{"id":158061,"date":"2010-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-26T02:30:16","modified_gmt":"2016-05-25T21:00:16","slug":"mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 364 of 2000()\n\n\n\n1. MUMTHAZ\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. C.K.BHASKARAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :27\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                            M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n                           = = = = = = = = = = =\n                              A.S. No. 364 OF 2000\n                            = = = = = = = = == =\n             DATED THIS, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2010.\n\n                              J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palakkad in O.S. 341 of 1994. The suit is one<\/p>\n
for specific performance of an agreement for sale of 8 cents of property and<\/p>\n
the trial court had granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is against<\/p>\n
that decision, the defendant has come up in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       2.   Heard the senior counsel for the appellant as well as the<\/p>\n
respondent. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are<\/p>\n
stated as follows: The plaintiff and defendant had entered into an agreement<\/p>\n
on 18.3.1994 with a stipulation that the defendant will sell 8 cents of<\/p>\n
property to the plaintiff and towards sale consideration an advance amount<\/p>\n
of Rs. 10,000\/- was paid.      As per the stipulations in the agreement, the<\/p>\n
document was to be executed on or before 18.6.1994. There was also a<\/p>\n
provision in the agreement, for the purpose of enforcing the agreement as<\/p>\n
well as in case of breach committed by the plaintiff, to forfeit the advance<\/p>\n
paid and recover damages as well. According to the plaintiff, on so many<\/p>\n
days in June, he had contacted the defendant to hand over the document for<\/p>\n
A.S. 364\/2000                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
the purpose of preparation and registration of document and ultimately<\/p>\n
when he went on 17.6.1994, the house was found locked and thereafter the<\/p>\n
he issued a telegram expressing his readiness and willingness to perform his<\/p>\n
part of the contract. The defendant did not turn up and therefore, the suit<\/p>\n
was instituted for specific performance.\n<\/p>\n
      3. On the other hand, the defendant would contend that an agreement<\/p>\n
has been entered into, but breach has been committed by the plaintiff, that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was never prepared to perform his part of the contract, he was<\/p>\n
not having consideration to be paid for the transaction and therefore, in spite<\/p>\n
of repeated request as the agreement was not performed, she had issued a<\/p>\n
lawyer notice on 18.6.1994 regarding the breach committed by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
and since he had committed breach he is not entitled for specific<\/p>\n
performance.     In the lower court, PW.1 and DW.1 were examined. Exts.<\/p>\n
A1 to A3 and B1 to B6 were marked. On an analysis of th evidence, the<\/p>\n
court below granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff.     It is against that<\/p>\n
decision, the defendant has come up appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The learned senior counsel for the appellant would contend that<\/p>\n
the conduct of the plaintiff would establish that he has committed the breach<\/p>\n
of contract. Th defendant had issued a notice on 18.6.1994 itself regarding<\/p>\n
the breach committed by the plaintiff and therefore, it is submitted that the<\/p>\n
A.S. 364\/2000                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff is not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance of<\/p>\n
the contract. The facts in this case are really interesting in nature because<\/p>\n
the parties are competing among themselves to show that he has been in a<\/p>\n
position to perform his part of the contract. It has to be essentially held that<\/p>\n
in a contract for sale of immovable property, time alone cannot be the<\/p>\n
essence of the contract. Therefore, just because of a delay of one or two<\/p>\n
days on this side or that side, if it is explained, then that alone shall not be<\/p>\n
the criteria to refuse a decree for specific performance. The plaintiff has<\/p>\n
examined himself and the defendant has examined her husband as the<\/p>\n
witness.    Learned counsel would contend that the court has granted<\/p>\n
permission for the husband to be examined and he was the person who had<\/p>\n
done the entire transaction and therefore, he is a competent person to speak.<\/p>\n
So,we will consider that both PW.1 and DW1 are persons competent to<\/p>\n
swear the facts. PW.1 would depose that in the month of June, he had<\/p>\n
contacted the defendant on two – three occasions for the purpose of getting<\/p>\n
the document in order to effect the registration. According to him, when on<\/p>\n
17.6.1994 he went to the house of the defendant, it was found locked and<\/p>\n
therefore, he was forced to send a telegram whereby he had expressed his<\/p>\n
readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract.              The<\/p>\n
defendant, in turn, had issued a notice on 18.6.1994, ie. on the last date<\/p>\n
A.S. 364\/2000                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
intimating that the plaintiff had committed the breach and therefore, he will<\/p>\n
not perform his part of the contract. Actually, there was time till the<\/p>\n
evening of 18.6.1994 for the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract.<\/p>\n
The defendant on 18.6.1994 itself had considered it as a breach and issued a<\/p>\n
notice. Under ordinary circumstance these things will not occur. Whatever<\/p>\n
may be the technicality of law, th court has to analyze the whole case on a<\/p>\n
human background and behaviour of the parties. It has to be remembered<\/p>\n
what has instigated the defendant to send a notice on 18.6.1994 intimating<\/p>\n
that he will not perform his part of the contract holding that the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
committed the breach. So there is something in his mind which works<\/p>\n
against the whole thing. It is in this background we have to think about the<\/p>\n
telegram. It is true only the receipt of telegram is produced which was not<\/p>\n
got marked. But there is a specific averment in the plaint that a telegram<\/p>\n
has been sent stating the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
perform the contract. Though everything is denied in the written statement,<\/p>\n
this fact is not adverted to at all in the written statement. When confronted<\/p>\n
with that situation, learned senior counsel would contend that it has been<\/p>\n
denied in a counter statement earlier. Whatever it may be, when the plaint<\/p>\n
is replied in the form of a written statement, one would expect the party to<\/p>\n
A.S. 364\/2000                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
deny specifically an important ingredient which will go to the root of the<\/p>\n
case. So, the non denial of the same in the written statement is not as<\/p>\n
innocent as one wants to project. Under ordinary human course of conduct,<\/p>\n
I do not think that even before the expiry of the time on the last day, the<\/p>\n
defendant will in form the plaintiff regarding the breach. It is interesting to<\/p>\n
see that the plaintiff has approached the court for specific performance on<\/p>\n
21.6.1994, ie. within three days. If really, the defendant wanted to have the<\/p>\n
property sold, certainly she would have agreed for the same because there<\/p>\n
was no inordinate delay in claiming specific performance of the contract. If<\/p>\n
really the plaintiff did not, for any reasons at all, and he is the person who<\/p>\n
wanted to commit breach of the contract, he cannot be expected to be before<\/p>\n
the court within three days of the expiry of the date mentioned in the<\/p>\n
document. Therefore, it cannot be held that the conduct of the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
contumacious or callous so as to deprive him of a valuable right such as<\/p>\n
one for specific performance. Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of<\/p>\n
this Court in T.V. Aliyas & Anr. v. A. Aboobacker<\/a><\/p>\n
(2006(2) KLJ 790) where the principle laid down is regarding the manner<\/p>\n
in which the discretion is to be exercised. Section 20 of the Specific Relief<\/p>\n
Act makes it clear that it is a discretionary relief but it is equally stated that<\/p>\n
the said discretion has to be used judicially and not capriciously. So, it is<\/p>\n
A.S. 364\/2000                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
the sum total of the whole matter that has to be taken into consideration<\/p>\n
while dealing with a suit for specific performance.     Here, the facts would<\/p>\n
reveal that the plaintiff had agreed to purchase the property. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
had parted with an advance amount of Rs. 10,000\/-. It is deposed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff that in June he had approached the defendant. It is also stated that<\/p>\n
he had also sent a telegram. All these things would revel that he was ready<\/p>\n
and willing to perform his part of the contract. Unless he was very serious<\/p>\n
about the contract he would not have approached the court on 21.6.1994 for<\/p>\n
specific performance. As stated by me, since time alone is not the essence<\/p>\n
of the contract and as no substantial prejudice has been caused to the<\/p>\n
defendant, I feel the discretionary relief, when exercised judicially, should<\/p>\n
be in favour of the plaintiff and not in favour of the defendant. The learned<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge has only exercised that discretion in the judicious<\/p>\n
manner and granted a decree for specific performance.\n<\/p>\n
      I decline to interfere and therefore, the appeal lacks merits. It is<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                           M.N. KRISHNAN,
\n                                                                    (JUDGE)<\/p>\n
KNC\/-\n<\/p>\n
A.S. 364\/2000    7\n\n\n\n\n                          M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n                        = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n\n\n\n                        A.S. No. 364 OF 2000\n                          = = = = = = = = == =\n\n\n\n\n                    DATED : 27TH JULY, 2010.\n\n\n\n\n                              J U D G M E N T\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 364 of 2000() 1. MUMTHAZ … Petitioner Vs 1. C.K.BHASKARAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :27\/07\/2010 O R D E R M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = […]<\/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-158061","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 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\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-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=\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-25T21:00:16+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-25T21:00:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1424,\"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\\\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Mumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-25T21:00:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 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":"Mumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 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\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-25T21:00:16+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-25T21:00:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010"},"wordCount":1424,"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\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010","name":"Mumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-25T21:00:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mumthaz-vs-c-k-bhaskaran-on-27-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mumthaz vs C.K.Bhaskaran on 27 July, 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\/158061","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=158061"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158061\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158061"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158061"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158061"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}