{"id":118985,"date":"2009-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2"},"modified":"2017-07-04T10:12:33","modified_gmt":"2017-07-04T04:42:33","slug":"kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Kenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 906 of 2009()\n\n\n1. KENADY, S\/O.POULOSE, AGED 42,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. MARY, AGED 68, W\/O.POULOSE,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. POULOSE, AGED 45, S\/O.KURIAKOSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. PAULSON, AGED 41, S\/O.POULOSE,\n\n3. BABU, AGED 39, S\/O.POULOSE,\n\n4. MINI, AGED 37, D\/O.POULOSE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.G.SANKARAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :29\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                           --------------------------------------\n                              R.S.A.No.906 of 2009\n                           --------------------------------------\n                   Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009.\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Second Appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge, North Paravur in A.S. No.233 of 2006 confirming judgment and<\/p>\n
decree of learned Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur in O.S.No.384 of 1999<\/p>\n
granting decree in favour of the plaintiff. Appeal is at the instance of defendant<\/p>\n
Nos.2 and 3. Following question is urged as substantial question of law:<\/p>\n
       Whether on the frame of the suit plaintiff could have sustained the suit<\/p>\n
and obtained a decree for realization of money in his favour?<\/p>\n
Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as in the trial court for<\/p>\n
convenience.\n<\/p>\n
       2.    Defendant     No.1     died     pending       the   appeal and his  legal<\/p>\n
representatives are impleaded as supplemental defendants. Defendant No.2 is<\/p>\n
a vendor in marble. According to the plaintiff, on 14.1.1999 defendant No.2<\/p>\n
entered into a contract with one Jose agreeing to supply 4050 sq. ft. of marble at<\/p>\n
the rate of Rs.50\/- per feet. The agreement was to supply marble at the work<\/p>\n
site of the said Jose. Plaintiff was the mediator and signatory in the agreement<\/p>\n
executed between Jose and defendant No.2. Plaintiff had a contract with the<\/p>\n
said Jose for the purpose of laying marble.                 Jose gave Rs.1,30,000\/- to<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 on the date of agreement and the latter issued a cheque as<\/p>\n
RSA No.906 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
security to the said Jose. Though Jose gave Rs.1,30,000\/- to defendant No.2, in<\/p>\n
the agreement that was executed the amount covered by the            cheque was<\/p>\n
wrongly stated as Rs.1,50,000\/-. Marble supplied by defendant No.2 was of low<\/p>\n
quality. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 approached the said Jose to settle the issue. In<\/p>\n
the mediation plaintiff also took part. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 agreed to take<\/p>\n
back the marble already unloaded at the work site and return the advance<\/p>\n
amount within fortyfive days. An agreement was executed to that effect. The<\/p>\n
agreement stipulated that defendant Nos.1 and 2 will be liable to pay the amount<\/p>\n
with interest.    The agreement further stipulated that since Jose was going<\/p>\n
abroad, plaintiff could initiate action on behalf of the said Jose. On 3.6.1999<\/p>\n
defendant Nos.1 and 2 paid Rs.30,000\/- to the plaintiff. For the balance amount<\/p>\n
notice was issued to defendant No.2. Since the balance amount was not paid,<\/p>\n
plaintiff filed the suit. Defendants admitted the agreement and        stated that<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 had taken advance of Rs.1,30,000\/- from Jose but denied that<\/p>\n
he had supplied low quality marble. There was no breach of contract on his part.<\/p>\n
Defendant No.2 had to spent Rs.50,000\/- towards transportation charges.<\/p>\n
Agreement relied on by the plaintiff is obtained by coercion.   Defendant Nos.1<\/p>\n
and 2 admitted receipt of Rs.1,30,000\/- as advance at the time of execution of<\/p>\n
agreement and claimed that defendant No.2 paid Rs.30,000\/- to the plaintiff on<\/p>\n
3.6.1999.     Plaintiff produced Exts.A1 to A4 and gave evidence as PW1.<\/p>\n
Defendant No.2 gave evidence as DW1 and proved Ext.B1, cash receipt dated<\/p>\n
3.6.1999. Learned Munsiff found that plaintiff is entitled to realize the balance<\/p>\n
sum of Rupees one lakh with interest and granted decree accordingly allowing<\/p>\n
RSA No.906 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff to realize the said amount from the defendants. First appellate court<\/p>\n
confirmed the judgment and decree. It is contended by learned counsel that<\/p>\n
there is no privity of contract between defendant No.2 and the plaintiff and hence<\/p>\n
plaintiff could not have on his own laid the suit seeking decree for realization of<\/p>\n
the amount. It is also contended by learned counsel that in view of Section 230<\/p>\n
of the Indian Contract Act (for short, “the Act”) plaintiff as the agent of the said<\/p>\n
Jose could not personally enforce the contract entered into by him on behalf of<\/p>\n
the principal.\n<\/p>\n
        3.     No doubt, suit is filed by one Poulose while the transaction and<\/p>\n
the agreement were between defendant Nos.1 and 2 and Jose.               The relief<\/p>\n
claimed in the plaint is in favour of the plaintiff, Poulose.     What the learned<\/p>\n
counsel argued is that Poulose has no right to file a suit as his own, he could<\/p>\n
have filed a suit on behalf of and representing the said Jose who had contract<\/p>\n
with defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is in the above circumstance that learned counsel<\/p>\n
placed reliance on Section 230 of the Act. I stated that in the plaint the person<\/p>\n
who figures as plaintiff is Poulose. But I find from the averments in paragraph<\/p>\n
No.9 that the said Jose who is a party to the agreement is abroad and that in the<\/p>\n
agreement dated 2.2.1999         (Ext.A2) plaintiff has been authorized to       do<\/p>\n
whatever required on behalf of the said Jose (in connection with the transaction<\/p>\n
and agreement). A reading of the plaint as a whole would show that though<\/p>\n
Poulose figures as the plaintiff, he i s not claiming any right for himself but is<\/p>\n
only enforcing the claim of Jose though, it is not stated in so many words. I do<\/p>\n
not forget that the more proper way of drafting the plaint would have been to<\/p>\n
RSA No.906 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
describe Jose as the plaintiff represented by Poulose as his agent. It is not<\/p>\n
disputed that plaintiff is also a signatory in Ext.A2 and it is stated therein that<\/p>\n
plaintiff is authorized to do whatever is required to be done on behalf of Jose.<\/p>\n
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are also parties in Ext.A2. Reading of Ext.A2 and the<\/p>\n
plaint as a whole, it leads me to the conclusion that this is not a case where<\/p>\n
plaintiff is enforcing any personal claim but, suing on behalf of Jose though,<\/p>\n
cause title does not properly describe the plaintiff. That need only be understood<\/p>\n
as an inartistic drafting of the plaint which cannot affect the substratum of the<\/p>\n
case pleaded by the plaintiff. So much so the question of invoking Section 230<\/p>\n
of the Act does not arise. In holding so I also bear in mind that it is not disputed<\/p>\n
that the sum of Rs.30,000\/- was paid by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff as per<\/p>\n
Ext.B1, receipt dated 3.6.1999, necessarily a payment made on behalf of Jose.<\/p>\n
A further fact to be borne in mind is that the sum of Rs.48,500\/- realized by the<\/p>\n
sale of marble was deposited by the advocate commissioner in court and, with<\/p>\n
the consent of the defendants that amount was allowed to be withdrawn by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, certainly on behalf of Jose. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the<\/p>\n
claim laid is on behalf of Jose.\n<\/p>\n
        4.     Apprehension raised by learned counsel for defendants is that in<\/p>\n
the manner the suit is framed and decree is passed payment of the decree<\/p>\n
amount may not discharge liability of the defendants to the said Jose. That<\/p>\n
apprehension in my view has no basis since I have stated from the pleadings<\/p>\n
and the relevant documents that the suit has been brought on behalf of said<\/p>\n
Jose and hence payment of the decree amount should be treated as a payment<\/p>\n
RSA No.906 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
on behalf of Jose.     At any rate, it is open to the executing court to consider<\/p>\n
whether before plaintiff is permitted to withdraw the amount if any deposited by<\/p>\n
the defendants he should be directed to produce a power of attorney or such<\/p>\n
other relevant document authorizing him to withdraw the amount on behalf of<\/p>\n
the said Jose.\n<\/p>\n
       5.    On hearing learned counsel and going through the judgments and<\/p>\n
decrees under challenge I do not find any substantial question of law requiring<\/p>\n
admission and issue of notice to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
      The Second Appeal is dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                               THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                       Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 906 of 2009() 1. KENADY, S\/O.POULOSE, AGED 42, … Petitioner 2. MARY, AGED 68, W\/O.POULOSE, Vs 1. POULOSE, AGED 45, S\/O.KURIAKOSE, … Respondent 2. PAULSON, AGED 41, S\/O.POULOSE, 3. BABU, AGED 39, S\/O.POULOSE, 4. MINI, AGED […]<\/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-118985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009 - 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\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-04T04:42:33+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\\\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-04T04:42:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":1259,\"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\\\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Kenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-04T04:42:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Kenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009 - 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\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-04T04:42:33+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\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-04T04:42:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2"},"wordCount":1259,"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\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2","name":"Kenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-04T04:42:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kenady-vs-poulose-on-29-october-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kenady vs Poulose on 29 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/118985","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=118985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118985\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}