{"id":45607,"date":"1989-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989"},"modified":"2018-01-09T07:19:59","modified_gmt":"2018-01-09T01:49:59","slug":"smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 2289, \t\t  1989 SCR  Supl. (1) 217<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K Saikia<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Saikia, K.N. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nSMT. KAZI NAJMUNISSA BEGUM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nYUSUF KHAN &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT21\/09\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nSAIKIA, K.N. (J)\nBENCH:\nSAIKIA, K.N. (J)\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 2289\t\t  1989 SCR  Supl. (1) 217\n 1989 SCC  Supl.  (2) 568 JT 1989 (3)\t717\n 1989 SCALE  (2)607\n\n\nACT:\n    Hyderabad  Tenancy\tand Agricultural  Lands\t Act,  1950:\nSections  2(r),\t (u),  (v), 31, 32, 34-37,  87-95--Exclusive\njurisdiction   of   the\t Tenancy   Authorities\t under\t the\nAct--Competent Authority to decide issue on merits.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant\/plaintiff instituted a suit for  declara-\ntion  of  title, possession and mesne profits  of  the\tsuit\nproperty.  The respondents\/ defendants 1 and 2 resisted\t the\nsuit  mainly  on the ground that they were  tenants  of\t one\nSirajuddin  who\t had allegedly acquired title  to  the\tsuit\nproperty  on the basis of a gift in favour of his wife.\t The\nTrial Court decreed the suit holding that Sirajuddin had  no\nright or title and that the defendants were trespassers. The\nHigh  Court rejected the defendants' appeal and the  special\nleave therefrom was rejected by this Court.\n    The\t decree-holder moved an Execution Petition for\tpos-\nsession.  The respondents objected to the execution  on\t the\nground\tthat they were tenants and could not, therefore,  be\ndispossessed in execution of the decree of the Civil  Court.\nThe  objection was rejected and the High Court rejected\t the\nappeal therefrom.\n    Thereafter, when the Execution Petition was set down for\nproceeding  further, once again the respondents\t raised\t the\nplea of tenancy, and this time the Executing Court raised an\nissue of tenancy and referred the same to the Tenancy  Court\nfor determination. The appellant appealed to the High Court.\nThe  High Court observed that there could be no question  of\ncreation of tenancy interest by those who themselves had  no\ntitle;\tthat  the  judgment debtors'  earlier  objection  to\nexecution  on the ground of their claim of tenancy was\talso\nrejected;  and\tit was not open to the judgment\t debtors  to\nonce  again raise an issue of tenancy before  the  Executing\nCourt which ought to have rejected the same contention. Even\nso,  the High Court having noted that judgment debtor No.  2\nhad  already filed an independent proceeding under the\tHyd-\nerabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 for declara-\ntion  of his tenancy rights observed that, if that  was\t so,\nthen the Competent\n218\nAuthority  under  the Tenancy Act would have to\t decide\t the\nissue on its own merits and in accordance with law irrespec-\ntive of and regardless of all observations, if any, touching\nupon  such a claim of tenancy in the civil  proceedings\t be-\ntween  the  parties. The High Court also observed  that\t the\nquestion  of tenancy was not directly in issue\tbetween\t the\nparties in the civil proceedings and the judgment debtor No.\n2  was not debarred from instituting proceedings  under\t the\nTenancy\t Act before the Competent Authority. The High  court\nallowed\t the revision petition, set aside the order  of\t the\nExecuting Court referring the issue of tenancy, and directed\nthe  Executing Court to proceed further with  the  Execution\nPetition.\n    Before  this Court it was contended that the High  Court\ncommitted  a serious error while setting aside the order  of\nthe  Executing Court referring the issue of tenancy  to\t the\nTehsildar,  at the same time allowing the proceedings  under\nthe Tenancy Act before the Tehsildar proceed in the face  of\nthe  fact that the judgment debtors' objection on the  basis\nof  their  tenancy  was already rejected  by  the  Executing\nCourt,\tand in holding that the competent  authority  should\ndecide the issue of tenancy in accordance with law irrespec-\ntive of and regardless of all observations made in the\tsuit\nand the appeal.\nDisposing of the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD: (1) The Tenancy Act had amended the law regulating\nthe  relations of land-holders and tenants  of\tagricultural\nland and the alienation of such land. [221B]\n    (2)\t Though\t it could he said that when the\t person\t who\ninducted the tenants on the land was found to be a trespass-\ner  on\tthe  date of the induction, the\t tenants  could\t not\ncontinue to have a right to be on the land against the\twill\nof the true owner, yet, taking into consideration the exclu-\nsive nature of jurisdiction of the Tenancy authorities under\nthe Tenancy Act, and the fact that the appellant has already\npreferred an appeal from the order of the competent authori-\nty,  the Court was not inclined to interfere with the  order\nof the High Court appealed against. [222D-E]\n<a href=\"\/doc\/743042\/\">Latchaiah v. Subrahmanyam,<\/a> [1967] 3 SCR 712, referred to.\n    (3)\t It will now be open to the appellant to  place\t the\ndecisions rendered in her favour by the Civil Courts  before\nthe competent authority hearing the appeal and to proceed in\naccordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act. [222F]\n219\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4003  of<br \/>\n1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 17.12. 1986  of\t the<br \/>\nBombay High Court in Civil Revision A. No. 270 of 1983.<br \/>\nR.S. Hegde and N. Ganpathy for the Appellant.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    K.N. SAIKIA, J. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe appellant. None appears for the respondents.<br \/>\n    The\t appellant  as plaintiff instituted suit No.  32  of<br \/>\n1964 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Auranga-<br \/>\nbad  for declaration of title, possession and mesne  profits<br \/>\nof the suit property. The respondents 1 and 2 as  defendants<br \/>\n1  and\t2 resisted the suit mainly on the ground  that\tthey<br \/>\nwere  inducted\tas tenants by Sirajuddin who  allegedly\t ac-<br \/>\nquired title to the suit property by a deed of gift executed<br \/>\nby Hasmuddin in favour of his wife Waliunnissa from whom  it<br \/>\nwas  inherited\tby Sirajuddin. The trial court\tdecreed\t the<br \/>\nsuit  holding that Sirajuddin had no right or title and\t the<br \/>\ndefendants were trespassers. In the appeal therefrom by\t the<br \/>\ndefendants  1  and 2 before a Division Bench of\t the  Bombay<br \/>\nHigh court the same plea of tenancy was raised and rejected;<br \/>\nand  it was held that the gift of the suit property by\tHas-<br \/>\nmuddin in favour of Waliunnissa was not proved. Their appli-<br \/>\ncation\tfor leave to appeal therefrom to the  Supreme  Court<br \/>\nwas also rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t decree-holder\tmoved the execution  petition  being<br \/>\nSpecial Darkhast No. 20 of 1967 for delivery of\t possession.<br \/>\nThe respondent Nos. 1 &amp; 2 (who were judgment debtor Nos. 1 &amp;\n<\/p>\n<p>2)  objected to the execution on the ground that  they\twere<br \/>\ntenants and could not, therefore, be dispossessed in  execu-<br \/>\ntion  of the decree of the Civil Court. The Executing  Court<br \/>\nrejected  this objection and directed the Darkhast  to\tpro-<br \/>\nceed. The defendants&#8217; Civil Appeal No. 264 of 1977 therefrom<br \/>\nwas  also  rejected by the High Court. Thereafter  when\t the<br \/>\naforesaid Darkhast No. 20 of 1967 was set down for  proceed-<br \/>\ning further, once again the same judgment debtor Nos. 1 &amp;  2<br \/>\nraised\tthe  plea of tenancy; and this\ttime  the  Executing<br \/>\nCourt  raised an issue of tenancy and referred the  same  to<br \/>\nthe Tenancy Court for determination. The appellant moved the<br \/>\nHigh Court in Civil Revision Application No. 270 of 1983 and<br \/>\nthe  High  Court observed, inter alia,\tthat  the  Executing<br \/>\nCourt  was not justified in raising an issue of tenancy,  as<br \/>\nsuch an issue did not arise<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">220<\/span><br \/>\nat  all the Court having found on evidence that\t Waliunnissa<br \/>\nhad  no\t title to the suit property and her  son  Sirajuddin<br \/>\ncould  not have inherited it as an heir of Waliunnissa,\t and<br \/>\nas  such there could be no question of creation\t of  tenancy<br \/>\ninterest  by  those who themselves had no  title;  that\t the<br \/>\njudgment  debtors&#8217;  earlier objection to  execution  on\t the<br \/>\nground\tof their claim of tenancy was also rejected; and  it<br \/>\nwas not open to the judgment debtor Nos. 1 &amp; 2 to once again<br \/>\nraise  an issue of tenancy before the Executing Court  which<br \/>\nought  to  have rejected the same contention. Even  so,\t the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  having  noted that judgment debtor\t No.  2\t had<br \/>\nalready filed an independent proceeding under the  Hyderabad<br \/>\nTenancy\t and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950  (hereinafter\t re-<br \/>\nferred\tto  as\t&#8216;the Tenancy Act&#8217;) for\tdeclaration  of\t his<br \/>\ntenancy\t rights in the suit land observed that, if that\t was<br \/>\nso, then the competent authority under the Tenancy Act would<br \/>\nhave  to decide the issue &#8220;on its own merits and in  accord-<br \/>\nance with law irrespective of and regardless of all observa-<br \/>\ntions, if any, touching upon such a claim of tenancy in\t the<br \/>\ncivil proceedings between the parties, viz. Special Suit No.<br \/>\n32 of 1964 and Appeal No. 824 of 1967&#8221;. The High Court\talso<br \/>\nobserved  that the question of tenancy was not\tdirectly  in<br \/>\nissue between the parties in the aforesaid civil proceedings<br \/>\nand  the judgment debtor No. 2 was not, therefore,  debarred<br \/>\nfrom  instituting proceedings under the Tenancy\t Act  before<br \/>\nthe  competent\tauthority. The High Court  further  observed<br \/>\nthat as the execution proceedings had been pending since the<br \/>\nyear 1967 it was expected that the competent authority would<br \/>\ndecide\tthe proceedings expeditiously. Accordingly the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt allowed the revision and set aside the impugned  order<br \/>\ndated  April 28, 1983 passed by the Executing Court  in\t the<br \/>\nsaid  Special Darkhast No. 20 of 1967 to the extent  it\t re-<br \/>\nferred\tissue  No. 1 to the Tenancy Tahsildar  or  Mamlatdar<br \/>\nunder  Section\t99(a) of the Tenancy Act and  the  Executing<br \/>\nCourt  was  directed  to proceed further  with\tthe  Special<br \/>\nDarkhast No. 20 of 1967 in the light of those observations.<br \/>\n    In this appeal the appellant assails the Judgment of the<br \/>\nHigh  Court on the grounds, inter alia, that the High  Court<br \/>\ncommitted a serious error, while setting aside the order  of<br \/>\nthe  Executing Court referring the issue of tenancy  to\t the<br \/>\nTahsildar,  at the same time allowing the proceedings  under<br \/>\nthe Tenancy Act before the Tahsildar to proceed in the\tface<br \/>\nof  the\t fact that the judgment debtors&#8217;  objection  on\t the<br \/>\nbasis of their tenancy was already rejected by the Executing<br \/>\nCourt;\tand in holding that the competent  authority  should<br \/>\ndecide the issue of tenancy in accordance with law irrespec-<br \/>\ntive of and regardless of all observations made in the\tsuit<br \/>\nand the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">221<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    In\tcourse\tof arguments, the learned  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant has stated that the competent authority under\t the<br \/>\nTenancy\t Act,  during  the pendency of\tthis  special  leave<br \/>\npetition, has already passed an order in favour of  judgment<br \/>\ndebtor\tNo.  2\tand the appellant has also  since  filed  an<br \/>\nappeal therefrom before the appellate authority. In view  of<br \/>\nthis  subsequent  development we have to examine  the  legal<br \/>\nposition qua the Tenancy Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t Tenancy  Act  had amended the\tlaw  regulating\t the<br \/>\nrelations  of land-holders and tenants of agricultural\tland<br \/>\nand the alienation of such land. &#8220;Tenancy&#8221; as defined in  s.<br \/>\n2(u)  of  the Tenancy Act, means the relationship  of  land-<br \/>\nholder\tand tenant. &#8220;Tenant&#8221; as defined in s. 2(v) means  an<br \/>\nassami shikmi who holde land on lease and includes a  person<br \/>\nwho  is\t deemed to be a tenant under the provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nTenancy Act. As defined in s. 2(r) &#8220;protected tenant&#8221;  means<br \/>\na  person who is deemed to be a protected tenant  under\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of ss. 34 to 37. Under s. 31 of the Tenancy\t Act<br \/>\nno interest of a tenant in any land held by him as a  tenant<br \/>\nshall  be  liable to be attached or sold in execution  of  a<br \/>\ndecree or order of a Civil Court. Section 32 of the  Tenancy<br \/>\nAct deals with procedure of taking possession. Under subsec-<br \/>\ntion  (1) thereof, a tenant or an agricultural\tlabourer  or<br \/>\nartisan entitled to possession of any land or dwelling house<br \/>\nunder  any  of the provisions of this Act may apply  to\t the<br \/>\nTahsildar in writing in the prescribed form for such posses-<br \/>\nsion.  Under sub-section (2) thereof, no  land-holder  shall<br \/>\nobtain\tpossession of any land or dwelling house held  by  a<br \/>\ntenant except under an order of the Tahsildar, for which  he<br \/>\nshall  apply in the prescribed form. Under sub-section\t(3),<br \/>\non  receipt of an application under sub-section (1) or\tsub-<br \/>\nsection\t (2) the Tahsildar shall, after holding an  enquiry,<br \/>\npass such order thereon as he deems fit. Section 33 provides<br \/>\nthat the Tenancy Act is not to affect the rights, privileges<br \/>\nof  tenant under any other law. Save as provided in  subsec-<br \/>\ntion (1) of section 30, nothing contained in this Act  shall<br \/>\nbe construed to limit or abridge the rights or privileges of<br \/>\nany  tenant  under any usage or law for the  time  being  in<br \/>\nforce  or  arising &#8216;out of any contract,  grant,  decree  or<br \/>\norder  of a court or otherwise howsoever. Chapter IV in\t ss.<br \/>\n34 to 46 deals with rights of protected tenants. Chapter  IX<br \/>\nof  the Tenancy Act in ss. 87 to 95 deals with\tConstitution<br \/>\nof  Tribunal; Procedure and Powers of  Authorities;  Appeals<br \/>\netc.  Chapter  XI  contains  the  Miscellaneous\t provisions.<br \/>\nSection 99, dealing with Bar of Jurisdiction provides:\t&#8220;(1)<br \/>\nSave  as  provided  in this Act no Civil  Court\t shall\thave<br \/>\njurisdiction  to  settle, decide or deal with  any  question<br \/>\nwhich is by or under this Act required to be settled, decid-<br \/>\ned or dealt with by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector  or<br \/>\nby the Board of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">222<\/span><br \/>\nRevenue or Government. (2) No order of the Tahsildar, Tribu-<br \/>\nnal  of Collector or of the Board of Revenue  or  Government<br \/>\nmade.under  this  Act, shall be questioned in any  Civil  or<br \/>\nCriminal Court.&#8221; Section 104 enjoins the Act to prevail over<br \/>\nother enactments and says: &#8220;This Act and any rule, order  or<br \/>\nnotification  made  or issued thereunder shall\thave  effect<br \/>\nnotwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in<br \/>\nany  other enactment with respect to matters  enumerated  in<br \/>\nList II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India<br \/>\nor  in\tany instrument having effect by virtue of  any\tsuch<br \/>\nother enactment.&#8221; The Tenancy Act was inserted in the  Ninth<br \/>\nSchedule  to the Constitution at Entry 36. Article 3  lB  of<br \/>\nthe  Constitution  of  India gives full\t protection  to\t the<br \/>\nTenancy\t Act and its provisions in the Schedule against\t any<br \/>\nchallenge  on the ground of inconsistency with or  abridging<br \/>\nof any of the rights conferred by Part III of the  Constitu-<br \/>\ntion and it would be so notwithstanding any judgment, decree<br \/>\nor order of any court or Tribunal to the contrary.<br \/>\n    Though  after  the\tdecree of the civil  court,  on\t the<br \/>\nauthority  of Latchaiah v. Subrahmanyarn, [1967] 3 SCR\t712,<br \/>\nit  could  be  said that when the person  who  inducted\t the<br \/>\ntenants on the land was found to be a trespasser on the date<br \/>\nof  the induction, the tenants could not continue to have  a<br \/>\nright to be on the land against the will of the true  owner,<br \/>\nyet,  taking  into  consideration the  exclusive  nature  of<br \/>\njurisdiction  of the Tenancy authorities under\tthe  Tenancy<br \/>\nAct,  the above provisions, and the fact that the  appellant<br \/>\nhas already preferred an appeal from the order of the compe-<br \/>\ntent  authority, we are not inclined to interfere  with\t the<br \/>\nimpugned  order, as it will now be open to the appellant  to<br \/>\nplace  the  decisions rendered in her favour  by  the  Civil<br \/>\nCourts before the competent authority hearing the appeal and<br \/>\nto proceed in accordance with the provisions of the  Tenancy<br \/>\nAct. If ultimately the judgment debtor No. 2 is held to have<br \/>\nbeen  or not to have been a tenant, it will be open for\t the<br \/>\nappellant  to  proceed accordingly further  in\tthe  Special<br \/>\nDarkhast No. 20 of 1967 as directed by the High Court.\tThis<br \/>\nappeal is disposed of as above, with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>R.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t       Appeal\tdis-\nposed of.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">223<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Smt. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 2289, 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 217 Author: K Saikia Bench: Saikia, K.N. (J) PETITIONER: SMT. KAZI NAJMUNISSA BEGUM Vs. RESPONDENT: YUSUF KHAN &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT21\/09\/1989 BENCH: SAIKIA, K.N. (J) BENCH: SAIKIA, K.N. [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45607","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1989-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-09T01:49:59+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=\"13 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-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-09T01:49:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989\"},\"wordCount\":1756,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989\",\"name\":\"Smt. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-09T01:49:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989\"}]},{\"@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. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-09T01:49:59+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989","datePublished":"1989-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-09T01:49:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989"},"wordCount":1756,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989","name":"Smt. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-09T01:49:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-kazi-najmunissa-begum-vs-yusuf-khan-ors-on-21-september-1989#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Kazi Najmunissa Begum vs Yusuf Khan &amp; Ors on 21 September, 1989"}]},{"@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\/45607","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=45607"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45607\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45607"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45607"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45607"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}