{"id":10454,"date":"2010-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-19T14:22:45","modified_gmt":"2018-02-19T08:52:45","slug":"m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"M.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 15484 of 2010(O)\n\n\n1. M.N. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S\/O. BALAKRISHNA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. T.SUKUMARAN, S\/O. NARAYANAN, CHITHIRA'\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. VIJAYAN MENON, S\/O. KUNJAN MENON,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. ANSAL BUILDWELL LIMITED, ANSAL RIVER\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJU.S.A\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.K.VENUGOPALAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :25\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                               THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                              --------------------------------------\n                              W.P.(C) No.15484 of 2010\n                              --------------------------------------\n                    Dated this the 25th day of November, 2010.\n\n                                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Petitioners in I.A.No.902 of 2010 in O.S.No.654 of 2007 of the court of<\/p>\n
learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Ernakulam challenge order dated April 3, 2010<\/p>\n
declining to implead them as additional defendants in the suit. Respondent<\/p>\n
No.1\/plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of 56 cents on the strength<\/p>\n
of his title impleading M\/s. Ansal Buildwell Limited, a construction company as<\/p>\n
defendant. According to respondent No.1, suit property was allotted to his share<\/p>\n
as F schedule in Ext.P2, partition deed No.1265 of 1971 and while he was in<\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of the property the                  defendant trespassed into the<\/p>\n
said property and hence the suit. Defendant filed Ext.P4, written statement<\/p>\n
contending that respondent No.1 has no right, title or interest in the suit property<\/p>\n
and that the suit property belonged in jenm to Kunnappally Kunjan Menon from<\/p>\n
whom one Varkey took it on lease in the year, 1938. Varkey assigned his lease<\/p>\n
hold right to Kumari as per document No.1095 of 1966. (In the year, 1971 legal<\/p>\n
representatives of Kunjan Menon, the jenmy partitioned his properties as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P2, partition deed.) Kumari assigned her right over the property to one Paily<\/p>\n
and Paily in turn, assigned his right to one Mathai as per assignment deed<\/p>\n
No.871 of 1985. Mathai is said to have sold the property to the petitioners in<\/p>\n
I.A.No.902 of 2010 as per assignment deed No.2098 of 2005. They contended<\/p>\n
that as per an agreement they entered into with the defendant, property was put<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.15484\/2010<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
in the possession of defendant for development by construction of building. On<\/p>\n
the strength of Ext.P3, assignment deed No.2098 of 2005 petitioners in<\/p>\n
I.A.No.902 of 2010 sought their impleadment in the suit as additional defendants<\/p>\n
claiming title over the property. That application was resisted by respondent No.1<\/p>\n
contending that petitioners have no right, interest or title over the property and<\/p>\n
asserting his own right over the property as per Ext.P2, partition deed. In the<\/p>\n
meantime on the plea of tenancy raised by the defendant in its written statement<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge framed an issue regarding tenancy. Defendant wanted<\/p>\n
question of tenancy to be referred to the Land Tribunal for a finding. Learned<\/p>\n
Sub Judge allowed the prayer. Respondent No.1\/plaintiff challenged that order in<\/p>\n
this Court in W.P.(C) No.37350 of 2008. This Court vide judgment dated January<\/p>\n
11, 2010 allowed the Writ Petition mainly observing that even as per the<\/p>\n
contention raised by the defendant, it does not claim title over the property and<\/p>\n
according to the defendant the property belonged to the petitioners and in such<\/p>\n
a situation no question of tenancy genuinely arose for a decision at the instance<\/p>\n
of the defendant. Accordingly this Court found that reference of the question<\/p>\n
raised by defendant is not necessary, set aside the order of learned Sub Judge<\/p>\n
and directed that issue regarding tenancy to be deleted. It is while so, that<\/p>\n
petitioners filed I.A.No.902 of 2010 as aforesaid seeking their impleadment. In<\/p>\n
the meantime defendant sought for and obtained amendment of its written<\/p>\n
statement incorporating paragraph Nos.4(a) to 4(d). Learned Sub Judge vide<\/p>\n
Ext.P8, order referring to the contention raised in paragraph No.4(d) of the<\/p>\n
amended written statement held that property has already been sold to certain<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.15484\/2010<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
other persons       and hence impleadment of petitioners is not required.<\/p>\n
Consequence was a dismissal of I.A.No.902 of 2010. Petitioners (represented by<\/p>\n
defendant as power of attorney holder) challenge the said order in this petition.<\/p>\n
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners contended that learned<\/p>\n
Sub Judge culled out a particular statement alone from paragraph No.4(c) of the<\/p>\n
amended written statement to hold that petitioners have no right, interest or title<\/p>\n
over the property and hence their impleadment is not necessary. This being a<\/p>\n
suit for recovery of possession of property on the strength of tile, presence of<\/p>\n
petitioners who have a real claim of title over the property is required. Learned<\/p>\n
Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the decisions in Razia Begum v.<\/p>\n
Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others (AIR<\/a> 1958 SC 886) and<\/p>\n
Beepathumma v. Thankamma (1993 (2) KLT 152) to contend that<\/p>\n
though respondent No.1 is the master of the suit and may choose the person<\/p>\n
against whom he should seek relief, it is not as if the court has no power to<\/p>\n
order impleadment of necessary or even proper parties if their presence is<\/p>\n
necessary for a      proper and effective adjudication of the dispute involved.<\/p>\n
According to the learned Senior Advocate, documents produced by petitioners<\/p>\n
vide memo (this day), would indicate that still, petitioners have right over a<\/p>\n
portion of the suit property. At any rate and even if it is assumed that they have<\/p>\n
assigned a portion of the suit property to the persons referred to in paragraph<\/p>\n
No.4(c) of the amended written statement, it is not as if petitioners as assignors<\/p>\n
are not entitled to be impleaded as necessary or proper parties. It is pointed out<\/p>\n
that so far as the assignee is concerned, he may seek impleadment with<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.15484\/2010<\/p>\n
                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
permission of the court. But that does not take away right of the assignor to get<\/p>\n
impleaded in the suit to defend the suit for and on behalf of the assignee as well.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that this Court is not justified in<\/p>\n
interfering with the order passed by learned Sub Judge after consideration of<\/p>\n
the materials on record including the contention raised by the defendant in the<\/p>\n
additional written statement and that supervisory power conferred on this Court<\/p>\n
under Article 227 of the Constitution does not extent to reappreciation of the<\/p>\n
evidence unless a grave injustice has been committed by the court below and<\/p>\n
placed reliance on the decisions in Subodh Kumar Gupta and others v.<\/p>\n
Alpana Gupta and others<\/a>((2005) 11 SCC 578), Radhey Shyam<\/p>\n
and another v. Chhabi Nath and others((2009) 5 SCC 616), Sneh<\/p>\n
Gupta v. Devi Sarup and others<\/a> ((2009) 6 SCC 194) and Jai Singh<\/p>\n
and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and<\/a> another((2010)<\/p>\n
9 SCC 385).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.      No doubt, in the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
respondent No.1      the Supreme Court has drawn              the limits within which<\/p>\n
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution could be exercised by the High<\/p>\n
Court. It was held that under Article 227 of the Constitution the High Court has<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to ensure that all statutory\/quasi-judicial Tribunals exercised powers<\/p>\n
vested in them within the bounds of their authority.            It is however well to<\/p>\n
remember the well known adage that greater the power, greater the care and the<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.15484\/2010<\/p>\n
                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
caution in exercise thereof. The High Court therefore is expected to exercise<\/p>\n
such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The Supreme<\/p>\n
Court pointed out that exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised<\/p>\n
constraints and that it cannot be exercised like a “bull in a china shop”, to correct<\/p>\n
all errors of judgment of a court, or Tribunal, acting within the limits of its<\/p>\n
jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders<\/p>\n
have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of<\/p>\n
fundamental principles of law or justice. I shall proceed in the matter as guided<\/p>\n
by the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above by learned counsel.<\/p>\n
        3.     No doubt an earlier attempt on the part of the defendant to get the<\/p>\n
question of tenancy referred to the Land Tribunal was shot down by this Court<\/p>\n
by Ext.P5, judgment but that was on a finding that defendant had no claim of<\/p>\n
title over the property and hence no question of tenancy could arise. That does<\/p>\n
not mean that subsequent claim of petitioners or subsequent events are not to<\/p>\n
be looked into. It is seen from the order under challenge that learned Sub<\/p>\n
Judge disallowed the prayer for impleadment of petitioners for the reason that in<\/p>\n
the amended written statement it was contended that in the year 2006, 2007<\/p>\n
and 2009 sales deeds were executed (obviously by petitioners) in respect of the<\/p>\n
suit property and that property is in the possession of one Augustine, Leslie<\/p>\n
Augustine, Deepak Tikku, Ambir Singh and the defendant. Copies of the said<\/p>\n
documents were produced by the defendant in the court of learned Sub Judge.<\/p>\n
Learned Sub Judge observed that defendant is claiming under the petitioners<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.15484\/2010<\/p>\n
                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
and that petitioners would be helpful to prove the case of defendant (that,<\/p>\n
defendant is not a trespasser into the suit property but is holding the property<\/p>\n
under the agreement executed between it and petitioners who according to the<\/p>\n
defendant are the lawful owners). Observing so, the application was dismissed.<\/p>\n
       4.     Learned Senior Advocate has referred me to the description in item<\/p>\n
No.5 of F schedule to the partition deed         No.1265 of 1971 under which<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 is claiming absolute right and title over the property.     It is<\/p>\n
stated that the said property is oustanding in the possession of             one<\/p>\n
Assariparambil Kumaran who, it is argued is the husband of Kumari who is said<\/p>\n
to have acquired right from Varkey as per document No.1095 of 1966. It is the<\/p>\n
said Kumari who assigned the property in favour of one Paily as per document<\/p>\n
No.2188 of 1983 who in turn assigned property to Mathai as per assignment<\/p>\n
deed No.871 of 1985 and it is from the said Mathai that petitioners (allegedly)<\/p>\n
obtained right over the suit property as per Ext.P3, assignment deed No.2098 of<\/p>\n
2005. Learned Senior Advocate has also referred to me the amendment to<\/p>\n
written statement incorporated by paragraph Nos.4(a) to (d). In paragraph No.4<\/p>\n
(a) there is reference to the alleged derivation of title by the petitioners as<\/p>\n
aforesaid and as contended in the original written statement and in paragraph<\/p>\n
No.4(b), there is reference to two documents executed by the petitioners on<\/p>\n
01.11.2006 (prior to the institution of the suit) and 28.03.2007 in favour of<\/p>\n
Augustine and     Lesli Augustine concerning 12.306 cents each.       The third<\/p>\n
document referred to in paragraph No.4 (b) is a document executed by<\/p>\n
petitioners in favour of the defendant regarding 18 cents.      Assuming so, it<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.15484\/2010<\/p>\n
                                           7<\/span><\/p>\n
would appear that petitioners have a claim of title over the remaining 13.388<\/p>\n
cents (out of the 56 cents referred to in the plaint schedule), it is contended by<\/p>\n
learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners. In response it is contended<\/p>\n
by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that it is not clear          in the light of<\/p>\n
averments in the amended written statement whether rest of the suit property<\/p>\n
has also been assigned by petitioners in favour of strangers. True in paragraph<\/p>\n
No.4(d) of the amended written statement there is a contention raised by the<\/p>\n
defendant     that “the defendant has secured the tenancy right in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule vested in T.Sukumaran and M.N.Balakrishnan Nair”(they are the<\/p>\n
petitioners before me). But it is contended by learned Senior Advocate that the<\/p>\n
said statement alone cannot be culled out from the pleadings to hold that<\/p>\n
petitioners have no subsisting right over the property. According to the learned<\/p>\n
Senior Advocate that contention must be read in continuation of the contentions<\/p>\n
raised in paragraph Nos.4(a) to (c) as to the derivation of title. Learned Senior<\/p>\n
Advocate contends that even if a portion of the property has been assigned, it<\/p>\n
is well within the right of petitioners atleast on behalf of the assignees and on<\/p>\n
their behalf to get impleaded in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
       5.     It is seen from the impugned order that learned Sub Judge took<\/p>\n
the view that by sale deeds referred to in the amended written statement<\/p>\n
petitioners have sold their right over the property so that they are not required to<\/p>\n
be made parties in the suit. Learned Sub Judge has not adverted to all aspects<\/p>\n
of the matter which I have stated above.            Learned Sub Judge has not<\/p>\n
considered the question Learned Sub Judge has not considered the question of<\/p>\n
WP(C) No.15484\/2010<\/p>\n
                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
rival claims to title to the property, in view of derivation of title claimed by them<\/p>\n
are necessary or atleast proper parties to the suit. That amounts a jurisdictional<\/p>\n
error which is required to be corrected. In view of that, the matter has to go<\/p>\n
back to the learned Sub Judge for a fresh decision. If respondent No.1 has a<\/p>\n
contention that in view of any other assignment deed executed by petitioners<\/p>\n
the latter could not claim any right in the suit property it is open to him to<\/p>\n
produce such document in the court below.\n<\/p>\n
        6.    In the light of what I have stated above, I consider that the order<\/p>\n
under challenge cannot be sustained as it is not passed after considering all<\/p>\n
relevant aspects of the matter and considering all materials                in which<\/p>\n
circumstance Article 227 of the Constitution permits this Court to interfere even<\/p>\n
going by the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above. It follows that<\/p>\n
order under challenge is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
        Resultantly this petition is allowed by way of remand. Ext.P8, order is set<\/p>\n
aside and Ext.P6, application (I.A.No.902 of 2010) is remitted to the court below<\/p>\n
for fresh decision after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce further<\/p>\n
evidence in respect of their respective contentions in I.A.No.902 of 2010.<\/p>\n
                                                 THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                          Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 15484 of 2010(O) 1. M.N. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S\/O. BALAKRISHNA … Petitioner 2. T.SUKUMARAN, S\/O. NARAYANAN, CHITHIRA’ Vs 1. VIJAYAN MENON, S\/O. KUNJAN MENON, … Respondent 2. ANSAL BUILDWELL LIMITED, ANSAL RIVER For Petitioner […]<\/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-10454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 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-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-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=\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-19T08:52:45+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=\"11 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-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-19T08:52:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2209,\"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-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010\",\"name\":\"M.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-19T08:52:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 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-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-19T08:52:45+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-19T08:52:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010"},"wordCount":2209,"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-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010","name":"M.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-19T08:52:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-n-balakrishnan-nair-vs-vijayan-menon-on-25-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.N. Balakrishnan Nair vs Vijayan Menon on 25 November, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/10454","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=10454"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10454\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}