{"id":172959,"date":"2008-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008"},"modified":"2014-10-24T14:24:17","modified_gmt":"2014-10-24T08:54:17","slug":"smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
 . (B3?\"S\ufb01:v*-I\u00a7.VI'.$\u00a7IKATARAMANA, ADV.)\n\nHRRP.N0. 120.2008\n\nIN THE HIGH covm' or-K}xR'i~tA'rAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED mas THE mm DAY OF NOVEMBER,  \nBEFORE M %%  %\n\nTHE Homauz MRs.JUs'1*1cE B.v.NAGA.z?A'fmN:z\u00a7;;j ._ T' V%     \n\nH.R.R.P.NO. ;. \n\nHETWBEH:\n1 SM!' FATHIMA MARY\n\nD\/O LATE (}NANAMANi~. ' A _\nAGED ABCZiLI'F~45 \" :\nR\/ATN_C\u00e9,18;>\u00a5ST.CRG;SS _  \" \nNAGAWARA awn RQAD,   ' '\nNEAR :?fm.i:s_AY  E\nK.G;\"H,ALLI, mNGALoRE:4~5. \n\n2 SM?'-ELEzA3ETH. Ram '\nD \/ ox Mrs' \u20ac.}NA,i*\u20acAis!AN:!\"\"\nAGED .A1s:oU*':f 44:1 \n_ 5:\/AT N'cs._1s,. :51' 'moss\n.. 4.%,:NAGAwARA..1\u00bbgA1ri ROAD,\n \" NE,AR'?TI~i DAYSCHOOL\n'= .. _  max, BANGALORE--45\n\n. .. PETITIONERS\n\nn--um-:u-u-u-men .\n\nLEO PINTO\n\nS\/0 LATE BURLAND\n\nAGED ABOUT 38 YEARS\n\nR\/AT 140.2 1,. B TYPE QUARTERS\nROBERTSON ROAD\n\nFRAZER TOWN\n\nBANGALORE-5\n\n. . . RESPONDENT<\/pre>\n
  \ufb02ied a petition under Section<\/p>\n
   Er the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 seeking<\/p>\n
a A  oftcnmts on the ground of nozrpayxncnztt of
\n‘.~;Vi”;\u00a7nt and that the tenant had sublet a portion of<\/p>\n
  ‘  . _  and that thc premises were required for
\n by the respondent] xamnom who had becom: the<\/p>\n
HRRP.No. 120. 2608<\/p>\n
(By Sri: J :3 ELANGOVAN, ADV. FOR (:1 R)<\/p>\n
THIS HRRP FILED U\/S.46 or KR ACT, ‘AGAI\ufb02ST”‘P.Pi_E *
\n01213922 m’.s.1o.2oo? PASSED IN mac NO: 190351-2095 on
\n‘THE FILE 0:? THE xv ADDL. %3nw,L -CAUSES JUDGE,
\nMAYOHALL um’, BANGALORE (.~3cc;+mjs9),’LTTALLowz:\u00a2%r3
\nPETI’I’ION U\/S.2(2)(r) AND (b) om.-.212 AC1′ AND DISMESF-.IN’G_
\nTHE PETFFION U[S.27(2](a)*\u00a3)_F KF.’._A’C-‘1′, Ie\u00e9gnzezntz SEE;KIH(}
\ngvxcnom.  ” _    ” *<\/p>\n
This HRRP comm’ ion fix;- _\u00a7’t\u00a7FgT\u00a7iER HEARIRG on aim
\nday, the court made th\u00e9’     <\/p>\n
ms’   ii    by the tenants
\nchallenging  % ‘ih\u00ab{\ufb02v%,     3.10.2007 in
\nHRc.No.1ooaS,(2’o o5  “the Xvth Addlsmall
\nCauses Judge VA S <\/p>\n
2.  of the case an that the<\/p>\n
owner of the premises by virtue of a registered saic decd<\/p>\n
dated 30.1.2004.\n<\/p>\n
 .  ;1eithex”– geese ih\u00e9ggg\ufb01aenem herein his tenants and under the<\/p>\n
  petition \ufb01led fbr mcuon’ ‘ under the<\/p>\n
V  Ree: Act was not maintainabic and they
\n  fbr dismissai of the said petition.<\/p>\n
 U Based on the above plmdisngs. the trial’ court tamed’<\/p>\n
Vtshe foikming points for censisicza\ufb01onz<\/p>\n
HRRP.N0.. 120. 2008<\/p>\n
-3-<\/span><\/p>\n
3. In response to the notice issued by the
\npetitioner] tenants appeared and denied that  \u00bba
\njural relationship between the parties
\nthe resP0I1d_ent herein could not   <\/p>\n
of Karnataka Rent Act. They   L\u00bb
\nmother late
\nSri. Mathew had enteredjnto    under
\nthe said agreement  \ufb01eutein possession of
\nthe schedule    was dated<\/p>\n
5.6.1980  the  e\u00e9zeement they were<\/p>\n
residing in   the respondent
\nin the insteiit   \ufb01hat he had purchased
\nthe schedule  W\/o Mathew on
\n fI;_’c1*eVk{‘.)ft\u00a7,v…}1.\ufb02\u00ab”WaS the owner of the premises,<\/p>\n
\ufb01evertiieiess \u00bb  not claim to be the Landioni and<\/p>\n
&.\n<\/p>\n
HRRP. No. 120. 2008<\/p>\n
…5..\n<\/p>\n
circumstances their possession was   the<\/p>\n
year 1980 till the respondent herein had <\/p>\n
petition. Earlier HRC.No.10004\/2005  whim <\/p>\n
was however, withdrawn    t1 ::i1’s f.<\/p>\n
HRc.No.1oos5\/2005 was \ufb01led. i%a\u00ab;:t:;ereroge,.;~;u13mj:\u00a7”<\/p>\n
in the absence of there  a   tenanf
\nIela\ufb01ozgzship, the pmsii:~3ig)ns’\u00a2’ef Rexji  could not
\nhave been invoked by   hence the uni’<\/p>\n
court oughtite’ I\ufb01aye  petition.<\/p>\n
8.    the learned counsel fer
\nthe Iveepe:11dei:it’:Vi\u00a7\u00a7ete\u00bb  Margaret had purchased the
\n  one Sri.Mohammad Aii on<\/p>\n
  pmperty was a vamt site and<\/p>\n
\u00bb  was put up and a\ufb01er that because of<\/p>\n
   beumn his vendofs husband and Late<\/p>\n
 ‘  ‘, the latter was put in perm1s’ sive<\/p>\n
 *  Sabsequen\ufb01y, the said property was said by late<\/p>\n
Smtmargaxet in favour of the respondent hexem on<\/p>\n
 and having puxchased the said property by a<\/p>\n
xegisteredsaletieedamd havisagbeeeme theownerand\ufb01tle
\nholder, he was entitled to evict the petitioners; from the<\/p>\n
scheduke pxemises.\n<\/p>\n
%   %  1.11;]  i\u00a7,e,33AotvvV”in dispute that the schedule pmmjses
\n Z   to one Sri. Mohammad Ali, but sold the
\n 1 of S::nt.Margaret by a registered sale deed<\/p>\n
26.4.1978 which is pmduoed as Ex.P5. What was<\/p>\n
HRRP..No. 120.2008<\/p>\n
9. He has also relied upon a decision of <\/p>\n
reported in {LR 2004 Kamataka 4782 to <\/p>\n
stepped into the shoes of his vendor who   in\u00bb <\/p>\n
Inspect of the schedule
\nattomment by the pctitiontrrae’
\ninvoke the provisions of
\nof evicting the    <\/p>\n
10. Taking   the points that
\narise for  V<\/p>\n
1.  was. jusiz\ufb01ed in
\nholding Ihaz    relationship of
\nlandlord and  parties?\n<\/p>\n
  [f_ ihe*  point No.1 is in the<\/p>\n
”  aj}’Ezmiitiv\u00e9,””:vhe\u00a7her the trial court was justi\ufb01ed
\nVin’ .<zIIr;1\u00a3!ir:g;'\ufb01\u20ac!tz;–:,;ie:t:;'tfon under Section 2?'(2[p) as
\nrr;eofriw*Acr?e <\/p>\n
purchased by Smt. Margaret was a vacant sia: and thereafter<\/p>\n
a oonstruc\ufb02on was put up md subsequently, it is admitted<\/p>\n
&.\n<\/p>\n
_HRR2>.Ne.12o.2o08
\n._ 9 ._
\nin possession of the schedule premises as tenants. _, in the<\/p>\n
absence of any kind of rent being stipulated or: “the<\/p>\n
respondent hexein is not the landlord aithough<\/p>\n
purchased the scheduk pzemisee; .b.y__a   <\/p>\n
and could clean’ to be the owner dif  <\/p>\n
12. In this context it is were at the de\ufb01nition of
\nthe landlord under  ;\u00a7(e};_  which states that
\nthe landlord mm s at   I’v3.VA~;1\u00a77’I1\u00e9\u00a7.3i”‘.f”t51;-.i.VVt}:ie time being is<\/p>\n
receiving’ ‘ or    tE:e’~;*ent of any premises’ ,<\/p>\n
whethettton.     account of or on behalf of
\nor fot’;\u00abt.tie  _.other person or as a trustee,<\/p>\n
guardian Gr It:<::eiv_er~–for~.–en3r other person or who would so<\/p>\n
   rc1tt"o1*…tG' be entitled to receive the rent, if the<\/p>\n
' Lpiientiaest  to a tenant. The de\ufb01nition of landlord<\/p>\n
' implies three things, namely a valid lease,<\/p>\n
 tenant in possession of the prenfmes under the<\/p>\n
   and acceptance of eontractuai rent agreed in<\/p>\n
 of the knee. Hence the xelationship between the<\/p>\n
u ""pm't1?e3mustbeonea.eaiandiom:iamlatenantasitisonlye<\/p>\n
landlord who would be entitled to receive {RBI if the premises
\nare let out to a tenant. The consideration for a tenant being<\/p>\n
\ufb01e:\n<\/p>\n
  his     clear that there wee absence of<\/p>\n
  the parties.\n<\/p>\n
  stage it is relevant to consider the decision of
\n 1    rendered in the case of Silva Uddin Vs. Nagaraju
\n in me 2004 Karnateka 4782 wherein it have been<\/p>\n
held that whenever there is transfer of ownership, the<\/p>\n
HRRP.N0.3.20.2008<\/p>\n
…..:[2…..\n<\/p>\n
between the parties herein. No doubt the
\nhave purchased the schedule pzemises by a
\nam and therefore, he had ciaimed to be   e\u00a7;?=~
\nseheduie premises but neverthelees
\nstatus of the landlord viz~a\u00a7e\u00a7:z{ the”  L,
\nwere in the status of   eouki
\nnot have been em \u00abRent  Since the
\nvendor of the mspondeee   landlord of
\nthe schedule    of automatic
\nattommenti”   of the respondent
\nmerely   i I A   pmexmees.\n<\/p>\n
The ”   of the schedule
\npremises by   re\ufb01zecment and the admission
\nsezizle  earlier proceeding that there<\/p>\n
he between the petitioners herein and<\/p>\n
transferee becomes the owner of the premises, the tenant<\/p>\n
\ufb02\/\u00bb<\/p>\n
HRRP.No. 120 .2008<\/p>\n
-13..\n<\/p>\n
‘cannot dispute the right of the transfez’ee-\u00bbl.a13;d.10ni ta<\/p>\n
maintain an eviction petition under the Rent Act .._cIain1<\/p>\n
rent would then he umzecessmy to  <\/p>\n
transfer of the lessofs rights  <\/p>\n
‘Transfer of Property Act pmteets  ‘by  4.:<\/p>\n
tenant to the uansfemr witheut  vof
\ncreates statutmy attomnac’1;f.’~.:._V’\u00bbv   would be
\napplicable to 3     of
\nrelationship of    wad during the<\/p>\n
subsistence  would transfer the<\/p>\n
  p1e;iii;isestv\u00a7fhi<.'*,h\u00a7 is tenanted to a third party,
\nin   . would step into the shoes of<\/p>\n
the laxiiillpitl agdbc  be entitled to receive rents \ufb01om<\/p>\n
    to seek eviction.\n<\/p>\n
 2    case, however, since I have already held<\/p>\n
 is absence of jural xela\ufb01onship between the<\/p>\n
 ” r the respondent purchaser of the schedule pmmises<\/p>\n
‘   not c}ai.u1 to have attained the status of the landlord by<\/p>\n
TV the mere purchase of the property. Hence the said decision<\/p>\n
is net applicable to the fleets and ctixcuazzstazxoes of the
\npresent case. Under the circumstances point No.1 ‘m<\/p>\n
answered in the negative. \/\u00a34<\/p>\n
i~iRRP.N0.120.2008<\/p>\n
“14-\n<\/p>\n
I9. In View of my answer to point No.1 <\/p>\n
negative, point No.2 does not suxvivc for   <\/p>\n
much as the petition for eviction under the ” 2 <\/p>\n
Act could not have: been  <\/p>\n
herein, in the absence of     ,,<\/p>\n
relationship between the  _<\/p>\n
20. Hcnoc this   The eviction<\/p>\n
petition \ufb01led    dism1mod’ . The<\/p>\n
  seek possession of the
\nsched\ufb01k:   with law. Parties to bear
\n        sa\/\u00ab.2
\nFudge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008 Author: B.V.Nagarathna . (B3?”S\ufb01:v*-I\u00a7.VI’.$\u00a7IKATARAMANA, ADV.) HRRP.N0. 120.2008 IN THE HIGH covm’ or-K}xR’i~tA’rAKA AT BANGALORE DATED mas THE mm DAY OF NOVEMBER, BEFORE M %% % THE Homauz MRs.JUs’1*1cE B.v.NAGA.z?A’fmN:z\u00a7;;j ._ T’ V% H.R.R.P.NO. ;. HETWBEH: 1 SM!’ FATHIMA MARY D\/O LATE (}NANAMANi~. […]<\/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-172959","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008 - 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\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-24T08:54:17+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\\\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-24T08:54:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1236,\"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\\\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-24T08:54:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008 - 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\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-24T08:54:17+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\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-24T08:54:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008"},"wordCount":1236,"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\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008","name":"Smt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-24T08:54:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-fathima-mary-vs-leo-pinto-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Fathima Mary vs Leo Pinto on 13 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/172959","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=172959"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172959\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172959"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172959"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172959"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}