{"id":117115,"date":"2008-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008"},"modified":"2016-08-16T16:24:31","modified_gmt":"2016-08-16T10:54:31","slug":"khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">National Consumer Disputes Redressal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>  \n \n \n \n \n \n NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n   \n   \n   \n\nNATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES\n  REDRESSAL COMMISSION\n  \n \n  \n   \n   \n\nNEW DELHI\n  \n \n  \n   \n   \n\nFIRST APPEAL NO. 319\u00a0 OF\n  \u00a02004 \n  \n \n  \n   \n   \n\n(Against the order\n  dated 08\/07\/2004\n  \n   \n   \n\nin Appeal\/ Complaint No.548\/1999\n  \n \n  \n   \n   \n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0of\n  the State Commission, \n  \n   \n   \n\nAhmedabad) \n  \n \n  \n   \n   KHALID YAKUB DAMAD\n   \n\nProp. of M\/s Unicorn\n  Construction \n   \n\nBuilders &amp; Developers \n   \n\nTerrace Flat No.1 \n   \n\nKulsum Manjil, Charnipada\n  Road \n   \n\nKausa, Mumbra,\n  Thane-400612\n  \n   \n   \n\n........\n  Appellant (s)  \n  \n \n  \n   \n   \n\nVs.\n  \n   \n   \n\n\u00a0 \n  \n \n  \n   \n   \n\n1. ABDUL HAMID BARMARE  \n   \n\n\u00a0 \n   \n\n2. MEHRUNISA SALIM EJAZ KHAN R\/o 301, Ramlui Apartments \n   \n\n3rd floor,\n  Pitamber Lane, Mahim, \n   \n\nMumbai - 400016 \n   \n\n\u00a0 \n   \n\n\u00a0 \n  \n   \n   \n\n........ Respondent (s) \n  \n \n  \n   \n   \n\n BEFORE:\n  \n   \n   \n\n\u00a0 \n  \n \n  \n   \n   \n\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0HON'BLE\n  MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA,\u00a0PRESIDING MEMBER\n  \n \n  \n   \n   \n\n HON'BLE\n  MR. S.K. NAIK,\u00a0MEMBER \n  \n \n  \n   \n   \n\nFor the Appellant :\n  Mr. S.M.Z. Alam, \u00a0Advocate with\n   \n\n Ms.\n  Anju Dhingra, Advocate \n  \n \n  \n   \n   \n\nFor the Respondent \u00a0: Mr. S.K. Sharma, \u00a0Advocate \n  \n \n  \n   \n   Dated :04.04.2008 \n  \n \n  \n   \n   \n\n ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p> \u00a0 <\/p>\n<p> PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p> This appeal under section 19 of<br \/>\nthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the<br \/>\nopposite party is directed against order dated 8.7.2004 passed by the<br \/>\nConsumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra State (hereinafter referred<br \/>\nto as the State Commission) vide which, allowing the complaint of the<br \/>\nrespondents, the State Commission had directed the appellant\/OP to refund a sum<br \/>\nof Rs.5,40,000\/- to the respondent\/complainants with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f.<br \/>\n31.3.1997 till realization. The State<br \/>\nCommission had further ordered the<br \/>\npayment of Rs.10,000\/- as<br \/>\ncompensation towards mental agony and<br \/>\nanother sum of Rs.5000\/- towards the cost of litigation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p> Brief facts of the case &#8212;&#8212;-\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p> As culled<br \/>\nout from the records of the case the facts are that the respondents entered<br \/>\ninto an agreement with the appellant\/opposite party who is the proprietor of<br \/>\nM\/s Unicorn Construction, for the purchase of seven flats for a total<br \/>\nconsideration of Rs.6,30,000\/- in a building by the name of Silver Park at<br \/>\nKausa, Thane. The said agreement was<br \/>\nentered into on 1.2.1997 and as per the respondent\/complainants, the entire<br \/>\ntotal amount of Rs.6,30,000\/- was paid to the opposite party-builder in cash on the same day. However, the appellant-builder on 31.3.1997<br \/>\nsent a letter to the respondent\/complainants stating that the agreement entered<br \/>\ninto on 1.2.1997 will have to be cancelled since there would be delay in<br \/>\nconstruction of the proposed Silver Park Building. He, however, offered them seven flats alternatively in a newly<br \/>\nconstructed building known as Kulsum<br \/>\nManzil at Kausa. The<br \/>\nrespondent\/complainants, there upon, were asked to enter into a new agreement<br \/>\nfor the sale of seven flats, G1 to G-7 for the same earlier total consideration<br \/>\nof Rs.6,30,000\/-. It is the say of the<br \/>\nrespondent\/complainants that the appellant\/opposite party &#8211; builder gave<br \/>\npossession of only one flat i.e. G-3, and failed to honour his commitment with<br \/>\nregard to handing over of the remaining six flats. When repeated approach to<br \/>\ndeliver possession or in the alternative<br \/>\nrefund the balance amount with 50% interest failed to evoke any<br \/>\nresponse, the respondent\/complainants issued a legal notice on the appellants<br \/>\non 7.11.1997. They were surprised to<br \/>\nreceive a reply from the advocate of the appellant  builder on 18.12.1997<br \/>\ndenying the existence of any agreement or receipt of Rs.6,30,000\/-. Respondent\/complainant thereafter issued a<br \/>\nsecond notice to which no reply was received.\n<\/p>\n<p>To top it all they were shocked to receive a letter of the Dy.<br \/>\nCommissioner of Thane Municipal<br \/>\nCorporation stating that the building on which the Kulsum Manzil has been<br \/>\nconstructed was unauthorized. The<br \/>\ncomplainants further alleged that the appellant\/OP-builder had in a clandestine<br \/>\nmanner disposed of the other 6 flats.\n<\/p>\n<p>They felt that they have been completely duped and cheated. Therefore, they filed complaint No.548 of<br \/>\n1999 before the State Commission. The<br \/>\nState Commission accepted their complaint and granted the reliefs already<br \/>\nstated above.\n<\/p>\n<p> It is this<br \/>\norder of the State Commission that is being challenged in Appeal before us by<br \/>\nthe appellant-builder. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the order<br \/>\nof the State Commission on the ground that while the appellant\/OP-builder had<br \/>\nall along been contending that the so called agreement was a false, fabricated<br \/>\nand forged document, the State Commission without any reference of the document<br \/>\nto the hand-writing expert compared the signature of the appellant at their own<br \/>\nlevel and concluded that the agreement was a genuine one. The counsel contends that the document<br \/>\nbeing only a photocopy, it could be<br \/>\neasily manipulated and the course adopted by the State Commission was not<br \/>\npermissible in law. He has further<br \/>\nalleged that the agreement was on a stamp paper which was purchased in the name<br \/>\nof someone else. The State commission<br \/>\nought to have taken into account the serious objections and allegations of the<br \/>\nappellant that the documents were forged and should have discarded the<br \/>\nsame.\n<\/p>\n<p> The learned<br \/>\ncounsel thereafter has referred to the lump sum payment of Rs.6,30,000\/- in<br \/>\ncash for all the seven flats and argued that it is improbable that such a huge<br \/>\namount is paid in one go that too in cash for the seven flats. In the normal<br \/>\npractice only advance is paid and the balance is handed over at the time of<br \/>\nexecution of the sale deed and the delivery of the possession. This departure<br \/>\nfrom the normal practice, the counsel contends should have been noticed by the<br \/>\nState Commission to prove his point that the whole story was concocted.\n<\/p>\n<p>The third limb of argument<br \/>\nadvanced by the learned counsel relates to the two respondent\/complainants<br \/>\nbuying seven flats in one transaction which the counsel argues; amounts to<br \/>\ncommercial transaction not falling within the jurisdiction of the consumer<br \/>\nforum. He has therefore, submitted that<br \/>\nthe order of the State Commission be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent\/complainants on the other hand has contended that the order of the<br \/>\nState Commission is well reasoned. The<br \/>\nevidence produced by the parties has been examined by the State Commission in<br \/>\ndepth. The findings and conclusions<br \/>\narrived at are fully justified and<br \/>\nneeds no interference. Shri Sharma,<br \/>\nlearned counsel further contended that since the appellant\/opposite party has<br \/>\nhimself admitted that pursuant to an agreement one flat G-3 was delivered to<br \/>\nthe respondent\/complainant, he cannot now take the plea that no agreement<br \/>\nexisted or that the agreement was fabricated.\n<\/p>\n<p>Further, there is no reason stated by the appellant\/opposite party as to<br \/>\nwhy no reply was filed, in response to the second legal notice. The counsel, therefore, submits that the<br \/>\norder of the State Commission be maintained.\n<\/p>\n<p> We have<br \/>\nalso perused the evidence and other records of the case on our file.\n<\/p>\n<p> The<br \/>\nappellant\/OP has assailed the order of the State Commission on three<br \/>\ncounts. His first contention is that<br \/>\nthe agreement dated 31.3.1997 (page 54) was a false, fabricated and forged<br \/>\ndocument. It was a Xerox copy and the respondent\/complainant had avoided<br \/>\nproducing the original agreement before the State Commission. Additionally, even the Xerox copy of the<br \/>\nagreement was in the name of some third person.\n<\/p>\n<p> On this<br \/>\npoint, it would be relevant to state that the State Commission in its order has<br \/>\ndealt with this averment in great detail.\n<\/p>\n<p>Since the complainant had also alleged that the receipt for a sum of<br \/>\nRs.6,30,000\/- dated 31.3.1997 as also the undertaking dated 28.6.1997 are also<br \/>\nforged document, the State Commission in its order stated that these were bare<br \/>\nassertions made in the written statement.\n<\/p>\n<p>It did not indicate as to how and in what manner the alleged forgery was<br \/>\ncommitted. It had not even been<br \/>\nremotely indicated in the pleadings that signatures appearing in the documents<br \/>\nwere not his. The State Commission has<br \/>\nrightly held that the burden to prove lays upon the party who makes the<br \/>\nallegations of fraud and forgery which the appellant has not discharged<br \/>\nsatisfactorily.\n<\/p>\n<p> On the<br \/>\npoint of the original documents not having been produced by the complainants<br \/>\none has to take into account the fact admitted by the appellant that the<br \/>\ncomplainant purchasers are his close relatives. Besides, the appellant himself admits that he had entered into an<br \/>\nagreement for the sale of one flat G-3, but he has refrained from producing the<br \/>\nsale agreement. During the course of<br \/>\nargument, an impression was sought to be created that it was this agreement for<br \/>\nthe sale of a single flat which has been made through manipulation to appear as<br \/>\nif it was an agreement for the sale of seven flats. However, no explanation is forthcoming as to why even this<br \/>\nagreement was not produced either in original or its Xerox copy by the<br \/>\nappellant. Having not produced the best<br \/>\nevidence in his possession, the complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage<br \/>\nmerely because he alleged the documents produced by the complainants as forged.\n<\/p>\n<p>The State Commission has also<br \/>\nobserved that when the complainant issued a legal notice during Nov., 1997<br \/>\nasking for the handing over the possession of the remaining six flats as the<br \/>\nfull payment of Rs.6,30,000\/- had already been made, there was no immediate<br \/>\nserious protest\/objections raised by the appellant. Even his written statement was very passive in as much as it did<br \/>\nnot refer to any civil or criminal proceedings contemplated or initiated in the<br \/>\nmatter. In the peculiar facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, when the appellant has not explained as to how the<br \/>\ntransaction with regard to atleast one flat being No.G-3 went through, the<br \/>\nState Commission was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that there was<br \/>\na deal between the parties. In that scenario, there was also nothing illegal in<br \/>\ncomparing the signature of the appellant as appearing on the agreement with the<br \/>\nadmitted signature available in his pleadings and Vakalatnama. It has been the view of the National<br \/>\nCommission, expressed in a number of cases that a Consumer Commission need not<br \/>\nalways be bound by strict rules of pleadings.\n<\/p>\n<p>Procedure before Consumer Fora is inquisitorial in nature and not<br \/>\nadversarial. Principle of natural<br \/>\njustice and not procedural technicalities would prevail upon its proceedings to<br \/>\ndispense complete justice.\n<\/p>\n<p> The other<br \/>\ntwo counts on the basis of which the State Commission should have disbelieved<br \/>\nand discarded the claim of the respondents relate to lump sum total payment  of flats in cash and purchase of seven<br \/>\nflats by two of them. On the question<br \/>\nof payment when the appellant\/OP himself admits that he sold one flat G-3 to<br \/>\nthe complainants, but he neither produces the agreement for sale nor the part<br \/>\npayment receipt of Rs.25,000\/- and further he does not effectively rebut the<br \/>\nevidence on affidavit produced by the complainant, it cannot but be held that<br \/>\nthere was a valid payment. In so far as<br \/>\nthe transaction being in cash is concerned, it is common knowledge that cash<br \/>\ntransactions are widely prevalent in the real estate business and in any case<br \/>\nthis objection would not be sustainable in a dispute of his nature. With regard to purchase of seven flats by<br \/>\nthe two respondent \/ complainants again no evidence has been led to prove the same<br \/>\nby the appellant. As stated earlier,<br \/>\nthe appellant himself admits that the respondent\/complainants are his close<br \/>\nrelatives. For reasons best known to<br \/>\nthem, there has been a deal and agreement from which the appellant cannot<br \/>\nriggle out. Accordingly, we are of the<br \/>\nview that the objections raised by the appellant on the three counts are not<br \/>\nsustainable. The appeal, therefore<br \/>\nfails and is dismissed. We order<br \/>\naccordingly. Parties to bear their own<br \/>\ncost.\n<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>Sd\/<\/p>\n<p>(K.S.GUPTA, J)<\/p>\n<p>PRESIDING MEMBER<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p> Sd\/<\/p>\n<p>  (S.K. NAIK)<\/p>\n<p> MEMBER<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n<p>St\/23<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>National Consumer Disputes Redressal Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 2008 NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 319\u00a0 OF \u00a02004 (Against the order dated 08\/07\/2004 in Appeal\/ Complaint No.548\/1999 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0of the State Commission, Ahmedabad) KHALID YAKUB DAMAD Prop. of M\/s Unicorn Construction [&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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117115","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 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\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-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=\"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-16T10:54:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-16T10:54:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1792,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-16T10:54:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 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":"Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 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\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-16T10:54:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-16T10:54:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008"},"wordCount":1792,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008","name":"Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-16T10:54:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/khalid-yakub-damad-vs-abdul-hamid-barmare-on-4-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Khalid Yakub Damad vs Abdul Hamid Barmare on 4 April, 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\/117115","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=117115"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117115\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117115"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117115"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117115"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}