{"id":190640,"date":"2011-05-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011"},"modified":"2018-03-04T16:04:04","modified_gmt":"2018-03-04T10:34:04","slug":"vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: P Sathasivam<\/div>\n
Bench: P. Sathasivam, H.L. Gokhale<\/div>\n
                                                                        REPORTABLE\n\n      \n\n                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n             CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4279-4280          OF 2011\n\n          (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 16595-16596 of 2010\n\n\n\n\n\nVimaleshwar Nagappa Shet                                   .... Appellant(s)\n\n\n\n                 Versus\n\n\n\nNoor Ahmed Sheriff & Ors.                                    .... Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n                               J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
P. Sathasivam, J.\n<\/p>\n
1)         Leave granted.\n\n\n\n2)         These   appeals   are   directed   against   the   final   judgment \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
and   orders   dated   03.03.2009   and   28.08.2009   of   the   Division <\/p>\n
Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A.\n<\/p>\n
No. 52 of 2000 and Misc. Civil No. 13474 of 2009 in R.F.A. No. <\/p>\n
52   of   2000   respectively   whereby   the   High   Court   disposed   of <\/p>\n
the appeal and dismissed the application.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
3)     Brief facts:\n\n\n(a)    The  property   in  question   originally   belonged   to  one   C.S. \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Abdul   Momin   Sheriff   and   he   died   leaving   behind   his   wife <\/p>\n
Hajiba   Tabsasum   and   Defendant   Nos.   1,   2   and   4   (sons), <\/p>\n
Defendant Nos.   5 to 7 (daughters) and Defendant No. 3, who <\/p>\n
is the son of Late Ismail Sheriff, son of Abdul Momin Shariff.\n<\/p>\n
After   his   demise,   each  of   the   surviving   sons   succeeded   to   an <\/p>\n
extent of 2\/11th share and each of the daughters succeeded to <\/p>\n
1\/11th share in the property.   As the division in the scheduled <\/p>\n
property   was   impractical,   Defendant   Nos.   1,   2   and   4   to   7 <\/p>\n
desired   to   sell   the   schedule   property   and   to   distribute   sale <\/p>\n
proceeds   between   them.   On   02.05.1988,   they   agreed   to   sell <\/p>\n
the   property   to   one   Vimaleshwar   Nagappa   Shet-plaintiff <\/p>\n
(appellant   herein)   for   a   consideration   of   Rs.3,10,000\/-, <\/p>\n
executed   agreement   of   sale   and   received   advance <\/p>\n
consideration   of   Rs.10,000\/-.     Subsequently,   on   06.05.1988, <\/p>\n
the wife of C.S Abdul Momin Sheriff died.\n<\/p>\n
(b)    Till   15.06.1989,   the   plaintiff   paid   a   sum   of <\/p>\n
Rs.1,53,000\/-, in all, on various dates.  As the defendants did <\/p>\n
not execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific <\/p>\n
                                                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
performance being O.S. No. 91 of 1991 in the Court of the Civil <\/p>\n
Judge at Chikmangalur.   By order dated 01.10.1999, the trial <\/p>\n
Court   decreed   the   suit   in   favour   of   the   plaintiff   and   directed <\/p>\n
the defendants to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement <\/p>\n
of sale dated 02.05.1988.  Aggrieved by the said judgment and <\/p>\n
decree   of   the   trial   Court,   Defendant   Nos.   2,   3   and   7   filed <\/p>\n
appeal   being   R.F.A.   No.   52   of   2000   before   the   High   Court   of <\/p>\n
Karnataka at Bangalore.\n<\/p>\n
(c)    The High Court taking into account the submission of the <\/p>\n
counsel  for  the  appellants  and  respondents,  fixed  the  market <\/p>\n
value   of   property   at   Rs.300\/-   per   sq.   ft.     The   total   area   of <\/p>\n
property is 4,655 sq. ft. (48′ x 90′), therefore, the total market <\/p>\n
value of property would be Rs.13,96,500\/-.     The High Court, <\/p>\n
by   its   judgment   dated   03.03.2009,   while   holding   that   as <\/p>\n
Defendant   No.3   was   not   a   party   to   the   agreement   and   he <\/p>\n
proposes to purchase the 9\/11th  share by paying value to the <\/p>\n
plaintiff   and   the   value   of   9\/11th  share   would   be   Rs.\n<\/p>\n
11,42,590\/-   and   the   counsel   for   the   plaintiff   on   the <\/p>\n
instruction   from   the   plaintiff   agreed   to   the   said   proposal   on <\/p>\n
the condition that Defendant No.3 would pay the said amount <\/p>\n
                                                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
within three months, in default, the plaintiff would be entitled <\/p>\n
to   the   relief   of   specific   performance   disposed   of   the   appeal <\/p>\n
directing   defendant   Nos.   1,2   and   4   to   7   to   execute   the   sale <\/p>\n
deed   of   their   share   to   the   extent   of   9\/11   area   in   the   suit <\/p>\n
property by making convenient division of the property.\n<\/p>\n
(d)    Thereafter,   an   application   being  Misc.   Civil   No  13474   of <\/p>\n
2009   in   R.F.A.   No.   52   of   2000   was   filed   for   deleting   some <\/p>\n
words   from   the   judgment   and   the   same   was   dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Challenging the judgment of the High Court in appeal and the <\/p>\n
order made in the application, the appellant-plaintiff has filed <\/p>\n
these   appeals   by   way   of   special   leave   petitions   before   this <\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
4)  Heard Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant and <\/p>\n
Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
5)   It is not in dispute that the property in question belonged <\/p>\n
to Abdul Momin Sheriff.  After his death, each of the surviving <\/p>\n
sons   succeeded   to   an   extent   of   2\/11th  share   and   each   of   the <\/p>\n
daughters succeeded to 1\/11th share.  It is also not in dispute <\/p>\n
that   the   agreement   of   sale   was   executed   only   by   Defendant <\/p>\n
Nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 7.   The total share of Defendant Nos. 1, 2 <\/p>\n
                                                                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
and 4 to 7 is 9\/11 and the share of the Defendant No. 3 who <\/p>\n
did not join the execution of agreement of sale would be 2\/11.\n<\/p>\n
Inasmuch   as   the   Defendant   No.   3   was   not   a   party   to   the <\/p>\n
agreement,   he   is   not   bound   by   the   agreement   executed   by <\/p>\n
other defendants to the extent of his share.\n<\/p>\n
6)     From   the   evidence   and   the   materials,   it   is   clear   that   the <\/p>\n
suit property is dwelling house.  In that event, Section 4 of the <\/p>\n
Partition Act, 1893 is relevant which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “4. Partition suit by transferee of share in dwelling-house.–<\/p>\n
       (1)   Where   a   share   of   a   dwelling-house   belonging   to   an <\/p>\n
       undivided family has been transferred to a person who is not <\/p>\n
       a   member   of   such   family   and   such   transferee   sues   for <\/p>\n
       partition, the court shall, if any member of the family being a <\/p>\n
       shareholder   shall   undertake   to   buy   the   share   of   such <\/p>\n
       transferee, make a valuation of such share in such manner <\/p>\n
       as   it   thinks   fit   and   direct   the   sale   of   such   share   to   such <\/p>\n
       shareholder,   and   may   give   all   necessary   and   proper <\/p>\n
       directions in that behalf.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       (2)     If  in  any   case   described   in  sub-section   (1)  two   or   more <\/p>\n
       members   of   the   family   being   such   shareholders   severally <\/p>\n
       undertake   to   buy   such   share,   the   court   shall   follow   the <\/p>\n
       procedure prescribed by sub-section (2) of the last foregoing <\/p>\n
       section.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
In   view   of   the   above   provision,   Defendant   No.   3   has   right   to <\/p>\n
purchase to exclude the outsider who holds an equitable right <\/p>\n
of purchase of the shares of other defendants.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
7)     It   is   pertinent   to   point   out   that   plaintiff   was   aware   that <\/p>\n
Defendant No. 3 who was a minor had a share in the property <\/p>\n
and   the   application   made   by   the   other   defendants   before   the <\/p>\n
Civil Court for appointment of Defendant No. 2 as guardian of <\/p>\n
the said minor was not pursued and in fact it was dismissed, <\/p>\n
consequently, his share remained unsold to the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
8)     As   a   matter   of   fact,   agreement   of   sale   dated   02.05.1988 <\/p>\n
does   not   refer   to   Defendant   No.   3   at   all   or   his   share   in   the <\/p>\n
property.  However, in the plaint, the plaintiff clearly admitted <\/p>\n
the   share   of   Defendant   No.   3   who   was   a   minor   and   the   fact <\/p>\n
that no guardian was appointed for the minor and Defendant <\/p>\n
No. 2 was not his natural guardian.  Without Defendant No. 3 <\/p>\n
joining   the   other   co-sharers,   no   agreement   of   sale   could   be <\/p>\n
entered with the plaintiff for the entire property including the <\/p>\n
minor’s   share.     Consequently,   the   agreement  of   sale   covering <\/p>\n
the entire property was void and ineffective.\n<\/p>\n
9)     It  is  settled   law  that  Section   20   of  the   Specific  Relief   Act, <\/p>\n
1963   confers   discretionary   powers.   [vide:  M.   Meenakshi   &  <\/p>\n
Ors.  vs.  Metadin   Agarwal<\/a>  (2006)   7   SCC   470,  Nirmala  <\/p>\n
Anand vs. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. & Ors.<\/a> (2002) 5 SCC <\/p>\n
                                                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
481,      Parakunnan   Veetill   Joseph’s   Son   Mathrew                                            vs. <\/p>\n
Nedumbara Karuvila’s Son & Ors.<\/a>   (1987) Supp. SCC 340].\n<\/p>\n
It   is   also   well   settled   that   the   value   of   property   escalates   in <\/p>\n
urban   areas   very   fast   and   it   would   not   be   equitable   to   grant <\/p>\n
specific performance after a lapse of long period of time.\n<\/p>\n
10)     Apart   from   all   these   material   aspects   before   the   High <\/p>\n
Court,   both   parties   including   the   plaintiff\/present   appellant <\/p>\n
agreed   for   a   reasonable   market   valuation.     This   factual <\/p>\n
position is clear from paragraph 7 of the High Court judgment <\/p>\n
which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        “7.     The   counsel   for   appellants   and   respondents   submitted <\/p>\n
        that the market value of property is Rs. 300\/- per sq. ft. The <\/p>\n
        total   area   of   property   is   4,655   sq.   ft.   (48′   x   90′).     The   total <\/p>\n
        market   value   of   property   would   be   Rs.   13,96,500\/-.     The <\/p>\n
        value of 9\/11th  share would be Rs. 11,42,590\/-.   Defendant <\/p>\n
        No. 3 proposes to purchase the 9\/11th share by paying value <\/p>\n
        to   the   plaintiff.     The   counsel   for   the   plaintiffs   with   the <\/p>\n
        instructions from the plaintiff agreed to the said proposal on <\/p>\n
        the condition that the Defendant  No. 3 should pay the said <\/p>\n
        amount   within   three   months.     In   the   event   of   default,   the <\/p>\n
        plaintiff   would   be   entitled   to   the   relief   of   specific <\/p>\n
        performance.     The   Defendant   Nos.   1,   2   and   4   to   7   shall <\/p>\n
        execute sale deed of their share to the extent of 9\/11 area in <\/p>\n
        the   suit   property   by   making   convenient   division   of   the <\/p>\n
        property.  Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.”    <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
11)  The statement made by the counsel before the High Court, <\/p>\n
as   recorded   in   the   impugned   judgment   and   order,   cannot   be <\/p>\n
                                                                                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
challenged before this Court.[vide:  State of Maharashtra  vs. <\/p>\n
Ramdas   Shrinivas   Nayak   &   Anr.<\/a>  (1982)   2   SCC   463, <\/p>\n
Shankar   K.   Mandal   &   Ors.  vs.  State   of   Bihar   &   Ors.\n<\/p>\n
(2003) 9 SCC 519, Roop Kumar vs. Mohan Thedani<\/a> (2003) 6 <\/p>\n
SCC   595,  Guruvayoor   Devaswom   Managing   Committee   &  <\/p>\n
Anr. vs. C.K. Rajan & Ors.<\/a> (2003) 7 SCC 546]<\/p>\n
12)     It   is   also   clear   that   the   High   Court   has   recorded   in   the <\/p>\n
impugned judgment dated 03.03.2009 that the counsel agreed <\/p>\n
with   instructions  from   the   plaintiff   and  reiterated  this  fact  in <\/p>\n
its order dated 28.08.2009 in Misc. Civil No. 13474 of 2009 in <\/p>\n
the   above-mentioned   RFA   while   rejecting   the   plea   of   the <\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   appellant   herein   that  he  did  not  give   consent <\/p>\n
that   he   had   no   instructions   from   his   clients     A   concession <\/p>\n
made   by   a   counsel   on   a   question   of   fact   is   binding   on   the <\/p>\n
client, but if it is on a question of law, it is not binding. [vide:\n<\/p>\n
Nedunuri Kameswaramma  vs  Sampati Subba Rao & Anr.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
(1963)   2   SCR   208,   225,  B.S.   Bajwa   &   Anr.   vs.   State   of  <\/p>\n
Punjab & Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 523, 525-526]<\/p>\n
                                                                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
13)     As   stated   earlier   and   the   reading   of   the   impugned <\/p>\n
judgment and order of the High Court, more particularly, para <\/p>\n
7,   which   is   concluding   paragraph,   clearly   show   that   it   is   a <\/p>\n
consent   order.     As   per   Section   96   (3)   of   the   Civil   Procedure <\/p>\n
Code,   no   appeal   lies   from   a   decree   passed   by   the   court   with <\/p>\n
the consent of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
14)   For all these reasons, more particularly, the statement of <\/p>\n
fact as noted in para 7 of the impugned judgment and order of <\/p>\n
the High Court, under Article 136, generally this Court will not <\/p>\n
interfere   with   the   order   of   the   High   Court   which   has   done <\/p>\n
substantial justice.\n<\/p>\n
15)     Since   this   Court   has   stayed   the   impugned   order   of   the <\/p>\n
High Court while ordering of notice on 08.07.2010, Defendant <\/p>\n
No. 3 is granted 3 months’ time from today to pay the amount <\/p>\n
as noted in para 7 of the impugned judgment and in the event <\/p>\n
of   default,   the   directions   of  the   High   Court   in   the   same   para <\/p>\n
are to be applied and implemented.  Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 to <\/p>\n
7 are directed to return the sum of Rs.1,53,000\/- which they <\/p>\n
have   received   towards   sale   consideration   with   interest   at   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
rate of 9 per cent from the date of payment within a period of <\/p>\n
eight weeks from today to the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
16)    Accordingly, the appeals fail and the same are dismissed <\/p>\n
with the above direction.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                        ………………………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                        (P. SATHASIVAM)                                 <\/p>\n
                                       ………………………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                       (H.L. GOKHALE) <\/p>\n
NEW DELHI;\n<\/p>\n
MAY 11, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                            1<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, H.L. Gokhale REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4279-4280 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 16595-16596 of 2010 Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet …. Appellant(s) […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nVimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011 - 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\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-04T10:34:04+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\\\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-04T10:34:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1718,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-04T10:34:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011 - 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\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-04T10:34:04+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\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-04T10:34:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011"},"wordCount":1718,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011","name":"Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-04T10:34:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vimleshwar-nagappa-shet-vs-noor-ahmad-sheriff-and-ors-on-11-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vimleshwar Nagappa Shet vs Noor Ahmad Sheriff And Ors on 11 May, 2011"}]},{"@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\/190640","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=190640"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190640\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}