{"id":13417,"date":"2009-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009"},"modified":"2019-04-04T08:57:47","modified_gmt":"2019-04-04T03:27:47","slug":"moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Moh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Moh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 2009<\/div>\n
SAO No. 13 of 2002                                                                 1\n\n\n\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                           CHANDIGARH\n                                        --\n\n                                 SAO No. 13 of 2002\n                                 Date of decision: September 05, 2009\n\n\nMoh. Amin alias Amin etc.                                        ........ Appellants\n\n             Versus\n\nShaymuddin                                                     .......Respondent\n\n\nCoram:       Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur\n                       -.-\n\nPresent:     Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate\n             for the appellants\n\n             Mr. Naresh Parbhakar, Advocate\n             for the respondent\n                    -.-\n\n      1.     Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n             allowed to see the judgement?\n\n      2.     To be referred to the Reporter or not?\n\n      3.     Whether the judgement should be reported in\n             the Digest?\n\nNirmaljit Kaur, J.\n<\/pre>\n
             The appellants filed a civil suit for declaration to the effect that the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 are co-sharers in possession to the extent of 4\/6th share in<\/p>\n
equal share and the plaintiffs No. 5 to 8 are owners in possession of 1\/6th share in<\/p>\n
the land in dispute. It was pleaded in the suit that the parties are Muslims and are<\/p>\n
governed by the Mohammedan law in the matter of inheritance. Thus, after the<\/p>\n
death of Mansab Ali, his sons are entitled to the inheritance of the property in<\/p>\n
equal shares. It was further stated that since their other brother Mohammad Sharif<\/p>\n
died issue less, all his six brothers are entitled to inherit the land in equal share.
\n SAO No. 13 of 2002                                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
The respondent-defendant, in the civil suit, put up a Will executed in his favour on<\/p>\n
25.02.1976. The appellants-plaintiffs refuted the validity of the aforesaid Will.<\/p>\n
The trial Court, vide judgement and decree dated 23.11.1997, partly decreed the<\/p>\n
suit to the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
             “it is only plaintiffs No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 being brothers of the<\/p>\n
             deceased Mohammad Sharif, who are entitled to the share in<\/p>\n
             the property of deceased Mohammad Sharif along with the<\/p>\n
             defendant and their three sisters and two daughters of<\/p>\n
             Mohammad Sharif and that plaintiffs No. 5 to 8 are not entitled<\/p>\n
             to the property of deceased Mohammad Sharif due to reasons<\/p>\n
             as fully elaborated above. The plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 defendant<\/p>\n
             and their three sisters and two daughters of deceased<\/p>\n
             Mohammad Sharif shall inherit the property of deceased<\/p>\n
             Mohammed Sharif, as detailed in para No. 4 of the plaint as per<\/p>\n
             Hanafi Law of inheritance, since the parties are admittedly<\/p>\n
             Sunnis.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The respondent\/defendant filed an appeal against the judgement and<\/p>\n
decree passed by the Civil Judge, (Sr. Division) Sonepat before the Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, Sonepat, who remanded back the suit to the trial court to proceed<\/p>\n
in accordance with the provisions of law, after joining the necessary parties.<\/p>\n
             The legal issue that arises in the present appeal is whether the suit<\/p>\n
could be remanded back for fresh decision after impleading necessary parties in<\/p>\n
view of Order 1 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
             It is apparent from the operative part of the judgement of the trial<\/p>\n
Court that the Trial Court had directed that the property would now be inherited in
\n SAO No. 13 of 2002                                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
accordance with Hanafi law of inheritance, as applicable to the Mohamdans and<\/p>\n
the same shall be evolved upon the plaintiffs No. 1 to 4, defendant, their three<\/p>\n
sisters and two daughters of deceased Mohammad Sharif. This judgement was<\/p>\n
challenged by the defendant on the ground that the sisters and daughters being the<\/p>\n
necessary parties and the plaintiffs have not joined them as such, the suit was bad<\/p>\n
for non-joinder of the necessary parties. The Appellate Court, therefore, concluded<\/p>\n
that the sisters were the necessary parties and, as such, the suit was bad for non-<\/p>\n
joining them as a necessary parties. It was, accordingly,        remanded back, as<\/p>\n
mentioned above, to try the same after impleading the sisters as necessary parties.<\/p>\n
             While challenging the judgement dated 29.11.2001 passed by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Court, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was not<\/p>\n
bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties, as the trial Court had duly held that<\/p>\n
the sisters are entitled to inherit the property left by Mohammad Sharif. Thus, no<\/p>\n
prejudice has been caused to them, as the three sisters and two daughters are held<\/p>\n
entitled to inherit the property in dispute.       It was an order in their favour.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgement           of Hon’ble the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court rendered in the case of ‘P Purushottam Reddy v. M\/s Partap Steel<\/p>\n
Ltd.’, 2002(2) RCR (Civil), to show that there should be no unwarranted order of<\/p>\n
remand, which may give the litigation an underserved lease of life. He also relied<\/p>\n
upon a judgement rendered by this Court in the case of ‘Ilam Chand v. Ved<\/p>\n
Parkash’,<\/a> 2003 PLJ 267, to substantiate that all the co sharers are not necessary<\/p>\n
to be impleaded as party to the claim for possession. Even one of the co sharers,<\/p>\n
has a right to claim for the benefit of all the co sharers.\n<\/p>\n
             On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently<\/p>\n
opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants and referred to
\n SAO No. 13 of 2002                                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
the Order 1 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure that no order except so far as<\/p>\n
regards the rights and interests of the parties, who are actually before it, can be<\/p>\n
passed and relied upon a judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of<\/p>\n
Kanakarathanammal v. V S Loganatha Mudaliar and<\/a> another, AIR 1965 SC 271.<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.\n<\/p>\n
             Order 1 Rule 9 of the CPC reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
             “Misjoinder and non joinder- No suit shall be defeated by<\/p>\n
             reason of the misjoinder or non joinder of parties, and the Court<\/p>\n
             may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as<\/p>\n
             regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it.”<\/p>\n
             A reading of the Order 1 Rule 9, quoted above, would show that no<\/p>\n
suit can be defeated by reasons of misjoinder or non-joinder of the parties.            In<\/p>\n
other words, the Court is required to deal with the controversy on merits and<\/p>\n
cannot be rejected only on the ground of non joinder of parties.<\/p>\n
             Otherwise also, the appeal was to be decided on merits, in view of<\/p>\n
Order 1 Rule 9 CPC instead of setting aside the order under appeal and remanding<\/p>\n
it back to decide after impleading the parties. The suit cannot be dismissed on<\/p>\n
account non-joinder of parties. Hence, a fresh opportunity to implead the<\/p>\n
necessary parties would not be correct.\n<\/p>\n
             Learned counsel for the respondent has heavily relied on the words ”<\/p>\n
so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it”, to stress<\/p>\n
that even a favourable order cannot be passed in the absence of the parties. In<\/p>\n
Kanakarathanammal case’s (supra), as relied upon by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent, the appellant had filed a suit, claiming to recover the possession of<\/p>\n
the property, as the sole heir of her mother. One of the issues framed in that suit
\n SAO No. 13 of 2002                                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
whether the same was not maintainable on the ground that the necessary parties<\/p>\n
had not been joined by the appellant. It was a common ground between the parties<\/p>\n
that the appellant had brothers alive and the appellant had taken an alternative<\/p>\n
plea that if the property was found to be belonged to the appellant’s mother, the<\/p>\n
appellant and her brothers be held entitled to succeed that property. In these facts,<\/p>\n
the Apex Court held:-\n<\/p>\n
             “The appellant contends that the property in question falls<\/p>\n
             under s. 10(2) (b), whereas according to the respondents it<\/p>\n
             falls under S. 10(2) (d). There is no doubt that if S. 10(2)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (b) takes in the property the appellant would be<\/p>\n
             exclusively entitled to it and the plea of non joinder of her<\/p>\n
             brothers would fail.    On the other hand, if S 10(2)(d)<\/p>\n
             applies to the property, the appellant will not be<\/p>\n
             exclusively entitled to the property and her brother would<\/p>\n
             be necessary parties to the suit.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            There may have been merit in the arguments of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant, but for the facts and circumstances of the present case. As<\/p>\n
already mentioned above, the respondent\/defendant had put up a Will in the civil<\/p>\n
suit and the following issue was framed:-\n<\/p>\n
             “Issue No. 2<\/span><\/p>\n
             2.    Whether Mohammad Sharif had executed will on<\/p>\n
                   25.02.76, if so to what effect? OPD.”\n<\/p>\n
The following finding was recorded on the aforesaid issue:-<\/p>\n
             “Keeping in view my observations above, holding that Mansab Ali<\/p>\n
             had one wife and the plaintiff No. 1 to 4 and Badruddin being full
\n SAO No. 13 of 2002                                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
             brothers of defendant Shamuddin, hence, they being heirs to the<\/p>\n
             property of deceased Mohammad, their consent was required in of<\/p>\n
             bequest of property by way of will in favour of the defendant and<\/p>\n
             their consent not being apparent, the Will cannot be held to be a valid<\/p>\n
             one.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             After holding as above, the Court further went to hold that as per<\/p>\n
Sunni law, the daughters, the sisters, plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 and the defendant were<\/p>\n
all entitled to inherit the property of deceased Mohammad Sharif, as fully detailed<\/p>\n
in para No. 4 of the plaint. It was also observed that no doubt the daughters and<\/p>\n
the sisters were necessary parties in the circumstances, nevertheless, having been<\/p>\n
held them to be entitled to inherit the property, as per law of inheritance, no injury<\/p>\n
or grievance is caused to them on account of their being not impleaded as<\/p>\n
necessary parties.    The trial Court, therefore, rightly proceed in deciding the<\/p>\n
dispute on merits and holding as above, in accordance with the provisions of<\/p>\n
Order 1 Rule 9 CPC, already quoted above. Moreover, it does not lie in the<\/p>\n
mouth of the respondent\/defendant to state that the suit is bad for non-joinder of<\/p>\n
necessary parties as, he asserted, in the suit, that the only living heir at the time of<\/p>\n
death of testator Mohammad Sharif was himself and his sister Manan and that<\/p>\n
Manan had given her due consent for the execution of the said will in his favour.<\/p>\n
But while doing so, he made no mention of the two daughters i.e. living heirs of<\/p>\n
the testator Mohammad Sharif.       In the face of the above facts, it is evident that<\/p>\n
although the sisters and the daughters are the necessary parties, it is also true that<\/p>\n
no order has been passed against them. Rather, they have been made entitled to<\/p>\n
inherit the property of the deceased Mohammad Sharif. In fact, justice has been<\/p>\n
done. Thus, the Judgement of the District Judge setting aside the well reasoned
\n SAO No. 13 of 2002                                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
judgement of the trial Court and remanding the matter back to the trial Court to<\/p>\n
afford opportunity to the plaintiffs to join necessary parties in the present case, and<\/p>\n
thereafter, to proceed in accordance with the provisions of the law, will amount to<\/p>\n
a futile exercise on account of the following:-\n<\/p>\n
             a)     The Will dated 25.02.76 has been held to be invalid by the<\/p>\n
                    Trial Court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             b)     While passing the judgement, the trial Court has held all the<\/p>\n
                    legal heirs, including the sisters and daughters, who are the<\/p>\n
                    necessary parties, entitle to inherit the property left by<\/p>\n
                    Mohammad Sharif.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             c)     Even if the Civil Court had given no direction qua inheritance<\/p>\n
                    of the property by all the legal heirs, the Will having held in<\/p>\n
                    valid, the consequence of the same would still be the same.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In the facts as in the present case, the remand order to enable the<\/p>\n
appellants to implead the necessary parties would amount to a futile exercise. The<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court ‘P Purushottam Reddy v. M\/s Partap Steel Ltd.’, 2002(2)<\/p>\n
RCR (Civil), held that an unwarranted order of remand gives the litigation an<\/p>\n
underserved lease of life and, therefore, must be avoided.<\/p>\n
            For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is allowed and the<\/p>\n
impugned judgement dated 29.11.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge,<\/p>\n
Sonepat is hereby set aside. The first appeal shall stand restored in its original<\/p>\n
number and place. The Additional District Judge, Sonepat is directed to decide the<\/p>\n
same afresh on merits. The parties shall appear before the Additional District<\/p>\n
Judge, Sonepat on 5.10.2009 either themselves or through their counsel, for further<\/p>\n
consideration.\n<\/p>\n
 SAO No. 13 of 2002                                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
             However, it is made clear that any expression of opinion given, herein<\/p>\n
above, shall not effect the merits of the case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                              (Nirmaljit Kaur)
\n                                                                  Judge
\nSeptember 05, 2009
\nmohan\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Moh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 2009 SAO No. 13 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH — SAO No. 13 of 2002 Date of decision: September 05, 2009 Moh. Amin alias Amin etc. …….. Appellants Versus Shaymuddin …….Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Ms […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13417","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMoh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 2009 - 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\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Moh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-04T03:27:47+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Moh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-04T03:27:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1936,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Moh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-04T03:27:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Moh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 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":"Moh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 2009 - 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\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Moh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-04T03:27:47+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Moh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-04T03:27:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009"},"wordCount":1936,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009","name":"Moh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-04T03:27:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moh-amin-alias-amin-etc-vs-shaymuddin-on-5-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Moh. Amin Alias Amin Etc vs Shaymuddin on 5 September, 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\/13417","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=13417"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13417\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13417"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13417"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13417"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}