{"id":48206,"date":"2005-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005"},"modified":"2016-12-23T00:44:08","modified_gmt":"2016-12-22T19:14:08","slug":"iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005","title":{"rendered":"Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B.P.Singh<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.P.Singh, Arun Kumar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7690 of 1995\n\nPETITIONER:\nIQBAL &amp; ORS.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHAKUMUDDIN &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/11\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nB.P.SINGH &amp; ARUN KUMAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nWITH C.A.NO.7691\/1995, C.A.NO.7692\/1995 &amp; C.A.NO.7693\/1995<\/p>\n<p>B.P.SINGH, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tI.A.Nos.1 and 2 for deleting the names of some of the appellants are<br \/>\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn these appeals, a common order of the High Court has been<br \/>\nchallenged. The High Court, by its impugned order, upheld the order of the Trial<br \/>\nCourt striking out certain paragraphs in the pleadings.  The Trial Court had<br \/>\nstruck out portions of the written statement, as also paragraph 5 of the plaint.<br \/>\n\tThe suits in question has been filed by Shri Gulam Abbas and others,<br \/>\nwho claim to be Dawoodi Bohras and who accept the Dai-ul-Mutlaq as their<br \/>\nspiritual leader.  They claim to be residents of Udaipur where there is a settlement<br \/>\nof  Dawoodi Bohras, who owe allegiance to their spiritual leader and religious<br \/>\nhead.  The suits have been filed in a representative capacity on behalf of Dawoodi<br \/>\nBohras owing allegiance to their spiritual leader.  The case of the plaintiffs is that<br \/>\nthe defendants and others who style themselves as Bohra youth Association and<br \/>\nwho have formed a separate organisation named as  Dawoodi Bohra Jammat of<br \/>\nUdaipur, have challenged the spiritual and religious authority of the Dai-ul-<br \/>\nMutlaq,  and have wrongfully interfered with the rights of the plaintiffs and other<br \/>\nDawoodi Bohras who offer their congregational prayers led by Pesh Imams,<br \/>\nappointed or nominated by or under the authority of  Dai-ul-Mutlaq in<br \/>\nmasjids\/mosques at Udaipur.  The plaint refers to the various properties of the<br \/>\ncommunity, including four mosques\/masjids at Udaipur.  Their grievance is that<br \/>\nthe defendants have been interfering with their right to offer namaz led by Pesh-<br \/>\nImams in the four masjids\/mosques and have been  wrongfully disturbing the<br \/>\nother prayers being said in the four masjids\/mosques.  They have been interfering<br \/>\nwith and disturbed other religious gatherings,  functions, and ceremonies being<br \/>\nconducted in the said masjids\/mosques with the permission and under the<br \/>\nauthority of  Dai-ul-Mutlaq. They have at times resorted to violence which<br \/>\nnecessitated the religious functions and ceremonies being held at some private<br \/>\nresidences.  In this manner, the defendants have interfered with the beneficial<br \/>\nuse of the said masjids\/mosques by the members of the  Dawoodi Bohra<br \/>\ncommunity, who owe allegiance to their spiritual leader and religious head,<br \/>\nnamely, Dai-ul-Mutlaq.  The defendants have no right to object to the plaintiffs&#8217;<br \/>\naforesaid rights in the masjids\/mosques.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe plaintiffs have sought the following reliefs namely, that the<br \/>\ndefendants be restrained by permanent order of injunction from preventing the<br \/>\nplaintiffs and other Dawoodi Bohras owing allegiance to their spiritual leader and<br \/>\nreligious head, from entering the said masjids\/mosques and\/or from offering or<br \/>\nparticipating in the Imamat\/Jamaat Namaaz\/prayers led by Pesh Imams and\/or<br \/>\nattending or participating in any Vaiz, Majils or other religious functions,<br \/>\ngatherings or ceremonies etc.etc.  A relief has also been asked for, that the<br \/>\ndefendants may be restrained by an order of injunction from holding their<br \/>\nseparate Imamat\/Jamaat Namaaz and\/or from holding Vaiz Majlis etc. in the<br \/>\naforesaid four masjids\/mosques, as stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt would thus be seen that the suit essentially is for permanent<br \/>\ninjunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the  rights of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs who offer namaaz etc. and who take part in ceremonies held in the<br \/>\naforesaid four masjids\/mosques.  The allegation against the defendants is that<br \/>\nthey have set up their own organisations who have challenged the authority of the<br \/>\nDai-ul-Mutlaq in these matters, and who have prevented the plaintiffs from<br \/>\nexercising their rights, sometimes with the use of violence.  Under these<br \/>\ncircumstances, to vindicate their rights, the plaintiffs have sought appropriate<br \/>\norders from the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs we have noticed earlier, paragraph 5 of the plaint has been struck<br \/>\nout by the Trial Court, which order has been affirmed by the High Court and no<br \/>\nappeal has been preferred against that order.  We are only concerned with the<br \/>\nstriking out of portions of written statement by the Trial Court, which has been<br \/>\naffirmed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn paragraph 1.2 of the written statement filed by the defendants,<br \/>\ncertain allegations are made with regard to the priestly class having started<br \/>\ncertain practices in the name of religion which amounted to commercialisation of<br \/>\nreligion.  In this regard, a reference has been made to &#8220;Mishaq&#8221;, which according<br \/>\nto the plaintiffs, is a religious doctrine or a tenet.  According to the defendants,<br \/>\neven though &#8220;Mishaq&#8221; has remained a major ritual, bearing no particular<br \/>\nsignificance in places like India, yet it is implemented requiring declarations to be<br \/>\nmade on oath.  The defendants have described the nature of oath subscribed to by<br \/>\nthe members of the community.  They have also referred to two other  rituals,<br \/>\nnamely &#8220;Raza&#8221; and &#8220;Barrat&#8221; and have alleged that these rituals have become<br \/>\ndeadly weapons in the hands of the priestly class.  They have offered their views<br \/>\non  these rituals, which, according to them, is wholly unnecessary as they are<br \/>\nnever a part of the religious tenet and in any event they are being misused.  The<br \/>\naforesaid practices gave rise and  impetus to a reformist movement in the<br \/>\ncommunity against commercialisation of  religion which became a world<br \/>\nmovement.  It is contended that the Bohra Youth Association accept the Dai-ul-<br \/>\nMutlaq as the head of the community, but insist on reforms in regard to Razzaq,<br \/>\nMisaq and Barrat etc.  They have also referred to other achievements of the Youth<br \/>\nAssociation like contesting the  elections etc.<br \/>\n\tIt would be noticed that so far as paragraph 1.2 of the plaint is<br \/>\nconcerned, there is hardly any reference to &#8220;Mishaq&#8221;, &#8220;Barrat&#8221; and &#8220;Raza&#8221;.  In<br \/>\nparagraph 1 of the plaint the plaintiffs have only averred that the Bohra<br \/>\ncommunity as its spiritual leader the Dai-ul-Mutlaq and the plaintiffs  owe<br \/>\nallegiance to him. That the suit has been filed on behalf of those who recognise<br \/>\nhim as their spiritual leader and religious head.  In paragraph 2 of the plaint it is<br \/>\nstated that the defendants styled themselves as Bohra Youth association.  They<br \/>\nformed an organisation.  The plaintiffs have challenged the defendants&#8217;  right  to<br \/>\nchallenge the authority of  the spiritual and religious head, the Dai-ul-Mutlaq and<br \/>\nto interfere with the rights of the plaintiffs and other Dawoodi Bohras to offer<br \/>\ncongregational prayers led by Pesh Imams appointed or nominated by the Dai-ul-<br \/>\nMutlaq in Masjids\/mosques at Udaipur.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe High Court has considered the question as to whether the<br \/>\naverments in paragraph 1.2 of the written statement are at all necessary having<br \/>\nregard to the averments in the plaint and the nature of the suit.  The High Court<br \/>\nhas taken the view that the plaintiffs have claimed the reliefs\/injunction on the<br \/>\nbasis of allegations that Dai-ul-Mutlaq and persons appointed by him or his Amil,<br \/>\nhave the authority to lead the namaaz and conduct the religious rituals in the<br \/>\nmasjids\/mosques and that right has been denied by the defendants.  Thus, the<br \/>\nobject of the suit is to obtain an injunction restraining the defendants from<br \/>\npreventing the plaintiffs and other Dawoodi Bohras who owe allegiance to their<br \/>\nspiritual leader and religious head from entering the four masjids\/mosques and<br \/>\nfrom performing the religious ceremonies etc.  The High Court has also noticed<br \/>\nthat there are no allegations in the plaint, nor is any relief claimed, regarding the<br \/>\nmanner and the authority under which the Dai-ul-Mutlaq has a right to exercise<br \/>\nthe power as regards  &#8220;Mishaq&#8221;, &#8220;Barrat&#8221; and &#8220;Raza&#8221;, nor is there  any prayer<br \/>\nmade for restraining the defendants from interfering in exercise of those rights in<br \/>\nany particular manner.  The High Court, therefore, concluded that in the absence<br \/>\nof any relief sought in respect of &#8220;Mishaq&#8221;, &#8220;Barrat&#8221; and &#8220;Raza&#8221; and having regard<br \/>\nto the frame of the suit, the case set up by the defendants regarding &#8220;Mishaq&#8221;<br \/>\n&#8220;Barrat&#8221; and &#8220;Raza&#8221; is not at all  relevant.  The  reading of the plaint and the<br \/>\nreliefs claimed do not show that any relief has been claimed based on  allegations<br \/>\nmade with regard to  &#8220;Mishaq&#8221;, &#8220;Barrat&#8221; or &#8220;Raza&#8221;.  The reference to &#8220;Mishaq&#8221;,<br \/>\n&#8220;Barrat&#8221; and &#8220;Raza&#8221; is not relevant for making out the case set up by the<br \/>\ndefendants.  In these circumstances, it is found that the averments made in<br \/>\nparagraph 1.2 of the written statement are not relevant, and it is merely an<br \/>\nattempt to enlarge the  scope of the suit filed by the plaintiffs.  It is, therefore,<br \/>\nconcluded that the averments in paragraph 1.2 of the written statement are<br \/>\nunnecessary, and shall embarrass  and delay the fair trial of the suit if permitted<br \/>\nto stand as they are.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe find ourselves in complete agreement with the view expressed by<br \/>\nthe learned Judge.  It must be noticed  that so far as the  Dai-ul-Mutlaq  is<br \/>\nconcerned, there  is not even a party in the suits.  Therefore, the question as to<br \/>\nwhether &#8220;Mishaq&#8221;, &#8220;Barrat&#8221; and &#8220;Raza&#8221; are rituals which are wholly unnecessary,<br \/>\nor in regard to which the  Dai-ul-Mutlaq  has been acting in an arbitrary manner<br \/>\nby abusing his authority as spiritual head, is not at all relevant.  In the connected<br \/>\nsuit, if such questions are raised which are found to be relevant, they will be gone<br \/>\ninto, since that suit has been filed by the   Dai-ul-Mutlaq himself.  So far as the<br \/>\ninstant suit is concerned, to us it  appears that the pleadings contained in<br \/>\nparagraph 1.2 of the written statement to the extent that they have been struck<br \/>\nout by the High Court, are wholly unnecessary and is bound to delay the disposal<br \/>\nof the suit, if parties are permitted to lead evidence on such  unnecessary issues.<br \/>\nWe do not find that the aforesaid pleading has any connection with the averments<br \/>\nin the plaint or with the reliefs claimed in the suit.  Similarly a portion of<br \/>\nparagraph 5 of the written statement has been struck out because it contains<br \/>\nunnecessary averments regarding exploitation in the garb of &#8220;Mishaq&#8221;.    Only a<br \/>\nportion of paragraph 5 of the written statement has been struck out, though<br \/>\nparagraph 5 of the plaint has been struck out in its entirety.  However, we do not<br \/>\nwish to make any directions in this regard.  In paragraph 27 of the written<br \/>\nstatement certain irrelevant averments have been made with regard to defendants<br \/>\nnot being permitted to enter into any of the community&#8217;s masjids\/mosques etc.<br \/>\noutside Udaipur and   other places.  The High Court, in our view, has rightly<br \/>\nstruck out  the portion of paragraph 27 of the written statement, as the same will<br \/>\nonly unnecessary delay the disposal of the suit if evidence is  to be brought  on<br \/>\nrecord which is wholly unnecessary.  Similarly, paragraph 33 of the written<br \/>\nstatement has been deleted by the High Court. Paragraph 33 contains averments<br \/>\nwith regard to &#8220;Mishaqs&#8221; and &#8220;Barrats&#8221;. We are of the view that the averments are<br \/>\nwholly unnecessary, having regard to the frame of the suit and the nature of the<br \/>\nreliefs prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tCounsel for the appellant relied upon three decisions reported in<br \/>\nAnderson Kirkwood Tennent Vs. Walter Michel reported in AIR 1925 Calcutta 860,<br \/>\nAll India Reporter Ltd. Vs. D.D.Datar reported in AIR 1951 Nagpur 412 and Anant<br \/>\nBalkrishna Naik Vs. Govind Datta Gaunderkar reported in  AIR 1976 Goa 74.  We<br \/>\nhave carefully perused these judgments and we are of the view that the law laid<br \/>\ndown in those cases is not applicable to the present case.  However, having regard<br \/>\nto the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the High Court as also the<br \/>\nfinding recorded by us, portions of the written statement which have been struck<br \/>\nout are  wholly unnecessary and  therefore, have been rightly struck out.  The<br \/>\nHigh Court has rightly not gone into the question as to whether the averments in<br \/>\nthe written statement are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.  It is not necessary<br \/>\nfor us also to express any opinion on this aspect of the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the result, we find no merit in these appeals and the same are<br \/>\naccordingly dismissed.  No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005 Author: B.P.Singh Bench: B.P.Singh, Arun Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7690 of 1995 PETITIONER: IQBAL &amp; ORS. RESPONDENT: HAKUMUDDIN &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/11\/2005 BENCH: B.P.SINGH &amp; ARUN KUMAR JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T WITH [&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-48206","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>Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005 - 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\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-22T19:14:08+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T19:14:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2003,\"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\\\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005\",\"name\":\"Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-22T19:14:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005 - 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\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-22T19:14:08+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005","datePublished":"2005-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T19:14:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005"},"wordCount":2003,"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\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005","name":"Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-22T19:14:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/iqbal-ors-vs-hakumuddin-ors-on-22-november-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Iqbal &amp; Ors vs Hakumuddin &amp; Ors on 22 November, 2005"}]},{"@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\/48206","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=48206"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48206\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}