{"id":113576,"date":"2010-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-07T16:58:48","modified_gmt":"2018-09-07T11:28:48","slug":"sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 575 of 1996(5)\n\n\n\n1. SADANANDAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. BHASKARAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.C.SEN (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :09\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                       ------------------------\n                       S.A.No.575 Of 1996\n                        ----------------------\n            Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010.\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The defendant in O.S.No.489 of 1977 of the Principal<\/p>\n
Munsiff Court, Kozhikode II, is the appellant.     The appeal is<\/p>\n
directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.8.1995 in<\/p>\n
A.S.No.74 of 1989. Suit was filed for recovery of possession on<\/p>\n
the strength of plaintiff’s title and also for consequential<\/p>\n
injunction. The trial court held that Ext.B1 is a validly executed<\/p>\n
will, that the defendant has discharged the burden of proving the<\/p>\n
will and that the plaintiff therefore has no right over the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule properties.    The trial court dismissed the suit.    The<\/p>\n
lower appellate court reversed the findings of the trial court and<\/p>\n
passed a decree as prayed for in the plaint. Parties hereinafter<\/p>\n
are referred to as the plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the<\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    The plaint schedule properties belong to Sri.Kandar.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff is the mother of Kandar. Kandar died on 13.10.1977<\/p>\n
The plaintiff’s case is that after the death of Kandar being the<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                  ::2::\n<\/p>\n
sole legal heir, plaint schedule properties devolved upon her. It<\/p>\n
is alleged in the plaint that the defendant had trespassed into the<\/p>\n
house and started residing in the house with his wife and<\/p>\n
children, that the defendant has no right in the property and<\/p>\n
therefore the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule property and also for perpetual injunction restraining<\/p>\n
him from trespassing into plaint A schedule property.<\/p>\n
      3.    In the written statement, the defendant inter alia<\/p>\n
contented that the plaintiff has never obtained any right in plaint<\/p>\n
A schedule properties, that Kandar has executed a will with<\/p>\n
respect to the plaint schedule properties on 15.7.1977, that the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule properties were bequeathed to the defendant by<\/p>\n
the deceased Kandar and thus the defendant has obtained right<\/p>\n
over the plaint schedule properties on the death of Kandar. The<\/p>\n
defendant also denied the averment in the plaint that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
properties. It is also pleaded that the plaintiff, for the last 15<\/p>\n
years before the death of Kandar, has been residing with her<\/p>\n
daughter. The defendant also denied the averment that he has<\/p>\n
trespassed into plaint B schedule properties. It is further stated<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                 ::3::\n<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff has filed a complaint before the police and<\/p>\n
influencing the police she had made the defendant to hand over<\/p>\n
the documents with respect to the properties to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
      4.    Pending suit, the plaintiff died and her only daughter<\/p>\n
was impleaded as the additional second plaintiff. The additional<\/p>\n
second plaintiff also died pending suit and her legal heirs were<\/p>\n
impleaded as additional plaintiffs 3 to 10.        Parties adduced<\/p>\n
evidence in support of their respective contentions. The evidence<\/p>\n
consists of oral evidence of PW1, DWs 1 to 3 and documentary<\/p>\n
evidence of Exts.A1-A7 and B1 to B28.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Plaint A schedule is the property and B schedule is the<\/p>\n
building situated in A schedule property.          Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
property belong to Kandar.         Kandar died without wife and<\/p>\n
children. It has come out in evidence that he obtained divorce<\/p>\n
more than 20 years before his death. The deceased 1st plaintiff is<\/p>\n
the mother of Kandar. The sole defendant is the son of Kandar’s<\/p>\n
brother, namely, Raman.      Raman is the son of deceased first<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s husband through his first wife. The 1st plaintiff, mother<\/p>\n
of Kandar claims right in the property as the sole legal heir of<\/p>\n
deceased Kandar. The defendant claims right over the property<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                               ::4::\n<\/p>\n
on the strength of a will alleged to have been executed by<\/p>\n
deceased Kandar. Ext.B1 is the will.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    The trial court examined the question as to whether<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 is a document executed by Kandar.         DWs 2 & 3 were<\/p>\n
examined to prove Ext.B1 will.      These two witnesses are the<\/p>\n
attestors to Ext.B1 will. Both witnesses deposed before the court<\/p>\n
that they signed as a witness in Ext.B1 will, that deceased Kandar<\/p>\n
had put his signature in Ext.B1 will in their presence and that the<\/p>\n
deceased Kandar and DWs 2 & 3 put their signatures in the<\/p>\n
presence of each other.\n<\/p>\n
     7.    It is an admitted case that deceased Kandar was a<\/p>\n
carpenter. The defendant as DW1 has testified before the court<\/p>\n
that his father died while he was in the mother’s womb, that he<\/p>\n
was looked after by deceased Kandar from his childhood, that<\/p>\n
Kandar acted as his guardian, that in the school register Kandar’s<\/p>\n
name was entered as the guardian, that Kandar met the<\/p>\n
educational expenses and after his studies he worked as a<\/p>\n
carpenter under Kandar, that he is the sole male member of his<\/p>\n
family, that his grandfather Kuttysankaran had         three male<\/p>\n
children by name Kandar, his father Raman and Manukuttan, that<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                ::5::\n<\/p>\n
Manukuttan was an unmarried person, that Manukuttan lived as a<\/p>\n
bachelor and that he is the sole surviving male member in the<\/p>\n
family. He further testified that since his father died even before<\/p>\n
his birth he was under the care and protection of Kandar. He<\/p>\n
also testified that Kandar treated him like his own son, that<\/p>\n
Kandar and his mother lived apart, that there was property<\/p>\n
dispute between them for the last 25 years and that Kandar lived<\/p>\n
separately from his mother all along. He also testified that he<\/p>\n
lived with Kandar in his house on several occasions.<\/p>\n
      8.     Plaint is silent about the will.    The deceased first<\/p>\n
plaintiff pleaded that she is the sole legal successor of the<\/p>\n
deceased Kandar, that the defendant had trespassed into plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule building and therefore she filed the suit for recovery of<\/p>\n
possession on the strength of plaintiff’s title and for consequential<\/p>\n
injunction.   In the written statement the defendant contented<\/p>\n
that the plaintiffs have not manner of right, title or interest in the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property, that the deceased Kandar executed the<\/p>\n
will and therefore he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
properties. The written statement contains detailed averments<\/p>\n
regarding the execution of the will.      Plaintiff did not file any<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                 ::6::\n<\/p>\n
replication traversing the averments in the written statement<\/p>\n
regarding the execution of the will or denied the existence of the<\/p>\n
will or its execution. The plaintiff failed to file replication nor did<\/p>\n
she filed any petition for amendment of the plaint inserting<\/p>\n
necessary averments denying the execution of the will. In effect,<\/p>\n
there is no pleading at all on the part of the plaintiff neither<\/p>\n
denying the execution of the will or pleading           regarding any<\/p>\n
suspicious circumstances leading to the execution of the will nor<\/p>\n
the plaintiff has a case that the will was executed at the instance<\/p>\n
of the defendant who had practised fraud, undue influence etc.<\/p>\n
      9.    Additional 5th plaintiff who is the grandson of the<\/p>\n
deceased first plaintiff was examined as PW1. He testified that<\/p>\n
the deceased first plaintiff was residing permanently along with<\/p>\n
his mother Lakshmi, who is the additional second plaintiff. He<\/p>\n
also testified that the deceased first plaintiff started permanent<\/p>\n
residence with his mother 15 years before the death of Kandar.<\/p>\n
Thus he corroborates the evidence tendered by DW1 that<\/p>\n
deceased first plaintiff was not residing with Kandar for the last<\/p>\n
so many years. DW1 testified that there was no occasion for the<\/p>\n
deceased first plaintiff even to meet or talk with Kandar for more<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                 ::7::\n<\/p>\n
than 15 years.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Ext.B5 is the deposition of the deceased first plaintiff.<\/p>\n
She lodged a complaint against the defendant and two others<\/p>\n
before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kozhikode.<\/p>\n
The two others are defendant’s mother and wife.            Ext.B5<\/p>\n
deposition is in connection with the above said complaint. The<\/p>\n
complaint is in respect of the property dispute which immediately<\/p>\n
arose after the death of Kandar.       The complaint is that the<\/p>\n
defendant and other accused trespassed into the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property and reduced the same into their possession.          She<\/p>\n
testified in Ext.B5 that she did not went to Kandar’s house to pay<\/p>\n
homage to deceased Kandar. She testified that she did not went<\/p>\n
to his house on his death nor had occasion to see his dead body.<\/p>\n
She testified that the defendant had met the expenses in<\/p>\n
connection with the death of Kandar and that she is residing<\/p>\n
along with her daughter for the last three years.<\/p>\n
      11. The evidence tendered by PW1, DW1 and Ext.B5<\/p>\n
deposition of deceased first plaintiff would prove the strange<\/p>\n
relationship between the deceased Kandar and his mother. The<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1 and DW1 would show that the deceased mother<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                 ::8::\n<\/p>\n
had no occasion to reside with his son at least for a period of 15<\/p>\n
years prior to the death of Kandar.       At the same time, the<\/p>\n
evidence tendered by DW1 would go to show that his father died<\/p>\n
while he was in his mother’s womb that he is the only surviving<\/p>\n
male member in the family after Kandar. It has also come out in<\/p>\n
evidence that the deceased Kandar looked after him as his own<\/p>\n
son and provided him with education, care and protection. The<\/p>\n
evidence also reveals that after his schooling the defendant<\/p>\n
worked with deceased Kandar as carpenter for many years and<\/p>\n
he was looked after by the deceased Kandar.\n<\/p>\n
      12. The      trial  court   appreciated   the    above   said<\/p>\n
circumstances. The trial court also believed the evidence of DWs<\/p>\n
2 & 3 who are the attesting witnesses. On that basis the trial<\/p>\n
court held that the aforesaid circumstances along with the<\/p>\n
evidence of DWs 2 & 3 lead only to the presumption that<\/p>\n
Ext.B1will was executed by deceased Kandar. The trial court also<\/p>\n
observed that the case pleaded in the plaint that the deceased<\/p>\n
first plaintiff was residing along with Kandar in plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
house is proved to be a false version in the light of the testimony<\/p>\n
of additional 5th plaintiff as PW1 who testified that the deceased<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                ::9::\n<\/p>\n
first plaintiff was residing with her daughter for more than 15<\/p>\n
years before the death of Kandar. The trial court also discussed<\/p>\n
the circumstances leading to the filing of the criminal complaint<\/p>\n
against the defendant.     The trial court also observed that in<\/p>\n
Ext.B5 deposition the deceased first plaintiff in chief examination<\/p>\n
deposed that she was residing with Kandar in the house at the<\/p>\n
time of his death. But in cross-examination she deposed that<\/p>\n
when she knew about the death of her son she went to tarawad<\/p>\n
house and not to Kandar’s house. The trial court also noted the<\/p>\n
testimony in Ext.B5 stating that she was residing along with her<\/p>\n
daughter for the last three years. The trial court observed that<\/p>\n
the version of the first plaintiff before the criminal court is<\/p>\n
contradictory in several respects and it is contrary to the<\/p>\n
averments in the plaint and that the evidence shows that she has<\/p>\n
not resided along with Kandar during the time of his death. The<\/p>\n
trial court also on evidence found that the first defendant had<\/p>\n
incurred the necessary expenditure on the death of Kandar. The<\/p>\n
trial court also noted the contradiction in the testimony of PW1<\/p>\n
regarding the meeting of expenses for the ceremonies in<\/p>\n
connection with the death of Kandar. The plaintiffs’ stand was<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                               ::10::\n<\/p>\n
that the defendant had nothing to do with Kandar and the<\/p>\n
expenses for the ceremonies after the death of Kandar was met<\/p>\n
by them. In cross-examination PW1 testified that the defendant<\/p>\n
used to come to the house of Kandar after the death of Kandar<\/p>\n
and that he has met the expenses for the ceremonies. The trial<\/p>\n
court also relied on the evidence of the defendant that even while<\/p>\n
he was a small child he was looked after by Kandar. He was sent<\/p>\n
to school by Kandar. He was doing the work of carpentry with<\/p>\n
Kandar.    It has also come out in evidence that though the<\/p>\n
defendant started to live separately along with his wife and<\/p>\n
children, eight months before the death of Kandar he started to<\/p>\n
reside with Kandar as requested by Kandar.\n<\/p>\n
     13. The defendant as DW1 testified that the deceased<\/p>\n
Kandar before his death handed over Ext.B1 will and all the<\/p>\n
records including the title documents to the defendant, that first<\/p>\n
plaintiff made a criminal complaint before the police alleging<\/p>\n
trespass, that the police had forced him to hand over the<\/p>\n
documents to the plaintiff in the police station. The trial court<\/p>\n
also noted that it is proved by Ext.B2 that the documents with<\/p>\n
respect to the property were handed over to the first plaintiff by<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                 ::11::\n<\/p>\n
the defendant in the presence of police.        The details of the<\/p>\n
documents handed over were also given in Ext.B2.          The trial<\/p>\n
court observed that it is apparent by Ext.B2 that the documents<\/p>\n
produced by the plaintiffs were handed over by the defendant<\/p>\n
from the police station. The trial court also observed that the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs have not stated anything as to how the documents<\/p>\n
came to be in the possession of the defendant and under what<\/p>\n
circumstances they were handed over to them from the police<\/p>\n
station. DW1 testified before the court that he handed over all<\/p>\n
the documents except the will and the purchase certificate under<\/p>\n
compulsion from the police authorities. He also testified that he<\/p>\n
has not handed over the will due to apprehension that it will be<\/p>\n
destroyed.    The trial court observed that the said explanation<\/p>\n
seems a reasonable and acceptable explanation and is more<\/p>\n
probable because he has kept the purchase certificate also with<\/p>\n
him.     Ext.B4 is the purchase certificate produced by the<\/p>\n
defendant. Ext.B3 is the receipt issued by the plaintiff at the<\/p>\n
police station itself on her receiving Rs.445\/- from the defendant.<\/p>\n
The amount mentioned in Ext.B3 receipt is said to be the balance<\/p>\n
amount belonging to Kandar available in the house.<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                ::12::\n<\/p>\n
     14. The requirement of onus of proof of will is on the<\/p>\n
propounder of the will is well settled. No doubt, it is for the<\/p>\n
propounder to prove the will. The burden of proof lies with the<\/p>\n
party affirming the execution of the will. In order to prove due<\/p>\n
execution of the will, the propounder has to prove that the<\/p>\n
testator has signed the will in the presence of two witnesses and<\/p>\n
that they signed the documents in the presence of the testator.<\/p>\n
In this case the execution of the will was proved by defendants 2<\/p>\n
& 3. They have testified before the court that the testator has<\/p>\n
signed the will in the presence of DWs 2 & 3 and they themselves<\/p>\n
signed in the presence of the testator.\n<\/p>\n
     15. Once it is proved that the will has been executed by<\/p>\n
the executant in the presence of two witnesses and they have<\/p>\n
signed in the presence of each other and the executor has got<\/p>\n
testamentary capacity, the burden of proof shifts on the persons<\/p>\n
who alleged that the will is a forged one or was executed due to<\/p>\n
practice of fraud, undue influence etc.       Ext.B1 will is the<\/p>\n
document.     It is proved that Ext.B1 is a document properly<\/p>\n
authenticated, recorded and signed in the presence of witnesses.<\/p>\n
Therefore it can be presumed that it was properly executed.<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                  ::13::\n<\/p>\n
      16. I have already discussed the pleadings in the written<\/p>\n
statement regarding the execution of the will. I have also stated<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff has neither cared to file a replication either<\/p>\n
denying the execution of the will or alleging suspicious<\/p>\n
circumstances surrounding the execution of the will or alleging<\/p>\n
that the testator has no testamentary capacity to execute the<\/p>\n
will. There is no pleading in the plaint nor the plaintiff cared to<\/p>\n
amend the pleadings after the filing of the written statement<\/p>\n
inserting necessary averments denying the execution of the will<\/p>\n
and alleging suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution<\/p>\n
of the will. In effect, it is a case where there is no pleading at all<\/p>\n
on the part of the plaintiff regarding the denial of execution,<\/p>\n
alleging suspicious circumstances or about the testamentary<\/p>\n
capacity of the testator.\n<\/p>\n
      17. The learned counsel for the appellant\/defendant<\/p>\n
brought to the notice of this Court the decisions of the Apex<\/p>\n
Court reported in Savithri v. Karthyayani Amma<\/a> [2007(4) KLT<\/p>\n
811 (SC)], Ramabai Padmakar Patil (dead) by LRs and<\/p>\n
others v. Rukminibai Vishny Vekhande and Others (AIR<\/a><\/p>\n
2003 SC 3109) and the decision of the Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                ::14::\n<\/p>\n
Court in Joseph v. Ippunni (2007(4) KLT 853) and George v.<\/p>\n
Varkey<\/a> (2004(1) KLT 21).        In all the aforesaid decisions, the<\/p>\n
principle stated in the preceding paragraphs are laid down. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the<\/p>\n
decisions reported in Baby v. Sebastian<\/a> (2007(3) KLT 885),<\/p>\n
Sunil and Vasanth Architects and Consulting Engineers<\/p>\n
and another v. Tata Ceramics Ltd. (AIR 1999 Kerala 88),<\/p>\n
Kannan and others v. Chirudu and others (AIR<\/a> 1960 Kerala<\/p>\n
93). In the decision reported in Baby’s case (supra) this Court<\/p>\n
observed that the practice of filing of replications by way of<\/p>\n
answering defendants’ pleas in their written statements and of<\/p>\n
filing of rejoinder by defendants by way of answer to the<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the plaintiffs through their replications is in<\/p>\n
vogue in various parts of the State.       It was also held that in<\/p>\n
common law pleading also, the word “replication” is in usage and<\/p>\n
the same means reply made to the defendant’s plea or answer.<\/p>\n
In the light of the contentions raised by the defendant in the<\/p>\n
written statement as regards the execution of Ext.B1 will, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff ought to have filed replication or ought to have amended<\/p>\n
the plaint inserting necessary averments either denying the<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                               ::15::\n<\/p>\n
execution of the will or pleading suspicious circumstances<\/p>\n
surrounding the execution of the will. I have gone through the<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1.      Even in chief examination also he has not<\/p>\n
testified any suspicious circumstances leading to the execution of<\/p>\n
the will. Only a stray sentence stated in chief examination that<\/p>\n
“it is not correct to say that Kandar has executed the will in<\/p>\n
favour of the first defendant and that no such will was executed”.<\/p>\n
      18. Learned counsel for the respondent\/plaintiff brought to<\/p>\n
the    attention   of  this  Court   the   decision  reported   in<\/p>\n
H.Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N.Thimmajamma and others (AIR<\/a><\/p>\n
1959 SC 443). The said decision also deals with the proof of will<\/p>\n
and the burden of proof which is the basic decision which was<\/p>\n
followed by the Apex Court and High Courts in all the later<\/p>\n
decisions. The decisions reported in K.Laxmanan v. Thekkayil<\/p>\n
Padmini and others<\/a> (2009(1) SCC 354) and Girijanandini<\/p>\n
Devi and others v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary ((AIR 1967<\/p>\n
SC 1124) also deals with the onus of proof and manner of<\/p>\n
proving the will.\n<\/p>\n
      19. The trial court discussed and appreciated the evidence<\/p>\n
on record in detail and arrived at the conclusion that Ext.B1 is<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                 ::16::\n<\/p>\n
proved to be validly executed will. The court also held that the<\/p>\n
defendant has discharged his burden of proving the will and<\/p>\n
therefore held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.<\/p>\n
     20. The lower appellate court disbelieved the evidence of<\/p>\n
Dws 2 & 3 and observed that their evidence appears to be quite<\/p>\n
unnatural and improbable. The lower appellate court negatived<\/p>\n
the findings of the trial court after disbelieving the evidence<\/p>\n
tendered by DWs 1 to 3. I do not find that the lower appellate<\/p>\n
court is justified in reversing the findings of the trial court. This<\/p>\n
is a case where the plaintiffs have not pleaded anything against<\/p>\n
the execution of the will.        They have failed to prove any<\/p>\n
suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will.<\/p>\n
In effect there is neither pleading or proof regarding non-<\/p>\n
execution of the will nor about the suspicious circumstances<\/p>\n
surrounding the execution of the will. This is a case where the<\/p>\n
execution of the will was proved by citing witnesses and the<\/p>\n
defendant has also proved that the will was executed by<\/p>\n
deceased Kandar in the normal circumstances.            The evidence<\/p>\n
tendered by DW1 is in no way discredited during his cross-<\/p>\n
examination as well. The evidence tendered by the defendant,<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                ::17::\n<\/p>\n
his witnesses, the documents produced and the circumstances<\/p>\n
strengthens the execution of the will by deceased Kandar. The<\/p>\n
trial court has considered all the materials on record in detail and<\/p>\n
arrived at the right conclusion. The reasons stated by the trial<\/p>\n
court are negatived by the lower appellate court on an irrelevant<\/p>\n
consideration of the evidence and circumstances and by non-<\/p>\n
consideration of relevant facts.       The lower appellate court<\/p>\n
reversed the findings of facts arrived at by the trial court by<\/p>\n
ignoring the vital documents. There is no justification for the<\/p>\n
lower appellate court not to accept reasonable findings entered<\/p>\n
by the trial court. The findings of the lower appellate court are<\/p>\n
not based on proved facts or evidence and I find that the<\/p>\n
conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate court is not justified<\/p>\n
on facts and evidence. The lower appellate court also overlooked<\/p>\n
the oral and documentary evidence and its bearing on the rights<\/p>\n
of the parties. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view<\/p>\n
that the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate<\/p>\n
court have to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.575 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                             ::18::\n<\/p>\n
     In the result, the appeal is allowed, judgment and decree<\/p>\n
passed by the lower appellate court is set aside and the decree<\/p>\n
and judgment passed by the trial court is restored. No order as<\/p>\n
to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                  Judge.\n<\/p>\n
bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 575 of 1996(5) 1. SADANANDAN … Petitioner Vs 1. BHASKARAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD For Respondent :SRI.M.C.SEN (SR.) The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :09\/09\/2010 O R D E R HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ———————— S.A.No.575 […]<\/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-113576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 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\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-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=\"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-07T11:28:48+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-07T11:28:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3571,\"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\\\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Sadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-07T11:28:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 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\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-07T11:28:48+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-07T11:28:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010"},"wordCount":3571,"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\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010","name":"Sadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-07T11:28:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sadanandan-vs-bhaskaran-on-9-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sadanandan vs Bhaskaran on 9 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113576","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=113576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}