{"id":100377,"date":"2007-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2"},"modified":"2015-03-09T08:53:52","modified_gmt":"2015-03-09T03:23:52","slug":"thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2","title":{"rendered":"Thottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ … vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Thottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ … vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA No. 923 of 2007()\n\n\n1. THOTTUNKARA KUNHIKRISHNAN @ KARUNAKARAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. ARAYAKKI KALYANI, W\/O.KUNHIRAMAN,\n3. THOTTUNKARA LAKSHMI, D\/O. DO.\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. CHEMBAN JANAKI, D\/O.SANKARAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THOTTUNKARA PRABHAKARAN,\n\n3. THOTTUNKARA VIJAYAN, S\/O.DO.\n\n4. THOTTUNKARA KALLYANI @ CHANDRI,\n\n5. THOTTUNKARA SHYAMALA, D\/O. DO. DO.\n\n6. THOTTUNKARA RADHA, D\/O.DO. DO.\n\n7. THOTTUNKARA SHYLAJA, D\/O. DO. DO.\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.SOHAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :31\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n                    ...........................................\n                     R.S.A.No.923             OF 2007\n                    ............................................\n        DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2007\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.277 of 1998 before<\/p>\n
Munsiff Court, Kuthuparamba are the appellants. Defendants are<\/p>\n
respondents.      First Appellant instituted the suit seeking a<\/p>\n
decree for partition contending that second appellant\/first<\/p>\n
defendant is the widow and first appellant and third appellant\/<\/p>\n
second defendant are the children of deceased Thottumkara<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman. The plaint schedule property originally belonged<\/p>\n
to Thottumkara Kunhiraman.                     Appellants contended that<\/p>\n
Thottumkara Kunhiraman was living with first respondent\/third<\/p>\n
defendant and respondents 2 to 7\/defendants 4 to 9 are the<\/p>\n
legitimate children of Kunhiraman in first respondent and they<\/p>\n
did not inherit any right over the assets of Kunhiraman and<\/p>\n
being the legally wedded wife, only second appellant is entitled<\/p>\n
to a share along with their children appellants 1 and 3 and<\/p>\n
respondents are not entitled to any share.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Respondents 1 to 7 filed a joint written statement<\/p>\n
contending that Thottumkara Kunhiraman was not the husband<\/p>\n
of second appellant and appellants 1 and 3 are not the children<\/p>\n
RSA 923\/2007                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
of Kunhiraman and there was no marriage between Kunhiraman<\/p>\n
and second appellant and first respondent is the legally wedded<\/p>\n
wife of Kunhiraman and their marriage was solemnised as per<\/p>\n
the customary rights and rituals and respondents 2 to 7 were<\/p>\n
born to first respondent in that relationship and respondents<\/p>\n
alone are entitled to inherit the properties of Kunhiraman.      It<\/p>\n
was also contended that Kunhiraman had executed Ext.B17 will<\/p>\n
whereunder properties were bequeathed to respondents 2 to 4<\/p>\n
and 7 and later respondents 2 to 4 and 7 assigned their right in<\/p>\n
favour of second respondent by release deed dated 14.10.1996<\/p>\n
and appellants are not entitled to claim any share. Appellants 2<\/p>\n
and 3 in their written statement admitted the plaint allegations<\/p>\n
and reiterated the same and claimed their share.<\/p>\n
      3.   Learned Munsiff, on the evidence of PWs 1 & 2, Dws 1<\/p>\n
to 5 and Exts.A1 to A8 and Exts.B1 to B17 and Exts.X1 to X2(a),<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit holding that first appellant failed to establish<\/p>\n
that second appellant was the legally wedded wife of<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman or that appellants 1 and 3 were born to second<\/p>\n
appellant in that marital relationship and therefore they are not<\/p>\n
entitled to inherit the properties of Kunhiraman.       Appellants<\/p>\n
together challenged the decree and judgment before Sub Court,<\/p>\n
RSA 923\/2007                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
Thalassery in A.S.40 of 2003.         Learned Sub Judge, on<\/p>\n
reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the findings of learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged by them in<\/p>\n
the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Learned counsel appearing for appellants was heard.<\/p>\n
The argument of the learned counsel is that courts below did not<\/p>\n
appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective and<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence was perverse. It was argued that there<\/p>\n
is no documentary evidence to prove the marriage of<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman either with second appellant or with first<\/p>\n
respondent and fact that appellants admitted that Kunhiraman<\/p>\n
was living with first respondent and respondents 2 to 7 were<\/p>\n
born to Kunhiraman in first respondent does not establish that<\/p>\n
there was a legal marriage      between Kunhiraman and first<\/p>\n
respondent or that respondents 2 to 7 are the legitimate children<\/p>\n
of Kunhiraman. It was argued that marriage of Kunhiraman<\/p>\n
with second appellant was in 1947 and evidence should have<\/p>\n
been appreciated in the social set up prevailing at that period. It<\/p>\n
was argued that Kunhiraman was having “punam” cultivation<\/p>\n
and evidence of DW4, the brother of first respondent establish<\/p>\n
that Kunhiraman had gone along with him for “punam”<\/p>\n
RSA 923\/2007                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
cultivation which was 65 kms away from the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property and at that time        first respondent accompanied<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman and respondents 2 to 7 the children were born in<\/p>\n
that relationship and first respondent was only a concubine and<\/p>\n
on the evidence courts below should have found             that<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman had married second appellant and appellants 1 and<\/p>\n
3 were born in that wedlock. Learned counsel also argued that<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 and A4 Birth Certificates of appellants 1 and 3 establish<\/p>\n
that Thottumkara Kunhiraman was the father of appellants 1 and<\/p>\n
3 and courts below should have granted the decree sought for.<\/p>\n
      5.     What was contended by appellants was that<\/p>\n
Thottumkara Kunhiraman had married second appellant Kalyani<\/p>\n
and appellants 1 and 3 were born in that wedlock.     That case<\/p>\n
was denied by respondents. It was admitted by first appellant<\/p>\n
even in the plaint and appellants 2 and 3 in their written<\/p>\n
statement that respondents 2 to 7 were born to first respondent<\/p>\n
in Kunhiraman, though they qualify respondents 2 to 7         as<\/p>\n
illegitimate children of Kunhiraman and first respondent       a<\/p>\n
concubine.   As appellants are claiming a share in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property on the basis that second appellant is the<\/p>\n
widow and appellants 1 and 3 are the legitimate children of<\/p>\n
RSA 923\/2007                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
Kunhiraman, burden is heavily on them to establish both the<\/p>\n
facts. The argument of learned counsel is that even though<\/p>\n
there is no documentary evidence to prove marriage of second<\/p>\n
appellant, that is the same case with the case of marriage of first<\/p>\n
respondent and courts below should not have relied on the<\/p>\n
evidence on the side of respondents to uphold their claim.<\/p>\n
     6. There is clear distinction. When respondents denied in<\/p>\n
toto the entire claim of appellants, both marriage of second<\/p>\n
appellant with Kunhiraman and that appellants 1 and 3 are the<\/p>\n
children of Kunhiraman, appellants unambiguously admitted<\/p>\n
that Kunhiraman was living with first respondent and<\/p>\n
respondents 2 to 7 were born to her in that relationship. The<\/p>\n
evidence also establish Kunhiraman died while he was residing<\/p>\n
with respondents and after the death of Kunhiraman, plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property is in the possession of respondents. In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, unless appellants establish the legal marriage<\/p>\n
between Kunhiraman and second appellant, and that appellants<\/p>\n
1 and 3 are the children of Kunhiraman, they cannot succeed in<\/p>\n
the suit. Even the failure of first respondent to establish her<\/p>\n
marriage with Kunhiraman will not enable appellants to get a<\/p>\n
decree, on the facts and circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n
RSA 923\/2007                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
      7. The only evidence adduced by appellants to establish<\/p>\n
the marriage of Kunhiraman with second appellant is that of<\/p>\n
PW2, the nephew of Kunhiraman. As rightly found by courts<\/p>\n
below, even the year, month or date or place of the alleged<\/p>\n
marriage was pleaded. The only evidence adduced to prove the<\/p>\n
marriage was that of second appellant as DW1 and PW2 the<\/p>\n
nephew of Kunhiraman. The evidence of PW2 establish that he<\/p>\n
was only a boy aged 5 to 8 years at the time of alleged marriage.<\/p>\n
Trial Court and first appellate court, on appreciation of evidence<\/p>\n
of PW2, found that his evidence cannot be relied on and on his<\/p>\n
evidence, it is not possible to uphold the marriage alleged.<\/p>\n
Though learned counsel persuaded me to reappreciate the<\/p>\n
evidence, I do not find that appreciation of evidence of PW2 by<\/p>\n
courts below was perverse, warranting reappreciation of<\/p>\n
evidence or substitution of finding of this court to that of the<\/p>\n
courts below on such reappreciation of evidence, in exercise of<\/p>\n
the powers of this court under Section 100 of Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure. It is clear that evidence of PW2 was appreciated in<\/p>\n
the proper perspective.\n<\/p>\n
      8. So also evidence of DW1 was properly appreciated by<\/p>\n
courts below. It was admitted by DW1 that there are documents<\/p>\n
RSA 923\/2007                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
like ration card, establishing the fact that Kunhiraman was living<\/p>\n
with   appellants.   DW1     also   deposed    that  Thottumkara<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman was shown as the head of the family in the ration<\/p>\n
card. In spite of this admission, no material was produced in<\/p>\n
support of the claim. Courts below has rightly drawn adverse<\/p>\n
inference for not producing the relevant records. The argument<\/p>\n
of learned counsel is that Ext.A3 and A4 show that Thottumkara<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman is the father of appellants 1 and 3. But courts below<\/p>\n
relied on the evidence of DW1 herself to hold that there is<\/p>\n
another Thottumkara Kunhiraman in the locality and identity of<\/p>\n
Thottumkara Kunhiraman seen in Ext.A3 and A4 as the father of<\/p>\n
respondents 2 to 7 was not established.            It is in such<\/p>\n
circumstances, courts below found that appellants did not<\/p>\n
establish that second appellant is the widow of Kunhiraman or<\/p>\n
that appellants 1 and 3 are the children of Kunhiraman.       The<\/p>\n
said factual finding entered into by courts below cannot be<\/p>\n
interfered by reappreciation of evidence as sought for by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
      9. Though there is no documentary evidence to prove the<\/p>\n
marriage of first respondent with Kunhiraman, courts below on<\/p>\n
the admitted facts and evidence found that the long cohabitation<\/p>\n
RSA 923\/2007                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
of Kunhiraman and first respondent and fact that respondents 2<\/p>\n
to 7 were born in that relationship, establish that first<\/p>\n
respondent is the legally wedded wife and respondents 2 to 7 are<\/p>\n
the children in that wedlock.       On the admitted facts and<\/p>\n
evidence, findings of the courts below on that aspect is also<\/p>\n
correct.    Moreover, evidence establish that plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property is admittedly in the possession of respondents.<\/p>\n
Appellants specifically submitted before the courts below that<\/p>\n
they do not seek any relief as against respondents. No decree<\/p>\n
for recovery of possession of the property from respondents was<\/p>\n
also sought. In such circumstances, courts below rightly held<\/p>\n
that appellants are not entitled to any share in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property. As there is no substantial question of law<\/p>\n
involved, appeal is dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                           M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Thottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ … vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA No. 923 of 2007() 1. THOTTUNKARA KUNHIKRISHNAN @ KARUNAKARAN, … Petitioner 2. ARAYAKKI KALYANI, W\/O.KUNHIRAMAN, 3. THOTTUNKARA LAKSHMI, D\/O. DO. Vs 1. CHEMBAN JANAKI, D\/O.SANKARAN, … Respondent 2. THOTTUNKARA PRABHAKARAN, 3. THOTTUNKARA […]<\/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-100377","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ ... vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ ... vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-09T03:23:52+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\\\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ … vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-09T03:23:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2\"},\"wordCount\":1495,\"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\\\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2\",\"name\":\"Thottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ ... vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-09T03:23:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ … vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Thottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ ... vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ ... vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-09T03:23:52+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\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ … vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-09T03:23:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2"},"wordCount":1495,"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\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2","name":"Thottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ ... vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-09T03:23:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thottunkara-kunhikrishnan-vs-chemban-janaki-on-31-october-2007-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thottunkara Kunhikrishnan @ … vs Chemban Janaki on 31 October, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100377","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=100377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/100377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=100377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=100377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=100377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}