{"id":117573,"date":"2007-03-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007"},"modified":"2016-02-01T23:27:12","modified_gmt":"2016-02-01T17:57:12","slug":"poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Poddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Poddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 434 of 1993()\n\n\n\n1. PODDAR PLANTATIONS\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SUBRAMANIAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :21\/03\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                    M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n\n                        ...........................................\n\n                          S.A.No. 434   OF   1993\n\n                        ............................................\n\n           DATED THIS THE  21st  DAY OF MARCH, 2007\n\n\n                                   JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Plaintiff   in  O.S.265   of   1983   on   the   file   of  Munsiff   Court,<\/p>\n
Kalpetta is the appellant.  Defendant therein is the respondent.<\/p>\n
Appellant  filed the suit seeking a decree for recovery of plaint<\/p>\n
B schedule property with mesne profits.  The case of  appellant<\/p>\n
was   that   plaint   A   schedule   property   originally   belonged     to<\/p>\n
English   and Scotish Joint   Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd<\/p>\n
which   was          subsequently   incorporated   to   Co-operative<\/p>\n
Wholesale   Society   Ltd   and   under   Ext.A1   sale   deed   dated<\/p>\n
11.1.1973,   it   was   assigned   to   the   appellant   and   therefore<\/p>\n
appellant   has   title   to   the   plaint   A   schedule   property.     It   was<\/p>\n
contended that plaint B schedule property forms part of plaint<\/p>\n
A schedule property and respondent reduced the same into his<\/p>\n
unlawful   possession   on   10.9.1980   and   therefore   appellant   is<\/p>\n
entitled   to   recover   possession   of   the   property   on   the   strength<\/p>\n
of title with  mesne profits @ Rs.50\/- per annum.    Respondent<\/p>\n
filed   a   written   statement   contending   that   plaint   B   schedule<\/p>\n
property does not form part of  plaint A schedule  property and<\/p>\n
plaint   B   schedule   property   was   obtained   as   per   an   oral   lease<\/p>\n
from English and Scotish Company on an annual rent of Rs.3\/-<\/p>\n
SA 434\/1993                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
and   since   then   respondent   has   been   in   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
property   as   a   tenant   entitled   to   the   benefit   of   Kerala   Land<\/p>\n
Reforms   Act   and   question   of   tenancy   is   to   be   referred   to   the<\/p>\n
Land   Tribunal   and   appellant   is   not   entitled   to   the   decree<\/p>\n
sought for.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.   As   the   question   of   tenancy   arises   for   consideration,<\/p>\n
learned   Munsiff   referred   the   suit   to   Land   Tribunal,   Kalpetta<\/p>\n
under   Section   125(3)   of   Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act.     Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal entered a finding holding that respondent is a tenant<\/p>\n
entitled   to   the   benefit   of   Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act.     After<\/p>\n
receipt   of   the   findings   of   the   Land   Tribunal,     PW1   and   DW1<\/p>\n
were examined and Exts.A1 and A2 and C1 to C3 were marked.<\/p>\n
      3.   Learned   Munsiff,   on   the   evidence   found   that   the<\/p>\n
appellant   did   not   establish   that   plaint   B   schedule   property<\/p>\n
forms part of plaint  A schedule property and the finding of the<\/p>\n
Land   Tribunal   establish   that   respondent   is   a   tenant   and<\/p>\n
therefore   appellant   is   not   entitled   to   the   decree   sought   for.<\/p>\n
The suit was dismissed.     Appellant challenged the decree and<\/p>\n
judgment before Sub Court, Sultan  Bathery in A.S.12  of 1991.<\/p>\n
The  learned   Sub Judge,   on  appreciation  of  evidence,   set  aside<\/p>\n
the finding of the Land Tribunal holding that the oral lease set<\/p>\n
up by respondent was not established and there is no evidence<\/p>\n
SA 434\/1993                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
for payment of rent and hence respondent is not entitled to the<\/p>\n
protection   of   Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act.     But   first   appellate<\/p>\n
court   upheld   the   finding   of   learned   Munsiff   that     plaint   B<\/p>\n
schedule property is not proved to be  part of plaint  A schedule<\/p>\n
property and therefore held that appellant is not entitled to the<\/p>\n
decree sought for. The Second appeal was filed challenging the<\/p>\n
decree and  judgment in the first appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.   Second  appeal was admitted formulating the following<\/p>\n
substantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.   Whether   on   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,<\/p>\n
courts   below   were   correct   in   holding   that   plaint   B   schedule<\/p>\n
property does not form part of  plaint A schedule  property and<\/p>\n
hence appellant has no title to the plaint B schedule property.<\/p>\n
      6.   Learned   counsel     appearing   for   the   appellant   and<\/p>\n
respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.   It   is   admitted   case   that   plaint   A   and   B   schedule<\/p>\n
properties originally belonged to English and Scotish Joint  Co-<\/p>\n
operative   Wholesale   Society   Ltd,   which   was     subsequently<\/p>\n
incorporated   to   Co-operative   Wholesale   Society   Ltd.   The   case<\/p>\n
of   respondent   was   that   the   plaint   B   schedule   property   was<\/p>\n
obtained   as   per   an   oral   lease   from     English   and   Scotish   Joint<\/p>\n
Co-operative Wholesale Society Ltd.  Case of appellant was that<\/p>\n
SA 434\/1993                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
plaint   B   schedule   property   forms   part   of   plaint   A   schedule<\/p>\n
property   and   under     Ext.A1   it   was   assigned   in   favour   of   the<\/p>\n
appellant.  Though the question of tenancy was referred to  the<\/p>\n
Land   Tribunal   and   the   Land   Tribunal   upheld   the   claim   for<\/p>\n
tenancy,   first   appellate   court,   on   the   evidence,   found   that<\/p>\n
respondent is not a cultivating tenant entitled to the benefit of<\/p>\n
Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act.     That   finding   was   rendered   on   the<\/p>\n
basis that no evidence was adduced to prove the oral lease from<\/p>\n
the   English   and     Scotish     company.   No   evidence   was   also<\/p>\n
adduced   to   prove   that   any   rent   as   alleged   was   paid.     On   the<\/p>\n
evidence the finding of the learned Sub Judge that respondent<\/p>\n
did   not   establish   the   oral   lease   or   that   he   has   been   in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property   as   a   cultivating   tenant   and   so   not<\/p>\n
entitled   to   the   protection   under   Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act   is<\/p>\n
perfectly correct and warrants no interference.<\/p>\n
      8.   The title of   appellant over plaint A schedule property<\/p>\n
under Ext.A1 title deed was not disputed  before the trial court<\/p>\n
or   first   appellate   court.     The   only   contention   raised   was   that<\/p>\n
plaint   B   schedule   property   does   not   form   part   of   plaint   A<\/p>\n
schedule   property.     Plaint   B   schedule   property,   as   originally<\/p>\n
stood was 35 cents. So also, plaint A and B schedule properties<\/p>\n
are   shown   comprised   in   R.S.Nos.   760\/1A,   760\/1B,   760\/1C   and<\/p>\n
SA 434\/1993                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
760\/2.     As   respondent   raised   a   specific   contention   in   the<\/p>\n
written   statement   that   plaint   B   schedule     property   does   not<\/p>\n
form  part of  plaint  A schedule  property  and  plaint  A  schedule<\/p>\n
property   is   not   identifiable,   appellant   filed   I.A.1649\/1984,   an<\/p>\n
application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure<\/p>\n
to   appoint   a   Commission   to   identify   the   property   with   the<\/p>\n
assistance   of   a   Surveyor.     The   application   was   opposed   by<\/p>\n
respondent contending that as he is a tenant,   the question of<\/p>\n
tenancy   is   to   be   referred   to   the   Land   Tribunal   and<\/p>\n
Commissioner   cannot   be   appointed.     Learned   Munsiff,   as   per<\/p>\n
an   elaborate   order,   allowed   the   application   and   appointed<\/p>\n
Advocate   N.   Khalidraja     as   Commissioner.     Commissioner<\/p>\n
inspected the property on 4.12.1985 along with Taluk Surveyor<\/p>\n
and submitted Ext.C1 report and Ext.C2 plan along with Ext.C3<\/p>\n
resurvey   plan   of   B   schedule   property   prepared   by   the   Taluk<\/p>\n
Surveyor.  As is seen from Ext.C1 report, the  Commissioner did<\/p>\n
not identify plaint A schedule property at all.     He, along  with<\/p>\n
Surveyor,   only   measured   the   plaint   B   schedule   property   and<\/p>\n
found   that   the   total   extent   is   not   35   cents   as   shown   in   the<\/p>\n
plaint and instead it is only 17 cents.  Commissioner also found<\/p>\n
that   R.S.Numbers   shown   in   the   plaint   are   not   correct   and<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property actually form part of R.S.1054\/2B of<\/p>\n
SA 434\/1993                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
Mupainad   Village   of   Vythiri   Taluk.     It   is   thereafter   appellant<\/p>\n
filed   application   under   Order   VI   Rule   17   of   Code   of   Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure  and got  the  plaint  amended  by reducing  the  extent<\/p>\n
of   B   schedule   property   to   17   cents   and   also   challenged   the<\/p>\n
resurvey   number   of   plaint   A   and   B   schedule   properties   in<\/p>\n
accordance   with   Ext.C1   report.     Unfortunately,   appellant   did<\/p>\n
not file  an  objection.    The   trial  court   did  not   take  note  of   the<\/p>\n
fact that Commissioner has not complied with the direction in<\/p>\n
the   order   dated   24.8.1985   whereunder   Commissioner   was<\/p>\n
directed     to   identify   plaint   A   schedule   property   and   find   out<\/p>\n
whether   plaint   B   schedule   property   forms   part   of   plaint   A<\/p>\n
schedule property.  There is no evidence to prove that plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule property forms part of A schedule  property.   It is for<\/p>\n
that reason, courts below held that plaint B schedule property<\/p>\n
is   not   proved   to   be   part   of   plaint     A   schedule   property   and<\/p>\n
appellant   did   not   establish   his   title   to   the   plaint   B   schedule<\/p>\n
property and dismissed the claim for recovery of possession on<\/p>\n
that ground. The crucial question is whether an opportunity is<\/p>\n
to   be   granted   to   the   appellant   to   establish   that   plaint   B<\/p>\n
schedule property forms part of plaint A schedule property.<\/p>\n
      9.     It   is   seen   from   the   judgment   of   the   First   Appellate<\/p>\n
Court   that   this   aspect   was   taken   note   of   by   the   learned   Sub<\/p>\n
SA 434\/1993                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
Judge.     But   the   suit   was   not   remanded   stating   that   appellant<\/p>\n
did   not   seek   a   remand.     Unfortunately     first   appellate   court<\/p>\n
failed to note that the suit itself was instituted for recovery of<\/p>\n
possession  on  the  strength   of title and on  the  contention that<\/p>\n
plaint   B   schedule   property   forms   part   of   plaint   A   schedule<\/p>\n
property.     first   appellate   court   also   failed   to   note   that<\/p>\n
Commission   application   itself   was   filed   to   identify   plaint   A<\/p>\n
schedule   property   and   report   whether   plaint   B   schedule<\/p>\n
property   forms   part   of   plaint   A   schedule   property.   When<\/p>\n
appellants   sought   such   an   identification   and   when   learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff directed the Commissioner to report whether plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule property forms part of plaint A schedule property and<\/p>\n
Ext.C1 report establish that Commissioner did not comply with<\/p>\n
this  direction   at   all,   at   least   first   appellate   Court   should   have<\/p>\n
directed a proper identification of the property before deciding<\/p>\n
the   question   whether   appellant   has   title   to   the   plaint   B<\/p>\n
schedule   property   as   it   forms   part   of   A   schedule   property.   As<\/p>\n
this aspect was not considered, interest of justice warrants that<\/p>\n
before   deciding   the   question   whether   appellant   is   to   be   non-<\/p>\n
suited on the ground  that he has no title to plaint B  schedule<\/p>\n
property,   question   whether   plaint   B   schedule   property   forms<\/p>\n
part   of   plaint   A   schedule   property   is   to   be   decided.     Even<\/p>\n
SA 434\/1993                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
though Commissioner was appointed for that specific purpose,<\/p>\n
the   Commissioner   did   not   identify   plaint   A   schedule   property<\/p>\n
or furnish  sufficient  data to decide  whether  plaint  B  schedule<\/p>\n
property   forms   part   of   plaint   A   schedule   property.     In   such<\/p>\n
circumstances,   the   finding   of   courts   below   on   the   question   of<\/p>\n
title and that too for the reason that plaint B schedule property<\/p>\n
is   not   proved   to   be   part   of   plaint   A   schedule   property   is   not<\/p>\n
sustainable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      10.   The   appeal   is   allowed.   The   decree   and   judgment<\/p>\n
passed by learned  Munsiff   as  confirmed  by learned  Sub Judge<\/p>\n
are   set   aside.     O.S.265\/1983   is   remanded   to   Munsiff   Court,<\/p>\n
Kalpetta for fresh disposal in accordance with law.  Appellant is<\/p>\n
to take out a commission to identify plaint A schedule property<\/p>\n
as well as plaint B schedule property and report whether plaint<\/p>\n
B schedule property forms part of plaint A schedule   property.<\/p>\n
If   plaint   B   schedule   property     does   not   form   part   of   plaint   A<\/p>\n
schedule  property,   the  suit  is  necessarily  to  fail.  On  the  other<\/p>\n
hand,   if   plaint   B   schedule   property   forms   part   of   plaint   A<\/p>\n
schedule   property,   court   has   to   decide   whether   appellant   is<\/p>\n
entitled   to   recover   possession   of   the   property   on   the   strength<\/p>\n
of   title   and   whether   title   of   the   plaintiff   has   been   barred   by<\/p>\n
adverse   possession   as   claimed   by   the   respondent.     If   the<\/p>\n
SA 434\/1993                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
Commissioner,   who   submitted   Ext.C1   report   is   available,<\/p>\n
learned   Munsiff   may   appoint   the   same   Commissioner   and   if<\/p>\n
not,   appoint   any   other   experienced   Commissioner   may   be<\/p>\n
appointed.         Appellant   has   to   meet   expenses   of   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner.     Parties   are   entitled   to   adduce   evidence<\/p>\n
including   on   the   claim   for   mesne   profits.   Parties   are   directed<\/p>\n
to appear before  the learned Munsiff on 24.5.2007.<\/p>\n
                                M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/-\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Poddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 434 of 1993() 1. PODDAR PLANTATIONS … Petitioner Vs 1. SUBRAMANIAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI For Respondent :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :21\/03\/2007 O R D E R M.SASIDHARAN […]<\/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-117573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPoddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Poddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-01T17:57:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Poddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-01T17:57:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1779,\"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\\\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Poddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-01T17:57:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Poddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Poddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Poddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-01T17:57:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Poddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-01T17:57:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007"},"wordCount":1779,"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\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007","name":"Poddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-01T17:57:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poddar-plantations-vs-subramanian-on-21-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Poddar Plantations vs Subramanian on 21 March, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117573","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=117573"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117573\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}