{"id":113499,"date":"2007-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007"},"modified":"2016-08-04T02:19:20","modified_gmt":"2016-08-03T20:49:20","slug":"vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Vadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Vadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 478 of 1994()\n\n\n\n1. VADAKKUMTHANI KUNHURAMAN NAIR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. E.MEENAKSHI AMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.R.VENKATAKRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :27\/11\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n            ===========================\n              S.A. NO. 478   OF 1994\n            ===========================\n\n     Dated this the 27th day of November, 2007\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    Defendant in O.S.218\/1983 on the file of Sub<\/p>\n
Court, Tirur is the appellant.    On the death of<\/p>\n
appellant,  his  legal  heirs  were  impleaded   as<\/p>\n
additional appellants 2 to 5.  Respondents are the<\/p>\n
legal representatives of the original plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Deceased plaintiff   instituted the suit claiming<\/p>\n
damages  and prohibitory   injunction.    Plaint  A<\/p>\n
schedule  property  admittedly   belonged  to   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.   On the eastern side of the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property muthiatha chali, a lagoon. It is<\/p>\n
the    plaint  B  schedule  property.    Respondent<\/p>\n
contended that he along with others are riparian<\/p>\n
owners and the riparian owners have       right of<\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of lagoon upto its middle<\/p>\n
and for the proper maintenance and cultivation of<\/p>\n
their  properties, riparian owners are entitled to<\/p>\n
get the silt removed from the mouth of the lagoon<\/p>\n
S.A.478\/1994                2<\/span><\/p>\n
which touches the Arabian sea.      It was contended<\/p>\n
that     when  appellant  caused obstruction  to  the<\/p>\n
removal     of    silt,  O.S.134\/1983  was  filed  by<\/p>\n
plaintiff and other riparian owners        seeking a<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction       and as appellant did not<\/p>\n
allow the silt to be removed, there was flood and<\/p>\n
inundation of saline water which      could not flow<\/p>\n
out to the sea causing destruction of mundakam crop<\/p>\n
and also     caused damages  to the coconut saplings,<\/p>\n
coconut trees and erosion of the soil. Plaintiff in<\/p>\n
this suit claimed the damages of Rs.1000\/- for the<\/p>\n
loss of mundakam crop for the year 1982 , Rs.1200\/-<\/p>\n
as loss of 80 coconut      saplings, Rs.700\/- as loss<\/p>\n
of damages to     the coconut trees.  He also claimed<\/p>\n
Rs.800\/-     for  restoration  of plaint  A  schedule<\/p>\n
property      to its original position.     Plaintiff<\/p>\n
contended that appellant did not allow him to    fish<\/p>\n
and thereby he lost Rs.300\/- being       the value of<\/p>\n
the fish which he could have otherwise got from the<\/p>\n
lagoon.      A decree for mandatory injunction to<\/p>\n
restore     plaint  A   schedule  property  into  its<\/p>\n
original     position  and    prohibitory  injunction<\/p>\n
S.A.478\/1994               3<\/span><\/p>\n
causing       further    obstruction    were     also<\/p>\n
sought.Appellant resisted the suit disputing the<\/p>\n
riparian right claimed by respondent.         It was<\/p>\n
contended that plaint B schedule lagoon exclusively<\/p>\n
belonged to the tarwad of the appellant and neither<\/p>\n
respondent     nor other owners adjoining lagoon have<\/p>\n
any riparian right over plaint B schedule property.<\/p>\n
It was contended that they have also no right to<\/p>\n
catch      fish  from  plaint  B   schedule   lagoon.<\/p>\n
Appellant also contended that respondent or other<\/p>\n
persons have no right to remove the silt as      the<\/p>\n
lagoon exclusively belongs to the     appellant.   It<\/p>\n
was    contended  that  the  entire  silt  cannot be<\/p>\n
removed and only a small portion of the silt could<\/p>\n
be removed touching the arabian sea and it is being<\/p>\n
done by appellant and not by plaintiff    and by non<\/p>\n
removal of silt no damage was caused and therefore<\/p>\n
appellant is not entitled to claim damages.       The<\/p>\n
fact that damage was caused and the quantum of<\/p>\n
damages      were  also  disputed.   Appellant   also<\/p>\n
contended that    suit is barred under Order II Rule<\/p>\n
2 of Code of Civil Procedure as the relief should<\/p>\n
S.A.478\/1994                4<\/span><\/p>\n
have claimed in O.S.134\/1983.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Learned Munsiff on the evidence of Pws.1<\/p>\n
and 2 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A20, Exts.B1 to B23<\/p>\n
and Exts.C1 to C6 found under Exts.A16 and A17<\/p>\n
judgment in the earlier suit          exclusive right<\/p>\n
claimed by appellant was decided against him and it<\/p>\n
was found that appellant and others have      riparian<\/p>\n
right over the lagoon.     Learned Munsiff also found<\/p>\n
that due to     non-removal of silt, damage was caused<\/p>\n
to mundakam crop as well as destruction of coconut<\/p>\n
saplings and erosion of soil from plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property     and   plaintiff    is  entitled   to  the<\/p>\n
damages.       It  was  found  that  O.S.134\/1983 was<\/p>\n
earlier instituted seeking a decree against the<\/p>\n
State and though appellant was also one of the<\/p>\n
defendants and a decree for injunction was sought<\/p>\n
against appellant from causing obstruction to the<\/p>\n
removal of silt,     present suit is one for damages<\/p>\n
and as the damage could be assessed only after<\/p>\n
Midunam 32 namely 15.7.1983 suit      for damages was<\/p>\n
not barred on account of the failure to claim<\/p>\n
damages in the earlier suit.          Learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
S.A.478\/1994                5<\/span><\/p>\n
granted a decree as sought for by respondent.<\/p>\n
Appellant challenged the decree and judgment before<\/p>\n
Sub Court, Tirur in A.S.No.5\/1988.        Learned Sub<\/p>\n
Judge on reappreciation of evidence, relying on<\/p>\n
Exts.A16,      A17  and  A18   judgments  found   that<\/p>\n
riparian right claimed by respondent was upheld by<\/p>\n
this court which is binding on the appellant.<\/p>\n
Learned Sub Judge on the evidence confirmed the<\/p>\n
findings of learned Munsiff with regard to the<\/p>\n
damages caused.        The finding on the objection<\/p>\n
raised under Order II Rule 2 of C.P.C was also<\/p>\n
repelled.     The  appeal   was  dismissed.    It  is<\/p>\n
challenged in the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The second appeal was admitted formulating<\/p>\n
the following substantial questions of law.<\/p>\n
         1.    Was   the  court  below<\/p>\n
         justified in holding that the<\/p>\n
         plaintiff   is   a   riparian<\/p>\n
         owner,  when  there  were  no<\/p>\n
         sufficient materials for the<\/p>\n
         same.\n<\/p>\n
         2.   Has the law relating to<\/p>\n
S.A.478\/1994                6<\/span><\/p>\n
         riparian owners been properly<\/p>\n
         applied  in  this  case  when<\/p>\n
         there   are   no   sufficient<\/p>\n
         materials to hold that the<\/p>\n
         plaintiff   is   a   riparian<\/p>\n
         owner.\n<\/p>\n
         3.     Was      court   below<\/p>\n
         justified in granting damages<\/p>\n
         when there were no sufficient<\/p>\n
         materials for the same and no<\/p>\n
         sufficient materials to prove<\/p>\n
         the  quantum.\n<\/p>\n
         4.    Is  the   present  suit<\/p>\n
         barred by Order 11 Rule 2.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Learned counsel appearing for appellants<\/p>\n
and respondents were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    As a contention was raised that Ext.A18<\/p>\n
judgment of this court confirming Exts.A16 and 17<\/p>\n
judgments is challenged before the Apex Court and<\/p>\n
it    has   not  become  final,  that fact was   got<\/p>\n
verified.     It is seen from the judgment in Civil<\/p>\n
Appeal No.1132\/1981, that Civil Appeal filed by<\/p>\n
S.A.478\/1994                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant      challenging  Ext.A18  judgment  of  this<\/p>\n
court     was   dismissed  by  the  Supreme  Court  for<\/p>\n
default on 12.10.1995.      Therefore Ext.A18 judgment<\/p>\n
of this court confirming Exts.A16 and A17 judgments<\/p>\n
have become final.      In the light of the judgment in<\/p>\n
Exts.A16 and A17 judgment as confirmed in Ext.A18<\/p>\n
judgment, the exclusive right claimed by appellant<\/p>\n
over plaint B schedule lagoon can only be rejected.<\/p>\n
This court found that neither        appellant nor his<\/p>\n
tarwad      has  any  exclusive  right  over  plaint  B<\/p>\n
schedule lagoon and it is a natural lagoon and the<\/p>\n
owners of the property on the bed of the lagoon<\/p>\n
have     riparian right over the water as well as the<\/p>\n
lagoon including the right for fishing.       Therefore<\/p>\n
in the light of the said decision, substantial<\/p>\n
questions of law 1 and 2, raised, are to be<\/p>\n
answered against appellants.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     Learned counsel appearing for appellant<\/p>\n
relying on the decision of the Privy council in<\/p>\n
Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Maahbub Ali Mian (AIR 1949<\/p>\n
P.C. 78), and a decision of learned single Judge of<\/p>\n
this Court in Raman Ittiyathi v. Pappy Bhaskaran<\/p>\n
S.A.478\/1994<\/span><\/a>                8<\/p>\n
(1989 (2) KLJ 377) argued that       plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
entitled to split up the cause of action and if the<\/p>\n
relief      sought for  in  the  subsequent  suit  are<\/p>\n
available for him to be claimed at the time of the<\/p>\n
former suit and not claimed in the subsequent suit<\/p>\n
it is barred under Order 11 Rule 2 of Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    True, under Rule 2 of Order 11, every suit<\/p>\n
shall include the whole of the claim which the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is entitled to make in respect of the<\/p>\n
cause      of  action,   though  he   is  entitled  to<\/p>\n
relinquish any portion of his claim in order to<\/p>\n
bring the suit within the jurisdiction of any<\/p>\n
court, Ext.B12 the plaint in the former suit shows<\/p>\n
that the said suit was predominantly one           for<\/p>\n
removal of the silt from plaint B schedule lagoon.<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs      in  that   suit,  which  include   the<\/p>\n
plaIintiff herein,     sought a direction to the State<\/p>\n
and other defendants      to remove the silt.  True a<\/p>\n
decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was<\/p>\n
also sought against the appellant and one of the<\/p>\n
prayer in the present suit is also to restrain him<\/p>\n
S.A.478\/1994                9<\/span><\/p>\n
from interfering with their possession upto the<\/p>\n
middle of the lagoon as they have got riparian<\/p>\n
right over the property.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    On hearing the learned counsel and on the<\/p>\n
facts of the case, I do not find that       provisions<\/p>\n
of Rule 2 of Order II has any application in the<\/p>\n
present case.     There is no allegation in the plaint<\/p>\n
that     damages claimed was caused either on the date<\/p>\n
of cause of action in the earlier suit or earlier.<\/p>\n
Allegation is that damages were caused due to the<\/p>\n
failure to remove the silt.     That damages were not<\/p>\n
caused on a particular day but a continuing one.<\/p>\n
Hence cause of action cannot be the same.     Moreover<\/p>\n
it cannot be said that the claim for damages was<\/p>\n
available to be claimed in that suit.       The claim<\/p>\n
for damages in the suit is one for loss of mundakam<\/p>\n
crop, which as rightly found by trial court, could<\/p>\n
be ascertained only after 15.7.1983. O.S.134\/1983<\/p>\n
was instituted prior to that date. Hence     claim for<\/p>\n
damages could not have been claimed        thereunder.<\/p>\n
So also there is no allegation or evidence that<\/p>\n
damages to the coconut saplings or other damages<\/p>\n
S.A.478\/1994                10<\/span><\/p>\n
was caused before 15.7.1093.     In such circumstance,<\/p>\n
findings of courts below that suit is not barred<\/p>\n
under Rule 2 Order II of CPC is perfectly correct.<\/p>\n
      8.    Then the only question is with regard to<\/p>\n
the damages.       As rightly pointed out by learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for respondent,     question whether<\/p>\n
any damage was caused and if so, its cause         and<\/p>\n
the     quantum  are  all  questions  of  fact.    The<\/p>\n
findings of fact arrived at by the trial court and<\/p>\n
confirmed by the      first appellate court cannot be<\/p>\n
interfered      by  reappreciating  the  evidence,  as<\/p>\n
sought for by learned counsel in exercise of the<\/p>\n
powers      of this court under section 100 of Code of<\/p>\n
Civil Procedure. Though learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for appellant relying on the report submitted by<\/p>\n
Commissioner argued that     Commissioner has reported<\/p>\n
that it is not possible to say that the damage was<\/p>\n
caused only on account of the non-removal of the<\/p>\n
silt,       trial court and first appellate court on<\/p>\n
appreciating the evidence found that      damages were<\/p>\n
caused on account of the non-removal of the silt<\/p>\n
which in turn was caused by the     appellant.  Though<\/p>\n
S.A.478\/1994            11<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for appellants argued<\/p>\n
that there is no evidence to prove the obstruction<\/p>\n
caused by the appellant, the very contention raised<\/p>\n
in the written statement as well as before the<\/p>\n
appellate    court was that  apart  from  appellant<\/p>\n
nobody else was got any right to remove the silt.<\/p>\n
In such circumstance, even if there is no direct<\/p>\n
evidence to prove the alleged obstruction caused,<\/p>\n
it is clear that the non-removal of silt was on<\/p>\n
account of the action of the appellant.   Therefore<\/p>\n
he is liable for damages.  The learned Munsiff has<\/p>\n
awarded only a reasonable damages of Rs.4000\/-.  In<\/p>\n
such circumstance, appeal is dissmissed.<\/p>\n
                               M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                        JUDGE
\ntpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n
    W.P.(C).NO. \/06\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Vadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 478 of 1994() 1. VADAKKUMTHANI KUNHURAMAN NAIR … Petitioner Vs 1. E.MEENAKSHI AMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.R.VENKATAKRISHNAN For Respondent :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :27\/11\/2007 O R D […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 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\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-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=\"2007-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-03T20:49:20+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-03T20:49:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1813,\"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\\\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Vadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-03T20:49:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 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":"Vadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 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\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-03T20:49:20+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-03T20:49:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007"},"wordCount":1813,"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\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007","name":"Vadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-03T20:49:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vadakkumthani-kunhuraman-nair-vs-e-meenakshi-amma-on-27-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vadakkumthani Kunhuraman Nair vs E.Meenakshi Amma on 27 November, 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\/113499","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=113499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113499\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}