agreement entered into by the owners in favour
\nof  the\t plaintiff on 14.10.1980 and 6.4.1996 and  also\t the
\nagreement  by the power of attorney agents defendants 15 and
\n18  dated  16.7.1991  in favour of defendants 15 to  19\t was
\ninvalid\t for  breach of the provisions of the  Tenancy\tAct.
\nThe Court Commissioner in the special suit 293 of 1996 filed
\nby  the plaintiff earlier on 25.2.1996 got a panchnama\tdone
\nand had stated that, on physical verification, the plaintiff
\nwas  found to be in possession (vide para 45 of the judgment
\nof the trial Court).  The trial Court also observed that the
\nmere  fact that the defendants 15 to 19 and 28 produced some
\nbills,\treceipts,  cash memos – xerox copies as evidence  of
\npurchase  of  construction  material did not  establish\t the
\npossession  of\tthe said defendants 15 to 19.  It held\tthat
\nthe  original owners’ possession as per the compromise dated
\n26.4.80\t in Suit No.1384 of 1988 between defendants 1 to  14
\nand  defendants\t 20  to 25, must be  treated  as  subsisting
\ninspite\t of  the  agreement  between   the  owners  and\t the
\ndefendants  15\tto  19 dated 16.7.1991 and  inspite  of\t the
\npossession receipt in favour of defendants 15 and 28.  There
\nis  some force in the contention of the appellant before  us
\nthat  even if the Compromise in Suit 1384\/88 dated 26.4.1990
\nwas  recorded  on  14.8.92,  the defendants 20\tto  25,\t who
\naccepted  plaintiff’s  possession on 26.4.90 would not\thave
\nfailed\tto bring it to the notice of the Court on  14.8.1992
\nwhen  the compromise was recorded, if the plaintiff was\t not
\nin  possession.\t  The High Court did not even refer  to\t the
\ncase   of  the\tplaintiff   regarding  the  agreement  dated
\n14.10.1980 said to have been executed by the defendants 1 to
\n14  in\tfavour\tof the plaintiff initially and\tthe  various
\npayments  upto Rs.5,75 lakhs made thereunder, and to Rs.   1
\nlakh  paid under the modified agreement dated 6.4.1996.\t  In
\ntheir\twritten\t  statement,  the   owners   supported\t the
\nplaintiff’s  possession\t even as on date of suit.   The\t FIR
\nfiled  by the plaintiff is also some evidence of a claim  to
\npossession  of plaintiff and the attempt of defendants 15 to
\n19  to dispossess the plaintiff.  Above all, the finding  of
\nthe  Court Commissioner in special suit No.293 of 1996\tthat
\nplaintiff  was in possession is of considerable\t importance.
\nFurther,  several of defendants 1 to 14 filed affidavits  in
\nthe  trial Court stating that they have not entered into any
\nagreement  with\t defendants 15 to 19 and that they  did\t not
\nreceive\t any  cheques  from  defendants 15 to  19  and\tfrom
\ndefendants 20 to 27 and that plaintiff was in possession.\n<\/p>\n
    A  reading of the judgment of the trial Court shows that
\nthough\tthe  agreement\tof sale executed in  favour  of\t the
\nplaintiff  was, according to the said Court, invalid because
\nof  its being in breach of the Tenancy Act still, in view of
\nthe  compromise\t decree and the subsequent admission of\t the
\ndefendants  1 to 14 and report of the Court Commissioner  in
\nspecial\t suit  No.293  of 1996, the trial  Court  held\tthat
\nplaintiff  was\tin  “permissive\t  possession”  as  this\t was
\naccepted by the owners.\t It held that a possessory right was
\nsufficient  to\tpermit\tthe plaintiff to have  an  order  of
\ntemporary injunction in his favour.\n<\/p>\n
    Therefore,\twithout\t going\tinto  the  validity  of\t the
\nagreements executed by the owners in favour of the plaintiff
\nor  defendants\t15 and 28, or the validity of the sale\tdeed
\nexecuted  by  defendants 15 and 28, we are of the view\tthat
\nthe  trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion\tthat
\nthe  plaintiff\thas made out a prima facie case.  The  trial
\nCourt  has given several reasons for the grant of  temporary
\ninjunction  and,  in our view, the two reasons given by\t the
\nHigh  Court were, on the facts, not sufficient to warrant  a
\nremand.\n<\/p>\n
    It is, however, made clear that the findings relating to
\nthe  rights of the parties, the title to the property or  as
\nto possession as given by the trial Court and as accepted by
\nus  are\t all tentative and will be subject to findings\tthat
\nmay  be arrived at by the trial Court in the suit after\t the
\nevidence  is led.  In addition to the injunction granted  by
\nthe  trial Court, we direct the plaintiff to maintain status
\nquo  on\t spot  and not to create 3rd party  rights  or\tmake
\nconstructions  on  the property nor alter the nature of\t the
\nproperty pending disposal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
    Subject  to\t the  above, the appeal is allowed  and\t the
\norder  of  the High Court is set aside and the order of\t the
\ntrial  Court  is  restored.  There will be no  order  as  to
\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999 Author: M Rao Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao., S. Saghir Ahmad. PETITIONER: ASHWIN KUMAR K. PATEL Vs. RESPONDENT: UPENDRA J. PATEL & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/03\/1999 BENCH: M. Jagannadha Rao. & S. Saghir Ahmad. JUDGMENT: M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8979","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAshwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-03T03:23:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-03T03:23:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999\"},\"wordCount\":2120,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999\",\"name\":\"Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-03T03:23:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-03T03:23:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999","datePublished":"1999-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-03T03:23:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999"},"wordCount":2120,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999","name":"Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-03T03:23:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashwin-kumar-k-patel-vs-upendra-j-patel-others-on-11-march-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashwin Kumar K. Patel vs Upendra J. Patel & Others on 11 March, 1999"}]},{"@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\/8979","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=8979"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8979\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8979"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8979"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8979"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}