{"id":79340,"date":"2010-10-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-05T03:35:43","modified_gmt":"2016-03-04T22:05:43","slug":"shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Shantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 2010<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n            HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH\n              PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR\n     Single Bench HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. Solanki\n                 First Appeal No. 568\/2003\n\n                Santosh Yadav,\n                S\/o Late Shri Kashiram Yadav,\n                aged about 47 years, businessman,\n                R\/o 2470, Panjab Bank Colony, Jabalpur.\n                                             Appellant\/plaintiff\n\n                                   Versus\n\n                Shri Moin Akhtar, S\/o Late Shri Baboo Rajak,\n                aged about 66 years, R\/o H. No. 535, Naya Pul,\n                South Motinala Ward, ( Businessman), Jabalpur.\n                                        Respondent\/defendant\n\n      -------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellant :           Shri D.C. Jain,Advocate.\n\nFor the Respondent:            Shri J.K. Verma, Advocate.\nFor the applicant :            Shri S.A. Wakeel, Advocate.\n( Wakf Board)\nFor the applicant :            Shri Mukhtiyar Ahmed, Advocate.\n( Mutawali)\n\n                       First Appeal No. 76\/2004\n\n                Moin Akhtar, S\/o Late Shri Babu Rajjak, aged\n                about 51 years, R\/o H. No. 535, New Bridge,\n                North Motilal Ward, Jabalpur (M.P.)\n                                        Appellant\/defendant\n\n                                   Versus\n\n                Santosh Yadav, S\/o Late Shri Kashi Ram Yadav,\n                aged about 45 years, R\/o H. No. 2470, Punjab\n                Bank Colony, Jabalpur (M.P.)\n                                       Respondent\/plaintiff\n\n      -------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellant :           Shri J.K. Verma,Advocate.\n\nFor the Respondent:            Shri D.C.Jain, Advocate.\nFor the applicant :            Shri S.A. Wakeel, Advocate.\n( Wakf Board)\nFor the applicant :            Shri Mukhtiyar Ahmed, Advocate.\n( Mutawali)\n                                       2\n\n      -------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n                                       Date of hearing: 05\/10\/2010\n                                   Date of Judgment: 27\/10\/2010\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
16.10.2003 , passed by Second Additional District Judge,<\/p>\n
Jabalpur in civil suit No. 128-A\/03, plaintiff\/appellant of F.A.<\/p>\n
No. 568\/03, as well as defendant\/appellant of F.A. No. 76\/04<\/p>\n
have preferred these two appeals under Section 96 of C.P.C.<\/p>\n
2.    Since both these appeals arises from the same<\/p>\n
judgment and decree, therefore these appeals are being<\/p>\n
disposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
3.     The brief facts of the case is that, plaintiff\/appellant of<\/p>\n
F.A. No. 568\/03, filed a suit for declaration of title, possession<\/p>\n
and permanent injunction against the defendant\/appellant of<\/p>\n
F.A. No. 76\/04. He pleaded in the plaint interalia that he<\/p>\n
purchased the suit property from one Zanab Khan situated at<\/p>\n
Marhotal, area 70X70 sq.ft., out of Khasra No. 155 , by paying<\/p>\n
the consideration of Rs. 98,000\/- in cash. Zanab Khan also<\/p>\n
executed an agreement to sale and power-of-attorney in the<\/p>\n
favour of plaintiff\/appellant of F.A. No. 568\/03, on 11.06.90. It<\/p>\n
is further pleaded that in this plot on 35X56 sq.ft. there was a<\/p>\n
racked and ruined mosque, which was being made by the<\/p>\n
interest money collected by forefathers of Zanab Khan.<\/p>\n
Therefore, for the last 66 years namaj was not performed in
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
the mosque by the followers of Islam. It is further pleaded that<\/p>\n
there is also a Nag Devta Mandir and Durga Mandir situated in<\/p>\n
the suit property. Plaintiff\/appellant of F.A. No. 568\/03, being<\/p>\n
a religious person he renovated Nag Devta Mandir in June,<\/p>\n
1990. He also constructed a small temple of Maa Durga Devi<\/p>\n
Mandir near the Mandir of Nag Devta. According to him, there<\/p>\n
is no structure like Masjid remained in the disputed plot. He<\/p>\n
further pleaded that he was performing the pooja for last 10<\/p>\n
years but on 29.04.2000 the defendant\/appellant of F.A. No.<\/p>\n
76\/04 has forcefully taken the possession over the disputed<\/p>\n
property and also has demolished the Mandir and has cut<\/p>\n
some trees and caused damages of Rs. 2 lakh to him. Thus,<\/p>\n
plaintiff\/appellant   of F.A. No. 568\/03, filed a suit for<\/p>\n
declaration of title, possession of property, recovery of<\/p>\n
damages       and     permanent     injunction    against    the<\/p>\n
defendant\/appellant of F.A. No. 76\/04.\n<\/p>\n
4.    Defendant\/appellant of F.A. No.       76\/04 resisted the<\/p>\n
pleading of plaintiff\/appellant of F.A. No. 568\/03, and filed the<\/p>\n
counter claim along with the written statement and interalia<\/p>\n
pleaded that the plaintiff\/appellant   of F.A. No. 568\/03, has<\/p>\n
never purchased the suit property nor having possession in<\/p>\n
the suit property and there was never any existence of Nag<\/p>\n
Devta Mandir or Durga Mandir in the disputed property and<\/p>\n
there is only a mosque in the suit property. It was also pleaded<\/p>\n
by the defendant\/appellant of F.A. No. 76\/04 in the counter
\n                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
claim that on 15.09.91 Zanab Khan has given the suit property<\/p>\n
to Wakf for mosque and imambada and has also executed<\/p>\n
hibanama in this regard and the defendant\/appellant of F.A.<\/p>\n
No. 76\/04 is the mutawali of the suit property. It was also<\/p>\n
claimed in the counter claim that by virtue of hibanama the suit<\/p>\n
property is got registered by Wakf Board on 13.09.2000. It is<\/p>\n
also pleaded that plaintiff\/appellant of F.A. No. 568\/03, tried to<\/p>\n
dispossess the defendant\/appellant of F.A. No. 76\/04, so that<\/p>\n
he may be restrained to interfere in the possession of<\/p>\n
defendant\/appellant of F.A. No. 76\/04.\n<\/p>\n
5.    Trial Court on appraisal of evidence on record passed<\/p>\n
the impugned judgment and decree and dismissed the suit<\/p>\n
filed by plaintiff\/appellant of F.A. No. 568\/03, and has also<\/p>\n
dismissed the counter claim filed by defendant\/appellant of<\/p>\n
F.A. No. 76\/04. Being aggrieved, both the parties filed these<\/p>\n
appeals.\n<\/p>\n
6.    It is undisputed that during the pendency of these<\/p>\n
appeals an interim application No. 7531\/06 was filed by Wakf<\/p>\n
Board under order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 of the<\/p>\n
C.P.C. and another I.A. No. 8484\/10 was filed on behalf of<\/p>\n
applicant Mutawali, under order 1 rule 10 of C.P.C. This court<\/p>\n
passed the order that both these interim applications are<\/p>\n
considered and adjudicated at the time of final hearing of<\/p>\n
these appeals. Therefore, learned counsel for the parties were<\/p>\n
heard on both these applications along with these appeals.
\n                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
7.    Considering the nature of interim applications these are<\/p>\n
considered and decided firstly.\n<\/p>\n
8.    Learned counsel for Wakf Board contended on the basis<\/p>\n
of averments of I.A. No. 7531\/06 that disputed property is a<\/p>\n
Wakf property duly registered in the register of Wakf Board.<\/p>\n
Both plaintiff and defendant have not brought to the notice of<\/p>\n
the trial court as well as this court that the disputed property is<\/p>\n
a Wakf property. He further contended that it is well settled in<\/p>\n
law that no decree can be passed with regard to the title of a<\/p>\n
Wakf property unless M.P. Wakf Board is impleaded as a party<\/p>\n
in the suit. Therefore, it was prayed that this Court may please<\/p>\n
to allow the applicant(Wakf Board) to be impleaded as<\/p>\n
respondent no. 2 in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
9.    Learned counsel for applicant Mutawali Committee,<\/p>\n
Wakf Masjid, Chandal Bhata, Marhotal, Jabalpur through its<\/p>\n
president Shri Mubeen Ahmad contended on the basis of<\/p>\n
averments of I.A. No. 8484\/10 that disputed property is<\/p>\n
registered as Wakf property with the M.P. Wakf Board and he<\/p>\n
is appointed as Mutawali. He further contended that subject<\/p>\n
matter of the civil suit before the trial court was Khasra No.<\/p>\n
155, area 70’X70′ sq.ft. Learned Civil Court has no jurisdiction<\/p>\n
to try the suit relating to Wakf property because jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
trial of such suits is vested in the M.P. State Wakf Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Bhopal which was constituted in the year 1994. He further<\/p>\n
contended that under Section 85 of Wakf Act, 1995
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
jurisdiction of civil court pertaining to Wakf properties is<\/p>\n
absolutely barred therefore, he prayed for adding the applicant<\/p>\n
as respondent in these appeals and further prayed to dismiss<\/p>\n
both the appeals for want of jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
10.   Learned counsel for the appellant of F.A. No. 568\/03<\/p>\n
contended that applications filed by M.P. Wakf Board and<\/p>\n
Mutawali Committee, Wakf Masjid, Chandal Bhata, Marhotal,<\/p>\n
Jabalpur through its President Shri Mubeen Ahmad with the<\/p>\n
intention to delay the proceedings. He further contended that<\/p>\n
both applicants are colluding with the respondent therefore<\/p>\n
both the applications are liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
11.   I have perused the record annexed with the applications<\/p>\n
under order 1 rule 10 of C.P.C. which reveal that disputed<\/p>\n
Khasra No. 155, area 1.22 acre was registered in the year<\/p>\n
1977 as Wakf property. Since, subject matter of this suit<\/p>\n
before the trial court is of area 70X70 sq.ft. of the Khasra No.<\/p>\n
155. It is well settled position of law that appeal is a<\/p>\n
continuation of a suit, since suit is for declaration and<\/p>\n
permanent injunction and appellant\/plaintiff claiming title over<\/p>\n
the suit property which are registered as Wakf Property. In<\/p>\n
these circumstances, applicants have direct interest in the<\/p>\n
subject matter and an effective decree can not be passed<\/p>\n
without impleading the Wakf Board as party in the suit.<\/p>\n
therefore, they are necessary party in the suit.<\/p>\n
12.   Considering     the    afore    mentioned     facts   and
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, applications i.e. I.A. No. 7531\/06<\/p>\n
filed by M.P. Wakf Board through its C.E.O. as well as I.A. No.<\/p>\n
8484\/10 filed by Mutawali Committee, Wakf Masjid, Chandal<\/p>\n
Bhata, Marhotal, Jabalpur through its president Shri Mubeen<\/p>\n
Ahmad are allowed.\n<\/p>\n
13.     Considering the fact that property was registered in the<\/p>\n
name of Wakf Board, newly added party has right to plead<\/p>\n
their case before the trial Court and plaintiff\/appellant of F.A.<\/p>\n
No. 568\/03 has right to controvert the pleadings before the trial<\/p>\n
court. All such proceeding is not possible before this appellate<\/p>\n
court, in these circumstances, judgment and decree passed by<\/p>\n
the trial Court is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to<\/p>\n
the trial court with the following directions :-<\/p>\n
(i)     Plaintiff\/appellant of F.A. No. 568\/03 will implead<\/p>\n
applicant Wakf Board as defendant No. 2 and applicant<\/p>\n
Mutawali committee, Wakf Masjid, Chandal Bhata, Marhotal,<\/p>\n
Jabalpur through its president Shri Mubeen Ahmad as<\/p>\n
defendant no. 3 within the period of one month.<\/p>\n
(ii)    Trial court provide the opportunity to newly added<\/p>\n
defendants to file their respective written statements within the<\/p>\n
further period of one month.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)   Trial Court provide opportunity to plaintiff to amend his<\/p>\n
plaint to controvert the new pleading regarding title of disputed<\/p>\n
property.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)    Trial Court is directed to frame additional issues
\n                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
including the jurisdiction of the civil court. And then after<\/p>\n
providing the opportunity to lead evidence(if any), by the<\/p>\n
respective parties and then decide the suit afresh according to<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n
14.    All parties are directed to appear before the trial court on<\/p>\n
08.12.2010.\n<\/p>\n
15.    Parties will bear their own cost.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                              (G.S. Solanki)\n                                                 JUDGE\n ba                                                27\/10\/2010\n 9<\/span>\n 10<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Shantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 2010 1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR Single Bench HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. Solanki First Appeal No. 568\/2003 Santosh Yadav, S\/o Late Shri Kashiram Yadav, aged about 47 years, businessman, R\/o 2470, Panjab Bank Colony, Jabalpur. Appellant\/plaintiff Versus Shri […]<\/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":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-79340","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 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\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-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=\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-04T22:05:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\\\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-04T22:05:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1445,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Shantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-04T22:05:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 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":"Shantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 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\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-04T22:05:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-04T22:05:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010"},"wordCount":1445,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010","name":"Shantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-04T22:05:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shantosh-yadav-vs-moin-akhtar-on-27-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shantosh Yadav vs Moin Akhtar on 27 October, 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\/79340","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=79340"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79340\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79340"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79340"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79340"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}