{"id":116286,"date":"2008-11-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008"},"modified":"2015-12-15T07:42:59","modified_gmt":"2015-12-15T02:12:59","slug":"joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Joyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Joyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 1068 of 2008()\n\n\n1. JOYILAL, W\/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED 53 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KRISHNANKUTTY, S\/O.RAMALINGAM,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :05\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                       V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n                    = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                      R.S.A.No.1068 of 2008\n                   = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n           Dated this the 5th  day of November, 2008\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     The plaintiff in O.S.No.177 of 1996 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s Court, Attingal is the appellant in this Second Appeal.<\/p>\n
The said suit was one for prohibitory and mandatory injunction<\/p>\n
against the construction carried on by the defendant in the plaint<\/p>\n
B Schedule Property shown as admeasuring 1.766 cents<\/p>\n
allegedly in violation of the Building Rules as well as the Kerala<\/p>\n
Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:-<\/p>\n
     The plaintiff is the owner in possession of the plaint A<\/p>\n
Schedule Property admeasuring 15 cents comprised in Survey<\/p>\n
No.1782\/1 of Pulimath village in Cherayinkeezhu Taluk.        The<\/p>\n
plaint B Schedule Property belonging to the dependant lies on<\/p>\n
the western boundary of the plaint A Schedule Property. The<\/p>\n
total extent of plaint B Schedule Property is 1.766 cents<\/p>\n
comprising in Survey No.1782\/3. To the further west of the<\/p>\n
plaint B Schedule Property is the M.C.road. The defendant has<\/p>\n
R.S.ANo.1068 of 2008
\n                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
started the construction of a terraced building in the plaint B<\/p>\n
Schedule Property. For the construction of pillars, the defendant<\/p>\n
had removed earth after encroaching into the plaint A Schedule<\/p>\n
Property for about 1.85 meters. The construction of the pillars<\/p>\n
on the western side is against the provisions of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Panchayat Raj Act in not leaving sufficient open space from the<\/p>\n
M.C.Road. The construction is carried out in violation of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Building<\/p>\n
Rules. Hence the suit.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending, inter<\/p>\n
alia, as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      The case of the plaintiff that the defendant is in possession<\/p>\n
of only 1.766 cents of land is not correct. This defendant had<\/p>\n
purchased 4 cents of land as evidenced by Ext.B1 registered sale<\/p>\n
deed dated 16.8.1977.      Ever since then, this defendant is in<\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of the said property. This defendant<\/p>\n
has already started the construction work after obtaining<\/p>\n
permission from the Panchayat authorities. The plaint allegation<\/p>\n
that the defendant has violated the Building Rules and the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is not correct. This<\/p>\n
defendant has left sufficient open space as required by the Rules.<\/p>\n
R.S.ANo.1068 of 2008
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
This defendant has not encroached into the plaint A Schedule<\/p>\n
Property. The plaintiff did not raise any objection when this<\/p>\n
defendant removed the earth from the Plaint B Schedule<\/p>\n
Property. The property of the plaintiff was formerly a paddy<\/p>\n
field which was raised by him years back. There was a thodu<\/p>\n
between the plaint A and B Schedule properties. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
had filled up the said thodu and had levelled the remaining<\/p>\n
paddy field. The boundary between the plaint A and B Schedule<\/p>\n
was the said thodu which is not in existence now. This defendant<\/p>\n
had obtained permission from Pulimath Panchayat.       The said<\/p>\n
panchayat is a necessary party to the suit which has to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     4. On the side of the plaintiff Exts.A1 to A4 were marked.<\/p>\n
Four witnesses were examined as PWs.1to 4 of whom PW1 is the<\/p>\n
husband of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendant Exts.B1 to<\/p>\n
B4 were marked and DWs. 1 and 2 were examined of whom DW1<\/p>\n
is the defendant himself.    The learned Munsiff, after trial, as<\/p>\n
per judgment and decree dated 18.8.2000, dismissed the suit<\/p>\n
holding, inter alia, that since the Building Rules were not<\/p>\n
applicable to the Pulimath Panchayat at the time of the starting<\/p>\n
of the construction, the allegation of the plaintiff that the<\/p>\n
R.S.ANo.1068 of 2008
\n                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant had violated the Building Rules is not sustainable, that<\/p>\n
going by the Commissioner’s report and plan prepared with the<\/p>\n
assistance of the surveyor and the evidence of the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner as well as that of the Surveyor it was not safe to<\/p>\n
accept the report of the Commissioner to the effect that the<\/p>\n
distance between the western pillars of the construction and the<\/p>\n
retaining wall at the eastern extremity of M.C.Road was 3.1<\/p>\n
meters. However, the trial court found that notwithstanding the<\/p>\n
apparent contradiction between the evidence of the surveyor and<\/p>\n
the report of the Commissioner, except filing her objection to the<\/p>\n
report and plan, the plaintiff did not apply for remitting the<\/p>\n
same to the Commissioner, nor did she apply for an additional<\/p>\n
report and plan.     In that view of the matter the trial court<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove<\/p>\n
that the defendant had violated the Building Rules or the<\/p>\n
provisions in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. On appeal preferred<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff as A.S.No.60\/2000, the lower appellate court also<\/p>\n
concurred with the conclusions reached by the trial court and<\/p>\n
dismissed the appeal as per the judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
27.10.2007. Hence this Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The learned counsel for the appellant\/plaintiff reiterated<\/p>\n
R.S.ANo.1068 of 2008
\n                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
the contentions of the plaintiff. He made the following further<\/p>\n
submissions before me:-\n<\/p>\n
     Both the courts have come to the conclusion that Exts.C2<\/p>\n
report and C2(a) plan cannot be fully relied on in the light of the<\/p>\n
apparent contradictions between the distance shown therein and<\/p>\n
the testimony of the surveyor examined as PW3. If so, it was not<\/p>\n
open to the courts to blame the plaintiff for not filing an<\/p>\n
application for remitting the report and plan or for applying for<\/p>\n
an additional report since there is no such requirement under<\/p>\n
Rules 10,12 and 14 of Order XXVI C.P.C. On the concurrent<\/p>\n
finding that the report and plan of the Commissioner could not<\/p>\n
be fully relied on, the court itself should have suo motu set aside<\/p>\n
the report and plan and remitted the same to the Commissioner.<\/p>\n
The courts below went wrong in casting the burden on the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above<\/p>\n
submissions. Firstly, the plaintiff came to the court alleging that<\/p>\n
the Building Rules were violated by not leaving sufficient space<\/p>\n
at the boundary between the plaint A Schedule property of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and the plaint B Schedule property situated to the west<\/p>\n
of the plaint A schedule property. Both the courts below have<\/p>\n
R.S.ANo.1068 of 2008
\n                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
held that since the Building Rules were not applicable to the said<\/p>\n
building where the construction is carried out, the plaintiff could<\/p>\n
not complain of not giving sufficient space at the boundary.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Commissioner noted that a space of 1metre has<\/p>\n
been left between the eastern pillar of the construction and the<\/p>\n
eastern extremity of the Plaint B Schedule Property.           The<\/p>\n
defendant has a specific case that the boundary between plaint A<\/p>\n
and B schedule properties was a thodu and the plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property which was a paddy field was filled up by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
who had also levelled the thodu. The said case of the defendant<\/p>\n
appears to be true. The Commissioner has specifically noted<\/p>\n
that there was no temporary boundary between A and B<\/p>\n
schedule properties. The distance of one meter has been seen<\/p>\n
left from the eastern pillar to the extremity of the plaint B<\/p>\n
Schedule Property.     Eventhough the Building Rules are not<\/p>\n
applicable, sufficient space has been left on the eastern side of<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff cannot be heard to<\/p>\n
complain that no space was left.\n<\/p>\n
      7. Now coming to the western side of the construction, it is<\/p>\n
seen that there is a triangular plot in between the plaint B<\/p>\n
Schedule property and the M.C.Road. So, the plaint B Schedule<\/p>\n
R.S.ANo.1068 of 2008
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
property is not technically abutting the M.C.Road which is on the<\/p>\n
west. Eventhough Exts.C2(a) plan C2 report were prepared with<\/p>\n
the assistance of the Taluk surveyor, the Taluk Surveyor when<\/p>\n
examined as PW3 would take exception to which was noted by<\/p>\n
the Advocate Commissioner. Having subscribed his signature to<\/p>\n
Ext.C2(a) plan, it was not open to PW3 to depose at variance<\/p>\n
from what has been shown in Ext.C2(a) plan.        Even if implicit<\/p>\n
faith could be attributed to the testimony of PW3 as has been<\/p>\n
done still sufficient space has been left on the western side of<\/p>\n
the construction on the plaint B Schedule Property. C2(a) plan<\/p>\n
does not show any encroachment into the road puramboke as<\/p>\n
well. Whether the vacant space leaves 3.1 meters as noted by<\/p>\n
the Commissioner or a lesser space as asserted by PW3, Taluk<\/p>\n
Surveyor, the fact remains that sufficient space has been left on<\/p>\n
the western side of the construction in between the construction<\/p>\n
and the triangular plot abutting of the M.C.Road.            It is<\/p>\n
essentially for the panchayat which has permitted the defendant<\/p>\n
to put up the construction to take exception to the violation, if<\/p>\n
any, of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It is<\/p>\n
pertinent in this connection to note that the defendant had<\/p>\n
specifically raised a contention in the written statement that the<\/p>\n
R.S.ANo.1068 of 2008
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
Panchayat is a necessary party to the suit. In spite of raising<\/p>\n
such a contention, the plaintiff did not think it necessary to<\/p>\n
implead the Panchayat as an additional defendant. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
cannot now come forward with a plea that there is infraction of<\/p>\n
the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. I see no good<\/p>\n
ground to interfere with the Judgments concurrently passed by<\/p>\n
the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
     No questions of law, much less any substantial question of<\/p>\n
law arises for consideration in this second appeal.           The<\/p>\n
questions of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal do not<\/p>\n
arise for consideration in this second appeal which is accordingly<\/p>\n
dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Joyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 1068 of 2008() 1. JOYILAL, W\/O.SASIDHARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. KRISHNANKUTTY, S\/O.RAMALINGAM, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :05\/11\/2008 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-116286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJoyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008 - 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\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Joyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-15T02:12:59+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Joyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-15T02:12:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1611,\"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\\\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Joyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-15T02:12:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Joyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Joyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008 - 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\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Joyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-15T02:12:59+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Joyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-15T02:12:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008"},"wordCount":1611,"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\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008","name":"Joyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-15T02:12:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joyilal-vs-krishnankutty-on-5-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Joyilal vs Krishnankutty on 5 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/116286","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=116286"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116286\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}