{"id":50691,"date":"2009-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-14T09:55:07","modified_gmt":"2016-09-14T04:25:07","slug":"mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: P. R. Borkar<\/div>\n
                             1\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH \n                      AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n\n\n                                   \n              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 40 OF 1999\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n     Mohd. Ayyub s\/o Abdul Khader,\n     Age: 38 years, Occ: Agril.,\n     R\/o. Kaij, Tq. Kaij,\n     District Beed.              .. Appellant\n                                (Orig. Complainant)\n\n\n\n\n                          \n              Versus\n\n     1.\n                \n          Zahoora Begum d\/o Abdul Gafoor,\n          Age: 48years, Occ: Not known.\n          R\/o. Ambejogai, at present at\n               \n          Kaij, Dist. Beed.\n\n     2.   Mohd. Yousufuddin s\/o Ahmed\n          Mohiuddin Qazi, \n          Age: 46 years, Occ: Agril.,\n      \n\n\n          R\/o. Kaij, Dist. Beed.\n   \n\n\n\n     3.   Mukhtaruddin s\/o Sharifuddin\n          Kazi,Age: 51 years, Occ: Agril.,\n          R\/o. Kaij, Dist. Beed.\n\n\n\n\n\n     4.   Vithal Shankar Neharkar,\n          Age: 35 years, Occ: Agri.,\n          R\/o. Pissegaon, Tq. Kaij,\n          District Beed.\n\n\n\n\n\n     5.   The State of Maharashtra. ..    Respondents\n                               (Ori. Accd. No.1 to 4)\n                   ...\n     Mr. A.A. Ansari, Advocate i\/by \n     Mr. A.A. Paithane, Advocate for the appellant.\n     Ms. Vanita H. Sangole Advocate holding for \n     Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos. \n     1 to 4.\n     Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi,A.P.P. for respondent No.5.\n                   ...\n\n\n\n\n                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:19:52 :::\n                                   2\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n                           CORAM :     P.R. BORKAR,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                           DATE  :  20TH NOVEMBER, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
     .    This is the appeal          preferred   by   the <\/p>\n
     original   complainant   being   aggrieved   by   the <\/p>\n
     order   of   acquittal   passed   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
     Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kaij in S.C.C.\n<\/p>\n
     No.   589\/1990   decided   on   25-06-1997   whereby   the <\/p>\n
     present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were acquitted of <\/p>\n
     offence   punishable   under   Section   423   of   the <\/p>\n
     Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
     2.   The present appellant who was the original <\/p>\n
     complainant has filed private complaint against <\/p>\n
     respondent Nos. 1 to 4 alleging that he is the <\/p>\n
     owner   and   possessor   of   land   Survey   No.   6\/U <\/p>\n
     admeasuring 5 Acres 35 Gunthas at village Kaij.\n<\/p>\n
     It   is   stated   that   the   said   land   was   initially <\/p>\n
     cultivated   by   his   father   Abdul   Quadar   since <\/p>\n
     1948.   It   was   Inam   land   of   Madad   Mash   nature.\n<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:19:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
     Under   the     provisions   of   Hyderabad   Inam <\/p>\n
     Abolition   and   Cash   Grants   Act   of   1954,   State <\/p>\n
     Government became the owner of the land for the <\/p>\n
     period from 20-7-55 to 1-7-60.  Later on, as per <\/p>\n
     Section 69(1) of the said Act, occupancy rights <\/p>\n
     regarding the said land were conferred on Abdul <\/p>\n
     Qadar, the father of the complainant  on payment <\/p>\n
     of   ‘Najrana’.   Mutation   Entry   No.   22   was <\/p>\n
     certified   on   26-1-62   by   the   Naib   Tahsildar, <\/p>\n
     Kaij.     Thus,   from   26-1-62   father   of   the <\/p>\n
     complainant   was   enjoying   the   property.     Father <\/p>\n
     of complainant expired on 23-04-84 and his four <\/p>\n
     sons   including   the   complainant   became   owners.\n<\/p>\n
     Respondent   No.   1   has   no   concern   with   the <\/p>\n
     property. 1 Acre 30 Gunthas land out of Survey <\/p>\n
     No. 6\/U was sold to  Bapusaheb Chincholikar and <\/p>\n
     Shantinath.     Excluding   that   portion,   remaining <\/p>\n
     portion   is   owned   and   possessed   by   the <\/p>\n
     complainant.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   It   is   further   case   of   the   complainant-\n<\/p>\n
     appellant that respondent No. 1 had no  concern <\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:19:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
     with   Survey   No.   6\/U   and   in   spite   of   that,   he <\/p>\n
     sold a plot admeasuring 56 x 27 feet out of it <\/p>\n
     to respondent No. 2 for Rs.22,000\/- on 25-09-90.\n<\/p>\n
     Registered sale deed was executed by respondent <\/p>\n
     No.   1   in   favour   of   respondent   No.   2   and <\/p>\n
     respondent   Nos.   3   and   4   signed   thereon   as <\/p>\n
     attesting witnesses and thus, respondent Nos. 1 <\/p>\n
     to   4   have   committed   offence   under   Section   423 <\/p>\n
     read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   In   support   of   his   case,   the   complainant <\/p>\n
     examined   himself   and   three   witnesses.     He <\/p>\n
     produced certain documents.   Learned Magistrate <\/p>\n
     was   not   satisfied   and   he   passed   the   order   of <\/p>\n
     acquittal which is challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   Section 423 of the Indian Penal Code is as <\/p>\n
     follows.\n<\/p>\n
                     “S.423. Whoever dishonestly
\n                or fraudulently signs, executes
\n                or becomes a party to any deed
\n                or instrument which purports to
\n                transfer   or   subject   to   any  <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:19:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
              charge,   any   property,   or   any
\n              interest   therein,   and   which  <\/p>\n
              contains   any   false   statement
\n              relating   to   the   consideration
\n              for such transfer or charge, or
\n              relating   to   the   person   or  <\/p>\n
              persons   for   whose   use   or
\n              benefit   it   is   really   intended
\n              to   operate,   shall   be   punished
\n              with   imprisonment   of   either
\n              description   for   a   term   which  <\/p>\n
              may   extend   to   two   years,   or
\n              with fine, or with both”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thus, the offence defined under Section 423 of <\/p>\n
     the Indian Penal Code is mainly relating to the <\/p>\n
     fraudulent   and   fictitious   acts.     Essential <\/p>\n
     ingredients of the offence under Section 423 of <\/p>\n
     the Indian Penal Code are as under.\n<\/p>\n
                   (1) The   accused   signed,
\n              executed or became party to any
\n              deed or instrument;\n<\/p>\n
                   (2) that   such   deed   or <\/p>\n
              instrument   purported   to
\n              transfer   or   subject   to   any
\n              charge,   any   property,   or   any
\n              interest therein;\n<\/p>\n
                    (3) that   such   deed   or
\n              instrument   contained   any   false
\n              statement   relating   to   the
\n              consideration for such transfer
\n              or   charge,   or   relating   to   the
\n              person or persons for whose use <\/p>\n
                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:19:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
                or   benefit   it   is   really
\n                intended to operate and;\n<\/p>\n
                     (4) that   the   accused   did
\n                sign or execute or become party
\n                to  the  said  deed  or  instrument  <\/p>\n
                dishonestly or fraudulently.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   It   is   not   the   case   herein   that   respondent <\/p>\n
     No.   2   did   not   pay   interest.     He   paid <\/p>\n
     consideration of Rs. 22,000\/- to respondent No.<\/p>\n
     1.  It is the case that respondent No. 1 had no <\/p>\n
     title to the land and in spite of that, the sale <\/p>\n
     deed of plot was executed.  It may be noted that <\/p>\n
     it   is   not   the   case   of   respondent   No.   2   that <\/p>\n
     respondent   No.   1   had   no   title   and   in   spite   of <\/p>\n
     that, he executed the same.   It is the case of <\/p>\n
     complainant-appellant that respondent No. 1 had <\/p>\n
     no   title   to   convey   over   the   plot   in   question.\n<\/p>\n
     The evidence  of complainant   is at  Exhibit-98.\n<\/p>\n
     He   spoke   as   per   his   complaint   which   is <\/p>\n
     reproduced above, and stated that respondent No. <\/p>\n
     1   had   no   concerned   with   the   property   and   the <\/p>\n
     plot   in   question   and   in   spite   of   that, <\/p>\n
     respondent No. 1 executed sale deed in favour of <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:19:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
     respondent   No.2   and   respondent   Nos.   3   and   4 <\/span><\/p>\n
     signed thereon as a witnesses.  Original ‘Sanad’ <\/p>\n
     conferring   occupancy   right   on   the   father   of <\/p>\n
     complainant   is   not   produced   on   record.     The <\/p>\n
     complainant   produced   on   record   Mutation   Entry <\/p>\n
     No.   22   at   Exhibit-99,   disposal   schedule   at <\/p>\n
     Exhibit-100,   Mutation   Entry   No.   1700   at <\/p>\n
     Exhibit-101, 7\/12 extract at Exhibit-102.\n<\/p>\n
     7.   The   perusal   of   original   Record   and <\/p>\n
     Proceedings   indicate   that   what   is   produced   on <\/p>\n
     record are all xerox copies of certified copies <\/p>\n
     and not the original certified copies.   In the <\/p>\n
     cross examination, the complainant admitted that <\/p>\n
     he   has   not   produced   the   document   of   title   in <\/p>\n
     favour of his father.  He was not aware how the <\/p>\n
     land had come to his father.   He was not aware <\/p>\n
     in how many pot hissas Survey No. 6 of Kaij was <\/p>\n
     divided.   He then admitted  that Mutation Entry <\/p>\n
     No. 1700 was set aside in appeal by the Deputy <\/p>\n
     Collector, Ambajogai and his appeal against the <\/p>\n
     said decision was dismissed.   He did not admit <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:19:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
     that Revision Application preferred against the <\/p>\n
     dismissal   of   appeal,   was   not   admitted,   but   he <\/p>\n
     then   admitted   that   he   had   filed   one   Writ <\/p>\n
     Petition   in   the   High   Court.     So   one   thing   is <\/p>\n
     clear   that   Mutation   Entry   No.   1700   by   which <\/p>\n
     names of four sons of Abdul were entered to the <\/p>\n
     land   Survey   No.   6\/U,   was   challenged.     Said <\/p>\n
     Mutation   Entry   was   set   aside   by   the   Deputy <\/p>\n
     Collector   and   order   remained   confirmed   till <\/p>\n
     Revision and then Writ Petition was filed in the <\/p>\n
     High Court but it is not stated what happened of <\/p>\n
     the said Writ Petition and whether it is still <\/p>\n
     pending.  The complainant further stated that he <\/p>\n
     was not aware if Special Civil Suit No.2\/1991 is <\/p>\n
     pending   in   the   Court   of   Civil   Judge,   Senior <\/p>\n
     Division,   Ambajogai,   on   the   same   issue.     He <\/p>\n
     further   admitted   that   there   is   one   standing <\/p>\n
     house in Survey No. 6\/U. He denied that it was <\/p>\n
     occupied by accused No. 1, but admitted that he <\/p>\n
     prosecuted   accused   No.   1   in   Criminal   Case   No.<\/p>\n
     446\/1990   for   offence   punishable   under   Section <\/p>\n
     448   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   and   the   same   was <\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:19:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
     dismissed.     He   also   admitted   that   he   had <\/p>\n
     prosecuted accused No. 1 for offence punishable <\/p>\n
     under   Section   379   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   in <\/p>\n
     Case   No.   86\/1991   and   the   same   was   also <\/p>\n
     dismissed.   Thus, these admissions clearly show <\/p>\n
     that   the   relations   of   the   complainant   with <\/p>\n
     accused No. 1 had been strained for long back.\n<\/p>\n
     He had prosecuted respondent No. 1 for trespass <\/p>\n
     in   the   house   situated   in   the   property.     It   is <\/p>\n
     also   clear   that   litigation   is   pending   between <\/p>\n
     the complainant one one hand and respondent No. <\/p>\n
     1 on other regarding ownership and rights in the <\/p>\n
     property in question.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   In   the   facts   and   circumstances,   it   cannot <\/p>\n
     be   said   that   execution   of   the   sale   deed   by <\/p>\n
     respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 2 <\/span><\/p>\n
     was fraudulent or dishonest. The trial Court has <\/p>\n
     observed   that   the   name   of   Abdul   Gafur,   the <\/p>\n
     husband of respondent No.1 was entered in other <\/p>\n
     rights column of V.F. 7\/12 extract.   So in the <\/p>\n
     facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   merely <\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:19:52 :::<\/span>
\n                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
     because   dispute   has   been   pending   between   the <\/p>\n
     complainant   and   respondent   No.   1   regarding   the <\/p>\n
     property   in   question,   it   cannot   be   said   that <\/p>\n
     respondents   have   committed     offence   under <\/p>\n
     Section   423   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   by <\/p>\n
     executing   the   sale   deed.     In   my   opinion,   this <\/p>\n
     appeal   against   the   acquittal   has   no   merit   and <\/p>\n
     deserves to be dismissed.   Hence the appeal is <\/p>\n
     dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                   [ P.R. BORKAR, J.]<\/p>\n
     sut\/NOV09\/cra40.99          <\/p>\n
                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:19:52 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009 Bench: P. R. Borkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 40 OF 1999 Mohd. Ayyub s\/o Abdul Khader, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agril., R\/o. Kaij, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. .. Appellant (Orig. Complainant) Versus […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50691","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009 - 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\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-14T04:25:07+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-14T04:25:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1318,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Mohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-14T04:25:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Mohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009 - 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\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-14T04:25:07+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-14T04:25:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009"},"wordCount":1318,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009","name":"Mohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-14T04:25:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohd-ayyub-vs-zahoora-begum-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohd. Ayyub vs Zahoora Begum on 20 November, 2009"}]},{"@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\/50691","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=50691"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50691\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50691"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50691"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50691"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}