{"id":128975,"date":"2010-06-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010"},"modified":"2019-02-25T22:51:57","modified_gmt":"2019-02-25T17:21:57","slug":"k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 485 of 2010()\n\n\n1. K.MUSTHAFA, S\/O. MAMMED, AGED 38 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ABDUL JABBAR A.P., AGED 57 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. T.P.MUHAMMED @ CHINNAKUTTY HAJI,\n\n3. P.K.FAISAL, AGED 35 YEARS, S\/O.\n\n4. ANVAR T.P., AGED 35 YEARS, S\/O. LATE\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.G.BHASKAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :04\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                        P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                       R.S.A. No. 485 of 2010\n            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n             Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010.\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
          The plaintiff in O.S. 171 of 2007 before the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s Court, Parappanangadi, who had his suit<\/p>\n
dismissed and which was confirmed in appeal is the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
          2. The suit was one for declaration and other<\/p>\n
ancillary reliefs.      The plaintiff claimed to have been<\/p>\n
authorised to institute the suit by the Hussain Medavoor<\/p>\n
group of the members of the Chenakkalangadi Sakha of<\/p>\n
Kerala Naduvathul Mujahideen.                      It is claimed that the<\/p>\n
Kerala Naduvathul Mujahideen is a society registered<\/p>\n
under the Societies Registration Act and it is governed by<\/p>\n
its bye-laws. The Society consists of four tiers, namely,<\/p>\n
Sakha at the local level, Mandalam, then the                           District<\/p>\n
level committee and finally the State Committee. Going<\/p>\n
by the bye-laws, the election is to be held once in every<\/p>\n
three years. The dispute arose between the members of<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                2<\/span><\/p>\n
Chenakkalangadi Sakha and it split into two factions. One<\/p>\n
group was known as Abdul Khader Moulavi Group and the<\/p>\n
other Hussain Madavoor group.          That led to a suit as<\/p>\n
O.S.560 of 2002, which is even now pending. It is claimed<\/p>\n
that the affairs of the Sakha fell into disarray due to several<\/p>\n
reasons and finally due to the intervention of the Circle<\/p>\n
Inspector of Police an interim arrangement was arrived at,<\/p>\n
whereby the administration of the Sakha was to be carried<\/p>\n
out by the group which obtained majority in the election to<\/p>\n
be held in pending final decision in the litigation.       The<\/p>\n
plaintiff claimed that in pursuance of the said agreement, an<\/p>\n
election was conducted on 4.8.2007, in which 19 votes were<\/p>\n
cast in favour of Hussain Madavoor group and the other<\/p>\n
group secured 17 votes. As per the agreement, Hussain<\/p>\n
Madavoor group is entitled to administer and manage the<\/p>\n
affairs of the Sakha. However, the defendants, who belong<\/p>\n
to the other camp began to obstruct the management of<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                3<\/span><\/p>\n
the Sakha and that led to a minor scuffle on 17.7.2007.<\/p>\n
Apprehending further trouble from the defendants, the suit<\/p>\n
was laid.\n<\/p>\n
            3.   The defendants entered appearance and<\/p>\n
resisted the suit.   It was contended that the suit is not<\/p>\n
maintainable.    The specific contention taken is that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was a member of the local Sakha, since he has not<\/p>\n
renewed his membership in the local Sakha. he is<\/p>\n
incompetent to file the suit. As he is representing a group,<\/p>\n
the suit has to be under Order 1 Rule 8. He cannot bring a<\/p>\n
suit against the Society and its members. The Managing<\/p>\n
Committee of the Kerala Naduvathul Mujahidheen has a<\/p>\n
Mosque and a Madrassa, which constitute wakf properties.<\/p>\n
The Committee is to manage those properties. Being Wakf<\/p>\n
properties, the suit is barred and the Wakf Tribunal alone<\/p>\n
has power to decide the matter. The suit relates to the<\/p>\n
internal management of a registered society. The so-called<\/p>\n
election having been held contrary to the bye-law is<\/p>\n
vitiated.    The appellant is trying to somehow    grab the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
management of the unit. It is conceded that there was an<\/p>\n
intervention by the police and an interim arrangement was<\/p>\n
arrived at.     However, according to the defendant, the<\/p>\n
election was not held in terms of the bye-law and therefore<\/p>\n
cannot be given effect to.         There was serious dispute<\/p>\n
regarding the manner of voting and the votes secured by<\/p>\n
each of the groups in the so-called election. Pointing out<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief, they prayed for<\/p>\n
a dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
            4.  The trial court raised necessary issues for<\/p>\n
consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of<\/p>\n
P.W.1 and no documents were marked on the side of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. The defendants had D.W.1 examined and Exts. B1<\/p>\n
to B13      marked.   Exts. X1 to X4 series are third party<\/p>\n
exhibits. On a consideration of the materials before it, the<\/p>\n
court below came to the conclusion that the suit is bad in<\/p>\n
several respects and dismissed the same. The matter was<\/p>\n
carried in appeal by the plaintiff as A.S. 8 of 2010. The<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
lower appellate court concurred with the finding of the trial<\/p>\n
court and confirmed the decree of the trial court.         That<\/p>\n
brings the plaintiff to this court.\n<\/p>\n
            5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants<\/p>\n
contended that the courts below were not justified in<\/p>\n
dismissing the suit. None of the grounds relied on to do so<\/p>\n
are sustainable either on law or on facts.        According to<\/p>\n
learned counsel, in fact the real dispute at the final hearing<\/p>\n
of the suit was only regarding the postal ballots and the<\/p>\n
courts below have not addressed themselves to that<\/p>\n
question.      Instead, they have considered other materials<\/p>\n
which were not relevant for the purpose of deciding the suit.<\/p>\n
            6. Learned counsel went on to contend that the<\/p>\n
finding of the      court that Order 1 Rule 8 is attracted is<\/p>\n
without any basis. According to learned counsel, even an<\/p>\n
individual has a right to      assail an act, though several<\/p>\n
persons may be benefited by the relief he gets. The suit<\/p>\n
need not be in the representative capacity, since the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is trying to establish the right which is available to<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                6<\/span><\/p>\n
him. In support of his claim, learned counsel relied on the<\/p>\n
decision reported in Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti (AIR<\/a><\/p>\n
1990 SC 396) and P.K. Nayar v. Raghava Menon (1959<\/p>\n
KLT 979). It was contended that the courts below were not<\/p>\n
justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
not produced the so-called karar entered between the two<\/p>\n
groups before the police and also that there is no evidence<\/p>\n
to show that the plaintiff is authorised to institute the suit.<\/p>\n
According to learned counsel, these facts were not in<\/p>\n
dispute and the karar had infact been produced and so also<\/p>\n
the authorisation. Therefore, these grounds are also not<\/p>\n
available for the trial court to dismiss the suit. It was also<\/p>\n
contended that at any rate, the defendants are estopped by<\/p>\n
their conduct in denyjng the rights available to Hussain<\/p>\n
Madavoor group, who are successful in the election<\/p>\n
conducted in pursuance to the agreement. In support of his<\/p>\n
contention, learned counsel relied on the decision reported<\/p>\n
in B.L. Sreedhar v. K.M. Munireddy (AIR<\/a> 2003 SC 578).<\/p>\n
Learned counsel went on to point out that the doctrine of<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                7<\/span><\/p>\n
estoppel is capable of creating a right which can be<\/p>\n
enforced. It is to be mentioned here that not satisfied with<\/p>\n
the oral argument advanced before this court, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant also preferred argument notes.<\/p>\n
            7. A caveat had been lodged by the defendants.<\/p>\n
Senior Counsel Sri. V. Chitembaresh appeared on behalf of<\/p>\n
the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
            8. Learned counsel pointed out that the argument<\/p>\n
of the learned counsel for the appellant do look attractive,<\/p>\n
but on a close scrutiny of the pleadings and evidence it can<\/p>\n
be seen that they are without any basis whatsoever.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel did not dispute the propositions advanced<\/p>\n
by the counsel for the appellant. But according to learned<\/p>\n
counsel, they have no application to the facts of the case.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel went on to point out that a reading of the<\/p>\n
plaint would clearly show that the suit was being lodged by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff as authorised by the Hussain Madavoor group of<\/p>\n
members and no authorisation was produced or marked in<\/p>\n
evidence.      The so-called karar was also not marked.<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
Attention was drawn to the fact that the plaintiff did not go<\/p>\n
into the box and therefore an adverse inference has to be<\/p>\n
drawn against him. Learned counsel then went on to point<\/p>\n
out that the Sakha is governed by the bye-law and any<\/p>\n
election or any conduct in contravention or violation of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the appeal cannot be recognized and given<\/p>\n
effect to. Whatever be the conduct of the members, they<\/p>\n
cannot justify an action contrary to the provisions of the<\/p>\n
bye-laws.\n<\/p>\n
            9. There seems to be considerable force in the<\/p>\n
argument       advanced   by the learned Senior        Counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the respondents.       Copy of the plaint was<\/p>\n
made available for perusal.\n<\/p>\n
            10.   It is true that in the decision reported in<\/p>\n
Kalyan Singh’s case it was held as follows:<\/p>\n
            “Any    member     of  a   community     may<\/p>\n
      successfully bring a suit to assert his right in the<\/p>\n
      community      property  or for protecting     such<\/p>\n
      property by seeking removal of encroachments<\/p>\n
      therefrom. Such a suit need not comply with the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
      requirements of O.1, R.8. The suit against alleged<\/p>\n
      trespass even if it was not a representative suit on<\/p>\n
      behalf of the community would be a suit of this<\/p>\n
      category. In this suit ‘K’ and another claimed that<\/p>\n
      the baghichi was their community property and ‘B’<\/p>\n
      was a trespasser.       They brought the suit to<\/p>\n
      recover possession from ‘B’.        The suit was<\/p>\n
      decreed. The rival title claimed by ‘B’ by adverse<\/p>\n
      possession was negatived. So long as that decree<\/p>\n
      operates, it would be futile to decree the<\/p>\n
      subsequent declaratory suit filed by the brother of<\/p>\n
      ‘B’.”\n<\/p>\n
In the decision in P.K. Nayar’s case it was held as follows:<\/p>\n
            “Assuming that such an action can be<\/p>\n
      brought   only   in  a    representative   capacity,<\/p>\n
      Mr.Balakrisha Eradi has not been able to cite any<\/p>\n
      authority to the effect that a decree passed in<\/p>\n
      circumstances like the present is illegal. it was<\/p>\n
      open to the defendant to have raised this<\/p>\n
      objection at the earlier stage, so that, if the<\/p>\n
      objection was sound in law, the plaintiff could<\/p>\n
      have immediately rectified the same. Nor has the<\/p>\n
      appellant been able to satisfy me that there has<\/p>\n
      been any prejudice caused to him by the action<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
      being allowed to be fought out by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
      alone. I may also, in this connection, refer to the<\/p>\n
      decision of Wort, J., reported in Ramghulam v.<\/p>\n
      Ramkhelawan (AIR 1937 Patna 481). The learned<\/p>\n
      Judge observes at page 482 as follows:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                “Order 1, R.8, C.P.C. as has been pointed<\/p>\n
      out by a number of decisions, is an enabling section<\/p>\n
      which entitles one party to represent many who have<\/p>\n
      a common cause of action; but it does not force one to<\/p>\n
      represent many if his action is maintainable without<\/p>\n
      the joinder of the other persons. Therefore, the first<\/p>\n
      contention of Mr.Balakrishna Eradi is negatived.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
One cannot dispute the proposition that an individual can<\/p>\n
assert his rights even though they may enure to the benefit<\/p>\n
of several other persons or to a group of persons or to a<\/p>\n
particular body as such. But a reading of the plaint shows<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff was not agitating the cause in his individual<\/p>\n
capacity. The plaintiff has specifically averred that he is<\/p>\n
authorised by the Hussain Madavoor group to institute the<\/p>\n
suit. The defendants had specifically disputed that he is<\/p>\n
competent to institute the suit. It is therefore clear that he<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                11<\/span><\/p>\n
was instituting the suit on behalf of a group. He has not<\/p>\n
produced the authorisation by which he is entitled to<\/p>\n
institute the suit, and going by the averments if he has<\/p>\n
instituted the suit on behalf of Hussain Madavoor group,<\/p>\n
naturally Order 1 Rule 8 would be attracted. This is what<\/p>\n
the courts below have held and there is no reason to<\/p>\n
interfere with the said finding.\n<\/p>\n
            11. The next issue that arises for consideration is<\/p>\n
whether the defendants are estopped by their conduct from<\/p>\n
disputing the claims put forward by the plaintiff. It is not in<\/p>\n
dispute that the administration and management of the<\/p>\n
Sakha are governed by the bye-laws. There is no case for<\/p>\n
the plaintiff that the so-called election was carried on in<\/p>\n
accordance with the provisions of the bye-law.            It is<\/p>\n
extremely doubtful if two groups in a Sakha can agree<\/p>\n
among themselves to do something in total violation of the<\/p>\n
bye-laws accepted by the Sakha and such other bodies. The<\/p>\n
mere fact that a compromise was arrived at, does not give<\/p>\n
any group any right to do anything in violation of the bye-<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.               12<\/span><\/p>\n
laws. If a thing is to be done in a particular manner, it has<\/p>\n
to be so done and not in any other way. If one is to accept<\/p>\n
the proposition that it is possible to vary the provisions of<\/p>\n
the bye-laws by conduct and consensus between members<\/p>\n
of a Sakha, that would lead to disastrous results. Then each<\/p>\n
Sakha or such body can follow its own rules. That cannot<\/p>\n
obviously be the position.    Sakha as well as such other<\/p>\n
bodies had to scrupulously follow the bye-laws unless they<\/p>\n
are empowered to do otherwise and there is nothing to<\/p>\n
show that Sakhas are entitled to deviate from the bye-laws.<\/p>\n
            12. The defendants had specifically disputed that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff is a member of the Kerala Naduvathul<\/p>\n
Mujahidheen. Inspite of this specific contention, there was<\/p>\n
no attempt on the part of the plaintiff to show that he is a<\/p>\n
member       of Kerala   Naduvathul    Mujahidheen.      The<\/p>\n
defendants had produced Ext.B11 to show that the list did<\/p>\n
not contain the name of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
            13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
pointed out that the defendants have admitted that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has voted in the election held as per the karar and<\/p>\n
also that the ballot papers have been produced.<\/p>\n
            14. The claim of the appellant that he has voted<\/p>\n
in the election and the ballot paper itself has been produced<\/p>\n
are not sufficient. When there is a specific denial of his<\/p>\n
membership, it is for him to establish that he is a member of<\/p>\n
the Sakha.      It is here that the non-examination of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff assumes importance.        It is contended that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is a total stranger and he has nothing to do with the<\/p>\n
election. Therefore merely because the plaintiff claims to<\/p>\n
have voted in the election is not a ground to hold that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is a member when the defendants had specifically<\/p>\n
denied the same. There was no attempt on the part of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff to establish the claim made by him.<\/p>\n
            15. The courts below have also considered the<\/p>\n
question whether the suit is barred under the Wakf Act. The<\/p>\n
courts have come to the conclusion that the Mosque and the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                14<\/span><\/p>\n
Madrassa constitute Wakf properties and therefore fall<\/p>\n
within the ambit of Wakf Act.          The Mosque and the<\/p>\n
Madrassa are properties of which management has to be<\/p>\n
carried on by the Sakha Committee.\n<\/p>\n
            16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
pointed out that the courts below have erred in law in<\/p>\n
coming to such a conclusion. Madrassa, by no stretch of<\/p>\n
imagination, can be treated as a Wakf property and it is also<\/p>\n
pointed out that the society had been in existence long<\/p>\n
before the Mosque had come into existence. It could not be<\/p>\n
said that the Society falls under the Wakf Act.<\/p>\n
            17.    Learned    counsel    appearing for   the<\/p>\n
respondents on the other hand pointed out that a reading of<\/p>\n
Exts. B1 and B2 will clearly show that the Mosque and the<\/p>\n
Madrassa are Wakf properties. There is no substance in the<\/p>\n
contention of the appellant that it is not so.<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
            18. It is felt that it is not necessary to decide this<\/p>\n
issue because the suit has to fail on other grounds. The fate<\/p>\n
of the suit does not depend upon the decision on this issue<\/p>\n
and it is only of academic interest in the context of the<\/p>\n
present case.\n<\/p>\n
            19. Obviously since the plaintiff has not examined<\/p>\n
himself, it could not be said that the averments in the plaint<\/p>\n
have been established. As already stated the mere fact that<\/p>\n
he claims to have voted in the election is not sufficient to<\/p>\n
hold that he is a member of the Sakha. May be that the<\/p>\n
karar and the authorisation have been produced along with<\/p>\n
the plaint. May be also that they form part of the pleadings.<\/p>\n
But the pleadings are not evidence.            Those documents<\/p>\n
ought to have been marked             by examining the plaintiff<\/p>\n
himself. For reasons best known to the plaintiff he chose to<\/p>\n
keep away from the box.           As rightly pointed out by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondents, that necessitate an<\/p>\n
adverse inference to be drawn against him. One may have<\/p>\n
a look at the prayer in the plaint. It reads as follows:<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                16<\/span><\/p>\n
                “The plaintiff therefore prays for a<\/p>\n
      declaration that the Hussain Madavoor group in<\/p>\n
      the Chenakkalangadio Sakha, (now consisting of<\/p>\n
      19 members) is entitled to manage the affairs of<\/p>\n
      the Chenakkalangadi Sakha till the final disposal<\/p>\n
      of the litigation regarding the control and<\/p>\n
      administration     of the  society called   Kerala<\/p>\n
      Naduvathul Mujahideen and for a consequential<\/p>\n
      injunction restraining the defendants and their<\/p>\n
      supporters from interfering    with or obstructing<\/p>\n
      the administration and management of the affairs<\/p>\n
      of the Chenakkalangadi Sakha, its institutions and<\/p>\n
      properties by the Hussain Madavoor Group.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
As rightly pointed out by the Senior Counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents the prayer is very vague in as much as the<\/p>\n
litigation which is intended has not been specified.     A<\/p>\n
general statement that the relief may be granted till the<\/p>\n
disposal of the litigation is too vague.      There may be<\/p>\n
litigation after litigation and an omnibus prayer cannot be<\/p>\n
granted.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                17<\/span><\/p>\n
            20. The result is that none of the allegations in<\/p>\n
the plaint have been established. Apart from the said fact,<\/p>\n
merely because a karar had been entered into at the behest<\/p>\n
of the police does not enable the members of the Sakha to<\/p>\n
deviate from the provisions of the bye-law and devise their<\/p>\n
own procedure.\n<\/p>\n
            21. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
drew the attention of this court to the decision of this court<\/p>\n
in W.P.(C) 35052 of 2007 dated 19.3.2009.         The courts<\/p>\n
below took the view that since the suit is hit by the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Wakf Act, it may not be maintainable. That<\/p>\n
was challenged before this court. This court observed as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
            “The election was conducted on 4.8.2007 and<\/p>\n
      it is submitted that the committee took charge.<\/p>\n
      The decision taken by the Appellate Court on the<\/p>\n
      basis of the decisions reported in Pookoya Haji v.<\/p>\n
      Cheriya Koya<\/a> (2003(3) KLT 32) and Madeena<\/p>\n
      Masjid v. Kerala Jama    Ath Islami Hind (2007(3)<\/p>\n
      KLT 800) is not correct. The bar under Section 85<\/p>\n
      of the Wakf Act is confined to the questions to be<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                 18<\/span><\/p>\n
      decided by the Tribunal and with respect to other<\/p>\n
      matters the jurisdiction of the civil court is not<\/p>\n
      barred. Section 9 of the C.P.C. states that the civil<\/p>\n
      court shall have jurisdiction to try all the suits of a<\/p>\n
      civil nature except the suits of which their<\/p>\n
      cognizance either expressly or impliedly barred.<\/p>\n
      The finding of the Appellate Court that the subject<\/p>\n
      matter of the suit confers jurisdiction on the Wakf<\/p>\n
      Tribunal and that there      is express bar under<\/p>\n
      Section 85 of the Wakf Act for the civil court to<\/p>\n
      entertain the suit is illegal and the finding is<\/p>\n
      against the pleadings and the law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was therefore contended that the ground that the mosque<\/p>\n
and Madrassa fall within the ambit of Wakf Act is not<\/p>\n
justified.\n<\/p>\n
            22. A reading of the above quoted paragraph will<\/p>\n
show that this court has finally bring on the issue whether<\/p>\n
the Wakf Act will apply or not. That was left to be decided<\/p>\n
on the basis of the evidence adduced in the case. This court<\/p>\n
only observes that at that stage it may not be possible to<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.                  19<\/span><\/p>\n
say that the suit is barred under the provisions of the Act. It<\/p>\n
is already stated that it is unnecessary to go into that<\/p>\n
question because the suit has to fail on other grounds.<\/p>\n
            In the result, this appeal is without merits and it is<\/p>\n
dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              P. BHAVADASAN,
\n                                                  JUDGE
\nsb.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.485\/2010.    20<\/p>\n
                           P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                   – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
                           R.S.A. No. 485 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                   – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                    04.06.2010<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 485 of 2010() 1. K.MUSTHAFA, S\/O. MAMMED, AGED 38 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. ABDUL JABBAR A.P., AGED 57 YEARS, … Respondent 2. T.P.MUHAMMED @ CHINNAKUTTY HAJI, 3. P.K.FAISAL, AGED 35 YEARS, S\/O. 4. […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-128975","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010 - 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\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-25T17:21:57+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-25T17:21:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3321,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010\",\"name\":\"K.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-25T17:21:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"K.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010 - 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\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-25T17:21:57+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-25T17:21:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010"},"wordCount":3321,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010","name":"K.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-25T17:21:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-musthafa-vs-abdul-jabbar-a-p-on-4-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Musthafa vs Abdul Jabbar A.P. on 4 June, 2010"}]},{"@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\/128975","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=128975"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128975\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128975"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128975"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128975"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}