{"id":5522,"date":"2010-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-24T02:04:45","modified_gmt":"2018-05-23T20:34:45","slug":"mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Mrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.Govindarajulu<\/div>\n
IN1TH3HKHiCOURTCWW\ufb02%UW\u00a5U\ufb02QLKTBANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE3 MR JUSTICE K GOV1NDARAJ_ij1.t;~.f..::   \"\n\nREGULAR SECOND APPEAL 2G9 \/;2O..1O'._'  \"\nBETWEEN: \u00ab ' '\n\n1. MRS.SHAzADA BEE\nW\/O AGE ANWAR SAB. \nAGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. A\n\n2. MRRAFIQ -- _ ,\nAGED ABOUT 51 '$.'EARS.,\"\"  - \n\n3. MR.AAT}~1I_(g.,\u00a7'--..'  . A _ _ \nAGED ABOUT 4s\u00a7.\"'{EARS,. . \n\n4. NEQSADIQ,   _ \nAGED ABOUT 4:?' YEARS.\" V. __ =  \n\n5. MRRIZWAN,  V - .\nAGEl)ABOUT4;2YEARS. , \n\n6.    ..... \n\nAGB3.)A13Oz.;T' 40 \n\n7. .ENASRtN,....\"~\u00ab... \" V\n\n ' AGED AIE3()U\"'l'* 38  V ' 'V\n\n MFLBABU.' A\n--  ABOUT SBVVYEAFS.\n\n\n\n  ABOUT29 YEAE.\n\niO%.i*\u00a7aR.S..SEEMA.\n\nV  j AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.\n\n\n\nI E .MR.I1\\\/IRAN.\nAGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.\n\n12.MRS.SAL1\\\/IA.\n\nAGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.\n\nSERIAL N052 TO 12 ARE\nCHILDREN OF DECEASED\nMRAYUB KHAN @ ANWAR V\nSAB AND ALL ARE RESIDING AT \nBHAK LI VILLAGE, \" \nMALLENHALLI POST,\n\nCHIKMAGALUR TALUK -V 5.77 Loy\"   \n\n{BY SR1 M.s.RAGHAvENDi\u00a7A.A_PRAsA:),  \nAND: A  A A V' A\n\n1. MRLEO  \" j_  ~\nAGED AEom'.V55.._Y_EARs;   \u00ab_  '\n\n2.  _\nAGED ABOUT 48 Y'$fA,RS..v   '-\n\n3.  \" A\nAGED ABOUT 2&2 YEARS',-\n\n _ SERVE', N03. 1 TO\" 3 ARESONS OF\n DECEASED ARI.-U \n R\/Q .HALAs.A13ALU VILLAGE,\n\n'M_'A1,LEPJAIErIALLIG. POST,\nc1~11NLA.GAm_E_ 'FALUK\nAND .p1sT_E1cI 4 577101.\n\n  MRS: MARY\n = \"W\/C_K.T.:v1ATHAIs,\n'  \"R\/0 B\"E_mK LI VILLAGE,\n _ *_Mz'.\\LLENAI{ALLI POST,\n  '\"cH:KMAGALUR TALUK & DISTRICT.\n\n\n\n5. MRSJASCINTHA\nW\/O LATE ANTHONY FERNANDES.\nAGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,\n\nSUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGOLA,\nMUDIGERE TALUK,\n\nCHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT -- 577101.\n\n6. MRSGRACY.\n\nW\/O VINCENT LOUIS,\n\nAGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, _\n\nLOUIS METAL MART, GUNDLUPET, ..\nCHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT --' 'SW1 0 1.\n\n7. MR. D.MOHAl\\\/IMED ANEEE  -A \"\ns\/O DMOHAMMED SULEIVIAN,-_\nANJANAPPA COMPOUND,  '  ;\nBASAVANAHALLI EXTENSIO.N.'=. '\nCI\u00ab1IKI\\\u00bb1AGALUR_--.577101;, *\n\n8. MR.MO}iA;E\\AP;'IEDw.R;LI'  _ \nS\/O MOHAME\/I_ED_ MOHIDDIN; ..  \nAGED: MA-JAOR.-\"';. ' _   \nPENSION MOHA\u00a3'4L.AVNEV1'.'EX1'ENSION,\nCHIKMAG.ALURw-- .=57j'7.10I,\"--z..__ ' ...RESPONDENTS\n\n(BY SR1 VIGNESHwAR\"S.SH:ASTRY FOR R1--R6)\n\n..THIS~ RSAV\"IS.,I\u00abfILED UNDER SEC'I'ION 100 OF CPC,\n\n. A\u20ac}AINST?-.\"v THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED\n'~A.24..VIO.'2O09.PAs--sED IN R.A.NO.383\/2006 ON THE FILE OF\n\n \"RRES1DIIN_G_. OFFICER, FAST TRACT COURT.\nCI\u00bbIIKNIAGzAI.',UR;~,\" DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND\nCONIijIRMING*--\u00ab_.THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED\n\n .3.11.2'O03. PASSED IN O.S.NO.144\/1996 ON THE FILE OF\n  THE ADD_L.1CIV1L JUDGE (JR.DN.] CHIKMAGALUR.\n A  3 * : \u00bbT1_'HIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS\n };)A'::.'._'I'P_iE COURT DELWERED THE FOLLOWING:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Defendants in OS 144\/1996 on the \ufb01le of  <\/p>\n
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Chikmagalur is the appel_la1:t  <\/p>\n
appeal under Section 100 CFC.\n<\/p>\n
2. Parties will be referred ac1(:’0rd’ienglv tol’thA’eir’_ <\/p>\n
found in the suit for convenienc\\\u00a7’x’._,,,.,. 1. V V l   ”\n<\/p>\n
3. The case of the pla.intiffs”is”that plaintiff-lis granted<\/p>\n
“A” schedule property byvtihe._Chicl{rnagValur by<\/p>\n
u.\n<\/p>\n
order date””1<Dcfen.dantsVh'ave no manner of right,
\ntitle or interest  18' defendant has<\/p>\n
encroached  v.prope1*tyr..:as the one described in "B"<\/p>\n
 \\'\\phed\u00bb*d:Ee and it has corne to the notice of the plaintiff before<\/p>\n
the  defendant has no right to go on with such<\/p>\n
  also 271d defendant has encroached the<\/p>\n
\u00abproperty  as "C" schedule about 6 years back. 151<\/p>\n
he he ' '4"'dei'endantVVhas removed Segekai and Antwala crop in the "B"<\/p>\n
.l_p1sch.edule property worth Rs.3,000\/–. So, seek for a decree<\/p>\n
-<l_4:b'ei'171g passed for possession. Defendants have entered<\/p>\n
appearance. Call upon the plaintiff to prove the grant by the<\/p>\n
land tribunal. Contend that the cause of action has not<\/p>\n
arisen as the one contended. Deny the encroach:rie.nte<\/p>\n
pleaded. Contend that Sy.No.161 is a wet land.  .<\/p>\n
3 acres 30 guntas. It is situated at.I&ialasabaIu'~1fil,lage"of  <\/p>\n
Chickmagalur. it is bounded on the east.<\/p>\n
land and I-Ialla, west by Shanthaxreri  <\/p>\n
and south by road belonged to   it is
\nfurther contended the   sold the said
\nproperty to the father of thedefendaht   Yakub Khan<\/p>\n
under a sale  as document<\/p>\n
No.4:36\/"  Khan, the defendants
\nare in possession._anfdi.Z'enj:oynient of the property having<\/p>\n
acquired.titlefun_der.the\u00b0sal'e deed. Defendants have raised<\/p>\n
 cioffee, guai\/a""and other plants in Sy.No.161. It is<\/p>\n
 conte,aded':that Sy.No. 162 which the plaintiff alleged<\/p>\n
to   adjacent to Sy.No.161 belonging to the<\/p>\n
'd,,efendantu.";. The two properties are bifurcated by a fence.<\/p>\n
 ._ is in existence for more than 40 years. Plaintiff in the<\/p>\n
  1996 tried to interfere with the possession of Sy.No.161<\/p>\n
beionging to 2" defendant. Defendant remonstrated. __So,<\/p>\n
the plaintiff has filed a false suit. The Court do <\/p>\n
pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.  .<\/p>\n
comes to the conclusion that 3" defendant h\u00abas"en'c_roach*ed <\/p>\n
on the "C" schedule property, it isV'\u00bb.__su:'o1nitted<\/p>\n
defendant that 2nd defendant is*in\u00ab–p_Vosses-sionVaridfenjoymelntfd<\/p>\n
of the property continuously andfniidinterruptedlyniadiferse to
\nthe interest of the plaintiff; rls defendant has
\nperfected title by adverse  h f d<\/p>\n
4.    trial Judge has
\nframed  evidence. PW1 is
\nexamined.’   marked on behaif of the<\/p>\n
Plaintiff… ..:V1’ahd.”-Zdfare examined on behalf of the<\/p>\n
d if ‘Clefenidants and Exs.VD”.’1fto 13.5 are marked. Learned Trial<\/p>\n
dduddged dfeereeing the suit with costs has answered has<\/p>\n
ansAw.eredV.th”e?–.V. following issues with the following reasons<\/p>\n
 thereby”bvel.ieved the case of the plaintiff and disbelieved the<\/p>\n
V’ ‘ease \u00ab the defendant:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5. Unsuccessful defendants have preferred RA<\/p>\n
383 \/ 2006 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Chikmagal_ur,a<\/p>\n
Learned Appellate Judge has raised the fol1ow1’ng__poinfts…l__foir;__vAl <\/p>\n
consideration and answered them in negatiVeiV.uthLere_by <\/p>\n
dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove thatfthey are 1 ‘
\nabsolute owners of the *plaint”  esch.ed’i;1_Ie–~
\nproperty’?  ” V  ‘<\/p>\n
2. Whether the   list
\ndefendant encroached f;.the  ,’:Bf A  schedule
\nproperty? ” ‘ 1  V  ‘<\/p>\n
3. Whether plaintiffs: p’ro:\\}’ei_”that:lsfthe second
\ndefendantf_h–as’v ergcroached. the ‘C’ schedule<\/p>\n
 Whether. the plaintiffs \u00abprove that they are
\n{entitle fer”-._tl1e”po’s–ses’sion of ‘B’ and ‘C’
\nsr;h’edul’e,_ p1joperty”‘\u00abfrorn the hands of the
\ndefendants? 1 ”\n<\/p>\n
 Whetherthe plaintiffs are entitled for mesne
\n . Eppppro\ufb01is?  _____ <\/p>\n
 impugned judgment and decree
\n“pas-.sed’by the trial court are opposed to law.
\nfacts; and just circumstances of the case?<\/p>\n
7”. VvllV:Jhat order?\n<\/p>\n
 V’ ,  fl ‘Findings:\n<\/p>\n
Point No.1 : in the affirmative
\nPoint No.2 : in the affirmative<\/p>\n
Point No.3 : In the affirmative
\nPoint No.4 : in the affirmative
\nPoint No.5 : in the affirmative
\nPoint No.6 : ln the negative<\/p>\n
Point No.7 : As per \ufb01nal order for<\/p>\n
the following<\/p>\n
6. Defendants are in second appeal: Learnelduadvocatelf <\/p>\n
for the 2nd defendant contends that \u00abaplproaclh <\/p>\n
learned trial Judge in taking jpudiciallrnotice ofplVt;_he’val1eget1′.pVll<\/p>\n
grant is an improper method. l”Secondly”conte_nd that on
\nrevenue documents such’ an inqlniigfj cannot be”‘do”ne and
\nsuch a \ufb01nding cannot be  ff’Place’t__ reliance on<\/p>\n
GURUNATH MAN@liAR :\u00e9AvAsKrxR’~~$\u00a7a_ VNAGESH SIDDAPPA<\/p>\n
NAVALG3.UND  H’l’hirdly contend that the
\nCommissionefs ‘cou.1d”‘not have been looked into by<\/p>\n
the Courts bellowfirittvievv ofthe mandate of the ruling of the<\/p>\n
 if l*lon’ble’ A;p’ex'”vC&ourt.lVVl’S’ol,l unless the plaintiff establishes his<\/p>\n
llla,\\vf;illl  the subject of trespass or encroachment<\/p>\n
doesnot arsisleg, S0. pray for orders.<\/p>\n
7… All have carefully considered the material<\/p>\n
A {submi\u00abssions and addresses.\n<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
8. In Gurunath Manohar Pavaskars case, the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Apex Court was considering the subject of a suitktor<\/p>\n
permanent injunction. While granting permanent _inj’unctiorr.__ A’ <\/p>\n
Court only looks into the lawful possession.   <\/p>\n
possession on the ground of encroachment.’ \u20ac’,ourt’has’toi.giv’e _ <\/p>\n
a \ufb01nding in regard to title. So,gtl.1’e ‘relied  “erred. V<\/p>\n
that the revenue documents cannot be looked   a
\n\ufb01nding on such revenue  approplriate, urged
\nis rejected.\n<\/p>\n
Secondly, -it ‘  the:.A_case:fof  advocate that<\/p>\n
the grant is not7.pgrodiiced.”~\u00abtearned advocate’s attention is
\ndrawn to the laverinent ‘invlthieplaint and asked to go through<\/p>\n
and su’om_it  regard to’-the allegations contrary to the said<\/p>\n
llal3.egat.ion”‘iin’dine plaint. it Learned advocate submits in reply<\/p>\n
‘was called upon to prove the same. This<\/p>\n
couicl\u00e9 have.  accepted as a proper defence when there is<\/p>\n
no othergwdefence placed by the 2″‘ defendant. The<\/p>\n
   plea taken by the defendant in the facts of the<\/p>\n
  lease is adverse possession. To constitute the allegation of<\/p>\n
adverse possession, the person who pleads adverse<\/p>\n
possession should admit title in favour of one person;”V.e:2\u00a51_d’~V.Vv<\/p>\n
defendant by denying the title of the plaintiff  .<\/p>\n
paragraph and by admitting the title in the ‘latte.flpat9agtapl’1s  l<\/p>\n
in the written statement has taken two  :’g_’<\/p>\n
submission would take supportheoausell it.  fur1;}i\u00e9;\u00a51t:pl.eaded it<\/p>\n
by the 2nd defendant that the plai_ntiff:_is..thell  It
\nis also further pleaded thatline ll?’  husband has
\npurchased the prop\ufb01rty.   of title by
\npurchase, there   ::po’ss’e’ssion against 3*”\n<\/p>\n
party.    been analyzed by the\nlearned   the case of the\n<\/pre>\n
defendants. ‘~V’k’it”iS’  ‘law declared by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Apex Court in ‘ease oi’ concurrent finding by the two Courts.<\/p>\n
  secof1tlp_appealllhas very limited jurisdiction. So, this<\/p>\n
 ‘thatV:jthere is no merit in the appeal. Hence,<\/p>\n
appeal is rejected at the stage of admission itself.<\/p>\n
Judy?\n<\/p>\n
 as<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Mrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010 Author: K.Govindarajulu IN1TH3HKHiCOURTCWW\ufb02%UW\u00a5U\ufb02QLKTBANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20 BEFORE THE HON’BLE3 MR JUSTICE K GOV1NDARAJ_ij1.t;~.f..:: ” REGULAR SECOND APPEAL 2G9 \/;2O..1O’._’ ” BETWEEN: \u00ab ‘ ‘ 1. MRS.SHAzADA BEE W\/O AGE ANWAR SAB. AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS. A […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5522","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-23T20:34:45+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-23T20:34:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1149,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Mrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-23T20:34:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Mrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-23T20:34:45+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-23T20:34:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010"},"wordCount":1149,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010","name":"Mrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-23T20:34:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-shazada-bee-vs-mr-leo-aranha-on-29-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs Shazada Bee vs Mr Leo Aranha on 29 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/5522","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=5522"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5522\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5522"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5522"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5522"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}