{"id":188337,"date":"2010-01-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-09T19:39:12","modified_gmt":"2018-11-09T14:09:12","slug":"abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Abdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Abdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: V.Jagannathan<\/div>\n
the III Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Belgaurn, decreeing the suit filed\nfor declaration and injunction. \n\nThis appeal coming on for admission, this \n\ndelivered the following:\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
This second appeal is filed by <\/p>\n
trial court in ().S.No.5l2\/2005 being agigrievcd byitiiev\u00absuit.3\ufb01leid <\/p>\n
by the respondents–plaintiffs beinlig\ufb02d.:ec*reed  trial court
\nand the appeal preferrecli’by’i_pth_e  herein being
\ndismissed by the lower:.a–ppellate_i:;ourtiiihffhus concurrent
\n\ufb01ndings by the     question.\n<\/p>\n
2.   to the suit being filed
\nby the responclents:p1iai’12it_iffsl:’were that, the plaintiffs were the<\/p>\n
owner pair. pppossessionf of” the suit schedule property which<\/p>\n
 .comproini’:~ies bf &”A’ schedule property and ‘B’ schedule property<\/p>\n
 lareiiiopeiiispaces and the appellant herein requested the<\/p>\n
  plainti,’ffs to him to use the ‘B’ schedule property for his<\/p>\n
ii””<\u00ab.__lbtisiness  therefore the plaintiffs put up a shed in the open<\/p>\n
 pspa'ee_ ri'.e., 'B' schedule property for the business of the<\/p>\n
 …_l:;g'ppiellant herein and the rent which was 123.80 per month was<\/p>\n
(iv<\/p>\n
,1<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
increased from time to time and it stood at Rs.l50 for the 'A
\nschedule property and Rs.100 for 'B' schedule property as on<\/p>\n
December, 1997. It was the case of the plaintiffs pthaththe<\/p>\n
appellant herein being the defendant in the trial court'  _<\/p>\n
paying the rents regularly and apart from_–tl'iat.:~the-iiplaint <\/p>\n
schedule property developed cracks on the..northe.rn <\/p>\n
was un\ufb01t for human habitatio.n,_and ithveirefore,~'thueiplairgtiiffs <\/p>\n
issued notice to the defendant toiiiquit_theiprernisesigbut this
\nmade the defendant to  0.S.l\\iio.ii7'71 \/ 1998
\nseeking the relief of injun_ctio.n   dispossessed<\/p>\n
without having? re?:ours\u00e9–_ to  ycourse: of law. There<\/p>\n
afterwards,  not pay the rents properly but
\nthe wall collapsed  and then the appellant herein<\/p>\n
with the help" police! officials and other officials of the<\/p>\n
 iicorpoiration plannediitomililegally construct a house in the suit<\/p>\n
;5r.oi:\u00ab:riy~ = started putting up the construction on<\/p>\n
  O2.(i)9,_2i0O5. .ivvithiout giving notice to the plaintiffs. The<\/p>\n
l"~..\u00ab.._plaintiffs" requested the police to stop the construction which<\/p>\n
   met by the police by taking any action against the<\/p>\n
 .___ii:appi}cllant herein. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to \ufb01le<\/p>\n
}\u00bb<\/p>\n
4,.\n<\/p>\n
the suit for relief of permanent injunction as well as mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction against the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
3. The said contentions of the plaintiffs was  ~<\/p>\n
appellant herein and the appellant also denie_-;i”the:’ren’tV  <\/p>\n
was mentioned in the plaint and the defendaiit ‘also <\/p>\n
admit he being a defaulter in payment of. rent also the<\/p>\n
defendant took up the stand that he-_o_nly\u00bb effe’cted lson\u00e9ie repairs<\/p>\n
to the wall and did not taik~e..i;;p any ;_coins.t’r’ucti_pn as such.<\/p>\n
4. The pleadings of the parties-.4lead.._th’etrail court to frame
\ncertain issues’ii\\;\u00a74″l1iVcliv’are ‘~ni.en~tioii._ed_: in paragraph 12 of the<\/p>\n
judgrnenat of thefiowergiappellate court and after appreciating
\nthe evidence on record’the*~._tria.l”‘court was of the View that the<\/p>\n
plaintiffshad le’st_ab’li.shed- their case against the defendant and<\/p>\n
 i.c’onsequer1″t:1y”suit wasmdecreed and the appellant was directed<\/p>\n
to i’epIrio=.r.\u20ac”4tlr1e liunauthorised construction put up by him over<\/p>\n
theiisuit  property and if he failed to do so, the<\/p>\n
 ‘plaintiffs jxiere given liberty to get the said construction<\/p>\n
  “r7\u00e9;m_y?\u00e9a by following due process of law and the defendant was<\/p>\n
3\u00bb<\/p>\n
‘ i\u00bb<\/p>\n
restrained from putting up any construction over the ‘A’<\/p>\n
schedule property and ‘B’ schedule property.<\/p>\n
5. Appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed._b3ti_lthe<\/p>\n
lower appellate court and hence this second    .<\/p>\n
6. I have heard Sri.G.B.Shastry, learned l.for_l_}th’e_ ix<\/p>\n
appellant and Sri.Rarnesh N. Misaleflealrneld <\/p>\n
respondent–plaintiffs and peruslelctlfthe jud’gme.ntsi..vof\u00b0’\u00a7thiecourts * it<\/p>\n
below. Unless any substantial quesltionof law  involved, this
\nCourt cannot interfere with vtilconcputf.r\u20ac7nit”–fi11dings of fact of the<\/p>\n
courts below and this is the    Apex Court in<\/p>\n
several    in-the case of NARAYANAN
\nRAJENDEAH ‘AND  LEKSHMY SAROJINI AND<\/p>\n
0’I’I*IER.S., (2O693_l5’VSC(ii”. Therefore, the appellant will<\/p>\n
 have satisfyrp that itheiisubstantial question of law arises in<\/p>\n
3118″ cease l ~ <\/p>\n
V .7. il”I’r1 vthiisvlcontext, learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
“i’Ai”‘r.eferring to the judgments of the courts below contended that<\/p>\n
 below failed to consider provisions of Section 27, 28<\/p>\n
T  and 31 of Karnataka Rent Act as well as Section 47 to 49 of the<\/p>\n
said Act and it is his contention that the courts below erred in
\nrecording a \ufb01nding that the appellant has put up Va-gnew
\nconstruction in place of old construction without”:l:so.epl:ing
\npermission of the plaintiffs and the courts below–alsQ  i’
\nnot taking into account the ClOC1.1v1′-I’1′(‘3’1″1’t-S’
\nappellant which documents wouldll’tgoilpftov
\nappellant only effected repairs
\nsubmission put forward is, that t:he:lc’o14rt–._,beloW” ‘couldfinot have
\ngranted mandatory injunction note of the
\ndecision rendered’_inV__ filed by the<\/p>\n
defendant. tlieaboire contentions, learned counsel<\/p>\n
also referred to  \u00ab)i.’_of the\u00e9pecific Relief Act, 1961 to<\/p>\n
contend that no injunction’ have been granted by the trial<\/p>\n
court. Learned counsel also referred to Section 108 (e) of the<\/p>\n
 Transfer or Propertyiiii\ufb01lct to contend that if there is any<\/p>\n
axzyjpart of the property, the lease shall become<\/p>\n
void  the .option of the lessee. Therefore, learned counsel<\/p>\n
 –  sought for interference by this Court in this second appeal.<\/p>\n
  the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiffs–<\/p>\n
 respondents supported the concurrent findings of facts of the<\/p>\n
3:?\n<\/p>\n
courts below and submitted that the courts below ._ were<\/p>\n
justified in granting the relief sought for by the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
regard to the fact that the appellant did <\/p>\n
permission from the respondents–p1aintViffs for <\/p>\n
new construction over the earlier CO3:lStITE1-C.t:l.Orl..Wl71lC}’1’l’i_vE3_SiV:’:lf’1′<\/p>\n
very bad shape. Apart from th;”s,wi__t is also sub1r’iitt.ed._Vtha_t the<\/p>\n
appellant has failed to pay the    the suit
\npremises and the  any rents till now
\nexcepting the rentse_whichA…w:ere.   of the interim
\norder passed by     <\/p>\n
9. Apart from’:\u00bb-tine a1:.oveli’si.ubnri.ission, learned counsel also<\/p>\n
referred  the _:the courts below to contend that<\/p>\n
when the a”p.peI1anlt_ had’  up a new construction, the<\/p>\n
 ..questi=ofr1 of the plaintiffs seeking eviction will not arise because<\/p>\n
‘l”‘WhC:l1~\u00bbl;hC,vi3I’CETllS3S have been completely destroyed by the act<\/p>\n
of is termination of the tenancy. In support<\/p>\n
of the above submission, learned counsel places reliance on the<\/p>\n
“iv.44’pdec’isions bf the Apex Court in the case of VANNATTANKANDY<\/p>\n
l.l_1:B’r?AYr’ vs. KUNHABDULLA HAJEE (2000 (3) SUPREME<\/p>\n
from this the appellant has not taken any permission to put up
\nthe new construction and in the face of the said admission<\/p>\n
made by the appellant and the evidence of the <\/p>\n
indicating that the suit property was originally;i:ons’tr”uCited,_T’ \u00bb<\/p>\n
with mud walls and black tiles, the evidence or1″re’cord’letvin by <\/p>\n
the parties ultimately lead to the aforesaidfiind’ingre’cof-ded <\/p>\n
the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
11. Under the above circumstainc,e’s,.yV_VI see errior being
\ncommitted by the eourts;—-._bf\u20ac1oAw’iV: in thecase of the
\nplaintiffs that the appellant..  put up new
\nconstruction by    as put up the roof
\nover theifixitatiia\u00e9 and roof and as such the<\/p>\n
question of th_e”l3ndings..o’f,the trial court on all issues framed<\/p>\n
.._by it  the con\ufb01rrnatiofn of the same by the lower appellate<\/p>\n
V_court..beirigerroneous and contrary to the evidence on record<\/p>\n
does not arise * ‘ ‘ it<\/p>\n
 As” fair as the provisions of the law referred by the<\/p>\n
  a.ppellai:t’s counsel are concerned, I am of the view that there<\/p>\n
  no application to the case on hand and both the courts<\/p>\n
3\u00bb<\/p>\n
psi<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
below have rejected the contentions put forth in this regard by
\nthe appellant’s counsel and as such I do not see any substance<\/p>\n
in the contentions put forth concerning application of”Se’e.tio.n<\/p>\n
41 of the Specific Relief Act or Section 108 (e) of  ‘<\/p>\n
Property Act.   ._<\/p>\n
13. For the above reasons,_.I_ holdpithat no].su’bstantialfK<\/p>\n
question of law arises for consideration ii1__this5 appeal and
\nconsequently appeal stands~..disnfii’ssedi;\n<\/p>\n
14. At this juncture, 1earned._co.un:sel.*’for’ithefappellant seeks<\/p>\n
one year’s time to o”t_Ier\u00a7th’e Vacantiw possession of the suit<\/p>\n
schedu1e;_iv’A’  the\ufb02plaintiffs for which learned
\ncounsel for uthe pla,intiffs\u00a7respondent submits that the matter<\/p>\n
has dragged on for severalfljriears and the plaintiffs are in dire<\/p>\n
 need the p–rernisels””a’nd apart from that appellant has got<\/p>\n
‘others.prerr1i.sesifwhich he has let out and therefore grant of time<\/p>\n
as sought  appellant’s counsel is not warranted.<\/p>\n
 .\u00ab_}fIavfi’ng heard to the above effect and taking note of the<\/p>\n
_i_1tiri’1e ‘spent in the litigation, I am of the View that appellant can<\/p>\n
‘granted three months’ time to vacate and hand over vacant<\/p>\n
\u00ab%<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
possession to the respondents-plaintiffs and the appellant shall
\nalso continue to pay the rent till the date of handing over<\/p>\n
possession. If the appellant does not hand over the posse-susion<\/p>\n
Within the aforesaid time, the respondents–plaintiffsistare?’ <\/p>\n
liberty to take necessary help from the p0lice’v’peVi:Ct–_t11el <\/p>\n
appellant from the suit premises. Alpvpell-ant? shai1l..lalso7fi-l.e <\/p>\n
affidavit before this court within -two Weeks frc-ml’ the_da_li;e of <\/p>\n
this orders in respect of time granted_V to  hand over
\nvacant possession to the re”s–por–i:lder1ts  as in respect of<\/p>\n
payment of rents.\n<\/p>\n
16. For the above :\u00a7vEeasovri~s,  apllpeal ‘stands dismissed.<\/p>\n
Sd\/v
\nEUDGE<\/p>\n
lJ_rn\/\u00bb–l ”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Abdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 2010 Author: V.Jagannathan the III Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Belgaurn, decreeing the suit filed for declaration and injunction. This appeal coming on for admission, this delivered the following: JUDGMENT This second appeal is filed by trial court in ().S.No.5l2\/2005 being agigrievcd […]<\/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-188337","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 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\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-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=\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-09T14:09:12+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T14:09:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1602,\"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\\\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Abdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T14:09:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 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":"Abdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 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\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-09T14:09:12+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T14:09:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010"},"wordCount":1602,"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\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010","name":"Abdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T14:09:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdulhaq-adam-shaikh-vs-sri-gheewale-katalsab-musasab-on-13-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdulhaq Adam Shaikh vs Sri Gheewale Katalsab Musasab on 13 January, 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\/188337","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=188337"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188337\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188337"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188337"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188337"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}