{"id":101987,"date":"2007-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007"},"modified":"2017-04-04T15:42:30","modified_gmt":"2017-04-04T10:12:30","slug":"lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Lal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Lal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev No. 273 of 2007()\n\n\n1. LAL PRODUCTS, 39\/345, CHANDRIKA SOAP\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. GOURI, AGED 65, D\/O.VELU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. BALAN, AGED 62, S\/O.VELU,\n\n3. LEELA, AGED 55, D\/O.VELU,\n\n4. MALATHI, D\/O.VELU, AGED 52,\n\n5. SHYAMALA, AGED 49, W\/O.VIDHYADHARAN,\n\n6. NISHA, AGED 37, D\/O.VIDHYADHARAN,\n\n7. AYSHA DEVI, AGED 36, D\/O.VELU,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :18\/08\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n          K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.\n          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                          R.C.R. No. 273 of 2007\n         ----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                    Dated, this the 18th day of August, 2007\n\n                                          ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Balakrishnan Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n
       The appellant in R.C.A.No.79\/2005 has come up in revision<\/p>\n
challenging the appellate judgment in the said appeal. The order of the<\/p>\n
Rent Controller in R.C.P.No.117\/2000 dated 28.1.2005 is upheld by the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment dated 11.1.2007. The brief facts of the case are the<\/p>\n
following:\n<\/p>\n
       2. One Mr. Sreedharan who was a lunatic was the owner of 20<\/p>\n
cents of land in which there were a few buildings. He was a bachelor and<\/p>\n
since there was no one to look after him, the District Court in a Lunacy<\/p>\n
O.P.151\/1972 appointed Adv. Mr. P.P.Prathapan as the guardian of the<\/p>\n
said Sreedharan. The petitioner herein got the building on rental basis<\/p>\n
from the said court receiver.            Sreedharan died on 24.1.1996. Later in<\/p>\n
1998 the entire landed property of Sreedharan including the buildings<\/p>\n
thereon were handed over to the landlords, the respondents herein, by the<\/p>\n
court receiver as per order of the District Court in I.A.No.164\/1998 in the<\/p>\n
above Lunacy O.P.            The landlords in the year 2000 filed a few Rent<\/p>\n
Control Petitions against the various tenants in occupation of the<\/p>\n
aforementioned buildings. R.C.P.No.117\/2000 was filed by the landlords<\/p>\n
against the petitioner herein who was occupying the building bearing door<\/p>\n
No.39\/345. The grounds taken were under sec.11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.273\/2007                  Page numbers<\/p>\n
Kerala Buildings (Lease and        Rent Control) Act (for short, the Act). Mr.<\/p>\n
Ashok Kumar, the son of the 3rd respondent herein, required the said<\/p>\n
building for his residence.    He has no residence of his own.          He is<\/p>\n
depending upon the 3rd respondent herein, his mother, for his<\/p>\n
accommodation.      He is married and he wants to have a separate<\/p>\n
residence.    Neither the landlords nor Ashok Kumar have any separate<\/p>\n
building suitable for residential accommodation. The petitioner herein, the<\/p>\n
tenant which is a firm, is using the said building for the residential<\/p>\n
accommodation of its employees.         The tenant resisted the application<\/p>\n
stating that the landlords have no title to the property. It was also asserted<\/p>\n
that Mr. Ashok Kumar is residing in his own house. There are several<\/p>\n
other buildings in the possession of Mr. Ashok Kumar in the city suitable<\/p>\n
for his residence. The purpose of getting the building evicted is to sell it, it<\/p>\n
was contended.\n<\/p>\n
       3. The trial of the Rent Control Petitions were held jointly. On the<\/p>\n
basis of the above pleadings the Rent Controller raised issues.       From<\/p>\n
the side of the landlords PWs.1 to 4 were examined. From the side of the<\/p>\n
tenants RWs.1 to 4 were examined.             Mr. Ashok Kumar was PW.4.<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A14 were marked from the side of the landlords and Exts.B1 to<\/p>\n
B14(a) were marked from the side of the tenants.             As court exhibits<\/p>\n
Exts.C1, C1(a), C2 and C2(a) were also marked.\n<\/p>\n
       4. The Rent Controller allowed the applications on both grounds.<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.273\/2007                 Page numbers<\/p>\n
The Appellate Authority reversed the finding under sec.11(2), but affirmed<\/p>\n
the decision under sec.11(3).      The revision petitioner attacks the said<\/p>\n
finding of the Appellate Authority under sec.11(3). In this revision also the<\/p>\n
dispute regarding title was raised. But, in view of the judgment rendered<\/p>\n
by us in R.C.Rev.463\/2004, the said point does not survive for<\/p>\n
consideration. The other points raised by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner are the following:\n<\/p>\n
            1. Mr. Ashok Kumar is not a dependent for the purpose of<\/p>\n
            sec.11(3) of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            2.   The bona fide need of Mr.       Ashok Kumar is not\n\n            established.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
            3. The case is governed by the first proviso to sec.11(3)<\/p>\n
            as   Mr.    Ashok   Kumar     has  got    other     suitable<\/p>\n
            accommodation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
            4.   The learned Munsiff who heard the matter         is not<\/p>\n
            vested with the powers of the Rent Controller by<\/p>\n
            appropriate notification under the Act. Therefore the order<\/p>\n
            is passed without jurisdiction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       5.   The first point was explained and amplified by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner by contending that the landlords have stepped<\/p>\n
into the shoes of the court receiver. The court receiver cannot have any<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.273\/2007                Page numbers<\/p>\n
dependent. Since the landlords stepped into his shoes, they also cannot<\/p>\n
have any dependent. So, Mr. Ashok Kumar cannot be treated as a<\/p>\n
dependent of the landlords for the purpose of sec.11(3).       The above<\/p>\n
contention cannot be accepted as the landlords were not appointed as<\/p>\n
court guardian in the place of the previous court guardian. But, they were<\/p>\n
given possession of the properties on finding that among the competing<\/p>\n
claimants, they are the legal heirs eligible to get possession of the<\/p>\n
properties and the Lunacy O.P. was closed also in view of the death of the<\/p>\n
lunatic. So, the landlords herein are in possession of the property as the<\/p>\n
legal heirs and therefore they can have dependents.               So, the<\/p>\n
aforementioned contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot<\/p>\n
be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
       6.  On the second point the learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
submits that Mr. Ashok Kumar can very well live with his mother in her<\/p>\n
residential building. Nobody else is residing there. But, based on the<\/p>\n
evidence on record, the Appellate Authority found that his elder brother<\/p>\n
who was earlier employed at Guruvayur is presently working at Ernakulam.<\/p>\n
He is not having any separate residence and his wife is a housewife and<\/p>\n
they are residing with their mother.    As per the family arrangement it<\/p>\n
appears that the building in which the mother is residing is allotted to<\/p>\n
another brother. Whatever be that, if a married son wants to have a<\/p>\n
separate marital home, even if there are facilities for residence in his<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.273\/2007                 Page numbers<\/p>\n
mother’s house, the same cannot be described as not a bona fide need.<\/p>\n
In our society the married son at the earliest separates and sets up his<\/p>\n
own home. So, the desire of Mr. Ashok Kumar for the same and his<\/p>\n
requirement can only be described as a bona fide need. The facts in this<\/p>\n
case speaks for themselves on this point.\n<\/p>\n
       7. The next contention raised is that the first proviso will apply as<\/p>\n
there are other buildings available. But the Appellate Authority on the<\/p>\n
basis of the evidence before it found that the only building available for<\/p>\n
residential purpose is the building occupied by the petitioner herein. The<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority, based on the evidence on record, also noticed that a<\/p>\n
few rooms were available, but they were good only for business purposes.<\/p>\n
The building in which the lunatic was residing was not found suitable for<\/p>\n
residential accommodation. The present tenanted premises is occupied<\/p>\n
by the employees of the tenant as a residential accommodation. The<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority was not impressed by the contention of the tenant that<\/p>\n
there are other buildings suitable for residential purposes.  The said view<\/p>\n
of the Appellate Authority is a finding of fact, with which we cannot<\/p>\n
interfere under sec.20.\n<\/p>\n
       8. Finally, the learned counsel pointed out the lack of jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
the Munsiff to hear the Rent Control Petition. The de facto doctrine will<\/p>\n
save the judgment even assuming the contention of the petitioner is<\/p>\n
correct. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is,<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.273\/2007                  Page numbers<\/p>\n
in fact, a notification appointing all Munsiffs as Rent Controllers. The<\/p>\n
subsequent notification authorising one of the Munsiffs as a Special Court<\/p>\n
for hearing rent control matters has not the effect of repealing the earlier<\/p>\n
notification, it is submitted. We notice that this point is not dealt with either<\/p>\n
in the judgment of the Rent Controller or the Appellate Authority. The<\/p>\n
normal presumption to be drawn is that the said point was not argued<\/p>\n
before those authorities. But, even then, as stated earlier, the de facto<\/p>\n
doctrine will save the judgment. The Munsiff sitting under the colour of<\/p>\n
authority has rendered a decision in which he is not personally interested.<\/p>\n
So, the said decision will be valid in view of the Full Bench decision of this<\/p>\n
Court in P.S.Menon v. State of Kerala<\/a> – AIR 1970 Kerala 165 which was<\/p>\n
quoted with approval by the Apex Court in Gokaraju Rengaraju v. State of<\/p>\n
Andhra Pradesh<\/a> – AIR 1981 SC 1473.                       .\n<\/p>\n
        No other point is urged in this revision and, in the result, the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Revision fails and it is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                 K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
\n                                                            JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                                    HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                          JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
mt\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Lal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev No. 273 of 2007() 1. LAL PRODUCTS, 39\/345, CHANDRIKA SOAP … Petitioner Vs 1. GOURI, AGED 65, D\/O.VELU, … Respondent 2. BALAN, AGED 62, S\/O.VELU, 3. LEELA, AGED 55, D\/O.VELU, 4. MALATHI, D\/O.VELU, AGED 52, […]<\/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-101987","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 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\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-04T10:12:30+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-04T10:12:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1375,\"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\\\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Lal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-04T10:12:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 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":"Lal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 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\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-04T10:12:30+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-04T10:12:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007"},"wordCount":1375,"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\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007","name":"Lal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-04T10:12:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lal-products-vs-gouri-on-18-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lal Products vs Gouri on 18 August, 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\/101987","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=101987"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101987\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101987"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101987"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101987"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}