{"id":187671,"date":"2010-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-30T10:15:37","modified_gmt":"2016-03-30T04:45:37","slug":"p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"P.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRP.No. 837 of 2009()\n\n\n1. P.H.SAFIYA, W\/O. C.M.MOHAMMED KUNHI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. C.M.FATHIMABI, W\/O. P.P.MOIDEENKUNHI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SAHIDA, D\/O. P.P.MOIDEENKUNHI,\n\n3. SAJIDA, D\/O. P.P.MOIDEENKUNHI,\n\n4. MOHAMMED SAMEER, S\/O. P.P.MOIDEENKUNHI\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :22\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                        K.T.SANKARAN, J.\n                  ---------------------------------------------\n                        R.P.No.837 of 2009\n                  ---------------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010\n\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      The revision petitioner in C.R.P.No.645 of 2004 has filed<\/p>\n
this Review Petition seeking to review the order dated 7th<\/p>\n
February, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    The revision petition was filed by the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.68 of 1996 challenging the order dated 17.11.2003 in<\/p>\n
I.A.No.191 of 2003 by which the court below set aside the<\/p>\n
compromise decree passed in the suit. The suit was restored to<\/p>\n
file to be decided on the merits.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The suit was filed by the Revision Petitioner for<\/p>\n
partition, claiming a half share. The property was acquired in<\/p>\n
the name of the plaintiff and the first defendant.                The first<\/p>\n
defendant is the sister of the husband of the plaintiff. By the<\/p>\n
compromise, a decree was to be passed for half share to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff after cancelling the sale deed executed by the first<\/p>\n
defendant in favour of her children, defendants 2 and 3. On the<\/p>\n
same date on which the compromise petition was signed by the<\/p>\n
parties, another agreement was executed by the husband of the<\/p>\n
AR No.3\/2010                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff, husband of the first defendant and the son of the first<\/p>\n
defendant, who is the 4th defendant in the present suit. Mention<\/p>\n
is made about that agreement in the compromise. The<\/p>\n
agreement executed among the husband of the plaintiff, the<\/p>\n
husband of the first defendant and the son of the first defendant<\/p>\n
was marked as Ext.A1 in the present proceeding. Ext.A1<\/p>\n
agreement dated 30.6.1998 would show that consideration for<\/p>\n
the compromise in the suit is fulfillment of the conditions in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1. Without Ext.A1 being fulfilled, the compromise would<\/p>\n
have no existence. The consideration for the compromise in the<\/p>\n
suit being the consideration mentioned in Ext.A1 agreement<\/p>\n
dated 30th June, 1998, the compromise would fail, if the<\/p>\n
consideration in Ext.A1 fails. Ext.A1 is an integral part of the<\/p>\n
compromise. That agreement was not produced along with the<\/p>\n
compromise.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     The learned counsel for the Review Petitioner<\/p>\n
submitted that it was found by the trial court in the final decree<\/p>\n
application and by the High Court in the Revision which arose<\/p>\n
out of the final decree proceedings that Ext.A1 agreement<\/p>\n
(Ext.B1 marked therein) was not part of the compromise and that<\/p>\n
AR No.3\/2010                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
finding would operate as res judicata in the present proceeding.<\/p>\n
The present proceeding is to set aside the compromise decree on<\/p>\n
the ground of fraud and on other grounds. The court found that<\/p>\n
the compromise cannot be sustained. When it is alleged by one<\/p>\n
party that the very compromise is unlawful and it is liable to be<\/p>\n
set aside, a finding in the earlier proceedings arising out of the<\/p>\n
final decree passed on the compromise would not be binding on<\/p>\n
the parties and it cannot be said that the said finding would<\/p>\n
operate as res judicata against the petitioner in the present<\/p>\n
proceeding for setting aside the preliminary decree.       If the<\/p>\n
preliminary decree goes, the final decree would have no<\/p>\n
existence and it would fall to the ground. If so, any order in the<\/p>\n
final decree proceedings would not be binding as res judicata in<\/p>\n
a proceeding initiated by one of the parties to the suit to set<\/p>\n
aside   the    preliminary    decree    pointing   out   vitiating<\/p>\n
circumstances. If it is held that the preliminary decree is bad<\/p>\n
and liable to be set aside, all the findings rendered in the final<\/p>\n
decree proceedings would vanish. If so, such a proceeding could<\/p>\n
not be projected as a finding constituting res judicata.     This<\/p>\n
contention can be examined in another angle. Let us take it that<\/p>\n
AR No.3\/2010                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
no contention was taken by the defendants in the suit<\/p>\n
challenging the maintainability of the final decree proceedings<\/p>\n
and let us take it that a final decree was passed.            Later,<\/p>\n
proceedings were initiated to set aside the preliminary decree on<\/p>\n
the ground of fraud or other vitiating circumstances. Could the<\/p>\n
plaintiff say that the defendants who wanted to set aside the<\/p>\n
preliminary decree are barred by constructive res judicata in<\/p>\n
view of the fact that they did not raise that contention in the final<\/p>\n
decree proceedings? The answer would be an emphatic ‘no’. If<\/p>\n
so, the contention which is now raised by the petitioner that the<\/p>\n
order in the final decree application and the revision arising<\/p>\n
there from would constitute as res judicata barring the present<\/p>\n
application to set aside the preliminary decree, is unsustainable.<\/p>\n
     5.    The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that<\/p>\n
the only ground on which the preliminary decree was sought to<\/p>\n
be set aside was that it was vitiated by fraud. The court below<\/p>\n
held that fraud as such was not proved.            However, on a<\/p>\n
consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, the<\/p>\n
court below held that Ext.A1 agreement is void. Ext.A1 being a<\/p>\n
part of the compromise, the preliminary decree, which was<\/p>\n
AR No.3\/2010                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
passed on the basis of the compromise, would be inexecutable.<\/p>\n
The court below also found that Ext.A1 agreement is void as the<\/p>\n
parties were under a mistake of the essential facts of the<\/p>\n
agreement. The parties knew well what their contentions were.<\/p>\n
They have also adduced evidence on all the aspects touching<\/p>\n
upon the compromise and the agreement.            The defendants<\/p>\n
wanted to set aside the preliminary decree based on the<\/p>\n
compromise on the ground of vitiating circumstances. On that<\/p>\n
basis, the parties went to trial.      The court could arrive at<\/p>\n
different findings on the basis of that main contention. The court<\/p>\n
considered the evidence and arrived at the finding that the<\/p>\n
parties were under a mistake of fact in Ext.A1 and therefore, it is<\/p>\n
void and that Ext.A1 agreement being an integral part of the<\/p>\n
compromise, the compromise could not be acted upon and made<\/p>\n
a basis for passing the preliminary decree. I do not think that<\/p>\n
the Review Petitioner was prejudiced in any way by any alleged<\/p>\n
deficiency in the pleadings.\n<\/p>\n
     6.     There is yet another ground on which it could be held<\/p>\n
that Ext.A1 forms part of the compromise. The fourth defendant<\/p>\n
in the suit is party No.3 in Ext.A1 agreement. He is the son of<\/p>\n
AR No.3\/2010                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
the first defendant. He is bound by Ext.A1 agreement. The first<\/p>\n
defendant had transferred the property to her children,<\/p>\n
defendants 2 and 3. Defendants 2 and 3 had transferred the<\/p>\n
property to the fourth defendant. The fourth defendant, as per<\/p>\n
the terms of the compromise, conceded for a half share in the<\/p>\n
property to the plaintiff. The fourth defendant was a party to the<\/p>\n
compromise and a party to Ext.A1 agreement. By conceding to<\/p>\n
the compromise decree, he would lose his absolute title to the<\/p>\n
property, to the extent of the half share of the plaintiff. If the<\/p>\n
compromise decree is set aside, he would stand to gain and he<\/p>\n
could retain the property unless it is otherwise held at the trial<\/p>\n
that the document is vitiated. If so, the fourth defendant being a<\/p>\n
party to the agreement and a party to the compromise, I am of<\/p>\n
the view that Ext.A1 agreement forms an integral part of the<\/p>\n
compromise and the parties are bound by the compromise. Even<\/p>\n
going by Rule 3 of Order 23, it is clear that the compromise need<\/p>\n
not confine to the subject matter of the suit. The subject matter<\/p>\n
of the suit as well as other matters were part of composite terms<\/p>\n
of the compromise between the parties. On the failure of Ext.A1,<\/p>\n
naturally the compromise also would fail.        The court below<\/p>\n
AR No.3\/2010                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
accepted this and held that the compromise preliminary decree<\/p>\n
is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      I do not find any ground to review the order dated 7th<\/p>\n
February, 2008 passed in the CRP. There is no mistake or error<\/p>\n
apparent on the face of the record which warrants a review of<\/p>\n
the order. There is no sufficient reason to allow the Review<\/p>\n
Petition.   Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. No<\/p>\n
order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            K.T.SANKARAN,
\n                                                 JUDGE
\ncsl<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP.No. 837 of 2009() 1. P.H.SAFIYA, W\/O. C.M.MOHAMMED KUNHI … Petitioner Vs 1. C.M.FATHIMABI, W\/O. P.P.MOIDEENKUNHI, … Respondent 2. SAHIDA, D\/O. P.P.MOIDEENKUNHI, 3. SAJIDA, D\/O. P.P.MOIDEENKUNHI, 4. MOHAMMED SAMEER, S\/O. P.P.MOIDEENKUNHI For Petitioner :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH For Respondent […]<\/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-187671","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-30T04:45:37+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\\\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-30T04:45:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1341,\"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\\\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010\",\"name\":\"P.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-30T04:45:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-30T04:45:37+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\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-30T04:45:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010"},"wordCount":1341,"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\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010","name":"P.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-30T04:45:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-h-safiya-vs-c-m-fathimabi-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.H.Safiya vs C.M.Fathimabi on 22 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187671","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=187671"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187671\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187671"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187671"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187671"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}