{"id":53339,"date":"2007-06-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007"},"modified":"2017-03-28T19:15:43","modified_gmt":"2017-03-28T13:45:43","slug":"t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"T.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 38430 of 2003(Y)\n\n\n1. T.HAMEED, S\/O.THAYAL MOHAMMED,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n4. T.MOOSA, S\/O.THAYAL MOHAMMED,\n5. M.P.FATHIMA, W\/O.T.ABDULRAHIMAN,\n6. FAUSIA, D\/O.T.ABDUL RAHIMAN,\n7. MUMTHAS, D\/O.T.ABDULLE,\n8. ITTAMMAL ABDULLA, ALIAS MOLLKIRIYETH\n9. ITTAMMEL HASSAN K.AHAMMED ALIAS\n10. ITTAMMAL HAMSA ALIAS MOLLAKIRIYATH HAMSA\n11. ITTAMMAL ABOOBACKER ALIAS MOLLAKIRIYATH\n12. MOHAMMED SALIHA, S\/O.T.ABDULLA,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. T.ABDULLA HAJI, S\/O.THAYAL MOHAMMED,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. T.ABDURAHIMAN, S\/O.THAYAL MOHAMMED,\n\n3. T.HASSAIN, S\/O.THAYAL MOHAMMED,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\n\n Dated :15\/06\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n                              PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.\n\n                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n                            W.P.(C) No.38430 of 2003\n\n                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n                               Dated: 15th June, 2007\n\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       The   plaintiff   in   a   suit   for   partition   impugns   Ext.P2   findings<\/p>\n
entered by the learned Subordinate Judge on issue No.10 which was<\/p>\n
one   regarding   the   propriety   of   the   valuation   of   the   suit   for   the<\/p>\n
purpose of court fee. Ext.P1 is copy of the plaint which will show that<\/p>\n
the suit has been valued under Section 37(2) of the Court Fees and<\/p>\n
Suits Valuation Act on the allegation that the suit properties are in the<\/p>\n
joint   possession   and   enjoyment   of   the   plaintiff   and   the   defendants.<\/p>\n
There were altogether 26 items of properties sought to be partitioned<\/p>\n
and as regards item Nos.1 to 8 and 11 to 26 the claim of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was  that  the  entire   consideration   for  acquisition  of   those items  was<\/p>\n
paid   by   the   plaintiff   and   the   defendants   1   and   2   out   of   their   joint<\/p>\n
funds. As against item Nos.9 and 10 the claim was that those items<\/p>\n
belonged   to   the   plaintiff   and   defendants   1,   2   and   8   to   11,   having<\/p>\n
been acquired with their joint funds. Several contentions were raised<\/p>\n
by   the   respondents   including   the   contention   that   the   suit   has   not<\/p>\n
been properly valued and issue No.10 was raised on the basis of that<\/p>\n
contention.   Even   though  several   decisions   of  this   court  laying  down<\/p>\n
that it is the allegations in the plaint which are to be considered for<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.38430\/03                                        –  2  –<\/span><\/p>\n
the  purpose   of determining  the  payable  court  fee   were  cited  before<\/p>\n
the   learned   Subordinate   Judge   and   the   Subordinate   Judge   did<\/p>\n
consider   those   decisions,   ultimately   relying   on   the   judgment   of   a<\/p>\n
learned   Single   Judge   of   this   court   in  Ayisha   v.   Kunhimayan   Haji<\/p>\n
(ILR 1966 Kerala 17), the learned Subordinate Judge inferred that in<\/p>\n
respect   of   plaint  schedule   item   Nos.3  to  10   and  12,   15   and  24   the<\/p>\n
defendants are in possession and concluded that the suit will have to<\/p>\n
be valued under Section 37(1) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation<\/p>\n
Act, since it was conceded that documents in respect of those items<\/p>\n
stand in the name of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         2. Heard Mr.D.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
and   Mr.S.V.Balakrishna   Iyer,   Senior   Counsel   for   the   contesting<\/p>\n
respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         3. Making submissions on the basis of the grounds raised in the<\/p>\n
Writ   Petition,   my   attention   was   drawn   by   Mr.Krishna   Prasad   to<\/p>\n
various   decisions   including   those   reported   as  Kunjanni   v.   Jacob<\/p>\n
(1992(2)   KLT   232),  Abdul   Razack   v.   Anjaneyan<\/a>  (2002(2)   KLT<\/p>\n
670), Thankamma v. Unniama Antharjanam ( 1964 KLJ 546).<\/p>\n
         4. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent would support the<\/p>\n
impugned   order   on   the   basis   of   the   judgment   in    Ayisha’s  case<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.38430\/03                                        –  3  –<\/span><\/p>\n
(supra).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         5. Ext.P1 is copy of the plaint and a perusal of paragraphs 3, 6<\/p>\n
and   9   therein   will   clearly   show   that   it   is   specifically   averred   by   the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs   that   the   suit   properties   including   plaint   A   schedule   item<\/p>\n
Nos.3 to 10, 12, 15 and 24 are in joint possession of the parties and<\/p>\n
that consideration for the acquisition of those properties was paid by<\/p>\n
the   plaintiff   and   the   defendants   1   and   2   out   of   their   joint   funds.<\/p>\n
However, it is conceded in paragraphs 5 and 6 that the title deeds in<\/p>\n
respect of items 3, 4,5, 6 to 10, 12 and 15 to 24 stand in the names<\/p>\n
of   the   defendants.   It   is   noticing   this   aspect   of   the   matter   that   the<\/p>\n
learned   Judge   relied   on   the   judgment   of   this   court   in          Ayisha’s<\/p>\n
case(supra) and held that it has to be presumed that the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
out of possession.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         6. It is trite that for the purpose of determination of the payable<\/p>\n
court   fee,   all   that   is   required   is   to   look   into   the   averments   in   the<\/p>\n
plaint.   The   contentions   raised   by   the   defendants   in   the   written<\/p>\n
statement are not to be considered at all. Unless it is possible to say<\/p>\n
on   the   allegations   in   the   plaint   itself   that   the   plaintiff   is   out   of<\/p>\n
possession of the plaint schedule properties or any portion thereof, in<\/p>\n
a   suit   for   partition   valuation   under   Section   37(2)   by   the   plaintiff<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.38430\/03                                        –  4  –<\/span><\/p>\n
paying fixed court fee will have to be accepted. Learned Subordinate<\/p>\n
Judge has observed that the facts which obtain in the present suit are<\/p>\n
comparable  to   those   in  Ayisha’s  case   (supra).  A  careful   reading  of<\/p>\n
the judgment in Ayisha’s case would show that, that was a case for<\/p>\n
partition of the properties  of a Moplah Marumakkathayam tharavad.<\/p>\n
In that case the court noticed that it had been virtually conceded that<\/p>\n
the   plaintiff   was   out   of   possession   as   regards   certain   items   which<\/p>\n
stood   in   the   names   of   the   sons-in-law   of   the   karanavar   of   the<\/p>\n
tharavad. The court found that it had been admitted by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
himself   through   the   averments   in   the   plaint   that   the   acquisition   of<\/p>\n
those   items   by   the   sons-in-law   of   the   karanavar   of   the   tharavad<\/p>\n
though they were junior members of the tharavad, was to defeat the<\/p>\n
interest of the other members of the tharavad. The court also found<\/p>\n
on the basis of the averments in the plaint itself that the plaintiff did<\/p>\n
not have a case that at any point of time the plaintiff had been given<\/p>\n
any   share   in   the   income   from   those   properties.   It   was   on   a<\/p>\n
cumulative   appreciation   of   all   the   averments   in   the   plaint   that   this<\/p>\n
court found in that case that the suit in so far as it related to those<\/p>\n
items   had to be valued under Section 37(1). It is true that at more<\/p>\n
than one place in the judgment the learned Judge has highlighted the<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.38430\/03                                        –  5  –<\/span><\/p>\n
fact that the title documents in relation to those properties stand in<\/p>\n
the   name   of   the   sons-in-law   of   the   karavanavar.   But   the   decision<\/p>\n
turned   not   on  the   circumstance   that   the   title  documents  admittedly<\/p>\n
stood in the names of those defendants, but on the reason that it is<\/p>\n
admitted   in   the   plaint   itself   that   purchases   were   made   by   the<\/p>\n
karanavar   in   favour   of   those   defendants   in   their   capacities   as   his<\/p>\n
sons-in-law   and   not   in   their   capacities   as   junior   members   of   the<\/p>\n
tharavad. Had there been averments in the plaint in that line in the<\/p>\n
suit, perhaps the decision would have been different. It is significant<\/p>\n
to   note   that   in   respect   of   properties   which   stood   in   the   individual<\/p>\n
name of the karanavar it was found under the same decision, in spite<\/p>\n
of an admission by the plaintiff that he had not been paid any share<\/p>\n
of income for the past 12 years prior to the institution of the suit, that<\/p>\n
the relief of partition of those properties can be valued under Section<\/p>\n
37(2)  itself.  It  has  been   reiterated     in  Ayisha’s  case  itself  that  the<\/p>\n
question   of   court   fees   must   be   considered   in   the   light   of   the<\/p>\n
allegations in the plaint and that a decision on the matter cannot be<\/p>\n
influenced   either   by   the   pleas   in   the   written   statement   or   by   the<\/p>\n
impressions of the court on the merits of the matter. The averments<\/p>\n
in   the   plaint   have   to   be   accepted   prima   facie   for   determining   the<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.38430\/03                                        –  6  –<\/span><\/p>\n
payable   court   fee.   Just   because   it   is   conceded   that   the   document<\/p>\n
stands   in   the   name   of   a   stranger,   the   plaintiff   shall   not   be   insisted<\/p>\n
upon   to   pay     ad   valorem     court   fee   under   Section   37(1),   if   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff avers that the stranger is  a name lender without possession<\/p>\n
and that the document  is the result of fraud or collusion between the<\/p>\n
stranger and somebody  who is co-owner along with the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
         7. Thus, in my view, the facts in Ayisha’s case (supra) decided<\/p>\n
by Vaidialingam,J. were different from the facts and pleadings which<\/p>\n
obtain   in   this   case.   The   impugned   order   accordingly   has   to   be   set<\/p>\n
aside. I do so. It is held that the valuation of the suit under Section<\/p>\n
37(2) of the Act as presently done by the plaintiff is proper.<\/p>\n
         The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
srd                                                    PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 38430 of 2003(Y) 1. T.HAMEED, S\/O.THAYAL MOHAMMED, … Petitioner 4. T.MOOSA, S\/O.THAYAL MOHAMMED, 5. M.P.FATHIMA, W\/O.T.ABDULRAHIMAN, 6. FAUSIA, D\/O.T.ABDUL RAHIMAN, 7. MUMTHAS, D\/O.T.ABDULLE, 8. ITTAMMAL ABDULLA, ALIAS MOLLKIRIYETH 9. ITTAMMEL HASSAN K.AHAMMED ALIAS 10. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53339","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007 - 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\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-28T13:45:43+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\\\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-28T13:45:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1288,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007\",\"name\":\"T.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-28T13:45:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"T.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007 - 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\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-28T13:45:43+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\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-28T13:45:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007"},"wordCount":1288,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007","name":"T.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-28T13:45:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-hameed-vs-t-abdulla-haji-on-15-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Hameed vs T.Abdulla Haji on 15 June, 2007"}]},{"@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\/53339","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=53339"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53339\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53339"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53339"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53339"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}