{"id":227504,"date":"2008-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-26T13:49:02","modified_gmt":"2018-06-26T08:19:02","slug":"s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"S Yakoob S\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development … on 24 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
S Yakoob S\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development … on 24 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Pachhapure<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH coma? OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALoR\u00a7\nnawzn THIS THE 24*\" nay 0? SEPTEMBER, 2003 , ,\nBEFORE: L3\n\nTRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACH\ufb02A\u00a7$REa:.A\n\nREGULAR FIRST APPEAL N&.92 Q: ggg;f[1%*a'\"a\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nS.Yakoob,\n\nS\/o. S.A.Samad,\n\nAged about m years, .; ~~\u00ab\n\nH.L. No.1681\/1481\/2, _m-_-.'\n\nKacharakanahalli, \u00ab_ 1 V .;._ .a, .\n\nKasaba Hobli; 5 }uV .3'3_V  A.\"  \"\"\n\nBangalore North raxuk; , _v_' '\ufb01 _f\nBangalore--560_O34; \"*4 VjA \"V } ... APPELLANT\/S\n\n[By Srif B:V;\u00a7ama%$6oft\ufb01\u00a7, A$\u00a7; {absent}\n\nAND:\n\n1. The Bangalare_D\u00e9\ufb01elapment Authority,\n.-A sankey_Ro4\u00a2. '*~ ..... ~-\n\nVV \"Bangal\u00a2te,~_\n*_\u00bbRap,Vby'1tsVCha1rman.\n\n2. Th\u00e9 Assistant Executive Engineer,\nNogz, North\u00a2Sub-Division,\n_ B.D{A.;fR;?. Nagar,\nu_4V_B.D.A; Shopping Complex,\n'~ wVR9Qm Nb:57, I Floor,\n\u00bbaBanga1ore-560 G32. ... RESPONBENT\/S\n\n\u00b05f;_ fay sgi. U. Abdul Khader, Adv.)\n\niii\n\nThis REA is flied u\/Sec. 96 of CPC against the\n\nVsV;Judgment and Decree dated 30.10.2000 passed in O.S.\n\nNo.4929\/95 on the file of the XVI Addl. City Civil\n\n\n\n2 REA No.92f01\n\nJudge, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for permanent\ninjunction. .'V\n\nThis REA coming on for Final Hearing, this d\u00e9y\nthe Court delivered the following: 1 \"\u00bbf;\"l:\"\nJUDGEMENT\n<\/pre>\n
The appellant has challenged the J\ufb01egment ans}<\/p>\n
Decree in o.s. No.4929\/1995;_disnissing his suit for “a<\/p>\n
grant of permanent injunctionkll<\/p>\n
2. The facts reletant for the purpose of this
\nappeal are as under: ew~i”vV H l f<\/p>\n
I will ‘be feferringJ thefloarties as per the
\nranking hefore the Trial Conrt for the purpose of<\/p>\n
convenience;L~<\/p>\n
s\ufb01e E\ufb01laintiff-minstituted the suit seeking a<\/p>\n
decrees for “permanent injunction restraining the<\/p>\n
V defenoants; their officials or anybody from acting<\/p>\n
or perfor\ufb01ing through or under them in any capacity<\/p>\n
_f*whatsoever3 and from interfering, obstructing or<\/p>\n
cemelishing the suit schedule property, which is a<\/p>\n
toarcel of the land with construction standing<\/p>\n
ffF “thereon in the portion of H.L. No.1681\/1481\/2<\/p>\n
formerly the portion of Sy. Nos.210 and 224 of<\/p>\n
Mr<\/p>\n
3 RFA No.92\/O1<\/span><\/p>\n
Kacharakanahalli village 3J1 Bangalore North Taluk,
\nnow called as H.B.R.Layout I Stage, Bangalore, with
\nthe boundaries mentioned in the schedule “to “gas<\/p>\n
plaint.\n<\/p>\n
It is the case of the plaintiff that he 13 the?
\nabsolute owner and in possession of the lsmo\u00a7\u00a7s1s”\u00bb
\nproperty described above and that he purchased the
\nsaid Property” under va\u00bb_re9ister\u00a2ddz$aleil\ufb01eed dated
\n23.12.1992. The suiit\ufb02i was the
\nportion of Sy. Nos,21\u00a7 and 3?; Q\ufb01i\ufb01acharakanahalli<\/p>\n
village and ~5e_5$isim\u00a7w that ihe_\u00bbis the bonafide<\/p>\n
purchaser of the sui\ufb01.\u00a7\u00a7pedu1e property for valuable
\nconsideration without notice of any transaction. It<\/p>\n
is his _claie” that =n\u00e9.}i\u00e9 in lawful possession and<\/p>\n
Jenjoymeht\u00a2of,the suit schedule property peacefully<\/p>\n
aud.uninterrsptedly and surprisingly he noticed that<\/p>\n
ii, _the defendants attempted to demolish the structure<\/p>\n
lt_ over the. Suit schedule property on 22.07.1995 at<\/p>\n
rlaheut’4,30Np.m. without any notice and he managed to<\/p>\n
lki preueuti the illegal act of the defendants from<\/p>\n
demolishing structure over the suit schedule<\/p>\n
4i,3\ufb01roperty. He also claimed that the act of the<\/p>\n
defendants is illegal and without any reason. He<\/p>\n
wk<\/p>\n
5 RFA No.92\/01<\/span><\/p>\n
which the suit schedule property is situated were<\/p>\n
acquired by the defendants for formation of I{ee_n’t\u00a7t<\/p>\n
Bellary Road Layout I Stage by issuing a <\/p>\n
notification bearing No. HCPR\/ALAO\/’
\ndated 27.05.1978 and the sais”m\u00a7\u00a7t;f:catt\u00a7n_,Qe\u00a7l\u00a7
\npublished in Karnataka Gazette on \u00e9a.o7.i978;’~ s\ufb01el
\nFinal Notification HUD\/567\/Hs\u00a7=.84″ wgswisseed’ on
\n09.01.1985 and was pablishea’ is Rghe tGa2ette on
\n14.03.1985. The plaintiff was net 59188 notified as
\nthe kathedar an}:if:o’s_e iilevaru [Imam]
\nbeing notified as egg \ufb01gthedet sits regard to Sy.
\nNo.210 to an tgt\u00e9et_\u00a7: 5 sates 24 guntas and the
\npossession, of  was taken on 19.06.1987<\/p>\n
as per the i\ufb01aha?.ai*._   the claim that the land<\/p>\n
was hesl\u00e9tied. over-.._VV:to the Engineering Section on<\/p>\n
 t>.y.jthve Revenue Inspector and a mahazar to<\/p>\n
that . re_s\u00a75ect* .,i svv.i’Vdr’swn .<\/p>\n
So’ fax; es Sy. No.224, measuring 4 acres 38<\/p>\n
..g8ntas.;cguire8 under the Preliminary Notificatien<\/p>\n
\u00b0.%N5.8e98}ALA0\/11\/808\/78-79. dated 27.06.1978<\/p>\n
psblished in the Karnataka Gazette on 28.07.1978 and<\/p>\n
“w.the Final Notification No.HUD 557 MNX 84, dated<\/p>\n
09.01.1985 was published in the Karnataka Gazette on<\/p>\n
94,<\/p>\n
_snit..\u00ab\ufb02 ”\n<\/p>\n
6 RFA No.92\/01<\/span><\/p>\n
14.03.1985. Even in respect of this property, the
\nplaintiff _was not notified as the kathedar_ and<\/p>\n
therefore, it is claimed by the defendants that the<\/p>\n
Plaintiff has no right, title or interest_whateoeverqW<\/p>\n
over the suit schedule property’ mihe pbss\u00e9gsian of ‘<\/p>\n
Sy. No.224 was taken by the \u00a7defendentshhfrdme<\/p>\n
18.03.1986 under the mahazar end \ufb01es handed eye: to ih<\/p>\n
the Engineering Section. on i6{03,19\u00e96-piteelf. In
\nthe circumstances, the defendenteuoieimed that the
\nplaintiff has no persoVnel.__i.n’tebre’st'”\u00bb$3;f1\u00a7i” during the<\/p>\n
course of acquisition proceedin\u00a7e,_A$erd was passed<\/p>\n
on 09.0e.,;’1’9e’?1t’gin’:iigresgect ‘ ‘ofw-“isy. No.210 and on
\n11.03.1985 psy. No.22-4. on these
\ngrounds, the defendents nought for dismissal of the
\n~ #03 the besis of the pleadings, the Trial Court<\/p>\n
framed as mnny’ee 5 issues casting the burden on the<\/p>\n
Vplaintiff7: to prove his lawful possession,<\/p>\n
Hfhinterference, as to the maintainability of the suit<\/p>\n
\ufb01nder -dection 64 of the B.D.A. Act and the<\/p>\n
\ufb02juriediction of the Civil Courts in addition to<\/p>\n
iftf”relief for which the plaintiff is entitled to. The<\/p>\n
Trial Court heard on issue Nos.3 and 4 and under the<\/p>\n
3\/\\<\/p>\n
8 REA No. 92\/01<\/span><\/p>\n
6. As could be seen from the contentions<\/p>\n
raised by the appellant in the appeal meme; gthe<\/p>\n
appellant contends that Section 64 of the E:D.ng Act .<\/p>\n
has no bar for institution ofm the.”sui\u00a3e’end\ufb01Vah'”<\/p>\n
application came to be filed  di$3pene’e..’<\/p>\n
notice and in the circumstances, he aubmite that at_i;<\/p>\n
the most the Trial Court oueht to have returned the
\nplaint for preeentationt aftefiiga\ufb01plyineiieith the
\nstatutory notice as prouiaee under \u00e9eetion 64(1) of
\nthe B.D.A. Act;” further; it ie hie eentention that
\nthere is no  9 of C.P.C’.\n<\/p>\n
and that ‘t\u00a7#\ufb01}\ufb01tiai*:c\u00a7\u00a7ft\ufb01 cdnitted an error in
\ndismissing the e\ufb01it selely on the ground that the<\/p>\n
suit was forainjunctioni7 It is also his contention<\/p>\n
,that vthe iTriali Court. ought to have permitted the<\/p>\n
parties to lead evidence and in the absence of the<\/p>\n
said permiaeion; the Judgment and Dcree is illegal.<\/p>\n
vihe appellant; has put up the ground that he has<\/p>\n
uihhpurchaeed’*the property under the Registered Sale<\/p>\n
‘Deed executed by the vendor in the year 1992 and<\/p>\n
\ufb02that the suit for injunction is maintainable in law.<\/p>\n
iA”ln the circumstances, he has sought for setting<\/p>\n
aside the Judgment and Decree. E\u00a2i:\n<\/p>\n
10 REA No.92\/01<\/span><\/p>\n
by virtue of sale made in his favour viz., right,<\/p>\n
title and interest of the predecessor had but; he<\/p>\n
cannot be said to be the owner since the right o\ufb01bs<\/p>\n
ownership would be determined with referenoe to thed<\/p>\n
date on sdhich. Notification under’ Sections 4(:;\u00bb_Q\u00e9gdf<\/p>\n
published. Relying upon rathis\ufb01dodecision}: ‘the’<\/p>\n
contention of the learnedih counsel*t7fo\u00a7 W the<\/p>\n
respondents is that vthef suit ditself his not<\/p>\n
maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
8. I hate sorutiniaed the oleadings and also
\nthe documents_ stga\ufb01eea 35% “the; oarties. It is
\nrelevant to note thatin ears 5 of the plaint, it is
\nthe speciiio” \u00e9ong\u00e9stisnofsf” the plaintiff that he<\/p>\n
purchased. the _suit* oro\ufb01erty through a registered<\/p>\n
fsale Reed dated 23.i2J1992 and as could be seen from<\/p>\n
the “contentions *raised by the respondents in the<\/p>\n
“t~,_written” statement filed, the property in question<\/p>\n
v\u00b0~..__situate’ Sy. No.21O was acquired by Preliminary<\/p>\n
‘v Notification dated 27.06.1978 and the Final<\/p>\n
 rsatigiaation was issued on 09.01.1985, so also in<\/p>\n
‘res\ufb01ect of Sy. No.224, the preliminary notification<\/p>\n
 \ufb01es issued on 2?.06.1978 and the Final Notification<\/p>\n
was issued on 09.01.1985. Both these notifications<\/p>\n
gr)’<\/p>\n
12 REA No.92\/01<\/span><\/p>\n
the plaint the grounds for grant of urgent relief by<\/p>\n
dispensing with the notice under Section 64 of the<\/p>\n
said Act. In the absence of the said gst1\u00a2\u00a7;;\u00a2Eef~
\nsuit itself is not maintainabie.__ It his tfurtheruh
\nrelevant to note that the land:fin’ question? was:<\/p>\n
acquired by the Government hbf V issuing_Vithe.i*<\/p>\n
Notification and an Award has else heen passed and
\nthe possession was taheni in the circumstances, the
\nsuit for injunction alone is not mainteinable. So,
\ntaking into consideratieneialiw these grounds, the
\nTrial Court hn\u00a7\u00a7= \u00a7}epe\u00a71\u00a7\u00e9 appreciated the material
\nplaced before it and has’cone to a right conclusion
\nin dismissing the snit es the appellant. I do not<\/p>\n
find any greund to warrant the interference. In the<\/p>\n
,circumstances, E -enswer point Nos.1 and 2 in<\/p>\n
Vnegative.and*proceed to pass the following:<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
hi\ufb01\ufb02i The appeal is dismissed. No Order as to costs.<\/p>\n
sa\/-ea
\nJudge<\/p>\n
hx Ksm*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court S Yakoob S\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development … on 24 September, 2008 Author: A.S.Pachhapure IN THE HIGH coma? OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALoR\u00a7 nawzn THIS THE 24*” nay 0? SEPTEMBER, 2003 , , BEFORE: L3 TRE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACH\ufb02A\u00a7$REa:.A REGULAR FIRST APPEAL N&.92 Q: ggg;f[1%*a'”a BETWEEN: S.Yakoob, S\/o. […]<\/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-227504","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS Yakoob S\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development ... on 24 September, 2008 - 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\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S Yakoob S\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development ... on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-26T08:19:02+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\\\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S Yakoob S\\\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development … on 24 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-26T08:19:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1274,\"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\\\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008\",\"name\":\"S Yakoob S\\\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development ... on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-26T08:19:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S Yakoob S\\\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development … on 24 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"S Yakoob S\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development ... on 24 September, 2008 - 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\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S Yakoob S\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development ... on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-26T08:19:02+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\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S Yakoob S\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development … on 24 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-26T08:19:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008"},"wordCount":1274,"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\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008","name":"S Yakoob S\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development ... on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-26T08:19:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-yakoob-so-s-a-samad-vs-the-bangalore-development-on-24-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S Yakoob S\/O S A Samad vs The Bangalore Development … on 24 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/227504","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=227504"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227504\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}