{"id":123233,"date":"2009-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-11T14:18:20","modified_gmt":"2016-11-11T08:48:20","slug":"janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through &#8230; vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through &#8230; vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 28\/08\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nCRP(PD)No.579 of 2009\nMP.No.1 of 2009\n\nJanab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen through his\nPower Agent Janab K.A.Yusuf\t \t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1. Sithi Jamil\n2. Sithi Maharuba\n3. Syed Mohamed Buhari\t\n\t\t\t                        ... Respondents\nPrayer\n\n  This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair order and\ndecretal order dated 8.12.2008 passed in IA.No.814\/2008 in OS.No.37\/2007 on the\nfile of the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli.\n\n!For Petitioner\t   ...\tMr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram\n^For Respondent    ...\tMr.S.Kadarkarai\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>    This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated<br \/>\n8.12.2008 passed in IA.No.814\/2008 in OS.No.37\/2007 by the learned Principal<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif, Tirunelveli, rejecting  the document as inadmissible in<br \/>\nevidence and for want of registration  and stamp duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.  The brief facts, which are essential for the disposal of this<br \/>\nCivil Revision Petition, are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe petitioner has filed the above said suit through his Power Agent<br \/>\nfor permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his<br \/>\npeaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.  He had purchased the<br \/>\nproperty by means of a sale deed from  one Maideen Fathumal, who got the<br \/>\nproperty from her husband under a settlement deed dated 12.11.1998 and her<br \/>\nhusband got the property by way of partition entered into between the heirs of<br \/>\nHasad Qutooz  under the registered partition deed dated 25.2.1981. Pursuant to<br \/>\nthe said partition, the respective sharers were in possession and enjoyment and<br \/>\nthat some of minor sharers challenged the said partition by filing a suit in<br \/>\nOS.No.134\/1984 and as against the decree passed in the said suit, an appeal was<br \/>\npreferred in AS.No.187\/1991.  Pending the appeal, the parties thereto entered<br \/>\ninto a compromise and executed an agreement of partition (ghfg;gphptpid<br \/>\nxg;ge;jgj;jpuk;) dated 25.3.1992, wherein they agreed to enjoy the properties in<br \/>\nterms of the partition effected between the legal heirs thereon.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.  According to the petitioner, the suit property and another<br \/>\nproperty was allotted to Asiyal Beevi and her children, viz. Nisam, Sithi<br \/>\nMarlia, Sharmila and the defendants 1 and 2.  Pursuant to it, it is stated that<br \/>\nthere was an oral partition effected between Asiyal Beevi and her children on<br \/>\nthe one hand and the defendants 1 and 2 on the other hand on 5.1.1993.  On the<br \/>\nbasis of the oral partition, the suit property was allotted to Nizam, who took<br \/>\npossession and mutation was effected in the municipal records in his name and<br \/>\nsubsequently, executed a settlement deed dated 12.11.1998 in favour of his wife,<br \/>\nwho had sold the property to the plaintiff by way of a registered sale deed.<br \/>\nThe plaintiff has filed the suit based on the registered sale deed executed by<br \/>\nhis vendor dated 9.1.2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.  During the trial, when plaintiff was examined as PW.1 before the<br \/>\ncourt below, he sought to mark the unregistered agreement of partition dated<br \/>\n25.3.1992, which was opposed by the respondents on the ground that it is<br \/>\ninadmissible in evidence as it is insufficiently stamped and also not registered<br \/>\nand it cannot be looked into for any purpose.  An application  was filed by the<br \/>\nplaintiff in IA.No.814\/2008 to admit the said document in evidence and the same<br \/>\nhas been dismissed by the court below by order dated 8.12.2008, which is<br \/>\nchallenged in this Civil Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.  Mr.S.Meenakshisundaram, the learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nwould contend that the said document is only an agreement entered into between<br \/>\nthe first and second wives, sons and daughters of  P.M.Hasan Qutooz in the<br \/>\npresence of the Village mediators and it only evidences the family arrangement<br \/>\nalready entered into and therefore, it need not be stamped or registered. He<br \/>\nwould further submit that even if it would not be accepted in evidence in view<br \/>\nof non registration and non stamping, at least it could be relied on for the<br \/>\ncollateral purpose by stating that his vendor and her husband were in possession<br \/>\nand enjoyment of property sold to him pursuant to the said agreement of<br \/>\npartition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.  On the other hand, Mr.S.Kadarkarai, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondents would support the order of the court below by contending that the<br \/>\nsaid document cannot even be looked into for collateral purpose. He would submit<br \/>\nthat the law is well settled that an unregistered and insufficiently stamped<br \/>\ndocument cannot be received in evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.  It is not in dispute that the suit is not for partition, but for<br \/>\npermanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the<br \/>\npossession of the plaintiff and he bases his title on the sale deed executed by<br \/>\nhis vendor, who has derived title by way of settlement deed executed by her<br \/>\nhusband.  Her husband got the property in a partition effected between the legal<br \/>\nheirs of Hasan Qutooz.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.  The document in question is relied on by the plaintiff to show<br \/>\nthat the property sold to him was allotted to the husband of his vendor in a<br \/>\npartition.  It is  submitted that it is in the nature of an agreement evidencing<br \/>\nthe family arrangement already entered into while compromise was effected<br \/>\nbetween the parties in the appeal.  Admittedly, this document is neither stamped<br \/>\nnor registered.  To what  extent it can be relied on will depend upon the nature<br \/>\nof the document.  Though there is a recital regarding the  prior family<br \/>\narrangement, but as there was a dispute over the said division, some of the<br \/>\nheirs filed the suit and after compromise, the sharers have divided the property<br \/>\nin terms of the agreement entered into between them dated 25.3.1992.  While<br \/>\nmaking division, the management of the school was included and they have agreed<br \/>\nto manage the affairs of the school in turn system. In order to show that the<br \/>\nsuit property was allotted to the vendor of the plaintiff and mutation of<br \/>\nrecords had taken place, the plaintiff wants to rely upon the said document.<br \/>\nUnder the law, a deed evidencing partition is required to be properly stamped<br \/>\nand registered before it can be admitted in evidence.  Whether this document can<br \/>\nbe looked into for collateral purpose has to be gone into.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.  In the case of R.Deivanai Ammal (deceased by LR) and another Vs.<br \/>\nG.Meenakshi Ammal and others [AIR-2004-Madras-529], the Division Bench of this<br \/>\ncourt has held that a family arrangement, which is not stamped and not<br \/>\nregistered cannot be looked into for any purpose in view of the specific bar<br \/>\nunder Section 35 of the Stamp Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.  As early as in the year 1962, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh<br \/>\nin the case of Bhaskarabhotla Padmanabhaiah and others Vs. B.Lakshminarayana and<br \/>\nothers [AIR-1962-AP-132] has held that the document is inadmissible due to want<br \/>\nof being stamped and further held that the words &#8220;for any purposes&#8221; in Section<br \/>\n35 of the Stamp Act should be given its natural meaning and effect and would<br \/>\ninclude a collateral purpose and that an unstamped partition deed cannot be used<br \/>\nto corroborate the oral evidence for the purpose of determining even the factum<br \/>\nof partition as distinct from its terms.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. The said position of law is reiterated in the subsequent<br \/>\ndecision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in the case of Sanjeeva<br \/>\nReddi Vs. Johanputra Reddi [AIR-1972-AP-373] holding that no part of a document<br \/>\n(be it a single sentence, a word or a signature) which is chargeable with duty<br \/>\ncan be received in evidence even if that document is sought to be admitted only<br \/>\nfor a collateral purpose.  It is further held that there is prohibition under<br \/>\nSection 49 of the Registration Act to receive such a document, which required<br \/>\nregistration  to be used for a collateral purpose.  However, under Section 35 of<br \/>\nthe Stamp Act there is an absolute prohibition unless the requirements of the<br \/>\nproviso to that section are fulfilled.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.  The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Bondar Singh and<br \/>\nothers Vs. Nihal Singh andothers [2004-1-LW-706]  has held that under the law, a<br \/>\nsale deed  is required to be properly stamped and registered before it can<br \/>\nconvey title to the vendee, however the legal position is clear that a document<br \/>\nlike a sale deed even though not inadmissible in evidence can be looked into for<br \/>\ncollateral purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12. In a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in<br \/>\nthe case of Avinash Kmar Chauhan Vs. Vijay Krishna Mishra [2009-3-MLJ-409-SC] it<br \/>\nis laid down that Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, categorically provides<br \/>\nthat an unstamped document shall not be admitted for any purpose whatsoever and<br \/>\nit expressed it opinion that if all purposes for which the document is sought to<br \/>\nbe brought in evidence are excluded, there is no reason as to how the document<br \/>\nwould be admissible for collateral purposes. The Honourable Supreme Court<br \/>\nreferred to the observations made in  2004-1-LW-706 cited supra and<br \/>\ndistinguished it by observing that in the said decision the court was not<br \/>\nconcerned with the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and only<br \/>\ninterpreted the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 which was in question.<br \/>\nIt held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;19. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the document<br \/>\nwas admissible for collateral purpose, in our opinion, is not correct.  <a href=\"\/doc\/13649\/\">In<br \/>\nBondar Singh V. Nihal Singh<\/a> (supra) this court was not concerned with the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act.  Only interpretation of the provisions of the<br \/>\nRegistration Act, 1908 was in question.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13.  Therefore, it is now well settled that there is no prohibition<br \/>\nunder Section 49 of the Registration Act to receive an unregistered document in<br \/>\nevidence for collateral purpose, but the document so tendered should be duly<br \/>\nstamped or should comply with the requirements of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp<br \/>\nAct. If not stamped the said document cannot be received in evidence even for<br \/>\ncollateral purpose unless it is duly stamped or duty and penalty are paid under<br \/>\nSection 35 of the Stamp Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14.  In view of the settled position of law, the document in<br \/>\nquestion cannot be received in evidence and the court below has rightly rejected<br \/>\nthe said document as inadmissible in evidence for want of registration and stamp<br \/>\nduty, which does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t15. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this Civil<br \/>\nRevision Petition and it fails and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.<br \/>\nConsequently, the connected MP is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Srcm<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through &#8230; vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28\/08\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRP(PD)No.579 of 2009 MP.No.1 of 2009 Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen through his Power Agent Janab K.A.Yusuf &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. Sithi Jamil 2. Sithi Maharuba [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123233","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through ... vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009 - 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\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through ... vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-11T08:48:20+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\\\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through &#8230; vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-11T08:48:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1647,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through ... vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-11T08:48:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through &#8230; vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through ... vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009 - 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\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through ... vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-11T08:48:20+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\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through &#8230; vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-11T08:48:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009"},"wordCount":1647,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009","name":"Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through ... vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-11T08:48:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janab-s-s-kaja-alavudeen-through-vs-sithi-jamil-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Janab S.S.Kaja Alavudeen Through &#8230; vs Sithi Jamil on 28 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/123233","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=123233"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123233\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123233"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123233"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123233"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}