{"id":19560,"date":"1983-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983"},"modified":"2016-04-01T20:39:59","modified_gmt":"2016-04-01T15:09:59","slug":"mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983","title":{"rendered":"Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 38, \t\t 1984 SCR (1) 211<\/div>\n
Author: A Sen<\/div>\n
Bench: Sen, A.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMOHD. YUNUS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOHD. MUSTAQIM & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT04\/10\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR   38\t\t  1984 SCR  (1) 211\n 1983 SCC  (4) 566\t  1983 SCALE  (2)1013\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution of  India 1950:  Petition under O.XXI r.92\ndismissed-Petitioner, if  could file  a petition  under Art.\n227 of the Constitution.\n     Code of  Civil Procedure:\tPetition under\tO.XXI,\tr.92\ndismissed-Appeal not  preferred-If  could  move\t High  Court\nunder Article 227.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     On the  failure of\t the judgment-debtor  to satisfy the\ndecree passed  against him  the property in dispute was sold\nin execution  of the  decree. The surety made an application\nunder  section\t 151  Code   of\t Civil\t Procedure,  without\nmentioning the\torder under  which the application was made.\nThe Subordinate\t Judge treated\tthe application as one under\norder XXI,  r.89. The  surety in that application prayed for\ntime to\t deposit the  amount but failed to make the deposit.\nIn the\tmeantime, he  died. A  total stranger  to his estate\npurporting to  be his  grand-nephew made  an application for\nsubstitution claiming that he was the surety's successor-in-\ninterest and that before his death the surety had executed a\nwill in\t his favour.  On the same day the decree-holder made\nan application\tstating that  the surety had made payment of\nthe decretal amount before the sale was held and prayed that\nfull satisfaction  of the decree be recorded. The respondent\nwho was\t the auction-purchaser, contested the genuineness of\nthe will and stated that the alleged adjustment could not in\nany event  affect his  right or\t title to  the\tproperty  in\ndispute as  auction-purchaser. The Subordinate Judge refused\nsubstitution  of   the\tpetitioner.  Some  time\t later,\t the\npetitioner moved  another application  under section  151 of\nthe Code  of Civil  Procedure, for setting aside the sale on\nthe ground  of material\t irregularity in conducting the sale\nbut that application was rejected by the Subordinate Judge.\n     The petitioner  thereupon moved  the High\tCourt  under\nArt. 227  of the  Constitution\tcontending  that  fraud\t was\nperpetrated by the decree-holder in bringing the property in\ndispute to  sale although there was full satisfaction of the\ndecree by  the surety  before  his  death.  The\t High  Court\ndeclined to  interfere\twith  the  impugned  orders  of\t the\nSubordinate Judge on various grounds.\n     On\t the   question\t whether   it  was  proper  for\t the\npetitioner to  have moved  a petition  under Art. 227 of the\nConstitution.\n     Dismissing the petition\n212\n     HELD:  The\t  petition  under   Art.  227\twas   wholly\nmisconceived. The  supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the\nHigh Courts  under Art.\t 227 of\t the Constitution is limited\n\"to seeing  that an  inferior Court  or\t Tribunal  functions\nwithin the  limits of  its authority\", and not to correct an\nerror apparent on the face of the record, much less an error\nof law.\t In the\t instant case,\tthere was no error of law or\nerror apparent\ton the\tface of\t record. From an order under\nO.XXI, r.92  an appeal lay to the District Judge. That apart\nthe petitioner's  application raised  a question relating to\nexecution which\t fell within  the purview of section 47 Code\nof Civil  Procedure which  prior to  February  1,  1977\t was\nappealable because  then a  decision under  section  47\t was\ndeemed to  be a\t decree under  section\t2(2)  of  the  Code.\nTherefore, the\tpetitioner had\tthe remedy  of appeal to the\nDistrict Judge:\t Even if  no appeal lay against the impugned\norders of  the Subordinate  Judge, the\tpetitioner  had\t the\nremedy of  filing a  revision before  the High\tCourt  under\nsection 115  of the  Code. Upon\t any view  of the matter the\nHigh Court  under  Art.\t 227  of  the  Constitution  had  no\njurisdiction to interfere with the impugned orders passed by\nthe  Subordinate   Judge.  A  mere  wrong  decision  without\nanything more  is not  enough to attract the jurisdiction of\nthe High  Court under Article 227.[215 E: 216B-C; 215F-H;216\nA]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition
\nNo.9148 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  the 3rd September,
\n1980 of the High Court of Delhi in C.M. (N). No. 49 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
     Prithvi Raj and Chaman Lal Itorora for the Petitioner.
\n     I.D. Garg and K.B. Rohtagi for the Respondents.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     SEN,J: This special leave petition directed against the
\njudgment and  order of\tthe Delhi High Court dated September
\n3, 1980\t must fail  as the  decision of\t the High  Court  on
\nmerits is  unassailable. But in view of the growing tendency
\nof litigants of by-passing the normal remedy of an appeal or
\nrevision by  moving the High Court with petitions under Art.
\n227 of\tthe Constitution,  we deem  it necessary to give the
\nreasons therefor.\n<\/p>\n
     It appears\t that the  property belonging  to the surety
\nMohd. Salam  comprised of  a house  situate at\tKatra Sheikh
\nChand, Lal  Kuan, Delhi\t was sold  by the Subordinate Judge,
\nDelhi in  execution of an ex parte decree in favour of Mohd.
\nMustaqim due  to the  failure of  the judgment-debtor  Hakim
\nMazhar-ud-Din to satisfy the decree on May 24, 1972. On June
\n9, 1972 the surety made an
\n213<\/span>
\napplication under  s. 151  of the  Code of  Civil Procedure,
\n1908 without  specifying whether  it was  under O.XXI,r.  90
\nThe learned  Subordinate Judge\tby his\torder dated June 10,
\n1972 treated  the application  to be  under O.XXI, r. 89 and
\nthe surety  opted to elect it as such and prayed for time to
\ndeposit the  solatium equal  to 5% of the purchase money for
\npayment to  the auction-purchaser  Chuni Lal,  but failed to
\nmake such  deposit the\ttill death  on July  22, 1972. At no
\nstage of  the proceedings  did the  surety assert  that\t the
\ndecree had  been satisfied  out of Court, nor did he make an
\napplication  under   O.XXI,  r.\t  2  for   certification  of
\nadjustment. He\tdied leaving  behind him  a son\t named Mohd.
\nKarim and  a daughter named Mst. Rabia Khatoon, both of whom
\nwere apparently\t settled in  Pakistan, After  his death,  on
\nAugust 11,  1972, the  petitioner who is a total stranger to
\nthe estate  of\tthe  deceased-surety,  made  an\t application
\nstating\t that\this  name  be  substituted  as\the  was\t the
\ngrandnephew of\tthe surety  and also his heir and successor-
\nin-interest under  an alleged will executed by the surety on
\nJuly 20,  1972 i.e.  two days  before his death. On the same
\nday, there  was an  application moved  by the  decree-holder
\nstating that  the surety  had already  made payment  of\t the
\ndecretal amount and costs to him before the sale was held on
\nMay 24, 1972 and that full satisfaction of the decree may be
\nrecorded. The  respondent,  who\t is  the  auction-purchaser,
\ncontested the claim of the petitioner and pleaded inter alia
\nthat the genuineness of the alleged will is open to question
\napart from  its validity  as it was affected by the doctrine
\nof  marz-ul  maut  and\tthat,  in  any\tevent,\tthe  alleged
\nadjustment could  not affect  his  right  or  title  to\t the
\nproperty in dispute as an auction-purchaser.\n<\/p>\n
     The  learned  Subordinate\tJudge  by  his\torder  dated
\nNovember 23,  1972  held  that\tthere  was  no\tquestion  of
\nallowing the  substitution of  the name of the petitioner by
\nthe Court  under its  inherent powers.\tOn December 15, 1972
\nthe petitioner\tmoved another application under s.151 of the
\nCode for setting aside the sale on the ground that there was
\nmaterial irregularity  in publishing and conducting the same
\nand also  to record satisfaction of the decree and set aside
\nthe sale.  That application  of his  was disallowed  by\t the
\nlearned Subordinate  Judge by  his order  dated November  9,
\n1973 on the ground that his earlier order dated November 23,
\n1972  holding  that  the  application  made  by\t the  surety
\npurporting to  be under\t O.XXI, r.89 stood disposed of as he
\ndid not\t comply with  the requirements\tof r.89, operated as
\nres judicata,  and no question of invocation of the inherent
\npowers of the Court arose and further that the
\n214<\/span>
\napplication made by the petitioner treated as an application
\nunder O.XXI,  r.89 was\tbarred by limitation as it was filed
\nbeyond the  period of  30 days\tprescribed by Art.127 of the
\nFirst Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.\n<\/p>\n
     Dissatisfied with\tthe impugned  orders passed  by\t the
\nlearned Subordinate  Judge, the\t petitioner moved  the\tHigh
\nCourt under  Art. 227  of the  Constitution. The  contention
\nbefore the  High Court\twas that there was fraud perpetrated
\nby the\tdecree-holder in bringing the property in dispute to
\nsale although  there was  full satisfaction of the decree by
\nthe surety  before his\tdeath. The  High  Court\t instead  of
\ndismissing in  limine the  petition  under  Art.227  of\t the
\nConstitution as not maintainable, declined to interfere with
\nthe impugned orders of the learned Subordinate Judge because
\nit was satisfied that the application made by the petitioner
\nconstrued as  an application  made under  O.XXI, r.89 to set
\naside  the   sale  was\tbarred\tboth  by  the  principle  of
\nconstructive res judicata and also by limitation inasmuch as
\nit was\tgoverned by  Art.127 of\t the First  Schedule to\t the
\nLimitation Act, 1963,
\n     We fail  to see  the propriety of the petition moved by
\nthe petitioner\tin the\tHigh  Court  under  Art.227  of\t the
\nConstitution. The rule is well-established that there can be
\nno certification  of an adjustment between the decree-holder
\nand the\t judgment-debtor under\tO.XXI, r.2 after an auction-
\nsale is\t held in  a case  where\t a  third  party’s  interest
\nintervenes. In such a case, the Court has no alternative but
\nto confirm  the sale  under O.XXI,  r.92  of  the  Code.  In
\nNanhelal &  Anr. v.  Umrao Singh,  the Judicial Committee of
\nthe Privy  Council in  dealing with  o.XXI, r.2\t of the Code
\nheld that  an adjustment  between the  decree-holder and the
\njudgment-debtor come  to at any time before the confirmation
\nof an  execution sale  cannot nullify  the decree  by taking
\naway the very foundation of the Court’s power to execute the
\ndecree viz.  the existence of a decree capable of execution.
\nIn dealing with the question, the Privy Council observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “In the first place, 0.21, R.2, which provides for
\n     certification of  an adjustment  come to  out of Court,
\n     clearly  contemplates   a\tstage\tin   the   execution
\n     proceedings when  the  matter  lies  only\tbetween\t the
\n     judgment-debtor
\n215<\/span>
\n     and the decree-holder, and when no other interests have
\n     come into\tbeing. When once a sale has been effected, a
\n     third party’s interest intervenes, and there is nothing
\n     in this  rule to  suggest that it is to be disregarded.
\n     The only means by which the judgment-debtor can get rid
\n     of a  sale, which\thas been duly carried out, are these
\n     embodied in  R.89, viz,  by  depositing  in  Court\t the
\n     amount for the recovery of which the property was sold,
\n     together with  5 per  cent on  the purchase money which
\n     goes to  the purchaser  as statutory  compensation, and
\n     this remedy  can only  be pursued within 30 days of the
\n     sale: see Art. 166, Sch.1, Lim. Act, 1908.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Privy Council further observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “That this  is so  is clear  from tho\t wording  of
\n     R.92, which  provides that\t in such  a case (i.e. where
\n     the sale  has been duly carried out), if no application
\n     is made  under R.89,  the Court  shall  make  an  order
\n     confirming the sale and thereupon the sale shall become
\n     absolute.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The petition  under Art.227  of  the  Constitution\t was
\nwholly misconceived.  An appeal\t lay  from  an\torder  under
\nO.XXI, r.  92 setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale,
\nunder O.XLIII,\tr. 1  (j) to the District Judge. That apart,
\nthe application\t made by  the petitioner  claiming to be the
\nlegal representative  of the  surety, the  judgment-debtor’s
\nrepresentative, on  the one  hand and the auction-purchaser,
\nthe decree-holder’s  representative, on\t the other  alleging
\nthat there had been a fraud perpetrated by the decree-holder
\nin causing  the sale to be held, with a prayer for recording
\nsatisfaction  of   the\tdecree\tunder  O,XXI,r.2,  raised  a
\nquestion   relating   to   the\t execution,   discharge\t  or
\nsatisfaction of\t the decree  and therefore  fell within\t the
\npurview\t of  s.\t 47  which  prior  to  February\t 1,1977\t was
\nappealable because then a decision under s. 47 was deemed to
\nbe a  decree under  s. 2(2)  of the  Code, and therefore the
\npetitioner had\tthe remedy  of an  appeal  to  the  District
\nJudge. Even  if no appeal lay against the impugned orders of
\nthe learned subordinate Judge, the petitioner had the remedy
\nof filing  a revision  before the  High Court under s.115 of
\nthe Code. Upon any view of the matter, the High Court had no
\njurisdiction to interfere with the impugned orders passed by
\nthe  learned  Subordinate  Judge,  under  Art.\t227  of\t the
\nConstitution. A mere wrong decision without anything
\n216<\/span>
\nmore is\t not enough  to attract the jurisdiction of the High
\nCourt under Art. 227.\n<\/p>\n
     The supervisory  jurisdiction  conferred  on  the\tHigh
\nCourts udder  Art. 227\tof the\tConstitution is\t limited “to
\nseeing that  an inferior  Court or Tribunal functions within
\nthe limits  of its  authority”, and  not to correct an error
\napparent on  the face  of the  record, much less an error of
\nlaw. In this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law
\nmuch less an error apparent on the face of the record. There
\nwas no\tfailure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge
\nto exercise  jurisdiction nor  did he  act in  disregard  of
\nprinciples of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted
\nby him\tnot in\tconsonance with the procedure established by
\nlaw. In\t exercising the supervisory power under Art.227, the
\nHigh Court  does not  act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal.
\nIt will\t not review  or re-weigh the evidence upon which the
\ndetermination of  the inferior court or tribunal purports to
\nbe based or to correct errors of law in the decision.\n<\/p>\n
     The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t Petition dismissed.\n217<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 38, 1984 SCR (1) 211 Author: A Sen Bench: Sen, A.P. (J) PETITIONER: MOHD. YUNUS Vs. RESPONDENT: MOHD. MUSTAQIM & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04\/10\/1983 BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) CITATION: […]<\/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-19560","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983 - 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\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983\" \/>\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=\"1983-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-01T15:09:59+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-01T15:09:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983\"},\"wordCount\":1638,\"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\\\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983\",\"name\":\"Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-01T15:09:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983 - 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\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-01T15:09:59+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983","datePublished":"1983-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-01T15:09:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983"},"wordCount":1638,"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\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983","name":"Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-01T15:09:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-yunus-vs-mohd-mustaqim-ors-on-4-october-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd. Yunus vs Mohd. Mustaqim & Ors on 4 October, 1983"}]},{"@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\/19560","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=19560"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19560\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}