{"id":31137,"date":"2010-10-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-05T00:27:30","modified_gmt":"2017-12-04T18:57:30","slug":"jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural … on 12 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural … on 12 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 905 of 2010()\n\n\n1. JASMINE, D\/O.SIDDIQUE, JAS VIHAR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MUSLIM EDUCATION & CULTURAL CENTRE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. RUKHIYA BEEVI, W\/O.SIDDIQUE,\n\n3. SIRAJ, S\/O.SIDDIQUE,\n\n4. NISHA, D\/O. SIDDIQUE,\n\n5. ANZAR, S\/O.SIDDIQUE,\n\n6. ARSHARD, S\/O.SIDDIQUE,\n\n7. SHAKKUTTY, S\/O.SIDDIQUE,\n\n8. SIDDIQUE (DIED),\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :12\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                  S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J\n                  --------------------------------------\n                      R.S.A No.905 OF 2010\n                     --------------------------------\n            Dated this the 12th day of October 2010\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                                                           CR<\/p>\n
     The second defendant in O.S No.235\/1996 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Munsiff Court, Varkala is the appellant. In the above suit, an<\/p>\n
exparte    decree    was     granted      in    favour   of the first<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff declaring its title and possession over the suit<\/p>\n
property and also granting an injunction against the defendants<\/p>\n
from trespassing upon that property. The appellant herein along<\/p>\n
with two other defendants had challenged that exparte decree<\/p>\n
before the Sub Court, Attingal.         That appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n
Concurrent decision so rendered by the two courts below in<\/p>\n
favour of the first respondent\/plaintiff is challenged in the second<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    Suit was one for declaration of title, possession and<\/p>\n
injunction, and also for fixation of boundary over the plaint<\/p>\n
property having an extent of 53.333 cents in Varkala village.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff is an association registered under Act 12 of 1955.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff claimed title over the property under A2 sale deed<\/p>\n
executed by one Muhammed Iqbal who is stated to have got an<\/p>\n
assignment over the property from its original owner 8th<\/p>\n
defendant.    The above said Muhammed Iqbal had filed a suit<\/p>\n
against the 8th defendant for fixing the boundary of the property,<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.905 OF 2010            – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
and a decree was granted in that suit. The defendants 1 to 7, the<\/p>\n
wife and children of 8th defendant, setting up some right over the<\/p>\n
property are obstructing its possession and enjoyment of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was its case to seek the declaration of title, possession<\/p>\n
and enjoyment and also for fixation of boundaries.              The<\/p>\n
defendants 1, 2 and 4 filed a joint written statement and the 7th<\/p>\n
defendant, adopted that statement.         8th defendant filed a<\/p>\n
separate written statement.       Contesting defendant challenged<\/p>\n
the claim of the plaintiff over the suit property setting up rival<\/p>\n
claim of title over the same. Pendency of some suits with the<\/p>\n
predecessor of the plaintiff was also canvassed to impeach the<\/p>\n
validity of the sale deed over the property executed in its favour.<\/p>\n
The judgment of the trial court reveals that when evidence was<\/p>\n
recorded in the case, the respective counsel for defendants 1 and<\/p>\n
2 and also 8th defendant had reported no instruction. On behalf of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff, its President was examined as PW1 and A1 to A9<\/p>\n
were exhibited towards documentary evidence. The evidence so<\/p>\n
let in by the plaintiff remained unchallenged. The trial court, after<\/p>\n
examining the materials with reference to the pleadings rendered<\/p>\n
a decision in the suit on merits. That decree was challenged by<\/p>\n
the defendants 1, 2 and 4 jointly preferring an appeal A.S No.<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.905 OF 2010           – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
59\/2002 before the Sub Court, Attingal.      The lower appellate<\/p>\n
court, after reappreciating the materials tendered in the case,<\/p>\n
concurring with the findings of the trial court, dismissed that<\/p>\n
appeal. As against that concurrent decision rendered by the two<\/p>\n
courts in favour of the     plaintiff, the second defendant has<\/p>\n
preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Noticing from the judgment rendered by the trial court<\/p>\n
that the disposal of the suit as against defendants 1 to 7 was<\/p>\n
rendered after declaring them exparte, to my query whether any<\/p>\n
petition had been filed by any of those defendants under Order 9<\/p>\n
Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside such exparte<\/p>\n
passed against them, the learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
conceded that there was such a proceeding at the instance of the<\/p>\n
first defendant and that application was dismissed by the trial<\/p>\n
court. Though it is not made clear whether the first defendant<\/p>\n
had filed such an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Civil Procedure for the other defendants as well, treating the<\/p>\n
decree passed as an exparte decree, it is seen from the judgment<\/p>\n
rendered by the lower appellate court that above defendant along<\/p>\n
with defendants 2 and 4 preferred the appeal, A.S No.59\/2002<\/p>\n
before that court. Admittedly the application under Order 9 Rule<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.905 OF 2010           – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
13 of the Code was turned down. So much so, in the given facts<\/p>\n
of the case, so far as the present appellants are concerned, their<\/p>\n
appeal can be looked into and considered only with respect to the<\/p>\n
challenges against the merit of the exparte decree passed against<\/p>\n
them, and not in respect of any ground which was available to<\/p>\n
them for their absence, which had resulted in passing of an<\/p>\n
exparte decree against them. When an exparte decree is passed<\/p>\n
against the defendant, he can seek for setting aside the decree<\/p>\n
under Order IX Rule 13 showing sufficient cause for his absence<\/p>\n
on the date of hearing or challenge such a decree by way of a<\/p>\n
regular appeal as provided by the Code. But where an appeal is<\/p>\n
preferred challenging the decree on its merits or on any other<\/p>\n
ground, and such appeal has been dismissed on any ground other<\/p>\n
than its withdrawal, explanation added to Rule 13 of Order IX of<\/p>\n
the Code under Act 104 of 1976 clearly spells out that no<\/p>\n
application under that rule for setting aside the exparte at the<\/p>\n
instance of that defendant will lie. That bar of considering an<\/p>\n
application for setting aside the exparte decree where an appeal<\/p>\n
preferred against such decree has been dismissed ‘on any ground<\/p>\n
other than its withdrawal’ is not dependent upon the question<\/p>\n
whether such appeal against the exparte decree was before or<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.905 OF 2010           – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
after the application under Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code. The<\/p>\n
dismissal of appeal against the exparte decree otherwise than on<\/p>\n
the ground of withdrawal interdicts the court which passed such<\/p>\n
decree in having a decision on its merit over an application under<\/p>\n
Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the<\/p>\n
application thereof under such circumstance has to be dismissed<\/p>\n
as not maintainable. However, the dismissal of an application<\/p>\n
under Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure will not as<\/p>\n
such affect the maintainability of an appeal against the exparte<\/p>\n
decree. But, if the application under the above Rule had been<\/p>\n
dismissed, in the appeal against the exparte decree the<\/p>\n
appellant\/defendant will not be allowed to impeach the decree on<\/p>\n
a ground for showing sufficient cause for his absence at the time<\/p>\n
of hearing of the case, and, the decree is open to challenge only<\/p>\n
on its merit, or jurisdiction of the court which had passed such<\/p>\n
decree.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The apex court, in “Bhanu Kumar v Archana kumar”<\/p>\n
(2005 KHC 72) has considered to what extent and how far the<\/p>\n
appeal preferred against an exparte decree could be considered<\/p>\n
when the appellant\/defendant had moved an application<\/p>\n
previously for setting aside that exparte decree under Order 9<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.905 OF 2010            – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure and it was dismissed. In such a<\/p>\n
case, the apex court has held the doctrine of ‘issue estoppel’ and<\/p>\n
also ’cause of action estoppel’ may arise. Dilating over that issue<\/p>\n
emerging from the dismissal of an application under Order 9 Rule<\/p>\n
13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and its impact on the<\/p>\n
entertainability of a regular appeal preferred from the decree by<\/p>\n
the defendant, the apex court has held thus:\n<\/p>\n
             “We have, however, no doubt in our mind that
\n      when an application under O.9, R.13 of the Code is
\n      dismissed, the defendant can only avail a remedy
\n      available there against, viz, to prefer an appeal in terms
\n      of O.43, R.1 of the Code.       Once such an appeal is
\n      dismissed, the Appellant cannot raise the same
\n      contention in the First Appeal. If it be held that such a
\n      contention can be raised both in the First Appeal as also
\n      in the proceedings arising from an application under
\n      Order 9, Rule 13, it may lead to conflict of decisions
\n      which is not contemplated in law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The dichotomy, in our opinion, can be resolved by
\n      holding that whereas the defendant would not be
\n      permitted to raise a contention as regards the
\n      correctness or otherwise of the order posting the suit for
\n      ex parte hearing by the Trial Court and\/or existence of a
\n      sufficient case for non appearance of the defendant
\n      before it, it would be open to him to argue in the First
\n      Appeal filed by him against S.96(2) of the Code on the
\n      merit of the suit so as to enable him to contend that the
\n      materials brought on record by the plaintiffs were not
\n      sufficient for passing a decree in his favour or the suit
\n      was otherwise not maintainable. Lack of jurisdiction of
\n      the Court can also be a possible plea in such an appeal.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
R.S.A No.905 OF 2010            – 7 –<\/span><\/p>\n
      5. Such being the position of law, in the present appeal the<\/p>\n
appellant herein is entitled only to challenge the decree granted<\/p>\n
to the plaintiff only on its merit, and that too on the materials<\/p>\n
available on the records of the case. The memorandum of appeal<\/p>\n
and also the arguments canvassed by the counsel to impeach the<\/p>\n
correctness of the exparte decree, it is seen, are built upon the<\/p>\n
various contentions raised by the defendants in their written<\/p>\n
statements, more particularly, with reference to the previous<\/p>\n
litigations which are stated to be still pending and not concluded<\/p>\n
so far.      I find, the contentions so raised to impeach the<\/p>\n
correctness of the exparte decree rendered against the appellant<\/p>\n
and in favour of the plaintiff, cannot be canvassed for as the<\/p>\n
correctness of such decree has to be tested with reference to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s case for declaration and materials tendered by them to<\/p>\n
claim such decree.       The learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
contended that in the appeal preferred before the court below, a<\/p>\n
number of documents were produced with a petition to receive<\/p>\n
them as additional evidence moving an application under Order<\/p>\n
41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The lower appellate<\/p>\n
court has not considered that application is the grievance<\/p>\n
espoused. Perusing the memorandum of appeal, I find no such<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.905 OF 2010            – 8 –<\/span><\/p>\n
ground has been raised to impeach the judgment of the lower<\/p>\n
appellate court other than making a statement to the effect that<\/p>\n
before the lower appellate court some documents were produced<\/p>\n
for reception as additional evidence.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    From the statements made in the memorandum of<\/p>\n
appeal, it is seen that the first appeal was preferred before the<\/p>\n
lower appellate court after considerable delay, ie, more than 900<\/p>\n
days. The delay was condoned and then the appeal was disposed<\/p>\n
on merits.      The exparte decree granted in favour of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
is seen challenged mainly on the ground that where the<\/p>\n
contesting defendants, including the present appellant, resisted<\/p>\n
the suit claims contending that the gift deed executed by the first<\/p>\n
defendant in favour of her children 2 to 7 as the power of attorney<\/p>\n
of the 8th defendant, transferring the rights of that defendant to<\/p>\n
defendants 2 to 7, she was unaware of the cancellation of the<\/p>\n
power of attorney and no notice thereof was issued to her, a<\/p>\n
burden was cast up on the plaintiff to show that the first<\/p>\n
defendant had notice of such cancellation. The plaintiff in the<\/p>\n
case, producing a copy of A6 cancellation deed executed by the<\/p>\n
8th defendant, has shown that the gift deed executed by the first<\/p>\n
defendant in favour of defendants 2 to 7 as the power of attorney<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.905 OF 2010            – 9 –<\/span><\/p>\n
of 8th defendant was after A6 cancellation deed. When that be the<\/p>\n
case, burden was on the defendants to substantiate their<\/p>\n
contentions raised against the claim of the plaintiff, and not<\/p>\n
otherwise.     Both the courts have concurrently found that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has established, by the materials tendered, the claim<\/p>\n
raised for declaration of its title and possession over the suit<\/p>\n
property and injunction against the defendants. Such concurrent<\/p>\n
findings entered by the courts below on the materials placed to<\/p>\n
grant the exparte decree in favour of the plaintiff upholding its<\/p>\n
claim over the suit property is not open to challenge in second<\/p>\n
appeal solely on the basis of the contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
defendants in their written statement when they have not<\/p>\n
substantiated them by any material whatsoever.           The appeal<\/p>\n
does not involve any question of law leave alone any substantial<\/p>\n
question of law for receiving it on file. Appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                    Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                        S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
\n                                                    JUDGE
\n                      \/\/True Copy\/\/<\/p>\n
                                             P.A to Judge<\/p>\n
vdv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural … on 12 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 905 of 2010() 1. JASMINE, D\/O.SIDDIQUE, JAS VIHAR, … Petitioner Vs 1. MUSLIM EDUCATION & CULTURAL CENTRE … Respondent 2. RUKHIYA BEEVI, W\/O.SIDDIQUE, 3. SIRAJ, S\/O.SIDDIQUE, 4. NISHA, D\/O. SIDDIQUE, 5. ANZAR, […]<\/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-31137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural ... on 12 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\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural ... on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-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=\"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-04T18:57:30+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural … on 12 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-04T18:57:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2041,\"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\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Jasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural ... on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-04T18:57:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural … on 12 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Jasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural ... on 12 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\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural ... on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-04T18:57:30+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural … on 12 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-04T18:57:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010"},"wordCount":2041,"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\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010","name":"Jasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural ... on 12 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-04T18:57:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasmine-vs-muslim-education-cultural-on-12-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jasmine vs Muslim Education & Cultural … on 12 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/31137","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=31137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31137\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}