{"id":229553,"date":"2009-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-25T17:38:41","modified_gmt":"2017-02-25T12:08:41","slug":"kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam … vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam … vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nFAO.No. 46 of 2007()\n\n\n1. KUNNATHU KARA HIDAYATHUL ANAM SANGAM,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. K.M.POKER HAJI, S\/O.AHAMMED KUTTY,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.KUNHABDULLA HAJI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.B.KRISHNAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :19\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                 M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n\n              -------------------------------------------------\n\n                       F.A.O. No. 46 OF 2007\n\n             --------------------------------------------------\n\n            Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009\n\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
            Defendants in O.S.9 of 2003 on the file of Munsiff<\/p>\n
Court, Payyoli are the appellants. Respondent is the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Respondent instituted the suit seeking a decree (a) declaring<\/p>\n
that the letter dated 24.6.2002 (Ext.X1) is not signed by him, and<\/p>\n
(2) for a consequential injunction restraining second appellant<\/p>\n
from claiming any right to the post of manager of Kunnathukara<\/p>\n
M.L.P. School on the strength of the said letter. Respondent<\/p>\n
instituted the suit contending that he was the founder President<\/p>\n
and a member of the first appellant Society and in his capacity as<\/p>\n
founder President, he had purchased the school and the land<\/p>\n
where the aided school is functioning and the Education<\/p>\n
department had recognised the respondent as the manager of<\/p>\n
the school and in 1983 he relinquished the post of the President<\/p>\n
of the first appellant Society, but continued as manager and later<\/p>\n
he got information that the second appellant produced Ext.X1<\/p>\n
letter purportedly issued and signed by the respondent before<\/p>\n
F.A.O.46\/07
\n                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
Assistant Educational Officer, Vadakara whereby it was informed<\/p>\n
that respondent had relinquished the post of the President and<\/p>\n
manager in favour of the second appellant. It is contended that<\/p>\n
that letter is a forged and fabricated document and was not<\/p>\n
executed by him and therefore he is entitled to a declaration and<\/p>\n
injunction sought for.\n<\/p>\n
       2.   Appellants in the written statement contended that<\/p>\n
second     appellant  was   appointed     as  the   manager    of<\/p>\n
Kunnathukara M.L.P. School by the first appellant and as per<\/p>\n
proceedings dated 26.10.2002 his appointment was duly<\/p>\n
approved by the Assistant Educational Officer, Vadakara and<\/p>\n
with effect from 1.2.2002 second appellant is functioning as the<\/p>\n
manager and respondent ceased to be manager with effect from<\/p>\n
1.2.2002. It was also contended that remedy of the respondent<\/p>\n
is to file an appeal against the order of Assistant Educational<\/p>\n
Officer approving change in the managership and in any case<\/p>\n
Ext.X1 letter was voluntarily signed and issued by the<\/p>\n
respondent and is not a forged or fabricated document and<\/p>\n
therefore respondent is not entitled to the decree sought for.<\/p>\n
F.A.O.46\/07
\n                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
       3.    Learned Munsiff on the evidence of PW1, DW1 and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B3 and X1 dismissed the suit holding<\/p>\n
that respondent did not establish that Ext.X1 letter is a forged or<\/p>\n
fabricated document.        Respondent challenged the judgment<\/p>\n
before Additional District Court, Vadakara in A.S.33 of 2004.<\/p>\n
Learned Additional District Judge finding that respondent has<\/p>\n
not sought proper relief as he should have sought a declaration<\/p>\n
that he is the manager of the school, held that a suit as provided<\/p>\n
under section 34 of Specific Relief Act should have been framed.<\/p>\n
It was also found that the burden is on the respondent to<\/p>\n
establish that Ext.X1 letter is a forged one and he should have<\/p>\n
got Ext.X1 letter compared by an expert with the admitted<\/p>\n
signatures and therefore set aside the judgment and remanded<\/p>\n
the suit to the trial court. The said judgment is challenged in the<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       4.    The appeal was admitted formulating the following<\/p>\n
substantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n
           Whether the first Appellate Court was justified in<\/p>\n
           remanding    the  appeal    invoking  the   power<\/p>\n
           provided under Rule 23A of Order XLI of Code of<\/p>\n
F.A.O.46\/07
\n                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
           Civil Procedure without deciding the appeal on<\/p>\n
           merits on the evidence on record ?\n<\/p>\n
       5.    Learned counsel appearing for appellants and<\/p>\n
respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
       6.    The suit as framed is for a declaration that Ext.X1<\/p>\n
letter purportedly signed and issued by the respondent to the<\/p>\n
Assistant Educational Officer, Vadakara, which was admittedly<\/p>\n
acted upon by the Assistant Educational Officer, was not signed<\/p>\n
or sent by the respondent. A consequential relief of injunction<\/p>\n
restraining second appellant, whose appointment as the manager<\/p>\n
of the school was approved by the Assistant Educational Officer<\/p>\n
pursuant to Ext.X1 letter was also sought. The injunction sought<\/p>\n
for is to restrain second appellant from claiming any right to the<\/p>\n
post of the manger on the strength of Ext.X1 letter. Learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff on the evidence found that respondent did not succeed<\/p>\n
in establishing that Ext.X1 letter was not signed and issued by<\/p>\n
the respondent and dismissed the suit.       That judgment was<\/p>\n
challenged in the first appeal before Additional District Court,<\/p>\n
Vadakara. Learned Additional District Judge did not consider<\/p>\n
the evidence but found that the finding of the learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
F.A.O.46\/07
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
that Ext.X1 was not proved to be not signed and issued by the<\/p>\n
respondent is not correct. The learned Additional District Judge<\/p>\n
proceeded on the basis that the actual dispute between the<\/p>\n
parties is with regard to the managership of the school and<\/p>\n
whether respondent continued to be the manager after<\/p>\n
relinquishing the post of the President of the first appellant<\/p>\n
Society or whether he had relinquished the post of the manager<\/p>\n
also as stated in Ext.X1. Learned District Judge on that basis<\/p>\n
found that the respondent should have sought a declaration<\/p>\n
about his status as a manager and remanded the suit to the trial<\/p>\n
court for appropriately amending the plaint. The judgment itself<\/p>\n
shows that the respondent has no such case and he did not seek<\/p>\n
a remand for amending the plaint as stated in the judgment.<\/p>\n
Instead, learned District Judge felt that the suit should be<\/p>\n
amended and therefore remanded the suit. As rightly pointed<\/p>\n
out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned<\/p>\n
District Judge was not justified in remanding the suit without<\/p>\n
considering the correctness of the judgment in the trial court. In<\/p>\n
the light of the pleadings and the issue settled, the assumption<\/p>\n
that the relief in the suit should have been a different one is not<\/p>\n
F.A.O.46\/07
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
justified when even respondent has no such case.<\/p>\n
       7.    The powers of the appellate court to remand a suit to<\/p>\n
the trial court in view of incorporation of Rule 23A of Order XLI<\/p>\n
of Code of Civil Procedure is settled by the Apex Court in P.<\/p>\n
Purushottam Reddy and another Vs. M\/s. Pratap Steels<\/p>\n
Ltd. (AIR 2002 SC 771) as follows.\n<\/p>\n
           ” 10. The next question to be examined is the<\/p>\n
           legality and propriety of the order of remand<\/p>\n
           made by the High Court. Prior to the insertion<\/p>\n
           of Rule 23A in Order 41 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
           Procedure by CPC Amendment Act, 1976, there<\/p>\n
           were only two provisions contemplating remand<\/p>\n
           by a Court of appeal in Order 41 of CPC. Rule<\/p>\n
           23 applies when the trial Court disposes of the<\/p>\n
           entire suit by recording its findings on a<\/p>\n
           preliminary issue without deciding other issues<\/p>\n
           and the finding on preliminary issue is reversed<\/p>\n
           in appeal. Rule 25 applies when the appellate<\/p>\n
           Court notices an omission on the part of the<\/p>\n
           trial Court to frame or try any issue or to<\/p>\n
F.A.O.46\/07
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
           determine any question of fact which in the<\/p>\n
           opinion of the appellate Court was essential to<\/p>\n
           the right decision of the suit upon the merits.<\/p>\n
           However, the remand contemplated by Rule 25<\/p>\n
           is  a    limited  remand     inasmuch   as  the<\/p>\n
           subordinate Court can try only such issues as<\/p>\n
           are referred to it for trial and having done so,<\/p>\n
           the evidence recorded, together with findings<\/p>\n
           and reasons therefor of the trial Court, are<\/p>\n
           required to be returned to the appellate Court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           However, still it was a settled position of law<\/p>\n
           before 1976 Amendment that the Court, in an<\/p>\n
           appropriate case could exercise its inherent<\/p>\n
           jurisdiction under Section 151 of the CPC to<\/p>\n
           order a remand if such a remand was<\/p>\n
           considered pre-eminently necessary ex debito<\/p>\n
           justitiae, though not covered by any specific<\/p>\n
           provision of Order 41 of the CPC.      In cases<\/p>\n
           where additional evidence is required to be<\/p>\n
           taken in the event at any one of the clauses of<\/p>\n
F.A.O.46\/07
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
           sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 being attracted, such<\/p>\n
           additional evidence, oral or documentary, is<\/p>\n
           allowed to be produced either before the<\/p>\n
           appellate Court itself or by directing any Court<\/p>\n
           subordinate to the appellate Court to receive<\/p>\n
           such evidence and send it to the appellate<\/p>\n
           Court. In 1976, Rule 23A has been inserted in<\/p>\n
           Order 41 which provides for a remand by an<\/p>\n
           appellate Court hearing an appeal against a<\/p>\n
           decree if     (i) the trial Court disposed of the<\/p>\n
           case otherwise than on a preliminary point, and<\/p>\n
           (ii) the decree is reversed in appeal and a<\/p>\n
           retrial is considered necessary.       On twin<\/p>\n
           conditions being satisfied, the appellate Court<\/p>\n
           can exercise the same power of remand under<\/p>\n
           Rule 23A as it is under Rule 23.       After the<\/p>\n
           amendment all the cases of wholesale remand<\/p>\n
           are covered by Rule 23 and 23A. In view of the<\/p>\n
           express provisions of these rules, the High<\/p>\n
           Court cannot have recourse to its inherent<\/p>\n
F.A.O.46\/07
\n                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
           powers to make a remand because, as held in<\/p>\n
           Mahendra v. Sushila (AIR 1965 SC 365, at<\/p>\n
           p.399), it is well settled that inherent powers<\/p>\n
           can be availed of ex debito justitiae only in the<\/p>\n
           absence of express provisions in the Code. It is<\/p>\n
           only in exceptional cases where the Court may<\/p>\n
           now exercise the power of remand dehors the<\/p>\n
           Rules 23 and 23A. To wit, the superior Court, if<\/p>\n
           it finds that the judgment under appeal has not<\/p>\n
           disposed of the case satisfactorily in the<\/p>\n
           manner required by Order 20, Rule 3 or Order<\/p>\n
           11, Rule 31 of the CPC and hence it is no<\/p>\n
           judgment in the eye of law it may set aside the<\/p>\n
           same and send the matter back for re-writing<\/p>\n
           the judgment so as to protect valuable rights of<\/p>\n
           the parties.    An appellate Court should be<\/p>\n
           circumspect in ordering a remand when the<\/p>\n
           case is not covered either by Rule 23 or Rule<\/p>\n
           23A or Rule 25 of the CPC. An unwarranted<\/p>\n
           order of remand gives the litigation an<\/p>\n
F.A.O.46\/07
\n                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
           undeserved lease of life and therefore, must be<\/p>\n
           avoided. ”\n<\/p>\n
       8.   The suit as instituted is for a declaration that<\/p>\n
respondent did not sign and did not issue Ext.X1 letter.           If<\/p>\n
respondent successively establish that fact, he is entitled to get<\/p>\n
such a declaration. The question whether by getting such a<\/p>\n
declaration the respondent could get the approval of the second<\/p>\n
appellant as manager unsettled or not, is not a matter to be<\/p>\n
decided in the suit or the appeal in the light of the relief sought<\/p>\n
for in the suit and the pleadings. In such circumstances the<\/p>\n
question of production of bye-law is not relevant and for that<\/p>\n
purpose learned Additional District Judge should not have<\/p>\n
remanded the suit. On going through the judgment of the first<\/p>\n
appellate court it is absolutely clear that first appellate court did<\/p>\n
not dispose the appeal on merits as mandated under the Code.<\/p>\n
The order of remand is illegal and it is therefore set aside.<\/p>\n
         Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Additional District<\/p>\n
Court, Vadakara dated 27.9.2006 is set aside. A.S.33 of 2004 is<\/p>\n
remanded to Additional District Court, Vadakara for fresh<\/p>\n
disposal in accordance with law. The first appellate court has to<\/p>\n
F.A.O.46\/07
\n                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
consider whether the evidence on record establish that Ext.X1<\/p>\n
was not signed and issued by the respondent. If the respondent<\/p>\n
files an application to send Ext.X1 to an expert, the question<\/p>\n
whether it is to be sent or not is to be considered by first<\/p>\n
appellate court on merits. Send back the records immediately.<\/p>\n
Parties are directed to appear before Additional District Court,<\/p>\n
Vadakara on 22.5.2009.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                      M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
okb<\/p>\n
F.A.O.46\/07
\n               12<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam … vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM FAO.No. 46 of 2007() 1. KUNNATHU KARA HIDAYATHUL ANAM SANGAM, … Petitioner 2. K.M.POKER HAJI, S\/O.AHAMMED KUTTY, Vs 1. P.KUNHABDULLA HAJI, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY For Respondent :SRI.B.KRISHNAN The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-229553","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam ... vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009 - 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\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam ... vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-25T12:08:41+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam … vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-25T12:08:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1890,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Kunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam ... vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-25T12:08:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam … vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Kunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam ... vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009 - 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\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam ... vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-25T12:08:41+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam … vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-25T12:08:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009"},"wordCount":1890,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009","name":"Kunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam ... vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-25T12:08:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunnathu-kara-hidayathul-anam-vs-p-kunhabdulla-haji-on-19-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kunnathu Kara Hidayathul Anam … vs P.Kunhabdulla Haji on 19 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/229553","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=229553"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229553\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229553"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229553"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229553"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}