{"id":168195,"date":"2009-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009"},"modified":"2018-08-15T10:50:57","modified_gmt":"2018-08-15T05:20:57","slug":"shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Shajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nFAO.No. 46 of 2009()\n\n\n1. SHAJAHAN, S\/O.THEKKETHIL MUHAMMED,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. PATHUMMA, W\/O.THEKKETHIL MUHAMMED\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA SERVICE CO.OP.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. BALAKRISHNAN, S\/O.KALAPARA UNNIKUNHAN\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :30\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n         K. M. JOSEPH & JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ.,\n\n           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                    F. A. O. NO: 46 OF 2009\n           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n        Dated this the 30th Day of November, 2009.\n\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Joseph Francis J.,<\/p>\n
      This appeal is filed by the petitioners\/ judgment debtors in<\/p>\n
E.A. No: 301 of 2008 in E.P. No: 201 of 2007 in A.R.C0 No: 192 of<\/p>\n
2005 on the file of Sub Court, Manjeri. Respondents 1 and 2 herein<\/p>\n
are the first respondent\/ decree holder and second respondent \/<\/p>\n
auction purchaser in that E.A., which was filed under Order 21 Rule<\/p>\n
90 of C.P.C. to set aside the sale conducted on 19.3.2008.<\/p>\n
      2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:<\/p>\n
      The 1st respondent herein has obtained an award as per A.R.C.<\/p>\n
No: 192\/2005 for realisation of Rs.2,77,670\/- with interest, against<\/p>\n
the petitioners herein. The 1st respondent has filed an execution<\/p>\n
petition as E.P. No : 201\/2007 before the Sub Court Manjeri for<\/p>\n
realisation of an amount of Rs.3,90,087\/- being the decree amount<\/p>\n
with interest and costs. In the Execution Petition, the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
F. A. O. NO: 46 OF 2009
\n                                  :2:<\/span><\/p>\n
   has sought to realise the amount by sale of the properties scheduled<\/p>\n
   to the Execution Petition. The 2nd petitioner, who was the absolute<\/p>\n
   owner in possession of 15 cents of property in Sy. No:53\/46 of<\/p>\n
   Keezhathur Village of Perinthalmanna Taluk and it was said<\/p>\n
   property which was mortgaged with the bank. In the execution<\/p>\n
   proceedings, the appellants were ex parte and the property<\/p>\n
   scheduled has been put to auction and the 2nd respondent has bid the<\/p>\n
   auction for an amount of Rs.4,00,100\/-. The auction was conducted<\/p>\n
   on 19.3.2008 and it was confirmed on 26.5.2008.             Since the<\/p>\n
   appellants were ex parte in the execution proceedings they were not<\/p>\n
   aware of the sale and subsequent confirmation thereof. However,<\/p>\n
   the appellants have came to know of the sale and its confirmation,<\/p>\n
   subsequently and immediately thereafter the appellants have filed an<\/p>\n
   application before the execution court for setting aside the sale.<\/p>\n
         3. In the application to set aside the sale, the appellants have<\/p>\n
   contended that the sale was bad in law and the same was vitiated by<\/p>\n
   material irregularity and improper valuation. It was contended that<\/p>\n
   the property would fetch an amount of Rs.30,000\/- per cent and that<\/p>\n
   the building thereon would have a value of Rs.2,00,000\/-. The<\/p>\n
F. A. O. NO: 46 OF 2009
\n                                   :3:<\/span><\/p>\n
   appellants have contended that the sale was conducted in such a<\/p>\n
   fashion that the prospective bidders could not participate in the<\/p>\n
   auction and accordingly the best available price could not be<\/p>\n
   secured for the property. It was further contended that there are<\/p>\n
   prospective purchasers for the above property to purchase the same<\/p>\n
   for at least Rs.6.5 lakhs. The appellants have further stated that they<\/p>\n
   are ready and willing to deposit the amount covered by the decree<\/p>\n
   and to get the property re-conveyed in their name. It was also<\/p>\n
   pointed out that even the sale of a portion of the property would be<\/p>\n
   sufficient to clear the debt due to the bank.            Under these<\/p>\n
   circumstances it was prayed that the sale held on 19.3.2008 and<\/p>\n
   confirmed in favour of the 2nd respondent herein may be set aside.<\/p>\n
         4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counter stating that the<\/p>\n
   sale was conducted in accordance with the provisions of C.P.C.<\/p>\n
   The petitioner remained ex parte in spite of receipt of Rule 66<\/p>\n
   Notice. The petition is barred by limitation.<\/p>\n
         5. For the purpose of enquiry, PW1 and PW2 were examined.<\/p>\n
   The learned Sub Judge on considering the matter dismissed that<\/p>\n
   petition. Against that order, the petitioners\/ judgment debtors filed<\/p>\n
F. A. O. NO: 46 OF 2009
\n                                    :4:<\/span><\/p>\n
   this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
         6. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the<\/p>\n
   learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
         7. It is an admitted fact that the property having an extent of<\/p>\n
   15 cents comprised in Sy. No: 53\/46 with a house, was sold in court<\/p>\n
   auction on 19.3.2008 and the second respondent purchased that<\/p>\n
   property for Rs.4,00,100\/- and the sale was confirmed on 26.5.2008.<\/p>\n
   The petition to set aside the sale was filed on 29.5.2008.<\/p>\n
         8. In the decision reported in Boban v. Sajith Kumar and<\/a><\/p>\n
   another (A.I.R. 2004 Kerala 181), it was held that under Article<\/p>\n
   127 of the Limitation Act, application to set aside the sale in<\/p>\n
   execution of decree has to be filed within 60 days from the date of<\/p>\n
   sale. In the present case, the sale was conducted on 19.3.2008 and<\/p>\n
   the application to set aside the sale was filed only on 29.5.2008,<\/p>\n
   which is beyond 60 days from the date of sale and therefore that<\/p>\n
   petition cannot be entertained.\n<\/p>\n
         9. The main grievance of the appellants is that there was no<\/p>\n
   paper publication with regard to the sale of the property.        As<\/p>\n
   observed by the learned Sub Judge, the provisions contained in<\/p>\n
F. A. O. NO: 46 OF 2009
\n                                   :5:<\/span><\/p>\n
   C.P.C. do not mandate the publication in the newspapers with<\/p>\n
   regard to the sale.\n<\/p>\n
         10. Learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to<\/p>\n
   the decision of this court reported in Thankamma v. Leelamma<\/a><\/p>\n
   (2008(2) KLT 500, in which it was held that the contention that a<\/p>\n
   portion of the property would fetch the decree amount even if not<\/p>\n
   raised before the proclamation of sale, can be taken up in the<\/p>\n
   proceedings under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
         11. Learned counsel for the appellants invited our attention to<\/p>\n
   the decision of the Apex Court reported in Sri Ram Maurya v.<\/p>\n
   Kailash Nath and others (A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 3402), in which it was<\/p>\n
   held in the absence of the pleading that on account of material<\/p>\n
   irregularity in conducting the sale, the petitioners were put to<\/p>\n
   substantial injury, auction cannot be set aside.<\/p>\n
         12. In the decision of this court reported in C.C. Sivaprasad<\/p>\n
   v. K. Sasidharan<\/a> (2006 (1) K.L.J. 841, it was held that<\/p>\n
                  “the legal position is now well – settled. By<\/p>\n
           reason of any material irregularity either in<\/p>\n
           publishing or conducting the sale, a sale cannot be<\/p>\n
F. A. O. NO: 46 OF 2009
\n                                   :6:<\/span><\/p>\n
           set aside unless the applicant establishes that by<\/p>\n
           reason of such irregularity, he sustained substantial<\/p>\n
           injury.    Without showing that the irregularity<\/p>\n
           resulted in substantial injury, no sale could be set<\/p>\n
           aside on the ground of material irregularity. For the<\/p>\n
           irregularity, substantial injury cannot be assumed or<\/p>\n
           presumed.”\n<\/p>\n
         13. On perusing the lower court records, it is seen that Order<\/p>\n
   21 Rule 22 and Rule 66 notices were personally served on the<\/p>\n
   judgment debtors 1 and 2 but they remained exparte and they did not<\/p>\n
   raise any objection to the sale proclamation. In the affidavit filed in<\/p>\n
   support of the petition, the judgment debtors admitted that the<\/p>\n
   decree holder has complied with the provisions contained in Order<\/p>\n
   21 Rule 66 C.P.C in conducting the sale.\n<\/p>\n
         14. According to the appellants, the property would fetch<\/p>\n
   Rs.6,50,000\/- and that PW2 was ready to purchase that property for<\/p>\n
   that amount. But when cross- examined, PW2 admits that he has no<\/p>\n
   document to show that he was having that amount with him to<\/p>\n
   purchase that property. Admittedly that property was mortgaged to<\/p>\n
   decree holder by judgment debtor no:2. PW1 admits that after the<\/p>\n
F. A. O. NO: 46 OF 2009
\n                                      :7:<\/span><\/p>\n
   mortgage of the property, judgment debtor no:2 sold the property to<\/p>\n
   one Mr. Ramadas for a sale consideration of Rs.2,50,000\/- as per<\/p>\n
   sale deed No: 1735 of 2004. The appellants have not produced any<\/p>\n
   document to show that the petition scheduled property would fetch<\/p>\n
   more than Rs.4,00,000\/- Since the appellants have failed to show<\/p>\n
   that the impugned sale is vitiated by material irregularity or fraud in<\/p>\n
   publishing or conducting it and that the appellants have sustained<\/p>\n
   substantial injury, the learned Sub Judge is justified in dismissing<\/p>\n
   the petition to set aside the sale.\n<\/p>\n
         Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. The parties are directed<\/p>\n
   to suffer their respective costs in this appeal.<\/p>\n
                                         K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                 M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
dl\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Shajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM FAO.No. 46 of 2009() 1. SHAJAHAN, S\/O.THEKKETHIL MUHAMMED, … Petitioner 2. PATHUMMA, W\/O.THEKKETHIL MUHAMMED Vs 1. SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA SERVICE CO.OP. … Respondent 2. BALAKRISHNAN, S\/O.KALAPARA UNNIKUNHAN For Petitioner :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR For Respondent :SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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-168195","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 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\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-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=\"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-15T05:20:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-15T05:20:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1265,\"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\\\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Shajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-15T05:20:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 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":"Shajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 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\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-15T05:20:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-15T05:20:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009"},"wordCount":1265,"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\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009","name":"Shajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-15T05:20:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajahan-vs-secretary-on-30-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shajahan vs Secretary on 30 November, 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\/168195","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=168195"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/168195\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=168195"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=168195"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=168195"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}