{"id":11563,"date":"2010-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-09-04T09:36:03","modified_gmt":"2017-09-04T04:06:03","slug":"satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Satheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Satheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 1354 of 2009()\n\n\n1. SATHEESH BABU @ KOCHUMON, AGED ABOUT\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. P.N.SURESH BABU, AGED 43 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. PHILIP KOSHY, VADAKKEMOOTTIL VEEDU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.HARIDAS\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :01\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                          R.S.A. NO.1354 of 2009\n              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                 Dated this the   1st   day of February, 2010\n\n\n                              J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                               ———————\n<\/p>\n
      The Second Appeal is brought from judgment and decree of<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge, Thiruvalla in A.S. No.25 of 2006 granting decree<\/p>\n
for eviction and recovery of possession of a shop room with<\/p>\n
damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.500\/- per month<\/p>\n
from January, 2000 till recovery of possession, reversing judgment<\/p>\n
and decree of learned Munsiff dismissing the suit – O.S. No.37 of<\/p>\n
2000.   According to the original plaintiff (he died pending suit) suit<\/p>\n
property   belonged     to    him      as     per   Ext.A3, partition  deed<\/p>\n
No.396\/1992. He had executed Ext.A4, Will bequeathing the said<\/p>\n
property in favour of his son, the respondent who after death of<\/p>\n
original plaintiff was impleaded as supplemental plaintiff No.2. Case<\/p>\n
of original plaintiff and respondent is that on 26.3.1999 appellants<\/p>\n
trespassed into the schedule room and               took forcible possession<\/p>\n
thereof. It is the further case of original plaintiff and respondent<\/p>\n
that appellants took forcible possession of the schedule room with<\/p>\n
the help       of daughter-in-law of deceased original plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Appellants contended that shop room and the adjacent lean-to were<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.1354 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                    -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
taken on rent by appellant No.1 from the original plaintiff in the year<\/p>\n
1992 for a monthly rent of Rs.250\/- and          rent was enhanced to<\/p>\n
Rs.350\/- per month in June, 1998.           Tenancy is not terminated.<\/p>\n
Hence the suit for recovery of possession is not maintainable. Trial<\/p>\n
court on evidence found that the alleged trespass is not proved,<\/p>\n
accepted the plea of appellants regarding tenancy and dismissed the<\/p>\n
suit.   Respondent took up the matter in appeal. First appellate<\/p>\n
court reversed the finding of trial court, held that the plea of<\/p>\n
appellants regarding tenancy is not proved and on the strength of<\/p>\n
title granted recovery of possession in favour of the respondent with<\/p>\n
damages for use and occupation as above stated.            That is under<\/p>\n
challenge in this Second Appeal at the instance of appellants urging<\/p>\n
by way substantial questions of law whether when possession of<\/p>\n
appellants is admitted, was it not the bounden duty of respondent<\/p>\n
to prove that        they are trespassers and not tenants, whether<\/p>\n
evidence let in by the respondent revealed that appellant No.1 is<\/p>\n
not tenant of the shop room and whether trial court ought to have<\/p>\n
found that the suit is not properly instituted. It is contended by<\/p>\n
learned counsel urging the above that the finding entered by the<\/p>\n
first appellate court is erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
       2.     I stated that suit was instituted by the original plaintiff in<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.1354 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                    -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
his capacity as the owner and title holder of the suit property on the<\/p>\n
strength of Ext.A3, which is not disputed.      On his death respondent,<\/p>\n
his son was impleaded as supplemental plaintiff No.2             on the<\/p>\n
strength of Ext.A4, Will No.66 of 1996. P.W.1 is claimed to be Power<\/p>\n
of Attorney holder of respondent. He did not produce any Power of<\/p>\n
Attorney as such but proved Ext.A1, Fax message received from the<\/p>\n
respondent who is working abroad and authorising P.W1 to conduct<\/p>\n
the case on his behalf.          It has been held by this Court in<\/p>\n
Narayanan Nair v. John Kurien<\/a> (1988 [1] KLT 673) that<\/p>\n
even for          institution of the suit a written authority is not<\/p>\n
indispensable.       Even    oral authorisation would be sufficient to<\/p>\n
constitute due authorisation.      In the present case suit was validly<\/p>\n
instituted by the original plaintiff and so far as the respondent is<\/p>\n
concerned by Ext.A1, Fax message he has authorised P.W1 to<\/p>\n
conduct the case on his behalf.       I do not find anything wrong in the<\/p>\n
first appellate court accepting Ext.A1 as a valid authorisation for<\/p>\n
P.W.1 to conduct the case on behalf of respondent.<\/p>\n
       3.     What remained is whether finding of first appellate court<\/p>\n
regarding      alleged trespass pleaded by the original plaintiff and<\/p>\n
respondent and the tenancy set up by the appellants is legal and<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.1354 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                  -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
correct.     Exhibit B1 is the photocopy of a rent deed allegedly<\/p>\n
executed by the original plaintiff in favour of appellant No.1.<\/p>\n
Exhibits X1 and X2 are true extract of the account of appellant No.1<\/p>\n
maintained in the State Bank of Travancore and a consent deed<\/p>\n
executed by mother of appellant No.1, respectively. First appellate<\/p>\n
court found that Exts.X1 and X2 and          the evidence of D.W.2,<\/p>\n
Manager of the State Bank of Travancore have no reference to the<\/p>\n
shop room in question or the business allegedly carried on there.<\/p>\n
So far as Ext.B1 is concerned, first appellate court observed that its<\/p>\n
due execution is not proved and that there is material discrepancy<\/p>\n
regarding its execution. When the date of execution in figure is<\/p>\n
given in Ext.B1 as 13.4.1992 the recital in it is as if it was executed<\/p>\n
on 13.2.1998. This discrepancy was not explained by the appellants<\/p>\n
satisfactorily. In the circumstances first appellate court is justified in<\/p>\n
rejecting Ext.B1.\n<\/p>\n
       4.     What remained is the oral evidence.         I stated that<\/p>\n
authorised representative of the respondent gave evidence as P.W1.<\/p>\n
P.Ws.2 and 3 are witnesses examined by the respondent to prove<\/p>\n
the alleged trespass. But it has come out that they have no direct<\/p>\n
information      about the alleged trespass.     Appellant No.1 gave<\/p>\n
evidence as D.W.1 and stated about tenancy in his favour created<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.1354 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                   -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
by    original plaintiff in the year 1992.    But he was not able to<\/p>\n
produce any document (except Exts.B1, X1 and X2 which I have<\/p>\n
already adverted to) to prove the alleged tenancy. No single receipt<\/p>\n
for payment of rent is produced.       It was suggested to P.W.2 about<\/p>\n
the rent deed between appellant No.1 and the original plaintiff but<\/p>\n
he pleaded ignorance.       He stated that his information about the<\/p>\n
transaction between the parties is hearsay. There is nothing in the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W2 which would show that there was any tenancy as<\/p>\n
pointed out by the appellants.    P.W.3 though in chief examination<\/p>\n
stated about the alleged trespass, in cross-examination he stated<\/p>\n
that he has no direct information. He was told by the original plaintiff<\/p>\n
that there was no entrustment in favour of the appellants but<\/p>\n
original plaintiff told him that the monthly rent was Rs.750\/-.     He<\/p>\n
also stated that his statement that original plaintiff had not received<\/p>\n
the rent is the information he received. This statement was taken<\/p>\n
note of by the trial court to hold in favour of the tenancy pleaded by<\/p>\n
the appellants. But the trial court failed to note that what is stated<\/p>\n
by P.W3 is not his direct information. Trial court also failed to note<\/p>\n
that if as per the hearsay information of P.W3 rent payable was<\/p>\n
Rs.750\/- per month, appellants have no such case and according to<\/p>\n
them rent originally fixed was Rs.250\/- which was enhanced to<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.1354 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                 -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.350\/- in June, 1998. Even the appellants have no case that rent<\/p>\n
at any point of time      was Rs.750\/-.   In the circumstances first<\/p>\n
appellate court was not satisfied with the finding entered by the trial<\/p>\n
court and reversed the same.      Finding of first appellate court is<\/p>\n
based on the evidence on record and its appreciation. I am not<\/p>\n
persuaded to think that any substantial question of law is involved<\/p>\n
requiring admission of this Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       Resultantly Second Appeal fails and it is dismissed in limine.<\/p>\n
Appellants are granted three months’ time from this day to vacate<\/p>\n
the premises on condition that they will file an affidavit in the trial<\/p>\n
court within a period of three weeks from this day undertaking to<\/p>\n
vacate     the premises within the above period of three months<\/p>\n
without putting forth any claim or objection on any count.<\/p>\n
       Interlocutory Application Nos.3096 and 3097 of 2009 shall<\/p>\n
stand closed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
vsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Satheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 1354 of 2009() 1. SATHEESH BABU @ KOCHUMON, AGED ABOUT … Petitioner 2. P.N.SURESH BABU, AGED 43 YEARS, Vs 1. PHILIP KOSHY, VADAKKEMOOTTIL VEEDU, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.HARIDAS For Respondent : […]<\/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-11563","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSatheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 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\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-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=\"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-04T04:06:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-04T04:06:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1308,\"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\\\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Satheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-04T04:06:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 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":"Satheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 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\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-04T04:06:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-04T04:06:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010"},"wordCount":1308,"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\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010","name":"Satheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-04T04:06:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satheesh-babu-kochumon-vs-philip-koshy-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satheesh Babu @ Kochumon vs Philip Koshy on 1 February, 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\/11563","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=11563"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11563\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11563"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11563"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11563"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}