{"id":185135,"date":"2007-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007"},"modified":"2014-05-05T20:06:57","modified_gmt":"2014-05-05T14:36:57","slug":"mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Mohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA No. 57 of 2007()\n\n\n1. MOHAMED @ BAPPU, AGED 63 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ALAVI, AGED 50 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. PATHUMMA, AGED 58 YEARS,\n\n3. THECHIYODAN MOIDEEN, AGED 61 YEARS,\n\n4. UMMUSALMA, AGED 38 YEARS,\n\n5. HASEENA, AGED 28 YEARS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.M.KUNJIMOIDEENKUTTY\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :04\/04\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                      M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n\n                        ...........................................\n\n                         R.S.A.No. 57     OF   2007\n\n                        ............................................\n\n           DATED THIS THE  4TH  DAY OF  APRIL, 2007\n\n\n                                   JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Defendant   in   O.S.6   of   1997   on   the   file   of   Munsiff   Court,<\/p>\n
Manjeri   is   the   appellant.       Respondents   are   the   plaintiffs.     The<\/p>\n
suit was originally filed by   first respondent and respondents   2<\/p>\n
to   6   were   subsequently   impleaded   as   assignees   of   the   first<\/p>\n
plaintiff.  The suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction<\/p>\n
contending that plaint A schedule property originally belonged in<\/p>\n
jenmom to Kannoor Puthan madam  and in 1950 first respondent<\/p>\n
obtained   plaint   A   schedule   property   on   an   oral   lease   and   has<\/p>\n
been   in   possession   of   the   property   as   a   tenant   and   while   so,<\/p>\n
under  Ext.A1  assignment deed dated 9.2.1973, he  sold  plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule property a portion of the A schedule property  in favour<\/p>\n
of appellant, his son and retained plaint C schedule property, the<\/p>\n
remaining property and later as per Ext.A4 order in S.M.177 of<\/p>\n
1994   he   purchased   the   jenmom   right   and   obtained   Ext.A2<\/p>\n
purchase   certificate   and   he   has   been   in   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
property   and   appellant   is   attempting   to   trespass   into   the<\/p>\n
property and he has no right to do so and therefore he is entitled<\/p>\n
to get a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction.   Appellant<\/p>\n
RSA 57\/2007                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
in  the written statement admitted the assignment under Ext.A1<\/p>\n
but contended that plaint C schedule property did not belong to<\/p>\n
first   respondent   and   he   has   not   been   in   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
property   and   it   was   in   the   possession   of   the   appellant   as   per<\/p>\n
lease before 1964 and he has purchased jenmom right in respect<\/p>\n
of the said property in O.A.1363 of 1976 and also jenmom right<\/p>\n
in respect of plaint B schedule property as per order in SM 180<\/p>\n
of 1996 and obtained Exts.B1 and B2 purchase certificates and is<\/p>\n
in   possession   of     plaint   C   schedule   property   and   therefore<\/p>\n
respondents are not entitled to the decree sought for.<\/p>\n
      2.   Learned Munsiff, on the evidence of PW1 and DW1 and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A6  and B1 to B4 and C1 and C2, upheld the case of<\/p>\n
respondents that  plaint C schedule property forms part of plaint<\/p>\n
A   schedule   property   and   after   assigning   plaint   B   schedule<\/p>\n
property,   first   respondent   has   been   in   possession   of   plaint   C<\/p>\n
schedule property and appellant has no right or possession over<\/p>\n
the   same   and   therefore   respondents   are   entitled   to   the   decree<\/p>\n
for injunction sought for.     Appellant challenged the decree and<\/p>\n
judgment before Sub Court, Manjeri in A.S.54 of 2005.  Learned<\/p>\n
Sub Judge, on re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the finding<\/p>\n
of learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal.   It is challenged in<\/p>\n
RSA 57\/2007                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.  Learned     counsel   appearing   for     appellant   was   heard.<\/p>\n
The argument of learned counsel  was that there is  no  evidence<\/p>\n
to prove that first respondent was tenant of the plaint C schedule<\/p>\n
property   and   when   Ext.A2   and   B2   purchase   certificates   were<\/p>\n
produced, courts below should have entered a definite finding as<\/p>\n
to   the   validity   of   Ext.A2   or   B2   and   without   deciding   that<\/p>\n
question, should not have granted the decree sought for and on<\/p>\n
the evidence courts below should not have granted the decree in<\/p>\n
favour  of respondents  and therefore  the concurrent decree  and<\/p>\n
judgment are unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4. On hearing learned counsel appearing for appellant, I do<\/p>\n
not   find   any  substantial  question  of   law   involved   in   the   appeal.<\/p>\n
The   suit   was  only   for   injunction.   The   question   to   be   decided   is<\/p>\n
the   possession   of   respondents   on   the   date   of   institution   of   the<\/p>\n
suit. The appellant is none other than the son of original plaintiff,<\/p>\n
first respondent.  Appellant is also admitting his right over plaint<\/p>\n
B   schedule   property   derived   from   the   first   respondent   under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 sale deed executed by him.   Under Ext.A1 only 56 cents<\/p>\n
was   obtained   by   the   appellant.     The   courts   below,   relying   on<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, accepted the case of respondents that the entire property<\/p>\n
RSA 57\/2007                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
belonging to first respondent was not transferred in favour of the<\/p>\n
appellant.   What   was   contended   by   appellant   was   that   first<\/p>\n
respondent   was   having   only   plaint   B   schedule   property   in   his<\/p>\n
possession   and  that was transferred  in  his  favour  under  Ext.A1<\/p>\n
and thereafter first respondent had no property in his possession<\/p>\n
and   therefore   first   respondent   could   not   have   purchased   the<\/p>\n
jenmom right in respect of plaint C schedule property and courts<\/p>\n
below should have found that Ext.A2 is not valid especially when<\/p>\n
Ext.B2 purchase certificate was obtained by appellant in respect<\/p>\n
of plaint C schedule property.  Case of appellant could have been<\/p>\n
accepted if Ext.A1 disclosed that the entire property belonging to<\/p>\n
first respondent was transferred in favour of  appellant under the<\/p>\n
document.       On   the   other   hand,   Ext.A1   establishes   that<\/p>\n
remaining   property   was   left   with   first   respondent   after<\/p>\n
assigning   plaint   B   schedule   property.     The   southern   boundary<\/p>\n
shown   in   Ext.A1   is   the   remaining   property   of   first   respondent,<\/p>\n
establishing   that   only   the   northern   portion   of   the   property<\/p>\n
belonging   to   first  respondent  was  transferred   under   Ext.A1.     If<\/p>\n
the   case   of   appellant   about   an   independent   lease   in   his   favour<\/p>\n
and   possession   of  the   plaint   C  schedule   property   thereunder  is<\/p>\n
true,     southern   boundary   would   have   been   shown   as   the<\/p>\n
RSA 57\/2007                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
leasehold property of the appellant or at least the property in the<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   appellant.     Instead,   what   was   stated   as<\/p>\n
southern boundary in Ext.A1 is the remaining property belonging<\/p>\n
to   the   first   respondent.     Courts   below   rightly   appreciated   the<\/p>\n
said   fact   and   found   that   after   assigning   plaint   B   schedule<\/p>\n
property,   first   respondent   retained   with   him     portion     of   the<\/p>\n
property obtained by him on lease.  If that be so, first respondent<\/p>\n
is entitled to purchase the jenmom right from the Land Tribunal,<\/p>\n
as appellant has no case that his father was not a lessee  under<\/p>\n
the jenmi.  In fact after Ext.A1 assignment deed executed by first<\/p>\n
respondent   in   his   favour   and   banking   upon   the   lease   originally<\/p>\n
obtained   first   respondent   appellant   obtained   the   purchase<\/p>\n
certificate in respect of plaint B schedule property evidenced by<\/p>\n
Ext.B1.     It  is   that   leasehold   right   over   which   the   jenmom   right<\/p>\n
was   purchased   by   first   respondent   under   Ext.A2   pursuant   to<\/p>\n
Ext.A4   order.     Ext.B2   purchase   certificate   was   obtained   by   the<\/p>\n
appellant   under   Ext.A5   order,   one   year   subsequent   to   Ext.A2<\/p>\n
purchase   certificate   issued   in   favour   of   the   first   respondent.   If<\/p>\n
first respondent is a cultivating tenant, as he should be, in view<\/p>\n
of the purchase certificate obtained by first appellant over plaint<\/p>\n
B schedule property and the jenmom right which vested with the<\/p>\n
RSA 57\/2007                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
Government   as   on   1.1.1970   was   assigned   in   favour   of   the   first<\/p>\n
respondent as per Ext.A4 order in SMP 197 of 1994 and Ext.A2<\/p>\n
purchase   certificate,   to   first   respondent,   nothing   was   left   with<\/p>\n
the   Government   to   be   assigned   in   favour   of   appellant   under<\/p>\n
Ext.A5   order.     Therefore   appellant   cannot   claim   any   right   by<\/p>\n
virtue of Ext.B2 purchase certificate and therefore the case built<\/p>\n
up on Ext.B2 was  rightly not accepted by courts below. I find no<\/p>\n
merit in the appeal. It is dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/-\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA No. 57 of 2007() 1. MOHAMED @ BAPPU, AGED 63 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. ALAVI, AGED 50 YEARS, … Respondent 2. PATHUMMA, AGED 58 YEARS, 3. THECHIYODAN MOIDEEN, AGED 61 YEARS, 4. UMMUSALMA, […]<\/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-185135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007 - 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\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-05T14:36:57+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-05T14:36:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1152,\"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\\\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Mohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-05T14:36:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007 - 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\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-05T14:36:57+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-05T14:36:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007"},"wordCount":1152,"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\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007","name":"Mohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-05T14:36:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohamed-bappu-vs-alavi-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohamed @ Bappu vs Alavi on 4 April, 2007"}]},{"@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\/185135","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=185135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}