{"id":132591,"date":"2010-09-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-18T00:30:01","modified_gmt":"2018-11-17T19:00:01","slug":"abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Abbas Ali Bohra S\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents … on 2 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Abbas Ali Bohra S\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents … on 2 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: B.S.Patil<\/div>\n
RFA 102,0\/2004\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE)\n\nDATED THIS THE 02% DAY 01? SEPTEMBER, _\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HONTSLE I\\\/ERJUSTICE T    \n\nR.F.A.No. 1020\/20014' T ~ \nBETWEEN: T\n\nSri ABBAS ALI BOHRA.\nS\/ o Sri Tayabaii.\n\nAged about 51 years,\nResiding at No.12\/2,\n\nNew No.1109\/3, 47%: Cross,\"  -- if '\n5\"' Block, Jayanagar,   .  \nBangalore. '   . ' APPELLANT\n(By Sri M.S.Rajend-rapP1'a5ad:\u20ac\"E\u00a7r;-tioanseit}\nAND:\nTHE ARYA ViDyASTiALA.'.pAT\u00a7.ENTS\nASSOCIATION, \"  ' '-\n\n4_ .. Represented by its \"PreS_tdent\n\n P1'emi\"SeS E'$[\"o.5;t' 5\"] Main Road,\n\nVGanpdh.1:nagar,   __\n\nBatngaIo1=e;5.\u00a7O ooa,  RESPONDENT\n\n'   (By  Adv. for\n\n.M \/ S. Crest'-.VLaw\".Partr1ers, AdvS.}\n\n***\n\ndd  Reguiar First Appeal is filed under 96 read with\n\n ___\"t':)rd\u20ac;r 43 Rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated\n  f33...8.2004 passed in O.S.No.7993\/02 on the file of the VIII\n _ \"Add].City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore and etc.\n\nThis appeai coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court\nmade the following:\n\n\n\nRFA E020\/2004\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment”an\u00abd.’_’deeifee _<\/p>\n
dated 23.08.2004 passed by the V111 Add}. ._ <\/p>\n
Bangalore city, dismissing the suit
\nthe appellant herein. 0  0  A 0  V\n<\/p>\n
2. Appellant filed the said suitlvifseelging  permanent
\ninjunction. In fact, the  seeking the
\nrelief of declarationgof titleigrgvijtlg  The said relief
\nwas given up     to the relief of<\/p>\n
permanent inji,_inetion. “”Th4e”-isjuit”scheliiiile property is a vacant<\/p>\n
space bearing’ “measuring east to west 177 feet<\/p>\n
and north to lisoiith  situated at 5111 Main Road,<\/p>\n
__Gandhi_nlagar, Barig_alore.  The plaintiff contended that the suit<\/p>\n
  was acquired by him through a registered<\/p>\n
sai.e_1-41.11.2002 executed by its original<\/p>\n
Vpowners. 1.;-jri-.  S.N.PararnesWara, Srnt.Anasuyamma and<\/p>\n
:'”v4.a’Srht\ufb02hanvdramma and also Sri S.K.Ramesh, for a total<\/p>\n
 eonsitieration of Rs.65 iakhs. The plaintiff further contended<\/p>\n
  due to deficit stamp duty, the Sub–Registrar refused to<\/p>\n
  “register the sale deed though it was presented before him. The<\/p>\n
further case of the plaintiff is that he has paid the corporation<\/p>\n
RFA 1020\/2004
\n3<\/span><\/p>\n
tax to the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike in respect of the suit<\/p>\n
property and that the previous owner of the property had_ put<\/p>\n
him in Vacant possession of the same on the date of regiistrua-tion<\/p>\n
of the sale deed and since then he has  <\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of the same?” Plaintiff _;asserted.’_t,hat.<\/p>\n
he had fenced the suit schedule <\/p>\n
after he got the sale deed registered and__ tliatwwas a”<\/p>\n
compound put up by theefathenofj’the’–..originaiowners. He
\nproduced certain photogra’ph.s”~ the same.
\nAccording to him, when   along with his
\nworkers \u00a7l,and–.’on ‘2f’Ei,”i”1.-2’t)02, he noticed that the
\ndefendantihad. along with rowdy elements and<\/p>\n
tried to remoire, the fence  he was prevented from cleaning<\/p>\n
the solfedu1’e prop’e*rty_. ____ __immediately thereafter, he lodged a<\/p>\n
“p_olic;e~ _eco.mp1ain’tv.__ In the circumstances, apprehending<\/p>\n
inte1vfe1~ence’V’fbyf_  defendant, plaintiff was constrained to<\/p>\n
 approach the “Civil Court. It is further contended by him that<\/p>\n
if S;K_.Ramesh who was the agreement holder of the said<\/p>\n
 and who was one of the signatories to the sale deed<\/p>\n
–fa’1on’g with the original owners had filed a suit<\/p>\n
d.u(“).S.No.5938\/2002 against the defendant and others for<\/p>\n
permanent injunction and that there was an ad interim order of<\/p>\n
RFA 1020\/2004
\n4<\/span><\/p>\n
temporary injunction which was confirmed later and therefore
\nthe action of the defendant in causing obstruction wasptotally<\/p>\n
illegal and unjustified.\n<\/p>\n
3. The defendant–resp0ndent herein av-l\ufb02society -, <\/p>\n
registered under the Societies Registration’ Act, <\/p>\n
claim by denying the plaint averrnents.l”*’i’h’e defendant lrail\u00e9\u00a7edial.* ”<\/p>\n
preliminary objection contendinglvtthiat the ‘alleged ‘sale deed
\nbeing an unregistered   havelthe effect of
\ntransferring any right, title anld_i1;terest of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
and the plaintiff~’canriot a.sseI’t.7any:.right.s__Hbased on the same<\/p>\n
including,_lthat_’o1″ wasmfurther contended that the
\nearlier suit ” M filed’  declaration of title in<\/p>\n
o.s.No._a93s\/door’: ‘hhaviriglvbeen withdrawn by S.K.Rarnesh<\/p>\n
 yVithou.tA:’lib’erty..on 2f”\/fll’ll.l2002 and the plaintiff herein having<\/p>\n
filed’ and for irnpleading in the said suit stating that<\/p>\n
l   he   the property during the pendency of the<\/p>\n
ll”~.~.._sa,Ine, the present suit was barred. The defendant further<\/p>\n
 ctintenlded that the Counsel who represented S.K.Ramesh —<\/p>\n
ll”‘t._,.l:pllair1tiff in O.S.No.5938\/2002 also represented Mr.Abbas Ali<\/p>\n
  Bohara in the application filed for advancement and impleading<\/p>\n
 e very Counsel has filed the present suit as well. These<\/p>\n
RFA 1020\/2004
\n5<\/span>
\naverrnents were made to highlight the fact that the pendency of<\/p>\n
the proceedings in O.S.No.5938\/2002, the nature of–.___relief<\/p>\n
sought thereunder, the withdrawal of the same uncoriditihopin\ufb01ally<\/p>\n
and the filing of the present suit, were  V’<\/p>\n
knowledge of the present plaintiff: -The <\/p>\n
contended that the plaintiff was abtisinlgf’tlhelfproeessl <\/p>\n
Court with an intention to circuinifent the’ orderfpassed’  thisV f<\/p>\n
Court in M.F.A.No.7146\/2__oo2, Wh.erein”‘this comp had passed
\nan interim order on l8.1ll~.;’3:lOO2…ll5oth the parties to<\/p>\n
maintain status qno.  said appeal’ arose out of<\/p>\n
O.S.No.59.38’\/ lzlkhere had obtained an interim
\norder of lternporary’l:injunlcltioVn* ‘Which was challenged by the<\/p>\n
defendant–So’ci_elty, –lres’pond_le’nt herein and at whose instance<\/p>\n
_. the order ofstatus”q11o__c_arne to be passed. The allegation of the<\/p>\n
Alldefendaritl ‘thlat__suppressing the said fact the present suit<\/p>\n
came to be til-ed’g;;only in order to obtain an ex~parte order of<\/p>\n
\u00ab’temporary”*– injunction. Several other contentions are taken in<\/p>\n
ll”wr.iti;en’l statement by the defendant touching upon the title<\/p>\n
  property. which we are not concerned as eventually the<\/p>\n
~\u00abl..:pl’ai’ntiff gave up the relief of declaration and the judgment and<\/p>\n
“decree which this Court is concerned is only in respect of<\/p>\n
dismissal of the suit for permanent. i.nju.nctior1.<\/p>\n
Jr<\/p>\n
RFA 1020\/2004
\n6<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
4. According to the defendant, this is a charitable<\/p>\n
association which is running a school for poor and .–needy<\/p>\n
students and the said school is situated at property<\/p>\n
No.5, 5*” Main Road, Gandhinagar, Bangalore    V’<\/p>\n
vacant land existed in property No.4 as”‘cl~aime-pl byffthe plaintiff’.<\/p>\n
It is their assertion that property No.4 <\/p>\n
They further contended that plfaintiff s  not'”ace;uire’* f<\/p>\n
title in excess of the area of 35 feye.t..a:npd dinches’ X.A99..ifeet. The
\ndefendant traced its title vaitiposseissiofnfinptrespect of property
\nbearing No.5 to theigrant   under the
\nregistered,vdeied\ufb01dctteld   additional grant dated
\nl0.11.19s\u00a7<<i, "   that they had Constructed
\nthe school   premises and are running a
\n4_  of the school building stands in the
\nto be claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant
\n over the suit property since the last 60<\/p>\n
years.u""They. alleged that it was the plaintiff who was trying to<\/p>\n
uforpe to encroach upon the property of the defendant and<\/p>\n
that the suit was filed only with a View to secure eX–parte order<\/p>\n
~\u00ab'..:of""injunction so as to trespass into the property of the<\/p>\n
 \u00abdefendant. Hence. the defendant sought for dismissal of the<\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n
A”\n<\/p>\n
RFA 1 O20\/2004<\/p>\n
5. The court below framed necessary issues regardin\u00a7\u00ab\u00abpi’oVof<\/p>\n
of lawful possession of the suit schedule property”<\/p>\n
plaintiff on the date of the suit and theyyalleged” interference  K”<\/p>\n
the defendant so as to entitle the p’l’aif1tiff._lfor”  ‘mi<\/p>\n
permanent injunction.\n<\/p>\n
6. In support of the case of  Jexainined
\nhimself as PW–i and two   ‘S_.N.ParaIneshwara
\nand S.K.RaInesh ast,PWs–2VV–&:._3;  ‘l33xs.P–l to P–25<\/p>\n
were producedand:?fnarls:e’d.  its part examined<\/p>\n
two  l?””Se.cretary of the defendant-\n<\/p>\n
Society  ‘   :Headrnaster of the school.\n<\/p>\n
Exs.D–1 to nl:~;zgu:efe  and marked.\n<\/p>\n
.~'”7,_  v\u00a7_o’11svideratiovn_..0f the oral and documentary evidence,
\n .Vv1Ajv;Aelov\\y,l::’recorded a \ufb01nding that the plaintiff failed to<\/p>\n
establish  possession over the suit schedule property<\/p>\n
 and the allvegedlinterference by the defendant. Hence, the Court<\/p>\n
 b.elow’lid._\u00a2clined to grant the relief sought for by the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
 –.d.isr1iissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal<\/p>\n
RFA 1020\/2004
\n8<\/span><\/p>\n
8. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad contends
\nthat the judgment rendered by the Trial Court suffers from<\/p>\n
serious illegality, in as much as the oral and documentary<\/p>\n
evidence produced and relied on by the plaintiff is not <\/p>\n
appreciated and considered. He particularly points  <\/p>\n
court below has failed to consider tVhe'”effect–‘_’of ~\u00bb{fWi’\u00a3_\u00a7<\/p>\n
executed on 06.04.1967 by one Nanjarasappa in yfavlour<\/p>\n
predecessor–in–title of the plainti.fi”~rand also “%1~’\u00ab”Njotice”‘<\/p>\n
dated 28.10.2002 issued th.er.-au.th.oi’itAies of *the,l\u00a7angal0re<\/p>\n
City Corporation to the   “the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
9. Counsel_A1for._gthe=.re’spbnden_’t Mr. Arun Kumar strongly
\nsupports findings   the Trial Court and submits<\/p>\n
that the ‘ plaintiff has”not.lprolduced any semblance of document<\/p>\n
 toprovel his actual povssession. He has taken me through the<\/p>\n
pleadings “th’e.Vd.ocuments produced to contend that the suit<\/p>\n
  filed the~plairitiff was only intended to harass the defendant<\/p>\n
–. _;_i::.d subjectllthern to the ordeal of facing successive litigation.<\/p>\n
  ‘Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on<\/p>\n
 careful consideration of the materials on record, the point that<\/p>\n
  arise for consideration is.\n<\/p>\n
RFA 1020\/2004
\n9<\/span>
\n“whether the judgment and decree passed by the<\/p>\n
Trial Court holding that the plaintiff failed to
\nestablish his possession suffers from any illegality’ or<\/p>\n
perversity warranting interference in this appeaij(“‘,VV”‘ —  ~<\/p>\n
11. The main basis for the ciairn of the plajnti\ufb01 asjfcarl _<\/p>\n
seen from the pleadings and the evidencesiis’ <\/p>\n
14.11.2002 executed by his Vendor insfaxrour of Tthe’:plaintiii’in’=.L<\/p>\n
respect of the property bearing ‘situated._at* Shh  Road.
\nGandhinagar. The said  deed’  14. 10.20002 is not
\nproduced before the ‘1’ria1   come up with<\/p>\n
the plea that the .vsa3.eV:1:1eed_ thoiigh’\u00abprolperlypilgeitecuted, could not<\/p>\n
be registered  .s_ta_m_p duty could not be paid and
\nhence theA’Si1haRegistru\u00e911*did” “not register the document. The<\/p>\n
p1aintiffs..assertionsixtrassl’-that the possession was delivered by<\/p>\n
 his vendors in his favoiir on the date of execution of the sale<\/p>\n
\u00a21e\u00a2a__o”r1–  The suit is filed on 27.11.2002. The<\/p>\n
  causegof  said to have arisen on 26.11.2002. As<\/p>\n
-..l,l’_f3-‘.._already stated, the claim of the plaintiff is traced to the sale<\/p>\n
   _dated 14.11.2002 alleging that he took possession of the<\/p>\n
 –\ufb01slcheidule property on the same day (14.11.2002) from his<\/p>\n
  ffendors. However, in the cross–examination, the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
 hat he took possession of the suit schedule property on<\/p>\n
RFA 1020\/2004
\n10<\/span><\/p>\n
28.06.2002 and he did not c1.aim the suit property on the said<\/p>\n
date on account of obstruction. He further goes on to statcgthat<\/p>\n
subsequently he did not go to the suit property. He ‘t_hat<\/p>\n
he was aware of filing of MFA No.7146\/2002 against thfgaaerr  <\/p>\n
of temporary injunction granted in O.S.’Nu,.593.s_3<\/p>\n
of S.K.Ramesh who is stated to be .’the:’.A.agree:ment’. <\/p>\n
respect of the suit property froin\ufb02its origin__al  the”<\/p>\n
plaintiff is claiming possession u.nder~the_ said 0′ original owners
\nand also under Sri Ramesh; “that he was aware
\nof the order passed_’by_ the’Highilpolurt-directing maintenance of
\nstatus~\u00abquo”in _respec:tif:_o’f t’he*suilt”propVerty, but he asserts that
\nthe said order  to his purchasing the<\/p>\n
property. It_to.be noti._c’e’d:Jhere that the status–quo order in<\/p>\n
 v\u00bbl’l:o.v”v\/’1’~f\u00a36\/2002….W\u00a71S passed on 18.11.2002 and the<\/p>\n
Al’plair1tiff7ap_pellant herein asserts that he has purchased the<\/p>\n
propelrty Vlanl\ufb02i4g\u00a71’i.2002 and was put in possession on<\/p>\n
  1  Iithere was a status quo order on 18.11.2002, the<\/p>\n
 of the appellant being put in possession by his<\/p>\n
.y_en.dorsAAlwho were directed to maintain status–quo with regard<\/p>\n
tothe property would not arise. At any rate, in order to show<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff-appellant. has been put in possession of the<\/p>\n
suit schedule property. there is absolutely no material<\/p>\n
\ufb01e<\/p>\n
RFA 1020\/2004
\n1 1
\nproduced. The very foundation for the suit is the alleged sale<\/p>\n
deed dated 1~<\u00a7.1 1.2002, which is not produced. Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
sale deed has not been registered. In that Vi\u20acW of <\/p>\n
the fundamental premise on which the plaintiff  V'<\/p>\n
falls to the ground. Even assuming .that. .vvit}f41out' deistabiishing<\/p>\n
the said sale, the plaintiff could estab:lish::'hi's <\/p>\n
because he had abandoned thedeclaratoiyre1_iei7Vandcoiifined"V V<\/p>\n
the suit to only for permanent Ainjunction, ll do.,r1ot:\u00a7 find any
\nevidence which establishes'p–.hi~s  possession of the
\nproperty. Neitherthe khata  the..V:'pr'op'erty\u00bb"'nor the tax paid
\nreceipts in lithe\u00bb propertyvare in the name of the
\nDlaintiff.  * d<\/p>\n
12. The contention of At.hfe’\u00ab1’edarned Senior Counsel that Ex.P–2<\/p>\n
..~ V.–p_ Willv_*’dated’ 1″36._7__executed by Nanjarasappa in favour of<\/p>\n
V.predeces~sory\u00a5i’nrtitle of the plaintiff is not considered by the<\/p>\n
Trialtjourt   said document has got serious bearing on<\/p>\n
the issue of actual possession is not tenable. This document<\/p>\n
 dddioes’finotfdisclose that the suit property in its definite<\/p>\n
-.rneAasurernent and description was bequeathed in favour of the<\/p>\n
” ~ persons from whom the plaintiff claims possession and title. As<\/p>\n
 dy referred to above. the suit is confined to one of actual<\/p>\n
RFA 1020 \/2004
\n12<\/span><\/p>\n
possession. it is not possible by considering EX.P~2 mm Will dated
\n06.04.1967 to hold that the suit property described the
\nplain’: schedule was in actual possession of the
\ntitle of the plaintiff. 4′ if f l<\/p>\n
13. Similarly, Ex.P–i7 on which the”le’arnedp  {l3ou7nse}<\/p>\n
places reliance is a notice issued byl;th”e._ Corporyation. <\/p>\n
upon the defendant to explain as-vto’~undelr what autlhlorityllltheyll’<\/p>\n
were trying to put up SlZOI’l.\u20ac..f\u20acI1Ci1’1g’ ipropertyiibelonging to
\nthe school. This notice does not  of establishing
\nthf.’ aC’L’u<'-ll p0SS\u20acvSlS:il0i1_ of suit schedule<\/p>\n
property' Such "a'.i1otilce cannot be relied upon to establish the
\npossession.' Aippbest;  construed that this notice is<\/p>\n
issued by theft"Corporation."'alleging that the defendant was<\/p>\n
 illegallyCtry'ing"to put lulplstone fencing in respect of the property<\/p>\n
belolniging:toliiileV'-sc_i.1ool, which does not mean that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
  was inpplawftillpiossessioii of the property warranting protection<\/p>\n
from the "Court; of law. Therefore, the contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
A  llearnedljrseiiior counsel cannot be accepted.<\/p>\n
   On the other hand, the materials placed on record and<\/p>\n
   relied upon by the Trial Court disclose that the suit filed earlier<\/p>\n
by S.K,Ra.mesh in O.S.No.5938\/2002 for the relief of<\/p>\n
as<\/p>\n
RFA 1020\/2004
\n18<\/span><\/p>\n
declaration and injunction in respect of the very property was<\/p>\n
dismissed without reserving liberty to file another suit andrthat<\/p>\n
the present plaintiff had knowledge of the institutioiiof  p<\/p>\n
as he had sought to come on record by filing   -\u00ab .0 <\/p>\n
impleacling in O.S.No.5938\/2002. Duringiplthellpendejncy’ <\/p>\n
said suit, the present plaintiff  ventured to<\/p>\n
property and after the purchase uias\ufb01made, vtiielplsuit  to be
\nwithdrawn and immediatelyv-thereafter:.the”~presentsuit is filed
\nby the appellant herein who’l’wVas”_  applicant in<\/p>\n
O.S.NO.5938\/2002.”\u00a33316 conduct i.pi\u00a7inu\u00a3f discloses that<\/p>\n
he was tryingv initiiateethelpresent after Withdrawal of the
\nearlier suit Without”‘t_he acquisition of title by him.<\/p>\n
This shows  he is fr1_oLe.:e1’1titled for the equitable relief of<\/p>\n
~p’\u20ac’l”1’}.’1<":v1lil3I1l;'li'3jl11'1Cl;l01'l,v_HltviS also to be noticed that the fact of<\/p>\n
l'sale;rr1aVde.V_vi'o 'favour of the plaintiff was not informed to this<\/p>\n
Cou'rt.hi~n'  46 \/ 2002 where the vendors of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
 were parties. .' "'lT'he Trial court has rightly taken note of this<\/p>\n
  on the part of the plaintiff and his predecessor in title<\/p>\n
andiiias rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not<\/p>\n
  e  T " the relief of permanent injunction.\n<\/p>\n
_ 3 #5<\/p>\n
RFA 1020\/2004
\n14<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
15. In the light of the discussion made above and in the wake<\/p>\n
of the materials on record adverted to herein above. thereis no<\/p>\n
ground made out for interference with the judgment.\u00abandV”dAe’efe.\u00a2<\/p>\n
passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this appeal <\/p>\n
same is dismissed. Parties to bear theirmrespectivecosts. ‘<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Abbas Ali Bohra S\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents … on 2 September, 2010 Author: B.S.Patil RFA 102,0\/2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE) DATED THIS THE 02% DAY 01? SEPTEMBER, _ BEFORE THE HONTSLE I\\\/ERJUSTICE T R.F.A.No. 1020\/20014′ T ~ BETWEEN: T Sri ABBAS ALI BOHRA. S\/ o […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-132591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbbas Ali Bohra S\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents ... on 2 September, 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\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abbas Ali Bohra S\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents ... on 2 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-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=\"2010-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-17T19:00:01+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abbas Ali Bohra S\\\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents … on 2 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-17T19:00:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2523,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Abbas Ali Bohra S\\\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents ... on 2 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-17T19:00:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abbas Ali Bohra S\\\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents … on 2 September, 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":"Abbas Ali Bohra S\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents ... on 2 September, 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\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abbas Ali Bohra S\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents ... on 2 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-17T19:00:01+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abbas Ali Bohra S\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents … on 2 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-17T19:00:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010"},"wordCount":2523,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010","name":"Abbas Ali Bohra S\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents ... on 2 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-17T19:00:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abbas-ali-bohra-so-tayabali-vs-the-arya-vidyashala-parents-on-2-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abbas Ali Bohra S\/O Tayabali vs The Arya Vidyashala Parents … on 2 September, 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\/132591","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=132591"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132591\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}