{"id":67037,"date":"2010-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010"},"modified":"2014-09-05T04:35:54","modified_gmt":"2014-09-04T23:05:54","slug":"m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"M.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 316 of 2006()\n\n\n1. M.S.M.KASIM,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. A.SADIQUE, T.C.\/38\/841,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.A.AHAMMED\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :01\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n          PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n                      ------------------------\n                     R.C.R.No. 316 OF 2006\n                      ------------------------\n\n               Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010\n\n                            O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      The landlord is the revision petitioner. He sought to evict<\/p>\n
the respondent tenant on the ground of arrears of rent and<\/p>\n
ground under Section 11(3). It is conceded by both sides that we<\/p>\n
in this revision need not be concerned with the ground for<\/p>\n
eviction under Section 11(2)(b).\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The need projected by the landlord in the context of<\/p>\n
the ground under Section 11(3) was that the building in question<\/p>\n
is needed bonafide by him for accommodating his son Zahir, who,<\/p>\n
according to him, was without any employment or avocation for<\/p>\n
life.  The tenant through his statement of objections disputed<\/p>\n
the bonafides of the need. He also contended that the landlord at<\/p>\n
the time of filing the Rent Control Petition was possessing other<\/p>\n
buildings in the city, town or village and hence the need of the<\/p>\n
landlord is not bonafide. The above contention was construed by<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Court and also by the Rent Control Appellate<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                 -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
Authority as a contention under which the tenant was taking<\/p>\n
protection under the first proviso to Section 11(3). The tenant<\/p>\n
further contended that he is entitled to the protection of second<\/p>\n
proviso to Section 11(3) as according to him the income derived<\/p>\n
from the business carried on by him in the building in question<\/p>\n
was his main source of livelihood and since other buildings are<\/p>\n
not available.\n<\/p>\n
     3. The evidence before the Rent Control Court consisted of<\/p>\n
the oral evidence of PW1 the dependent son the defacto claimant<\/p>\n
and that of the landlord PW2 as against which there was oral<\/p>\n
evidence of tenant, who was examined as RW1.                  The<\/p>\n
documentary evidence on the side of the landlord consisted of<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 to A5 as against Ext.B1 on the side of the tenant. The<\/p>\n
Rent Control Court on appreciating the evidence came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the need projected by the landlord in the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Petition is not bonafide. It was also concluded that the<\/p>\n
tenant is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to<\/p>\n
Section 11(3) (though not in so many words). This conclusion<\/p>\n
was arrived at assuming that the burden to establish that the<\/p>\n
tenant satisfies the two ingredients of second proviso is on the<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                  -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
landlord. The    Rent Control Court however, did not enter any<\/p>\n
specific finding as to whether the RCP was liable to fail by virtue<\/p>\n
of the first proviso to Section 11(3). in the light of the other<\/p>\n
findings the RCP was dismissed. The Appellate Authority would<\/p>\n
come to the conclusion that the tenant was unsuccessful in<\/p>\n
proving that as alleged by him PW1 the defacto claimant was<\/p>\n
having some other business of his own and also that “there is<\/p>\n
nothing on record to disbelieve the bonafide of the need put<\/p>\n
forward by the petitioner”. Thus, the Appellate Authority actually<\/p>\n
concluded that the need projected by the landlord under Section<\/p>\n
11(3) is a bonafide one. However, considering the operation of<\/p>\n
the first proviso to Section 11(3) the learned Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
would observe as follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “When there is admission to the effect that the<\/p>\n
         tenant at the shop rooms was evicted through<\/p>\n
         court, and when there is admission by PW1 to the<\/p>\n
         effect that there are 4 shop rooms therein and also<\/p>\n
         the   evidence    of  CPW1    that  shop    building<\/p>\n
         No.TC38\/842 and 843 are in the vacant possession<\/p>\n
         of the petitioner himself, materials are to be<\/p>\n
         scrutinized very carefully.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                 -4-<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Learned Appellate Authority would thereafter refer to the<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs 1 and 2 in cross-examination and conclude as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “Thus it can be seen that when the case is filed the<\/p>\n
        petitioner or under his command was having shop<\/p>\n
        rooms. It is true that in Section 11(3) first proviso<\/p>\n
        applicable if only the landlord has in the possession<\/p>\n
        of building in the same city, town or village.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The Appellate Authority would leave the issue of first proviso<\/p>\n
there and go on to consider the tenant’s entitlement to the<\/p>\n
protection to second proviso observing immediately thereafter as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “But all the attending circumstances has to be kept<\/p>\n
         in mind while considering at least the second<\/p>\n
         proviso.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Appellate Authority would then consider the oral evidence of<\/p>\n
the parties, particularly the oral evidence of CPW1 the tenant,<\/p>\n
and concluded that there is nothing to disbelieve CPW1 in this<\/p>\n
regard. On the basis of that conclusion the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
would specifically find that the tenant is entitled for the<\/p>\n
protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Rent<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                   -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
Control Act. Resultantly the Appellate Authority would dismiss<\/p>\n
the RCA preferred by the landlord.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   In this revision filed under Section 20 the landlord has<\/p>\n
raised various grounds assailing the judgment of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority. It is urged that the burden of proof in the context of<\/p>\n
the second proviso to Section 11(3) has been wrongly cast by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority on the landlord,         that binding judicial<\/p>\n
precedents governing that aspect of the matter has been ignored<\/p>\n
by the Appellate Authority; it is urged that the observation by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority that the landlord has admitted that he has in<\/p>\n
his   possession   other   vacant    buildings  at  the    time    of<\/p>\n
commencement of the litigation is wrong and it is also urged that<\/p>\n
the finding of the Appellate Authority that the tenant is entitled to<\/p>\n
the protection of the second proviso is clearly erroneous. On the<\/p>\n
basis of these grounds it is prayed that the finding of the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority in the context of the second proviso be<\/p>\n
reversed and an order of eviction be passed under Section 11(3).<\/p>\n
      5.  Sri.G.S.Reghunath, learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner would address strenuous and extensive arguments<\/p>\n
before us.     The learned counsel drew our attention to the<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                 -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment of the Full Bench in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar<\/a><\/p>\n
(2003 (2) KLT 230 (F.B) and submitted that it is trite by that<\/p>\n
judgment and by various other judgments of this court and the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court that the ingredients of the second proviso are in<\/p>\n
the   conjunctive and the burden to establish that a particular<\/p>\n
tenant satisfies both the ingredients is on the tenant himself.<\/p>\n
Inasmuch as the findings by the Appellate Authority that tenant<\/p>\n
is entitled to the protection of the second proviso has been<\/p>\n
rendered ignoring the law as settled by binding judicial<\/p>\n
precedents including Full Bench Judgment in Francis v.<\/p>\n
Sreedevi Varassiar<\/a> (cited supra) the above finding is to be<\/p>\n
vacated, according to the learned counsel.       Learned counsel<\/p>\n
would submit that the observation of the Appellate Authority that<\/p>\n
there is admission by the landlord and his son that other vacant<\/p>\n
buildings belonging to them were available with them at the time<\/p>\n
of institution of RCP is contrary to the evidence on record.<\/p>\n
According to him, in spite of that observation of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority has not entered a specific finding in the context of the<\/p>\n
first proviso to Section 11(3).\n<\/p>\n
      6. Per contra, Sri.Liju Stephen, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                  -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent\/tenant would defend the impugned judgment very<\/p>\n
strongly. According to him, even in cases where the Court finds<\/p>\n
that the need projected by the landlord is bona fide, unless the<\/p>\n
landlord is able to surmount the two provisos of sub section(3) of<\/p>\n
Section 11, the RCP is liable to be dismissed. Reading over to us<\/p>\n
certain portions in testimonies of PWs 1 and 2, wherein those<\/p>\n
witnesses admitted that two or three buildings were got evicted<\/p>\n
(point of time of getting eviction not stated), counsel submitted<\/p>\n
that the observation of the learned Appellate Authority, to which<\/p>\n
exception is taken by Sri.G.S.Raghunath, is very correct.     The<\/p>\n
learned counsel would defend the finding of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority, that the tenant is entitled to the protection of the<\/p>\n
second proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11, even more<\/p>\n
forcefully.  The counsel submitted that there was no cross<\/p>\n
examination and much less effective cross examination on the<\/p>\n
version of RW1 in chief examination that he and his family are<\/p>\n
depending solely on the income they derived from the business<\/p>\n
carried on by them in the petition schedule building and on the<\/p>\n
further version that other suitable buildings are not available in<\/p>\n
the locality. The learned counsel would place strong reliance on<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                 -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Sadanandan v.<\/p>\n
Kunheen (1991 (2) KLT 628) in support of the proposition that<\/p>\n
when there is no effective cross examination, it can be taken that<\/p>\n
what was deposed to by a witness has been proved. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Thomas v. Joseph<\/a><\/p>\n
(1986 KLT 392,) and the judgments of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
M.M.Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and others<\/a> ( AIR 1981 SC<\/p>\n
1113) and Sudama Prasad v. Ashok Kumar (2007 (15) Supreme<\/p>\n
Court cases 554) for various propositions canvassed by him.<\/p>\n
     7.    We have very anxiously considered the the rival<\/p>\n
submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as<\/p>\n
well as the order of the Rent Control Court which was confirmed<\/p>\n
by the Appellate Authority. We have also taken due note of the<\/p>\n
evidence particularly    those items of evidence to which our<\/p>\n
attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the parties. This<\/p>\n
Court under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965, which is a revisional<\/p>\n
jurisdiction, is concerned essentially with the legality, regularity<\/p>\n
and propriety of the findings entered and decision taken by the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Appellate Authority which under the statutory<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                  -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
scheme is the final fact finding Authority. As already stated, the<\/p>\n
significant aspect of the decision of the Appellate Authority in<\/p>\n
deviation from the decision of the Rent Control Court is that the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority has found on appreciating the evidence that<\/p>\n
the need projected by the landlord which is for accommodating<\/p>\n
his depending son who was examined as PW1 is a bona fide.<\/p>\n
This finding is not challenged by the respondent by a separate<\/p>\n
revision or even by filing a memorandum of cross objection.         In<\/p>\n
his submissions also the learned counsel for the respondent did<\/p>\n
not make any serious endeavour to assail the above finding. His<\/p>\n
endeavour rather was to support the decision of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority rendered in the context of the first         and     second<\/p>\n
provisos to sub section (3) of Section 11.       We are therefore of<\/p>\n
the view that our enquiry in this revision need only be confined<\/p>\n
to the question whether the decision of the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
that the Rent Control Petition is liable to fail by virtue of the first<\/p>\n
and second provisos of sub section (3) of Section 11 is illegal<\/p>\n
irregular and improper.\n<\/p>\n
      8. We shall refer to the pleadings raised by the tenant.<\/p>\n
The tenant has certainly raised specific pleadings claiming<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
protection   of the second proviso to sub section (3) of Section<\/p>\n
11. But, as far as the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section<\/p>\n
11 is concerned, what is pleaded is only that the landlord has<\/p>\n
several  other   buildings   in  the  landlord’s  possession    for<\/p>\n
accomplishing the projected need.     It is not pleaded that the<\/p>\n
other buildings allegedly possessed by the landlord belong to the<\/p>\n
landlord. If we are construe the pleadings strictly, it will have to<\/p>\n
be held that no proper pleadings are raised by the tenant<\/p>\n
claiming the protection of the first proviso to sub section (3) of<\/p>\n
Section 11. However, it is seen from the order of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Court and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority that both the<\/p>\n
authorities and even the parties including the landlord construed<\/p>\n
the pleadings raised by the respondent as      pleadings claiming<\/p>\n
protection of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11.<\/p>\n
We are, therefore, of the view that the pleadings raised by the<\/p>\n
respondent can be liberally construed as       pleadings claiming<\/p>\n
protection of the first proviso to sub section (3) of Section 11.<\/p>\n
The question that arises now is whether the first proviso does<\/p>\n
operate in favour of the tenant in this case. The Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority held that if does operate saying that it was admitted<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                 -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
by the landlord and the sons PW1 and 2 in evidence that other<\/p>\n
buildings are in their possession and in view of that admission,<\/p>\n
it was for the landlord to establish special reasons. We have<\/p>\n
gone through the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 in full. We did not<\/p>\n
notice any unqualified admission from the mouth of either PW1<\/p>\n
or PW2 to the effect that the landlord was having in the landlord’s<\/p>\n
possession other buildings belonging to the landlord at the time<\/p>\n
of commencement of the RCP. At best it can be stated that it is<\/p>\n
admitted that at some point of time two or three rooms are got<\/p>\n
vacated by the landlord by initiating proceedings against the<\/p>\n
tenants in occupation of those rooms. The pertinent question is<\/p>\n
whether at the time when the RCP was instituted, the landlord<\/p>\n
was having vacant possession of the landlord’s own building in<\/p>\n
the same city, town or village.   It is clear to our mind that the<\/p>\n
evidence on record falls short of holding as the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority and the Rent Control Court did that the landlord had<\/p>\n
vacant possession of his own buildings at that time.      Therefore,<\/p>\n
the findings of the Appellate Authority to the extent it is rendered<\/p>\n
on a assumed admission made by the landlord and his son is<\/p>\n
improper and irregular.      That finding necessarily has to be<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                 -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
vacated. But, we feel that if both sides are given opportunity on<\/p>\n
this vital aspect, they may be in a position to adduce evidence<\/p>\n
and convince the Court regarding the correct decision to be<\/p>\n
taken on this question.\n<\/p>\n
     9.Now we shall deal with the correctness of the findings<\/p>\n
entered by the Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court in<\/p>\n
the context of the second proviso to sub section(3) of Section 11.<\/p>\n
Even though Sri.G.S.Reghunath argued before us by referring to<\/p>\n
the cross examination of RW1 that even his version that he is<\/p>\n
depending mainly on the income derived from the business<\/p>\n
carried on in the building has been challenged, we are in<\/p>\n
agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that as<\/p>\n
regards the first ingredient of the second proviso, there is no<\/p>\n
effective challenge in cross examination. But we are unable to<\/p>\n
agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no<\/p>\n
challenge regarding RW1’s version about the second ingredient<\/p>\n
of the second proviso to sub section 3 of section 11. We      notice<\/p>\n
that even in chief examination      RW1 did not say that other<\/p>\n
suitable buildings are not available in the locality for him to shift<\/p>\n
the business.     In stead, what was stated was only that in<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                 -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
proximity to the building in question     other buildings are not<\/p>\n
remaining vacant. “Locality” as envisaged by      second proviso to<\/p>\n
sub section 3 of Section 11 does not mean the immediate<\/p>\n
proximate area of the building in question. It means a larger<\/p>\n
local area.   Now coming to cross examination, we find that<\/p>\n
questions have been asked disputing the correctness of what was<\/p>\n
stated by RW1 in chief and also suggesting that there is much<\/p>\n
demand for buildings thereby indicating that there is some supply<\/p>\n
also. It is trite by various decisions including the judgment of<\/p>\n
the Full Bench in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar<\/a>(cited supra) that<\/p>\n
the burden to establish that tenant satisfies both the ingredients<\/p>\n
of the second proviso is that of the tenant.        When law cast<\/p>\n
burden of proving    a particular fact in issue on a particular<\/p>\n
person, the law expect him to       prove that fact in issue by<\/p>\n
adducing the best evidence. We are of the view that whether or<\/p>\n
not other suitable buildings are available in the locality is an<\/p>\n
aspect of capable of being proved by evidence of better quality<\/p>\n
than mere ipse dixit of parties. At any rate, it is very clear to our<\/p>\n
mind that the learned Appellate Authority and for that matter,<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Court were not at all mindful of the various<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                  -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
decisions of this Court starting from Kochappan Pillai v. Chellapan<\/p>\n
(1976 KLT 1)     taking the view that the burden to establish that<\/p>\n
the tenant satisfies his entitlement to the protection of the<\/p>\n
second proviso is that of the tenant.  Even then we feel that the<\/p>\n
tenant should be given      opportunity to adduce evidence and<\/p>\n
substantiate his contention that he is entitled for the protection<\/p>\n
of the second proviso.        Sri.Reghunath incidentally voiced a<\/p>\n
grievance that the rent which the respondent is paying for the<\/p>\n
building in question, situated in a commercially important area<\/p>\n
of the Thiruvananthapuram city Corporation, is ridiculously low.<\/p>\n
We find some merit in the        above submission of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel. Hence, we are inclined to refix the rent payable by the<\/p>\n
respondent tentatively even as we are relegating the RCP to the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Court.\n<\/p>\n
      10. The result of the above discussion is therefore as<\/p>\n
follows;\n<\/p>\n
               i). The RCR succeeds.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               ii). The order of the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
          and the Judgment of the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
          are set aside to the extent they pertain to the<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006                  -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
        decision to dismiss the RCP by virtue of the<\/p>\n
        first and second provisos of sub section (3) of<\/p>\n
        Section 11.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               iii). The finding entered by the Appellate<\/p>\n
        Authority that the need is bona fide is<\/p>\n
        confirmed. The Rent Control Court will afford<\/p>\n
        opportunity     to    the  tenant\/respondent   to<\/p>\n
        adduce further evidence in the context of the<\/p>\n
        first and second proviso to sub section (3) of<\/p>\n
        Section 11. Once the tenant adduces further<\/p>\n
        evidence, that Court will afford opportunity to<\/p>\n
        the revision petitioner\/landlord to adduce<\/p>\n
        evidence in rebuttal of the above evidence.<\/p>\n
        Once the enquiry is over, the Court will take<\/p>\n
        fresh decision on the question as to whether<\/p>\n
        the RCP is liable to fail by virtue of either the<\/p>\n
        first proviso or the second proviso to section<\/p>\n
        11(3) and will pass final orders in     the RCP<\/p>\n
        accordingly.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               iv). The rent payable by the respondent<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006               -16-<\/span><\/p>\n
        for the building in question is tentatively<\/p>\n
        refixed with effect from 1st August 2010 at<\/p>\n
        Rs.1,000\/- per month. The respondent shall<\/p>\n
        pay rent at that rate irrespective of the final<\/p>\n
        result of proceedings for eviction. However, we<\/p>\n
        make it clear that the above fixation is<\/p>\n
        tentative and if either party    is  aggrieved,<\/p>\n
        they are free to move the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
        by    initiating separate  proceedings   under<\/p>\n
        Section 5 of the Rent Control Act.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               v). The parties will appear before the<\/p>\n
        Rent Control Court on 26\/7\/2010. The Rent<\/p>\n
        Control Court will expedite matters and ensure<\/p>\n
        that the final order is passed in the RCP at<\/p>\n
        least by 31\/10\/2010.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                 C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE
\nokb\/dpk<\/p>\n
RCR.No.316\/2006    -17-<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 316 of 2006() 1. M.S.M.KASIM, … Petitioner Vs 1. A.SADIQUE, T.C.\/38\/841, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH For Respondent :SRI.P.A.AHAMMED The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM Dated :01\/07\/2010 O R D […]<\/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-67037","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 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\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-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=\"2010-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-04T23:05:54+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-04T23:05:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3117,\"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\\\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010\",\"name\":\"M.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-04T23:05:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 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":"M.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 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\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-04T23:05:54+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-04T23:05:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010"},"wordCount":3117,"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\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010","name":"M.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-04T23:05:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-m-kasim-vs-a-sadique-on-1-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.S.M.Kasim vs A.Sadique on 1 July, 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\/67037","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=67037"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/67037\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=67037"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=67037"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=67037"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}