{"id":28367,"date":"2010-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-06-02T10:33:25","modified_gmt":"2017-06-02T05:03:25","slug":"smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Farhana Begum W\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt. Farhana Begum W\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda<\/div>\n
   \":L.\"(DYL'S~\u00abR1IRSHAD AHMED, ADV.)\n\n  AND:\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO;REi\nDATED THIS THE 29\"' DAY OF OCTODER,   \nBEFORE ;f,L*'f\nTHE HON'BL.E MR. 3uST1cE A.N.VE.N\u00a3JGOPA'LAQGOWEEAV \n\nWRIT PETITION i\\EO.33606}*':2\u00ab0ij'0  \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nSMT. FARE-EANA BEGUM\n\nAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS _\n\nW\/O. SR1 SYED NAZIM ., *\n\nFORIVEERLY R\/A No.22  V  --\nOLD NO.8, E. NO.5TH~S.TR.EET _ \u00abV ,\nBROADWMROAD ;{H.\u00a7uL AZEEZ\n\n ACfE'D,A\"BOUT 50 YEARS.\n\nSFEEMOHAMMED SIBGATH ULLA\n\n S\/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ\nH.-'AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.\n\nSRI MOHAMMED RIZWAN ULLA\nS\/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ\nAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.\n\nSR1 MOHAMMED SAIF ULLA\n\n \n\n\n\n H. 93\n\nS\/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ\nAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.\n\nSRI MOHAMMED RAHMATH ULLA\nS\/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ\nAGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.\n\nSRI MOHAMMED NASRULLA\nS\/O LATE ABDUL AZEEZ\nAGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.\n\nSL. NOS. 2 To 8 ARE  \nR\/A No.4, C.NO.5TH STREE'r,_ *\n\nCHANDNI CHOWK ROAD CR.O_S:S.T,_ \n\nSHIVAJINAGAR,  \nBANGALORE-560 O51\u00bb.  *\n\nSMT MEHRL!NNISAy\"  . \n\nW\/O SHA.E!T<"I_S'}'4AIL Z. \nAGED AB.OuTE'T53 YE'ARi3, .\nREP. BY H_E.R"GR'A H'OjLDER_  \n\nSR1.RO.SHi.AN;VzAMEE.R'~T) .,   \n\nS\/.0 SHAv:T{'TS;'T~1A'1L.:\nAGED 'ABOUT 38 wYEA_RSOU'AS1H \/ SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.9.2010 ANNEXURE--\n\n* , ' FPASSED BY THE FIRST ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS\n\n  JUDGE, BANGALORE PASSED IN O.A. NO.391\/1997 IN RESPECT\n  _OI= I.A. No.22 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.\n\nTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:\n\nSL. NO. 933 TO 9c ARE\nR\/A No.5, P.K.LANE,\nCOTTON PET,\nBANGALORE--560 053.\n\n9d SMT MEHER\nW\/O MOHAMMED INAYATH   >-\nAGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, '\nNO.23, 3RD CROSS,\nMATHIKERE, BANGALORE; _\n\n9e SMT SHAMSHIYA\nW\/O D H KHALANDER \nAGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,   ,\nR\/A ASIF MANZIL, 4--TI?I CROSS,\nGANGOTHRI ROAD,  \nTUMKUR ,, ,\u00bb-.<'-\n\n9r SMT      \n\nAGED .ABIOUT*35.vEIAR--S, \nR\/A RE_N"E5S_--ET SEHOVOLROAD,\n9g SMT'S.HAEsEE'I.I_ TAJ I' , \n, W\/O SAT? DAR. PASI.-IA \n,_%_AGED ABOIJT28 YEARS,\n "R,~:f_A, HAYATH M'AI"\\iZIE.,\n NEXT TOMADARI SHADE MAHAL,\n"_TU~1\\\ufb01K'.J"P... \n RESPONDENTS\n\nA TRIS VWRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226\n\nTHIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING\n\n \n\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
15′ respondent\/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.39.J.]’iV9’$r2;~ <\/p>\n
the City Civil Court, Bangalore, for partitio’n__a”n.d. ‘s{e’paiate–4’l<\/p>\n
possession. The petitioner is the 9″ d:e’f’e..ndanr  <\/p>\n
The suit having been contested, issu’es’having:,iieen”raised,V,<\/p>\n
trial has taken place and the  at th’e.Vs’tag?e ofghlearing
\nof arguments on mair}”;~~V.y_  filed” ICVA No.22
\nunder Order 6 V Rule   the written
\nstatement and torirricortporate  pleading after<\/p>\n
para 8, as \u20acpara”‘_,8″(Va)’– i.e’;{.’jV\u00bbrs\/vit-h.’:re’ga’rd to the transactions<\/p>\n
between herse|Vf*ajnd’i r’e’sp_o’i1de’nts No.9(a) to (g), namely<\/p>\n
the events..l4eladin’g_ execution and registration of a<\/p>\n
 con_filfrrivaltion d’e”e-d._d_ated 19.06.2010. The prayer in the<\/p>\n
 \u00bbaVpp!icatVi_vo’n ‘hiaving been opposed by the plaintiff by filing<\/p>\n
Vgabliections dated 22.09.2010, the trial court<\/p>\n
 upon’ ycovnsidleration, having found the application to be<\/p>\n
 ‘:f~.dAevo.iyd  merit, has rejected the same with costs. Feeling<\/p>\n
*  aggriieved, the 9″” defendant has filed this writ petition.<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
\/\/,,.\/’<\/p>\n
,– 5<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
2. Mr.K.Irshad Ahmed, learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the petitioner contended that, the trial <\/p>\n
considered I.A No.22 in the correct perspect’i:1,e’ai.hd” <\/p>\n
impugned order, in the facts <\/p>\n
case, is irrational & iilegal and hence,ilnterferehce’ is c’all’edV’=,<\/p>\n
3. Indisputab.lQ,~…’the?i”pVe’tvi:tjion’er_ hadV”‘ap”proached
\nthis court earlier with  jVthe._,Vt;\u00a7’,g,~,n’saction between
\nher and respondents  to execution of
\nconfirmation’  The said writ
\npetitionvvl\ufb02was order dated 23.08.2010. The<\/p>\n
petitioner hlaxiiingiiriotil’-been able to succeed directly, has<\/p>\n
 .'”filed—-N”o…,22 to\ufb02woibtain the relief prayed earlier and<\/p>\n
.._nVeg.ati~<.z:\u00e9"ll.,%.indviilrectly i.e., by seeking the amendment<\/p>\n
prop_ose_d  I.A No.22.\n<\/p>\n
 The alleged transaction between the<\/p>\n
A   petitioner\/defendant No.9 and the respondent Nos.9(a) to<\/p>\n
 .,_(.g)\/L.Rs of defendant No.8 i.e., 8(a) to (g), having taken<\/p>\n
it place during the pendency of the proceedings, that too at<\/p>\n
L\u00bb<\/p>\n
\/R<\/p>\n
the fag end of the proceedings of the suit, the same is<\/p>\n
unnecessary for deciding the reai question in cont_rove’r’sxy..g<\/p>\n
between the parties. The proviso appended__to~–.:Ru1iAe’~ of\u00bb:<\/p>\n
Order 6 cpc is attracted and in vievv Vo:r%’t::eb’.tri+as– <\/p>\n
having commenced as on theudate I’;A”I\\i.o.22v~J.a.sifiiedfj the’*a<\/p>\n
first limb of the proviso restrict’;*~:.,V:ti*.e povver”of.V-Ztheiicourt to
\naiiow the amendmentjof thewpiieadingg. Tvhe\ufb02xproposed
\namendment being unnecessarv fora” the real<\/p>\n
question in co;’itr’:tv?ers\\\/;i._betw’een~ the”pa_r.ties, the triai court
\nis justif;,et1_in”‘tej’e;\u00a7;;;A_ng  <\/p>\n
 ‘HVowev’er;\u00bb_iit’ii~e:A”‘tri~ai court was not justified in<\/p>\n
imposing the cost…’ofA”Rs\u00e9.”i,00O\/–. The appiicant bonafide<\/p>\n
‘iV.”–beli’ev’in5g:th’a.t, thevconvfirmation deed noticed supra shouid<\/p>\n
 notice of the triai court by piacing the<\/p>\n
same o’n.’re:coiVrd, has filed I.A No.22. The same being<\/p>\n
7-‘~.__”-unnecessary, ought to have been rejected and the levy of<\/p>\n
V’ the circumstances, does not appear to be<\/p>\n
  _,Va_ppropriate. KS:\/,<\/p>\n
—-.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6. The impugned order, except to the extentypof
\nimposition of cost, does not suffer from any
\nimpropriety. In the facts and circumstance5,’V:’t;.t.Vth’\u00a7:
\nthe rejection of LA No.22 is neither
\nNo ground to entertain the wVrit_4’petition’.*..A. . V’ K it<\/p>\n
In the result, the
\nHowever, it is made clear. tha\u00a7it,M,t,hl’e:\u00ab._peti–t,ioner”\u00e9hall not be
\nliable to pay cost impVQ_5:’\u00a2AdV court, in the<\/p>\n
impugned       <\/p>\n
Sd\/-~
\nJudge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt. Farhana Begum W\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010 Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda “:L.”(DYL’S~\u00abR1IRSHAD AHMED, ADV.) AND: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALO;REi DATED THIS THE 29″‘ DAY OF OCTODER, BEFORE ;f,L*’f THE HON’BL.E MR. 3uST1cE A.N.VE.N\u00a3JGOPA’LAQGOWEEAV WRIT PETITION i\\EO.33606}*’:2\u00ab0ij’0 BETWEEN: SMT. FARE-EANA BEGUM AGED ABOUT […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-28367","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Farhana Begum W\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010 - 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\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Farhana Begum W\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-02T05:03:25+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Farhana Begum W\\\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-02T05:03:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":639,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt. Farhana Begum W\\\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-02T05:03:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Farhana Begum W\\\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Farhana Begum W\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010 - 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\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Farhana Begum W\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-02T05:03:25+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Farhana Begum W\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-02T05:03:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010"},"wordCount":639,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010","name":"Smt. Farhana Begum W\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-02T05:03:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-farhana-begum-wo-syed-nazim-vs-sri-abdul-hafeez-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Farhana Begum W\/O Syed Nazim vs Sri. Abdul Hafeez on 29 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/28367","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=28367"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28367\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}