{"id":179501,"date":"2008-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-31T13:03:26","modified_gmt":"2018-08-31T07:33:26","slug":"amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Amad vs Kasam on 13 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Amad vs Kasam on 13 November, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/30383\/2007\t 11\/ 11\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 30383 of 2007\n \n\n \n=====================================================\n\n\n \n\nAMAD\nHUSEN SIDA &amp; 1 - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nKASAM\nTAIYAB SIDA - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=====================================================\n \nAppearance : \nMR\nMB GANDHI for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2.MR CHINMAY M GANDHI for\nPetitioner(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR ASHISH M DAGLI for Respondent(s) :\n1, \n===================================================== \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 13\/11\/2008 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n<p>1.\tBy<br \/>\nway of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,<br \/>\nthe petitioners original plaintiffs have prayed for an appropriate<br \/>\nwrit, direction and \/ or order quashing and setting aside the order<br \/>\npassed by the learned trial Court passed below Exh. 5 dated<br \/>\n21.12.2006 in Civil Suit No. 365 of 2006 as well as the order passed<br \/>\nby the learned Appellate Court dated 4.10.2007 passed in Civil<br \/>\nMiscellaneous Appeal No. 4 of 2007 in dismissing the same and<br \/>\nconfirming the order passed by the learned trial Court passed below<br \/>\nExh. 5 refusing to grant interim injunction in favour of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tDispute<br \/>\nis with respect to right of way by the petitioners to go to their<br \/>\nfield bearing Survey No. 44\/2 through the field bearing Survey No.<br \/>\n44\/1 of belonging to the respondents-defendants and the field of one<br \/>\nRuda Krshn etc. <\/p>\n<p>3.\tPetitioners<br \/>\nherein original plaintiffs have instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 365<br \/>\nof 2006 in the Court of learned Civil Judge for declaration and<br \/>\npermanent injunction claiming right of way to their agriculture field<br \/>\nbearing Survey No. 44\/2 through the agriculture field bearing Survey<br \/>\nNo. 44\/1 belonging to the respondents original defendants. At the<br \/>\noutset, it is required to be noted that earlier proceedings were<br \/>\ninitiated by the petitioners original plaintiffs claiming right of<br \/>\nway before the Mamlatdar Junagadh under the provisions of the<br \/>\nMamlatdar Courts Act and by order dated 26.7.2006 Mamlatdar Junagadh<br \/>\ndismissed the said application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar<br \/>\nCourts Act being R.R.T. Case No. 2 of 2005 and holding that<br \/>\npetitioners have failed to establish and prove that they have got<br \/>\nright of way to their agriculture field bearing Survey No. 44\/2 from<br \/>\nthe field of the respondents herein and thereafter the petitioners<br \/>\nhad instituted aforesaid suit for declaration and permanent<br \/>\ninjunction with respect to right of way. In the said suit, the<br \/>\npetitioners-plaintiffs submitted application for interim injunction<br \/>\nbelow Exh. 5 and on appreciation of evidence and considering the<br \/>\nsubmissions made on behalf of the rival parties, learned 5th<br \/>\nAdditional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh dismissed the said<br \/>\napplication below Exh.5 by order dated 21.12.2006. Being aggrieved<br \/>\nand dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court<br \/>\nbelow Exh.5 dated 21.12.2006 in dismissing the same and not granting<br \/>\nthe interim injunction as prayed for, the petitioners original<br \/>\nplaintiffs have preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4 of 2007<br \/>\nand the learned Principal District Judge, Junagadh vide impugned<br \/>\njudgment and order dated 4.10.2007 has dismissed the said appeal<br \/>\nconfirming the order passed by the learned trial Court passed below<br \/>\nExh.5. Hence, petitioners original plaintiffs have preferred the<br \/>\npresent Special Civil Application  under Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tShri<br \/>\nM.B. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners original<br \/>\nplaintiffs has vehemently submitted that both the Courts below have<br \/>\nmaterially erred in not granting interim injunction as prayed for<br \/>\npermitting the petitioners-plaintiffs to go to their field bearing<br \/>\nSurvey No. 44\/2 through the agriculture field of respondents herein<br \/>\noriginal defendants. It is submitted even in the panchnama there is<br \/>\nno alternative way found upto the defendants land way is found but<br \/>\nthereafter way is missing and, therefore, when there is no<br \/>\nalternative way available to the petitioners-plaintiffs and upto the<br \/>\ndefendants lands there is a way found both the Courts below ought to<br \/>\nhave granted interim injunction as prayed for. It is also further<br \/>\nsubmitted that the order passed by the Mamlatdar under the Mamlatdar<br \/>\nCourts Act will not come in the way of the petitioners-plaintiffs as<br \/>\nthe same is for temporary measure and subject to rights to be<br \/>\nestablished and crystallized by the Civil Court. It is also further<br \/>\nsubmitted that the Courts below have failed to appreciate and<br \/>\nconsider that originally there was one common survey No. 44 and it<br \/>\nwas subsequently sub-divided into two plots bearing Nos. 44\/1 and<br \/>\n44\/2 and, therefore, naturally the right of easement of necessity<br \/>\nwould arise and in that case, every owner has a right to ask for a<br \/>\nway. It is submitted in the sale deed in favour of the<br \/>\npetitioners-plaintiffs right to fetch the water and pipe lines<br \/>\npassing through adjoining owner has been provided. Therefore, it is<br \/>\nrequested to allow the the present Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tPetition<br \/>\nis opposed by Shri Ashish Dagli, learned advocate appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondents original defendants. It is submitted that there are<br \/>\nconcurrent findings given by both the Courts below refusing to grant<br \/>\nany interim injunction in favour of the petitioners and on<br \/>\nappreciation of evidence  it is found by both the Courts below that<br \/>\nthe petitioners-plaintiffs have failed to establish and prove the<br \/>\nprima facie even right of way through the lands of the respondents<br \/>\nand, therefore, it is requested not to exercise the powers under<br \/>\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India. It is also further<br \/>\nsubmitted by Shri Dagli learned advocate for the respondents that<br \/>\nwhen the proceedings were initiated by the petitioners-plaintiffs for<br \/>\nright of way under the Mamlatdar Courts Act, the same has been<br \/>\ndismissed by the learned Mamlatdar specifically holding that the<br \/>\npetitioners-plaintiffs have failed to produce the sale deed in their<br \/>\nfavour and consequently failed to establish right of way through<br \/>\nSurvey No. 44\/1. Relying upon the decision of the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge of this Court in the case of Sorabji Derabji Vesuna &amp;<br \/>\nOrs. Vs. Nanjibhai Jirabhai Umarigar &amp; Ors.\n<\/p>\n<p>reported in 2001(3) GLH, 759, findings<br \/>\nof the Revenue Court are to be respected at least at the stage of<br \/>\ngrant\/non-grant of the interim injunction by the Civil Court.<br \/>\nTherefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the Mamlatdar<br \/>\nJunagadh is required to be considered at least at the stage of<br \/>\nconsidering the application Exh.5. It is also furhter submitted by<br \/>\nShri Dagli learned advocate for the respondents that even in the sale<br \/>\ndeed in favour of the predecessor of petitioners nothing is mentioned<br \/>\nwith respect to the right of way of the petitioners through Survey<br \/>\nNo. 44\/1. It is submitted that in para 5 of the sale deed there is a<br \/>\nblank and no survey number has been mentioned and, therefore, when in<br \/>\nthe sale deed of erstwhile owner from whom the petitioners have<br \/>\npurchased the property no right of way has been specifically provided<br \/>\nfrom Survey No. 44\/1, petitioners cannot have any right of way<br \/>\nthrough survey No. 44\/1, which their erstwhile owner was not<br \/>\npossessing. By making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss<br \/>\nthe present Special Civil Application.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tHeard<br \/>\nthe learned advocates for the respective parties. At the outset, it<br \/>\nis required to be noted that application for interim injunction below<br \/>\nExh. 5 came to be dismissed by the learned trial Court on 21.12.2006<br \/>\nand even the appeal against the said order came to be dismissed by<br \/>\nthe learned Appellate Court on 4.12.2007 and till date there is no<br \/>\ninterim injunction in favour of the petitioners. When a specific<br \/>\nquestion was asked to the learned advocate for the petitioners, when<br \/>\nthere is no injunction in favour of the the petitioners till date and<br \/>\nas per them there is no other alternate way how the petitioners are<br \/>\ngoing to their agriculture field to that Shri Gandhi learned advocate<br \/>\nfor the petitioners has submitted that they have made alternative<br \/>\narrangement to go their field. Thus, it is not that the petitioners<br \/>\nhave no other alternative way at all. Even otherwise, it is required<br \/>\nto be noted that there are concurrent findings of facts given by both<br \/>\nthe Courts below specifically holding and observing that the<br \/>\npetitioners have failed to establish and prove any right of way to<br \/>\nsurvey No. 44\/2 through survey No. 44\/1 belonging to the respondents<br \/>\ndefendants. The said findings are on appreciation of evidence on<br \/>\nrecord. Even considering the sale deed of erstwhile owner from whom<br \/>\nthe petitioners have purchased the land in question i.e. Survey No.<br \/>\n44\/2 nothing has been mentioned with respect to right of way of to<br \/>\nsurvey No. 44\/2 through survey No. 44\/1. In para 5 of the sale deed<br \/>\nthere is no reference to right of way through survey No. 44\/1. There<br \/>\nis a blank after right of way but no survey number is mentioned.<br \/>\nUnder the circumstances, when the erstwhile owner from whom the<br \/>\npetitioners have purchased the land bearing survey No. 44\/2 having no<br \/>\nright of way through survey No. 44\/1, petitioners cannot have the<br \/>\nsame.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tEven,<br \/>\nthe Mamlatdar Junagadh in the proceedings under Section 5 of the<br \/>\nMamlatdar Courts Act initiated by the petitioners with respect to<br \/>\nright of way in R.R.T. Case No. 2 of 2005 while dismissing the said<br \/>\napplication has specifically observed that petitioners have no right<br \/>\nof way through survey No. 44\/1. As held by the learned Single Judge<br \/>\nof this Court in the case of Sorabji Derabji Vesuna &amp;<br \/>\nOrs. (supra) once the Revenue<br \/>\nCourt (Mamlatdar) passed an order, the same is required to be<br \/>\nrespected by the Civil Court at least at the stage of grant<br \/>\n\/non-grant of interim  injunction by Civil Court. Under the<br \/>\ncircumstances and considering the order passed by the Mamlatdar<br \/>\nJunagadh dated 26.7.2006 passed in R.R.T. Case No. 2 of 2005 passed<br \/>\nunder Section 5 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act also petitioners are not<br \/>\nentitled for any relief i.e. interim injunction.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tNow so<br \/>\nfar as the contentions on behalf of the petitioners that in the<br \/>\npanchnama there is no alternative way mentioned is concerned in light<br \/>\nof the observations made herein above said submission cannot be<br \/>\naccepted. As stated above, according to the petitioners they have<br \/>\nmade alternative arrangement to go to their field bearing Survey No.<br \/>\n44\/2.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tUnder<br \/>\nthe circumstances, when the orders passed by both the Courts below<br \/>\nare on appreciation of evidence and considering the order passed by<br \/>\nthe Mamlatdar Junagadh under the Mamlatdar Courts Act referred to<br \/>\nherein above, it cannot be said that both the Courts below have<br \/>\ncommitted any error which calls for the interference of this Court in<br \/>\nexercise the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tUnder<br \/>\nthe circumstances and for the reasons stated above there is no<br \/>\nsubstance in the present Special Civil Application and deserves to be<br \/>\ndismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                   (M.R.SHAH,J.)<\/p>\n<p>kaushik<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Amad vs Kasam on 13 November, 2008 Author: M.R. Shah,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/30383\/2007 11\/ 11 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 30383 of 2007 ===================================================== AMAD HUSEN SIDA &amp; 1 &#8211; Petitioner(s) Versus KASAM TAIYAB SIDA &#8211; Respondent(s) ===================================================== Appearance [&hellip;]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179501","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Amad vs Kasam on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/amad-vs-kasam-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=\"Amad vs Kasam on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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=\"2018-08-31T07:33:26+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amad vs Kasam on 13 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-31T07:33:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1664,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Amad vs Kasam on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-31T07:33:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amad vs Kasam 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":"Amad vs Kasam on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amad vs Kasam on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-31T07:33:26+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amad vs Kasam on 13 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-31T07:33:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008"},"wordCount":1664,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008","name":"Amad vs Kasam on 13 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-31T07:33:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amad-vs-kasam-on-13-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amad vs Kasam 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\/179501","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=179501"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179501\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}