{"id":55717,"date":"2006-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006"},"modified":"2017-11-23T11:31:24","modified_gmt":"2017-11-23T06:01:24","slug":"musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"Musliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Musliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS No. 809 of 1997(E)\n\n\n\n1. MUSLIARAKATH ABDULLA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. K.ABDUL AZEEZ NAHA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.A.MANHU\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BHASKARAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :03\/03\/2006\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                              R.Bhaskaran & K.T.Sankaran, JJ\n<\/p>\n
                      ——————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
                           .A.S.Nos.809 of  1997 &  845 of 1998\n<\/p>\n
                      ——————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
                                            Judgment<\/p>\n
Bhaskaran, J.\n<\/p>\n
\nA.S.No.809 of 1997<\/p>\n
        This appeal is filed by by the defendant in O.S.No.27 of 1994 on the file of<\/p>\n
the   Subordinate     Judge’s   Court,   Tirur.     The   suit   was   filed   for   realisation   of<\/p>\n
Rs.4,25,622.55   with interest at 15% per annum.   According to the plaintiff, the<\/p>\n
defendant   was the driver of the plaintiff.     He got employment at Jiddah.   His<\/p>\n
services were terminated  in 1986.   While returning to India, he had purchased a<\/p>\n
foreign car  for the plaintiff.   10,000 Riyals was paid by the plaintiff through his<\/p>\n
son-in-law,   who   was   working   there.       After   the   car   was   brought   to   India,   the<\/p>\n
delivery was delayed on account of customs clearance problems.     The plaintiffs<\/p>\n
spent an amount of Rs.13,000\/- for demurrage charges.   Rs.1,82,227.55 was paid<\/p>\n
as customs duty.     Various  other  amounts  had  also  to   be incurred   for   getting<\/p>\n
clearance   of   the   car   including       warehouse   charges,   battery   service   charges,<\/p>\n
charges   for   registration   number   etc.       The   plaintiff   spent   a   total   amount   of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,18,223.55 for the car.    The defendant intimated the plaintiff that he had paid<\/p>\n
530 Riyals at the time of purchase of the vehicle.  The balance amount due to the<\/p>\n
defendant     was  also  paid   by   the  plaintiff.    In   the  meanwhile,  a  complaint   was<\/p>\n
received   in the Regional Transport   Office.   According to the plaintiff, it was<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
manipulated by the defendant to take the vehicle from the custody of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
On  the  request  of   the defendant, it  was  given  to  him  for  producing  before  the<\/p>\n
R.T.A.       The defendant also agreed to transfer the vehicle in the name of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff after the ‘no sale’ period was over failing which he undertook to pay the<\/p>\n
plaintiff the amount of damages.   The defendant however applied for duplicate<\/p>\n
R.C.Book.   Knowing about it, the plaintiff filed objections.  The defendant did not<\/p>\n
return the vehicle to the plaintiff and he transferred the vehicle in the name of<\/p>\n
another person within the ‘no sale’ period.  Hence the suit was filed for realisation<\/p>\n
of Rs.4,25,662.55 with interest at 15% per annum.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The defendant in the written statement admitted the purchase of the car<\/p>\n
and payment of   10,000 Riyals by the son-in-law of the plaintiff.   According to<\/p>\n
him, he had spent huge amounts for the purchase of the car  and the plaintiff did<\/p>\n
not mention the amount spent by him in the plaint.  It was the defendant who spent<\/p>\n
all   the   amounts   in   connection   with   the   delivery   of   the   vehicle.     All   other<\/p>\n
allegations in the plaint regarding payment of the amount by the plaintiff were<\/p>\n
denied in the written statement.   The defendant due to want of money sold the<\/p>\n
vehicle   after the ‘no sale’ period.   According to him, ‘no sale’ period was   more<\/p>\n
than 5 years and the bank guarantee given to the Government  was forfeited  and<\/p>\n
the   bank   instituted   O.S.No.8   of   1991   for   realisation   of   the   amount.     Since   the<\/p>\n
defendant was working as driver of the plaintiff,  he had permitted the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
use the vehicle for some time and at that time the plaintiff took R.C.Book and<\/p>\n
other   relevant   documents   from   the   car   and   the   same   was   not   returned     when<\/p>\n
requested by the defendant.   Therefore, he applied for duplicate R.C. Book and<\/p>\n
sold the car.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        3.  The trial court raised the following issues<\/p>\n
                                i)   Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
\n                   amount claimed in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                ii)  Reliefs and costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.    On behalf of the plaintiff,  Exts.A1 to A44 were marked and Pws.1 to 5<\/p>\n
were examined.   On the side of the defendant, Exts.B1 to B18  were marked and<\/p>\n
defendant was examined as Dw.1.   After trial,  the trial court found that  the case<\/p>\n
set  up  by the plaintiff was true and   that the  defendant  was liable to   pay the<\/p>\n
amount incurred  by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.  Thought a plea of limitation was<\/p>\n
not  specifically raised  and no issue framed,   that question also was considered by<\/p>\n
the trial court and it was found against.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.  In this appeal,  the main points  raised are  (1)  that the contention of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff that he spent the entire amount for import of the car was not proved,  (2)<\/p>\n
that such an agreement  was unenforceable in law under S.23 of the Contract Act,<\/p>\n
and  (3) that the suit itself  was barred by limitation as the plaintiff filed the suit<\/p>\n
three years after the amount were alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
Point No.1<\/p>\n
        6.  The learned counsel for the appellant contended that all the documents<\/p>\n
produced in the case are in the name of the defendant and therefore the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was not entitled to contend  that it was he who spent for such payments.  It can be<\/p>\n
seen from the documents produced  in the case that though all the documents were<\/p>\n
produced  by the plaintiff since the registration of the car was in  the name of the<\/p>\n
defendant documents could also be only in his name.  But the fact remains that it<\/p>\n
was  the  plaintiff who spent those amounts form his pocket as otherwise there was<\/p>\n
no possibility of his coming into custody of those documents.  The contention of<\/p>\n
the   defendant   that   for   some   time   the   vehicle     was   with   the   plaintiff   as   the<\/p>\n
defendant was earlier  the driver of the plaintiff and he had allowed the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
use the car and at that time the plaintiff     took away all the papers from the car<\/p>\n
cannot   be   believed.    There   was   no   necessity   for  the   defendant   to   keep   all   the<\/p>\n
documents  in connection with the purchase and import of the car in the car itself.<\/p>\n
Pw.1 was the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Malappuram.   He  was examined<\/p>\n
to prove that the defendant   had applied for duplicate R.C. of   the car.   Ext.X-1<\/p>\n
series were got produced to show that     the defendant had applied for duplicate<\/p>\n
R.C. and that the  plaintiff filed objections.  But duplicate R.C.  was given to the<\/p>\n
defendant.   Exts.X-1 to X-19   were proved by Pw.2 the Manager of the Vijaya<\/p>\n
Bank.  The Bank had given guarantee for which the fixed deposit receipts  in the<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
name of the plaintiff’s wife were given  to the Bank.  He has also given evidence<\/p>\n
to   the   effect   that     the   plaintiff’s   wife   had   account   in   the   Bank   and   on   her<\/p>\n
application loan was given to her.  On her application,  Bank guarantee was given<\/p>\n
on behalf of the defendant   He has also deposed that the plaintiff had withdrawn<\/p>\n
an amount of  Rs.1,50,000\/- as per Ext.X-16 through the defendant.  Ext.X-17 is<\/p>\n
the copy of S.B.account book of the plaintiff.   In cross-examination, he has stated<\/p>\n
that a gold loan was taken by the defendant and the Bank had filed a suit against<\/p>\n
the defendant for realisation of the loan amount.   But he has also stated that  the<\/p>\n
amount covered by the fixed deposit receipts were adjusted  for the loan amount.<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A12 are the documents  produced by the plaintiff to show that  it was<\/p>\n
he who spent the amount for getting the car cleared from the Customs Department<\/p>\n
and the amount of  10,000 Riyal given by the son-in-law of the plaintiff was  not<\/p>\n
disputed by the defendant.  Therefore, the contention of the defendant that the  car<\/p>\n
was purchased by his own earnings was not believed by the trial court and nothing<\/p>\n
has been brought to our notice to hold that the oral and documentary evidence<\/p>\n
produced by the plaintiff to substantiate his contention that the car was purchased<\/p>\n
with his money and  brought to India  at his expense was not true.  Therefore, we<\/p>\n
find  against the first point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.<\/p>\n
Point  No.2<\/p>\n
        7.    The learned  counsel for  the appellant  contended  that    the agreement<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
itself   is   invalid   in   view   of     S.23   of   the   Contract   Act   and   the   same   was<\/p>\n
unenforceable in law.  According to the learned counsel,   the car brought to India<\/p>\n
was a new car and only persons  who own a car for their personal use  can bring<\/p>\n
that car to India  whenever returning to India and since the plaintiff and defendant<\/p>\n
were parties to the violation of the Foreign Exchange Rules, the plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
entitled to enforce the agreement. There is no merit in this contention  since  as the<\/p>\n
trial court has noticed, the only condition for importing the car was that it should<\/p>\n
not be sold within two years of such import.   It was known as ‘no sale’ period.<\/p>\n
After the no sale period the defendant could sell the car to anybody.  In this case,<\/p>\n
the plaintiff therefore   waited till the expiry of the period.   We do not find any<\/p>\n
such contention raised before the trial court.     Though a ground is raised in the<\/p>\n
memorandum of appeal that the defendant was bringing a new foreign car, we do<\/p>\n
not find any such contention raised in the pleadings in the trial court   and in the<\/p>\n
absence of necessary materials, it may not be proper for the first appellate court to<\/p>\n
consider such  point for the first time in appeal as it is a mixed question of fact and<\/p>\n
law.   What exactly was the violation   of the law in the agreement between the<\/p>\n
parties and how it was unenforceable in law were all matters which  had to be<\/p>\n
pleaded and proved by the defendant if he wanted to show that the  amount spent<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff for the purpose of the car was   not realisable by him from the<\/p>\n
defendant when it is  proved that the defendant did not  repay the amount spent by<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
the plaintiff and has sold the car to third party   after getting the benefit of the<\/p>\n
entire amount spent by the plaintiff.  Therefore, this point  is also found against the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\n Point No.3<\/p>\n
        8.  The learned counsel for the appellant  vehemently argued that at any rate<\/p>\n
the   suit   is   barred   by   limitation.     According   to   the   learned   counsel,   the     entire<\/p>\n
amounts were spent by the plaintiff prior to 30-3-1987 and the period of limitation<\/p>\n
is only three years and it expired on 30-3-1990.  The suit was filed only on 19-6-<\/p>\n
1991 and since it was filed beyond three years   the suit was liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
As already noticed,  though such specific contention was  not raised in the written<\/p>\n
statement, the trial court has considered this   aspect and found that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was   entitled   to   wait   till   the   no   sale   period   was   over   and   it   expired   only     on<\/p>\n
20-3-1989.  The suit was filed  on 19-6-1991.  According to the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant  in  Ext.A31 which is a   statement filed by the plaintiff before the<\/p>\n
A.R.A.,Malappuram,  in connection with the clearance of  the car,the plaintiff had<\/p>\n
detailed the amounts spent by him  and it showed that the  plaintiff was prepared<\/p>\n
to  give the vehicle in case he was paid the entire amount spent by him.  Therefore<\/p>\n
the claim was only for the amount spent by the plaintiff   and Ext.A31 is dated<\/p>\n
25-11-1987.  According to the learned counsel for the appellant,  the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
not entitled for more than three years  from the date of spending of the amount  for<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
the release of the car  from the customs as well as  for bringing the car to India.<\/p>\n
The trial court found that   since the plaintiff was entitled to wait till the no sale<\/p>\n
period was over and in case he was given the car   after the no sale period was<\/p>\n
over, there was no necessity for him to file the suit at all.  According to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant, the suit is for realisation of money and the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
bound to file the suit within time.   The learned counsel for the appellants     also<\/p>\n
relied   on   the   decision   of   this     Court   in  State   of       Kerala   v.   Thalayar   Tea<\/p>\n
Company  Ltd<\/a>  (1982 KLT 404).    Whether Article 24   or Article 113 was the<\/p>\n
relevant Article was the question for decision in that case.    The facts of the case<\/p>\n
are that the plaintiffs had sought for refund of the amount collected as seigniorage.<\/p>\n
Earlier, there was a suit filed as O.S.No.70 of 1966  challenging the collection of<\/p>\n
seigniorage.       Though   the   trial   court   dismissed   the   suit,     this   Court   in   appeal<\/p>\n
decreed the suit.  Thereafter, O.S.No.83 of 1973 was filed   for realisation of  the<\/p>\n
amounts already collected  by the Government towards  seigniorage, sales-tax and<\/p>\n
interest.     Therefore   the   question   arose   as   to   which   was   the   starting   point   of<\/p>\n
limitation – whether it was three years   when the money was received   or three<\/p>\n
years   after   the   right   accrued.     The   two   Judges   of   the   Division   Bench   had<\/p>\n
difference of opinion and the matter was referred to a third Judge.    His Lordship<\/p>\n
Justice   P.Subramonian   Poti,   Acting   Chief   Justice,   as     His   Lordship   then   was,<\/p>\n
opined that the period of limitation started   from the date   when the money was<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
received  and  it  was  further  held  that when  specific Article was  applicable, the<\/p>\n
residuary Article of the Limitation Act  has no application.    In this case, we do<\/p>\n
not think that  that judgment will help  the learned counsel for the appellant. This<\/p>\n
is not a mere suit for money received by the defendant from the plaintiff.  The suit<\/p>\n
is filed for all the amounts spent by the plaintiff for the purchase of the car as well<\/p>\n
as for getting clearance from   the Customs Department   and for other incidental<\/p>\n
matters.   The entire amount was not received by the defendant from the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Therefore, Article 24 of the Limitation Act has no application.  If Article 24 has<\/p>\n
no application, it is not in dispute that Article 113 will apply in which case the suit<\/p>\n
was filed within time as according to the plaintiff,  the cause of action arose in the<\/p>\n
suit when  the defendant refused to transfer the car in favour of the plaitniff after<\/p>\n
the no sale period was over.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        9.      In Thalayar Tea Company’s case,     the learned Judge relied on the<\/p>\n
decision of the Supreme Court reported in  Venkata Subbarao v. State of A.P.<\/p>\n
(AI R 1965 SC 1773).  That decision itself made it clear that if the right to refund<\/p>\n
does not arise immediately on receipt by the defendant but arises by reason of<\/p>\n
facts   transpiring   subsequently   Article   62   (Present     Article   24)   does   not   apply.<\/p>\n
Under Article 113 the starting point of the period of limitation is when the right to<\/p>\n
sue accrues.  On the facts of this case, it is clear that the plaintiff wanted the car to<\/p>\n
be purchased after the no sale period was over.  It is only when he found that the<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
car would not be sold to him that his right to sue accrued and the suit is filed<\/p>\n
within three years as per the dates given earlier in this judgment.   We  are inclined<\/p>\n
to hold that the suit is not barred by limitation   also for the reason that no such<\/p>\n
contention was raised and no issue was tried.     The question   of limitation is a<\/p>\n
question of law only if it arises  out of admitted facts.   If on the averments in the<\/p>\n
plaint the suit is not barred by limitation,   the defendant will have to   deny the<\/p>\n
averments and plead that the suit is barred by limitation.  In  the absence of  such<\/p>\n
contentions, the averments in the plaint regarding cause  of action will  have to be<\/p>\n
accepted.   In that view of the matter also, we are of opinion that the suit is not<\/p>\n
barred   by   limitation.     Admittedly,   the   imported   car     could   not   be   sold   to   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff within the no sale period and without selling the car  to the plaintiff,  the<\/p>\n
defendant  has sold the  car  to a third  party  and  obtained   money  from  the third<\/p>\n
party.  When the documents produced  proved that the plaintiff has spent the entire<\/p>\n
amount and the defendant has received the consideration by sale of the car to a<\/p>\n
third person,  we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the court<\/p>\n
below.  The plaintiff is  entitled to get the amount from the defendant.  The appeal<\/p>\n
is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\nS.A.No.845 of 1998<\/p>\n
        10.  This appeal is filed by  the defendant in O.S.No.114 of 1994 on othe<\/p>\n
file   of   the   Subordinate   Judge’s   Court,   Tirur.     The   suit   was   for   realisation   of<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.38,319\/-  from the appellant with interest at 19.5% per annum.<\/p>\n
        11.  The plaintiff was a guarantor  to the defendant  for obtaining  a bank<\/p>\n
guarantee of Rs.58,500\/- from Vijaya Bank, Manjeri.   The   bank guarantee was<\/p>\n
required for getting a clearance  certificate for a foreign car brought to India by the<\/p>\n
defendant.   The plaintiff had deposited  fixed deposit receipts for Rs.15,000\/- with<\/p>\n
the   Bank   as   guarantee.     She   also     mortgaged   her     immovable   property   for<\/p>\n
Rs.58,500\/-.  For violating the terms of import the Bank guarantee  was forfeited.<\/p>\n
The bank encashed  the fixed deposit receipts  of the plaintiff which  was given as<\/p>\n
security.  The maturity value of the  fixed deposit receipts  was Rs.28,764\/-.  The<\/p>\n
suit was filed to get the amount  with interest  as well as other amounts  spent by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff in  connection with the guarantee   given  to the defendant  from the<\/p>\n
defendant.       She   also   claimed   the   expenses     incurred   by   her     for   defending<\/p>\n
O.S.No.8   of   1991   a   suit   filed   by  the   Bank  against   the  defendant     whereas  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was also made a party.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        12.     The   defendant   denied   the   liability   though   the   transaction   was   not<\/p>\n
disputed.   According to him,  he had paid the value  of the fixed  deposit  to  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   when she had handed over the fixed deposit receipts to the Bank.     He<\/p>\n
also contended that  he had discharged the entire amount  due to the Bank.  After<\/p>\n
framing of necessary issues, the trial court granted a decree for Rs.22,537\/-   with<\/p>\n
interest at 12% from 30-3-1990 till realisation.\n<\/p>\n
\nA.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
        13.     In   this   appeal,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   appellant     repeated   the<\/p>\n
contention   of   the   defendant   in   the   trial     court.     The   point   for   consideration   is<\/p>\n
whether the decree of the trial court requires any modification.<\/p>\n
        14.  Though the suit was filed  for realisation of Rs.38,319\/- with interest at<\/p>\n
19.5%, the trial court has not granted the entire amount as claimed.     Only the<\/p>\n
value of the   fixed deposit receitps on maturity was directed to be repaid by the<\/p>\n
defendant.   In fact there is no dispute before us that the plaintiff  had handed over<\/p>\n
the fixed deposit receitps to the Bank to enable the Bank to give guarantee  to the<\/p>\n
Government on behalf of the defendant.   The contention that   the defendant had<\/p>\n
paid the amount covered by the fixed deposit receipts to the plaintiff is not  proved<\/p>\n
by  any evidence  whatsoever.   Since there is no  cross-objection by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
for the amount disallowed   by   the trial court, there is no necessity   to consider<\/p>\n
that aspect in  this appeal.   Exts.X-1 to X-13 show that the plaintiff had deposited<\/p>\n
the fixed deposit receipts  and created equitable mortgage of immovable properties<\/p>\n
in favour of the bank.   The interest awarded is also   reasonable having regard to<\/p>\n
the facts of the case and no separate argument   was advanced with regard to the<\/p>\n
rate of  interest.  This appeal is also liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
        In the result, both   the appeals are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n.March 3, 2006.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 R.Bhaskaran, Judge<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98       13<\/span><\/p>\n
                                            K.T.Sankaran, Judge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                     “C.R”\n<\/p>\n
                                          R.Bhaskaran & K.T.Sankaran, JJ\n<\/p>\n
                             ——————————————————-<\/p>\n
A.S.Nos.809\/97  &  845\/98      14<\/span><\/p>\n
                             ——————————————————<\/p>\n
                                       A.S.Nos.809 of 1997 & 845 of 1998<\/p>\n
                                                       Judgment<\/p>\n
                                                    March 3, 2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             ——————————————————<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Musliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS No. 809 of 1997(E) 1. MUSLIARAKATH ABDULLA … Petitioner Vs 1. K.ABDUL AZEEZ NAHA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.A.MANHU For Respondent :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI The Hon’ble MR. Justice R.BHASKARAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN […]<\/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-55717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMusliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006 - 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\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Musliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-23T06:01:24+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Musliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-23T06:01:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3270,\"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\\\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006\",\"name\":\"Musliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-23T06:01:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Musliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Musliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006 - 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\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Musliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-23T06:01:24+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Musliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-23T06:01:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006"},"wordCount":3270,"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\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006","name":"Musliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-23T06:01:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/musliarakath-abdulla-vs-k-abdul-azeez-naha-on-3-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Musliarakath Abdulla vs K.Abdul Azeez Naha on 3 March, 2006"}]},{"@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\/55717","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=55717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}