{"id":230034,"date":"2009-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009"},"modified":"2017-04-15T17:41:39","modified_gmt":"2017-04-15T12:11:39","slug":"kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 970 of 2005()\n\n\n1. KAMAL MALOOR, JOINT SECRETARY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. P.P.ABDUL KHADER, S\/O.PAREETH PILLAI,\n3. K.K.ALI, S\/O.KOCHAHAMMED, KONNUNKUDI\n4. P.H.SHAMSUDHEEN, S\/O.P.A.MOHAMMED,\n5. K.P.ASHRAF, S\/O.PAREED HAJI,\n6. P.K.HAMEED, PUTHEN KARA VEETTIL,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.HASSAN BAVA, S\/O.KUNHEEN PILLA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. P.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RAWTHER,\n\n3. T.M.SAHAD, S\/O.MOIDEEN,\n\n4. A.ABDUL KHADER, S\/O.AHAMMED,\n\n5. C.M.SAYED MOHAMMED, S\/O.MOHAMMED,\n\n6. O.P.KUNJU MUHAMMED, S\/O.PAREETH,\n\n7. O.M.HAMZA, S\/O.MUSTHAFA, MEMBER,\n\n8. K.A.MOHAMMED, S\/O.ABOOBACKER, MEMBER,\n\n9. P.K.KOCHUNNI, S\/O.LATE KOCHAMMED,\n\n10. A.LATHEEF, S\/O.H.M.MOIDEEN,\n\n11. K.M.NASER, S\/O.K.P.MOHAMMED,\n\n12. M.A.RAHEEM, S\/O.MOHAMMED KUNNU,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :11\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n             P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.\n\n                   -------------------------------\n\n                      C.R.P. No.970 of 2005\n\n                   -------------------------------\n\n                Dated this the 11th March, 2009\n\n                            O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Raman, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             Defendants 4, 5 and 13 to 16 in            the suit,<\/p>\n
O.S.No.14 of 2004, on the file of the Wakf Tribunal, Ernakulam,<\/p>\n
are the revision petitioners.     The suit is one for injunction<\/p>\n
restraining the defendants from conducting Juma Khutuba in<\/p>\n
Karattupalli Juma Masjid by delivering the advice part of the<\/p>\n
Khutuba in Arabic.       The plaintiffs sought     for mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction directing the defendants to conduct Khutuba in<\/p>\n
Malayalam.     The suit was eventually decreed, restraining the<\/p>\n
defendants    by a prohibitory injunction from conducting Juma<\/p>\n
Khutuba by delivering the advice part of the Khutuba in Arabic<\/p>\n
after exhortation to virtue. The defendants were also directed to<\/p>\n
make arrangements, to conduct Juma Khutuba in the masjid by<\/p>\n
delivering the advice part of the Khutuba after the exhortation to<\/p>\n
virtue (Vasiat bi Taqwa) in Malayalam which was the practice<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
from the date when Juma was started in the masjid till 4.2.2000.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed, the contesting<\/p>\n
defendants has come up in appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                2. As per the plaint averments, the plaintiffs are<\/p>\n
persons professing and practicing Islamic faith and are members<\/p>\n
of Karattupalli Muslim Juma-ath Mahallu. The administration of<\/p>\n
the Karattupalli Muslim Juma-ath is governed by the bye-laws, as<\/p>\n
per which the administration is vested in a committee of 13<\/p>\n
persons. Defendants 1 to 5 are the President, Secretary and<\/p>\n
other office bearers, and defendants 6 to 11 are the members of<\/p>\n
the committee. The members of the juma-ath are followers of<\/p>\n
Shafei Madh hab.        Friday congregations   in the masjid is<\/p>\n
conducted      and it is performed in accordance with the Shafei<\/p>\n
Madh hab, as per which Friday prayer (juma) consists            of<\/p>\n
Khutuba and Salaat consisting of two Rat-aat (standing). The<\/p>\n
faithful assemble in the masjid for juma prayer and the Imam<\/p>\n
delivers a Khutuba addressing them. The Imam will be standing<\/p>\n
on the Mimber (pulpit) while delivering the Khutuba.          The<\/p>\n
essential ingredients of Khutuba are the commencement of the<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
Khutuba with ‘Hamd’ (praise of Allah); Salat (invocation of Allah’s<\/p>\n
blessings and peace on the prophet); Exhortation to Virtue<\/p>\n
(Vasiatbi Taqwa); recitation from Holy Quran; and Due<\/p>\n
(Supplications to Allah).   Kuthuba is delivered in two speeches.<\/p>\n
The Imam will pause and sit for a while in between the two<\/p>\n
speeches. In addition to the above essential ingredients, after<\/p>\n
exhortation to virtue the Imam uses his own words as advice to<\/p>\n
the assemblage and explanation and elucidation of religious<\/p>\n
teachings and guidance to the faithful in the matters of religion.<\/p>\n
However, the advice is not an essential ingredient of Khutuba,<\/p>\n
but it is a complimentary part of explanation and elucidation of<\/p>\n
teachings.       The speech also includes imparting religious<\/p>\n
instructions with reference to the contemporary context.       The<\/p>\n
advice part of Khutuba after exhortation to virtue is being<\/p>\n
conducted by the Imam in Malayalam while standing on the<\/p>\n
mimber.      This practice was continuously followed in the juma<\/p>\n
masjid from the very beginning, as per the Shafei school.<\/p>\n
                3.  The plaintiffs are persons who are regularly<\/p>\n
attending the Friday prayers.       According to them, they are<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
entitled to hear and listen to the Khutuba in the language<\/p>\n
understood by them. If the advice to the assemblage for the<\/p>\n
Friday congregation is delivered in the language, not known to<\/p>\n
them, they cannot understand the same and the very object of<\/p>\n
Khutuba will be frustrated. According to the plaintiffs, they<\/p>\n
have the right to insist that the juma has to be performed in the<\/p>\n
manner as it was done and was continued for three decades, and<\/p>\n
it cannot be done away by any person or authority or by the<\/p>\n
committee elected for the administration of the jama-ath under<\/p>\n
the terms of the bye-laws. The bye-laws do not confer any such<\/p>\n
power.     In 1976, there was a dispute regarding     Khutuba to<\/p>\n
change the format into Arabic and that was resolved by<\/p>\n
intervention of Ernakulam District Muslim Jama-ath Council<\/p>\n
through mediation on 25.3.1976. It was agreed by all concerned<\/p>\n
that the Khutuba will be delivered in Malayalam while the Imam<\/p>\n
is on the mimber and this practice continued. But suddenly on<\/p>\n
11.2.2000, the defendants further changed the format of<\/p>\n
Khutuba from Malayalam to Arabic without any authority, thus,<\/p>\n
depriving of their fundamental right to freedom of religion.<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
Hence, the defendants are liable to be restrained by an injunction<\/p>\n
as sought for and prayed for a direction to       the plaintiffs to<\/p>\n
conduct the Khutuba in Malayalam which was the accepted<\/p>\n
practice.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                4.  The stand taken by the defendants in their<\/p>\n
written statement apart from disputing the maintainability of the<\/p>\n
suit was that the committee was administering the mahal as per<\/p>\n
the bye-laws; that the juma was performed in accordance with<\/p>\n
the Shafei Madh hab; that the contention that advice part of the<\/p>\n
Khutuba after exhortation to virtue was conducted by the Imam<\/p>\n
in Malayalam language while standing on the pulpit was not<\/p>\n
correct; that it was admitted that the advice part of the Khutuba<\/p>\n
was delivered in Malayalam, but it was done before mounting to<\/p>\n
pulpit; and further that the Khutuba starts after mounting to<\/p>\n
pulpit and it is in Arabic language.  When a dispute arose in the<\/p>\n
matter in April, 2001, it was agreed that the advice part of the<\/p>\n
Khutuba will     be delivered in Malayalam before mounting the<\/p>\n
pulpit.      The plaintiffs have no legal right, much less, any<\/p>\n
fundamental right to insist that the Friday prayer shall be in the<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
language of their choice. The agreement dated 25.3.1976 was<\/p>\n
cancelled and the same was not enforced.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                5. The Tribunal framed as many as six issues for<\/p>\n
trial. The evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side<\/p>\n
of the plaintiffs, and Exts.B1 to B2(b) on the side of the<\/p>\n
defendants.      On the side of plaintiffs,    Pws. 1 to 4 were<\/p>\n
examined and the defendants examined Dws.1 to 8.           The trial<\/p>\n
court decreed the suit, against which this revision is preferred.<\/p>\n
                6. The points that arise for consideration are as to<\/p>\n
what was the practice followed in Karattupalli Juma Masjid, from<\/p>\n
the time when the masjid was established,       with regard to the<\/p>\n
language of the advice part of juma Khutuba during the Friday<\/p>\n
congregations;      whether any change was brought by the<\/p>\n
defendants to such practice; whether the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
established their right to seek an injunction as prayed for; and<\/p>\n
whether the decree passed by the court below is right in law.<\/p>\n
                7.  The court below found that the suit is<\/p>\n
maintainable, over ruling the objections of the defendants. The<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiffs   are admittedly the members of the first defendant<\/p>\n
juma-ath, and they claiming the observance of a religious right<\/p>\n
in their juma-ath in a particular manner. The dispute is as to<\/p>\n
whether the religious discourse called Khutuba in a mosque, in<\/p>\n
connection with juma prayer on Friday can be done in vernacular<\/p>\n
along with its essential ingredient in Arabic arose               for<\/p>\n
consideration before this Court in Muhammed v. Moideen Haji<\/a><\/p>\n
(2000 (2) KLT 216), and it was held as follows:-<\/p>\n
                 “The respondents have contended, as         a
\n            preliminary objection, that the suit itself is not
\n            maintainable as these religious matters do not
\n            create any enforceable right to anyone and
\n            therefore, cannot be adjudicated as a dispute
\n            of civil nature. This being a matter affecting
\n            the right to worship will certainly affect the civil
\n            right of the parties and is therefore a dispute of
\n            civil nature. The right to worship according to
\n            one’s belief is a right available to any individual
\n            and therefore if the manner in which such right
\n            is exercised is interfered with by any other
\n            person or group, necessarily, it will give rise to
\n            a dispute of civil nature which can be
\n            adjudicated by a civil court by entertaining a
\n            suit.   The freedom guaranteed in Art.25 to
\n            practise religion is exercised primarily with
\n            religious worship, ritual and observation and
\n            religious practices are as much part of religion
\n            as religious faith or doctrine.”\n<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
                8. We are in complete agreement with the above<\/p>\n
observation.      The right to worship being available to any<\/p>\n
individual, the exercise of which if infringed or attempted to be<\/p>\n
infringed, the remedy available to a party is to approach the<\/p>\n
court of law, and this freedom of religious practice is guaranteed<\/p>\n
by the Constitution under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
The jurisdiction that is to be exercised by the Tribunal as per the<\/p>\n
Wakf Act has since been settled by a Division Bench of this Court<\/p>\n
holding that all such disputes will come within the jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
the Tribunal, the suit as such is maintainable, as rightly held by<\/p>\n
the Walk Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 9. Ext.A1 is the bye-law of the juma-ath. Clause<\/p>\n
5 provides for formation of a committee for the administration of<\/p>\n
the mahal. Their rights and duties are specified in the bye-laws.<\/p>\n
The juma prayer is on Friday, the essentials of which consists of<\/p>\n
the commencement of the Khutuba with’Hamd’ (praise of Allah);<\/p>\n
‘Salat’ (invocation of Allah’s blessings and peace on the prophet);<\/p>\n
exhortation to virtue (Vasiatbi Taqwa); Recitation from Holy<\/p>\n
Quran; and Dua (supplications to Allah). The Imam delivers the<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
Khutuba addressing the assembly. After exhortation to virtue,<\/p>\n
the Khateeb uses his own words as advice to the assemblage<\/p>\n
and explanation and elucidation of religious teachings and<\/p>\n
guidance to the faithful in the matter of religion. But the advice<\/p>\n
part is not an essential ingredient of Khutuba and it is<\/p>\n
complimentary.       There is no dispute that the advice part was<\/p>\n
being conducted by the Imam in Malayalam language.        But the<\/p>\n
dispute is whether this malayalam part of the advice was given<\/p>\n
by the Imam from the pulpit or before he enters in the pulpit.<\/p>\n
Earlier there was a dispute between the parties in this context<\/p>\n
and the same was settled        as per   the agreement, which is<\/p>\n
marked as Ext.A4.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                11.   Ext.A4, dated 25.3.1976, is an agreement<\/p>\n
settling the dispute between the two factions. As per clause (1)<\/p>\n
of the above decision, it is agreed that during the time of Juma,<\/p>\n
the advice in Malayalam will be delivered from the mimber and<\/p>\n
thereafter Khutuba will be delivered in Arabic before Namaskar.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it is evident that since this settlement in 1976, the<\/p>\n
practice that is followed is advice in malayalam from the mimber<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
first and thereafter Khutuba will be delivered in Arabic.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the stand taken by the defendants            that the<\/p>\n
Malayalam part of the advice was given not from the mimber, at<\/p>\n
any rate, from Ext.A4 cannot be accepted as true or correct.<\/p>\n
                12.  Then, the question that would arise for<\/p>\n
consideration is as to whether the present committee        could<\/p>\n
change the said practice or not. In this connection, clause (5) of<\/p>\n
the bye-law is heavily relied on. Ext.A1 is the copy of the bye-<\/p>\n
law produced in the case, and that is a bye-law of the year 1977.<\/p>\n
It does not contain any clause relating to the amendment or<\/p>\n
changes to be effected in the practice that is followed in<\/p>\n
Karattupalli Juma Masjid.        Even though it is stated that<\/p>\n
subsequently there is some change          made in the bye-law<\/p>\n
enabling the committee to make such changes in the bye-law, in<\/p>\n
the absence of any such amended bye-law produced in the case,<\/p>\n
there is no scope for considering the said contention.<\/p>\n
                13. The court below has referred the evidence of<\/p>\n
PW.1, the 3rd plaintiff, PW.2, the former Khateeb of the mosque<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                              11<\/span><\/p>\n
for the period 1970 to 1975, PW.3, a person residing in the<\/p>\n
mahal area, PW.4, another resident of the mahal area, and PW.5,<\/p>\n
the former Khateeb working in the Mosque from 1977 to 1976,<\/p>\n
who have all given evidence regarding Ext.A4, which goes to<\/p>\n
support the case of the plaintiffs.   The practice that has been<\/p>\n
followed after Ext.A4 decision arrived at on 25.3.1976 has been<\/p>\n
cancelled by the contesting defendants in the mahal committee<\/p>\n
meeting, which has also given rise to the present dispute. The<\/p>\n
court below has considered the evidence of Pws.2 and 5 who are<\/p>\n
independent witnesses and former Imam’s of the mosque. Their<\/p>\n
evidence was accepted as they are respectable persons, who<\/p>\n
cannot be called as interesting witnesses.    According to them,<\/p>\n
the practice to Khutuba in Karattupalli Juma Masjid during their<\/p>\n
period was that the advice part was given in Malayalam while<\/p>\n
standing on the pulpit. PW.1, an aged person, who is a member<\/p>\n
of the mahala from 1969 onwards, deposed that the mosque<\/p>\n
was constructed in the year 1965 and juma was started in the<\/p>\n
year 1969. DW.4, the 13th defendant, in the cross examination<\/p>\n
has deposed that till 11.2.2000, the advice part of Khutuba was<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
in Malayalam while the Imam was on the mimber. DW.6, the 6th<\/p>\n
defendant, also gave evidence to the effect that the practice<\/p>\n
followed was as claimed by the plaintiffs till the decision was<\/p>\n
taken in the meeting held on 8.1.2000. According to him, in the<\/p>\n
general body meeting on 8.1.2000, Abdullah Salih read an<\/p>\n
application demanding change over of the format as followed in<\/p>\n
Central Mahal, and requested to implement the demand. But the<\/p>\n
decision was deferred and the format was changed to Arabic only<\/p>\n
from 11.2.2000.       The above decision was taken by the mahal<\/p>\n
committee. But there is nothing produced to show that there<\/p>\n
was any general body meeting         convened and the same had<\/p>\n
taken any decision before bringing the change that is being<\/p>\n
effected. Therefore, as the matter stands, the decision to make<\/p>\n
any changes from Ext.A4 is not validly taken, and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are entitled for the decree as sought for and granted by<\/p>\n
the court below.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                14. Whether or not the general body has the power<\/p>\n
to effect any change in the practice followed, is not a matter<\/p>\n
arising for consideration at present, since nothing is produced<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
empowering the general body to effect such changes as per bye-<\/p>\n
law. Though the court below has answered these questions in<\/p>\n
the negative,     we do not approve of the said answers for the<\/p>\n
simple reason that such a question will arise for consideration<\/p>\n
only if general body takes a decision and any change is effected<\/p>\n
thereafter, and if any dispute arise with regard thereto.     The<\/p>\n
court cannot decide something in anticipation of a future dispute.<\/p>\n
It is purely academic as far as the present proceedings are<\/p>\n
concerned. Therefore, that finding is vacated.   The advice part<\/p>\n
of the Khutuba in Malayalam is more for the benefit of the<\/p>\n
members, to improve their knowledge of the Religion.          The<\/p>\n
observation contained in Muhammed v. Moideen Haji<\/a> (2000<\/p>\n
(2) KLT 216), rendered by Mr.Justice Abdul Gafoor, as he then<\/p>\n
was, is elucidating and illustrative on the various aspects of<\/p>\n
Friday congregations, including the question whether the advice<\/p>\n
part of the Khutuba by the Imam in Vernacular is sanctioned by<\/p>\n
the Personal Law. It is desirable that in matters like this, the<\/p>\n
members will act prudently in the larger interest of the<\/p>\n
community and to avert raking up issues       that are amicably<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.970\/2005<\/p>\n
                                14<\/span><\/p>\n
settled, unless any such changes are considered essential in the<\/p>\n
religious performance of the prayer during Friday congregation.<\/p>\n
                In the result, we confirm the decree passed by the<\/p>\n
court below and dismiss the revision. There will be no order as<\/p>\n
to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                       P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nnj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 970 of 2005() 1. KAMAL MALOOR, JOINT SECRETARY, … Petitioner 2. P.P.ABDUL KHADER, S\/O.PAREETH PILLAI, 3. K.K.ALI, S\/O.KOCHAHAMMED, KONNUNKUDI 4. P.H.SHAMSUDHEEN, S\/O.P.A.MOHAMMED, 5. K.P.ASHRAF, S\/O.PAREED HAJI, 6. P.K.HAMEED, PUTHEN KARA VEETTIL, Vs 1. K.HASSAN […]<\/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-230034","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 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\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-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=\"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-15T12:11:39+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-15T12:11:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2551,\"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\\\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Kamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-15T12:11:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 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":"Kamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 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\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-15T12:11:39+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-15T12:11:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009"},"wordCount":2551,"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\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009","name":"Kamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-15T12:11:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamal-maloor-vs-k-hassan-bava-on-11-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kamal Maloor vs K.Hassan Bava on 11 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\/230034","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=230034"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230034\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230034"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230034"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230034"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}