{"id":249005,"date":"2007-06-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007"},"modified":"2015-01-20T20:43:14","modified_gmt":"2015-01-20T15:13:14","slug":"muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Muhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Muhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA No. 417 of 2007(G)\n\n\n1. MUHAMMED ISMAIL, S\/O.MUITHALIF RAWTHER,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. KAMARUNNISA, D\/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN AND\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SHAHUL HAMEED,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. MUHAMMED YUSUFF, S\/O. DO IN DO.  DO.\n\n3. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, S\/O. DO. IN DO. DO.\n\n4. PYARIJAN, W\/O.PEERMUHAMMED, MAMANIKALAM,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH(CAVEATOR)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :08\/06\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n               ===========================\n\n                 R.S.A.NO. 417   OF 2007\n\n               ===========================\n\n\n\n         Dated this the 8th  day of June, 2007\n\n\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.329\/1996 on the file<\/p>\n
of   Munsiff   Court,   Chittur   are   the   appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Respondents   are   legal   heirs   of   deceased   plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
Respondents   instituted   the   suit   seeking   a   decree<\/p>\n
for   mandatory   injunction   contending   that   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   along   with   the   western   six   cents<\/p>\n
was   purchased   by        deceased   plaintiff   and   his<\/p>\n
brother   Attar   Shaik   Rowther   as   per   sale   deed<\/p>\n
No.821\/55   of   Kollengode   Sub   Registry   and   there   was<\/p>\n
an   oral   partition   between   the   brother   and   the<\/p>\n
western six cents was allotted to the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
the eastern six cents to his brother and thereafter<\/p>\n
plaintiff   obtained   the   purchase   certificate   from<\/p>\n
the Land Tribunal and there was a hut in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   which   was   originally   rented   out<\/p>\n
to   his   sister   Hajiraha   and   she   along   with   her<\/p>\n
husband   first   defendant   were   residing   therein   and<\/p>\n
RSA 417\/07                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
after the death of sister on 15.10.1989 the husband<\/p>\n
left   the   place   and   they   started   residing   with   his<\/p>\n
son   Kudaku   and   subsequently   the   hut   was   destroyed<\/p>\n
due   to   fire.   Second   defendant   is   the   daughter   of<\/p>\n
Hajiraha   and   first   defendant   the   husband.     First<\/p>\n
defendant is conducting a butcher shop at Payyalor.\n<\/p>\n
It   was   contended   that     for   the   convenience   of   his<\/p>\n
business,   on   the   request   of   defendants   they   were<\/p>\n
permitted to put up a hut.  Plaintiff constructed a<\/p>\n
hut   and   they   were   allowed   to   occupy   the   same<\/p>\n
without   any   rent   as   per   a   license     and   while   they<\/p>\n
were residing, defendants started construction of a<\/p>\n
concrete   building   and   laid   a   trench   for   the<\/p>\n
foundation   and   they   have   no   right   to   do   so.     The<\/p>\n
licence   has   been   terminated   and            plaintiff   is<\/p>\n
entitled   to     a   decree   for   mandatory   injunction<\/p>\n
directing   them   to   vacate   the   building   with   mesne<\/p>\n
profits.     The   suit   was   subsequently   amended   after<\/p>\n
impleading   the   third   defendant,   to   claim   a   decree<\/p>\n
for   recovery   of   possession   on   the   strength   of<\/p>\n
title.     The   defendants   in   their   written   statement<\/p>\n
RSA 417\/07                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
admitted   the     title   of   the   plaintiff.     It   was<\/p>\n
contended   that   the                        plaintiff   had   shifted   his<\/p>\n
residence   to   Vettilapotta   and   after                                    plaintiff<\/p>\n
purchased   12   cents   in   the   year   1955     six   cents   of<\/p>\n
the   property   on   the   western   side   is   in   the<\/p>\n
possession   and   enjoyment   of   the   father   of   the<\/p>\n
second defendant as per a   lease obtained from the<\/p>\n
owner   Petta   @   Meenakshi   and   father   of   the   second<\/p>\n
defendant   has     tharikuthi   right     about   47   years<\/p>\n
back   and       the   father   of   the   second   defendant   was<\/p>\n
in   possession   of   the   property   and   the   plaintiff<\/p>\n
purchased   12   cents   including   the   property   in   the<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   father   of   the   second   defendant<\/p>\n
and         they         got         the         sale         deed         acknowledging<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   father   of   the   second   defendant<\/p>\n
and there was no oral partition and   father of the<\/p>\n
second   defendant   got   purchase   certificate   from   the<\/p>\n
Land   Tribunal   as   per   S.M.No.290\/1979   of   Kollengode<\/p>\n
Land   Tribunal   and   therefore   plaintiff   is   not<\/p>\n
entitled to the decree sought for.\n<\/p>\n
       2.   Learned   Munsiff   framed     necessary   issues.\n<\/p>\n
RSA 417\/07                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
On   the   evidence   of   PW1   and   2   and   Dws.   1   to   3   and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A6, B1 to B6, learned Munsiff granted a<\/p>\n
decree  directing      defendants  to  put  the  plaintiff<\/p>\n
in   possession   of   the   plaint   schedule   property.\n<\/p>\n
They  were  directed  to  demolish  the  building  now  in<\/p>\n
existence          in         the         plaint         schedule         property.\n<\/p>\n
Plaintiff   was   also                        granted   a   decree   for<\/p>\n
realisation   of   mesne   profits   at   the   rate   of<\/p>\n
Rs.200\/-   per   annum.                     Defendants   challenged   the<\/p>\n
decree and judgment before District Court, Palakkad<\/p>\n
in   A.S.64\/2000.     Learned   Additional   District   Judge<\/p>\n
on   reappreciation   of   evidence   confirmed   the<\/p>\n
findings   of   the   learned   Munsiff   and   dismissed   the<\/p>\n
appeal, which is challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for     appellants<\/p>\n
and  learned counsel appearing for  respondents who<\/p>\n
filed the caveat O.P were also heard.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   The   argument   of   the   learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellants was that  courts below<\/p>\n
ignored  Ext.B1  which  is  binding  on  the  whole  world<\/p>\n
including even   plaintiff and under section 72K of<\/p>\n
RSA 417\/07                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
Kerala Land Reforms Act it is a conclusive proof of<\/p>\n
title   and   in   the   light   of   Ext.B1,   courts   below<\/p>\n
should   not   have   granted   a   decree   for   recovery   of<\/p>\n
possession.     It   was   also     argued   that   even   if<\/p>\n
plaintiffs     were   not   impleaded   in   S.M.290\/79,   the<\/p>\n
validity   of   Ext.B1   can   be   challenged   only   by<\/p>\n
Meenakshi   the   landlord   and   not   by   the   plaintiffs<\/p>\n
and   it   is   binding   on   them   and   hence     courts   below<\/p>\n
should not have granted the decree sought for.\n<\/p>\n
     5. On hearing the counsel for  appellants, I do<\/p>\n
not   find   any   substantial   question   of   law   involved<\/p>\n
in   the   appeal.     As   rightly   pointed   out   by   the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondents, in the written<\/p>\n
statement   itself,   there   is   a   clear   admission   about<\/p>\n
the   title   of   the   plaintiff.   It   was   admitted   that<\/p>\n
the   plaintiff   and   the   brother     purchased   12   cents<\/p>\n
of   the   property   including   the   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property. What was contended by the appellants  was<\/p>\n
only   that   even   at   that   time     father   of   the   second<\/p>\n
defendant   was   in   possession   of   the   property   as   a<\/p>\n
lessee   under   Meenakshi   and   it   was   acknowledging<\/p>\n
RSA 417\/07                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
that   right     plaintiff     purchased   the   property.\n<\/p>\n
There  was  absolutely  no  evidence  to  prove  the  said<\/p>\n
lease   or   the   alleged   acknowledgement               by   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.     Though   Ext.B1   purchase   certificate   was<\/p>\n
produced   and   it   was   argued   that   under   section   72K<\/p>\n
of   Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act   it   is   to   be   treated   as<\/p>\n
conclusive   title   to          the   property   and   as   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   did        not   file   an   appeal   challenging<\/p>\n
Ext.B1   or     a   suit   seeking   a   decree   to   set   aside<\/p>\n
Ext.B1,   Ext.B1   is   binding   on   respondents,   as<\/p>\n
rightly   found   by     courts   below,   it   is   proved   that<\/p>\n
Ext.B1   purchase   certificate   was   obtained   by   the<\/p>\n
appellants   without   impleading   respondents   or   even<\/p>\n
the alleged   landlord in the party array.   In such<\/p>\n
circumstance,   it   is   clear   that   Ext.B1   is   a<\/p>\n
fradulent   purchase   certificate   obtained   without<\/p>\n
impleading   the   landlords.   Hence   there   is   no<\/p>\n
necessity   to   set   aside   Ext.B1.     When   it   is   proved<\/p>\n
that   Ext.B1   purchase   certificate   was   obtained<\/p>\n
without the alleged landlord in the party array and<\/p>\n
it  is  admitted  by  the  appellants  themselves  in  the<\/p>\n
RSA 417\/07                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
written statement that title to the property  vests<\/p>\n
with   the   plaintiff,   Ext.B1   will   not   be   binding   on<\/p>\n
the   respondents.   Therefore     courts   below   rightly<\/p>\n
granted  a decree for recovery possession as sought<\/p>\n
for.  No substantial question of law is involved in<\/p>\n
the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
                                       M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR<\/p>\n
                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
     W.P.(C).NO. \/06<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Muhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA No. 417 of 2007(G) 1. MUHAMMED ISMAIL, S\/O.MUITHALIF RAWTHER, … Petitioner 2. KAMARUNNISA, D\/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN AND Vs 1. SHAHUL HAMEED, … Respondent 2. MUHAMMED YUSUFF, S\/O. DO IN DO. DO. 3. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, 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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-249005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMuhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007 - 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\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-20T15:13:14+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-20T15:13:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1061,\"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\\\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Muhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-20T15:13:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Muhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007 - 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\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-20T15:13:14+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-20T15:13:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007"},"wordCount":1061,"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\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007","name":"Muhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-20T15:13:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muhammed-ismail-vs-shahul-hameed-on-8-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muhammed Ismail vs Shahul Hameed on 8 June, 2007"}]},{"@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\/249005","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=249005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249005\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}