{"id":119135,"date":"2007-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007"},"modified":"2014-01-22T15:46:46","modified_gmt":"2014-01-22T10:16:46","slug":"p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"P.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl MC No. 2712 of 2006()\n\n\n1. P.KUNHI BAVA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. C.DAMODARAN,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THAZHEPURAM NABEESU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. M.SURESH, P.C.NO.2973,\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.SOHAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\n\n Dated :14\/02\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                R.BASANT, J\n\n                             ----------------------\n\n                         Crl.M.C.No.2712 of 2006\n\n                       ----------------------------------------\n\n              Dated this the 14th day of February  2007\n\n\n\n\n                                  O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      The   petitioners   are   accused   1   and   2   in   a   prosecution<\/p>\n
initiated against three persons (the second respondent herein is<\/p>\n
the third accused) under Sections 323, 506(II) and 302 read with<\/p>\n
34 I.P.C.   The said proceedings has been initiated against them<\/p>\n
by   the   first   respondent   herein.     The   first   respondent   is   the<\/p>\n
mother   of   the   deceased   person   –   one   Mujeeb   by   name.\n<\/p>\n
Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate.  The necessary<\/p>\n
enquiry   was   conducted.              The   second   respondent\/second<\/p>\n
petitioner herein did not participate in the enquiry.  The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate,   by   the   impugned   order,   has   committed   accused   1<\/p>\n
and 3 to the court of Session to face allegations interalia under<\/p>\n
Section   302   I.P.C.     Both   the   petitioners   have   assailed   the<\/p>\n
cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate .  The first petitioner<\/p>\n
assails the order of committal also.   The second respondent has<\/p>\n
not   entered   appearance   but   the   learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   contends   that   the   contentions   urged   would   apply   to<\/p>\n
the second respondent herein also who is the third accused who<\/p>\n
has   also   been   committed   to   the   court   of   Session   as   per   the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2712\/06                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
       2.     The crux of the allegations against the accused persons<\/p>\n
is that they,  being Additional Sub Inspector of Police  and Police<\/p>\n
Constables   attached   to   the   crime   detection   party   of   the<\/p>\n
Thalassery police station, in the course of investigation of a crime<\/p>\n
after   apprehending   two   accused   persons,   went   in   search   of   the<\/p>\n
son of the complainant.  He was traced.  The said person Mujeeb<\/p>\n
took to his heals to escape from the police party.  The police party<\/p>\n
consisting of the accused persons chased the said Mujeeb.  While<\/p>\n
he  was running  away, he fell  into a well.    There is an allegation<\/p>\n
that he was pushed into the well.  After he fell into the well, there<\/p>\n
was  an   attempt  to   get   him  out   of   the   well.     A   heavy   stone     was<\/p>\n
allegedly thrown into the well by the members of the police party<\/p>\n
which   allegedly   hit   the   deceased   on   his   head   and   he   later<\/p>\n
succumbed  to   such   injury   suffered   by  him.     These,  in   short,   are<\/p>\n
the allegations raised.\n<\/p>\n
       3.     The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners   submits   that<\/p>\n
the very cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate  violates the<\/p>\n
mandates   of   Section   197   Cr.P.C   and   therefore   the   entire<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2712\/06                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
proceedings is bad and vitiated for want of the requisite sanction<\/p>\n
under   Section   197   Cr.P.C.     The   learned   counsel,   in   these<\/p>\n
circumstances,   prays   that   the   cognizance   taken   by   the   learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate  may be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     The petitioners, admittedly, are not public servants not<\/p>\n
removable   from   his   office   save   by   or   with   the   sanction   of   the<\/p>\n
Government.         Section   197(1)   Cr.P.C   does   not   therefore<\/p>\n
admittedly apply to them.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     A contention is raised that under the notification issued<\/p>\n
by   the   State   Government   under   Section   197(3)   Cr.P.C   dated<\/p>\n
06\/12\/1977,   the   petitioners   are   entitled   to   the   protection   of<\/p>\n
Section   197(2)   Cr.P.C   and   that   the   petitioners   are   claiming   the<\/p>\n
protection   not   under   Section   197(1)   but   under   Section   197(2)<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C on the strength of the notification dated 06\/12\/1977 issued<\/p>\n
under Section 197(3) Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     There   has   been   a   controversy   as   to   whether   the   said<\/p>\n
notification   which   offers   protection   to   the   officials   of   the   police<\/p>\n
force engaged in law and order duty would make them eligible to<\/p>\n
claim   the   protection   of   Section   197(2)   Cr.P.C.     But   the   said<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2712\/06                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
question   appears   to   be   concluded   by   the   decision   of   a   Division<\/p>\n
Bench   of   this   court   in  Sarojini   v.   Prasannan   [1996(2)   KLT   859].\n<\/p>\n
The   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners   submits   that   it   is   not<\/p>\n
necessary to rely on the said decision any more in the light of the<\/p>\n
later   decision   of   the   Supreme   Court   in  Rizwan   Ahmed   Javed<\/p>\n
Shaikh v. Jammal Patel<\/a> [2001 SC 2198].  In both these decisions,<\/p>\n
the   earlier   decision   of   the   Single   Bench   of   this   court   in<\/p>\n
Muhammed   v.   Sasi   [1985   KLT   404]  has   been   considered   and<\/p>\n
disapproved.     I   am   of   the   opinion   that   it   is   not   necessary   to<\/p>\n
consider   that   question   in   any   further   detail   as   the   decision   in<\/p>\n
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel<\/a> [AIR 2001 SC 2198]<\/p>\n
squarely   covers   the   issue   and   protects   officers\/officials   like   the<\/p>\n
petitioners   who   fall   within   the   sweep   of   the   members   of   the<\/p>\n
Kerala Police Force, which force is charged with the maintenance<\/p>\n
of   public   order.     It   is,   therefore,   not   necessary   to   pointedly<\/p>\n
consider the question whether the petitioners who are admittedly<\/p>\n
members   of   the   Kerala   Police   Force   were   engaged   in<\/p>\n
maintenance of public order or maintenance of law and order.  In<\/p>\n
the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in  Rizwan Ahmed<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2712\/06                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel<\/a> [AIR 2001 SC 2198] the petitioners<\/p>\n
who fall within the sweep of the notification – being members of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Police Force are certainly entitled to the protection of<\/p>\n
Section 197(2) Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      7.     While   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners   submits<\/p>\n
that all the accused persons were acting (or purporting to act) in<\/p>\n
the   discharge   of   their   official   duty,   the   learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
respondent\/complainant   contends   that   the   precise   overt   acts<\/p>\n
alleged   against   the   accused   persons   must   lead   the   court   to   the<\/p>\n
conclusion   that they  were  not acting  or   purporting   to  act  in  the<\/p>\n
discharge   of   their   official   duty.     Pushing   a   person   into   the   well<\/p>\n
and   throwing   a  stone   on   the   head   of   the   person   who  had   fallen<\/p>\n
into the well cannot be held to be acts falling within the sweep of<\/p>\n
the   expression   ”   acting   or   purporting   to   act   in   the   discharge   of<\/p>\n
official   duty”   of   such   public   servants.     Therefore,   they   are   not<\/p>\n
entitled to the protection of Section 197(2), at any rate, contends<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     This   question   as   to   how   the   expression   “acting   or<\/p>\n
purporting   to   act   in   the   discharge   of   official   duty”   is   to   be<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2712\/06                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
understood   has been the subject matter of discussion in several<\/p>\n
judicial  precedents.   One   of the   earliest  decision   on  the  point  is<\/p>\n
that   by   the   Constitutional   Bench   in  Matajog   Dobey   v.   H.C.Bhari<\/a><\/p>\n
[AIR 1956 SC 44].  The Bench said as extracted below  on the test<\/p>\n
to be adopted for finding out whether Section 197 of the code was<\/p>\n
attracted or not.   The said passage is extracted with approval in<\/p>\n
the   latest   decision   on   this   aspect   by   the   Supreme   Court   in<\/p>\n
Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das<\/a> [AIR 2006 SC 1599].\n<\/p>\n
      ”  Slightly   differing   tests   have   been   laid   down   in   the<\/p>\n
      decided cases to ascertain the scope and the meaning<\/p>\n
      of the relevant words occurring in Section 197 of the<\/p>\n
      Code: “any offence alleged to have been committed by<\/p>\n
      him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge<\/p>\n
      of   his   official   duty”.     But   the   difference   is   only   in<\/p>\n
      language and not in substance.  The offence alleged to<\/p>\n
      have   been   committed   must   have   something   to   do,   or<\/p>\n
      must be related in some manner, with the discharge of<\/p>\n
      official duty.   No question of sanction can arise under<\/p>\n
      Section   197,   unless   the   act   complained   of   is   an<\/p>\n
      offence; the only point to determine is whether it was<\/p>\n
      committed   in   the   discharge   of   official   duty.     There<\/p>\n
      must be a reasonable connection between the act and<\/p>\n
      the   official   duty.     It   does   not   matter   even   if   the   act<\/p>\n
      exceeds what is strictly necessary for the discharge of<\/p>\n
      the   duty,   as   this   question   will   arise   only   at   a   later<\/p>\n
      stage when the trial proceeds on the merit.   What we<\/p>\n
      must find  out is whether the act and the official duty<\/p>\n
      are so inter-related that one can postulate reasonably<\/p>\n
      that it was done by the accused in the performance of<\/p>\n
      the   official   duty,   though   possibly   in   excess   of   the<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2712\/06                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
      needs and requirements of the situation.”<\/p>\n
      9.    The   principle   though   clearly   stated   presents   practical<\/p>\n
problems   in   its   applications.     Two   Judge   Bench   of   the   Supreme<\/p>\n
Court   in  Rizwan  Ahmed   Javed   Shaikh   v.  Jammal   Patel  AIR<\/a>   2001<\/p>\n
SC   2198  adverted   to   the   earlier   observations   of   the   Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in  S.B.Saha v. K.S.Kochar<\/a>  [AIR 1979 SC 1841]  where  this<\/p>\n
dilemma   was   referred   to   the   Supreme   Court   in   the   following<\/p>\n
words.\n<\/p>\n
             ”   The words “any offence alleged to have been<\/p>\n
      committed by him while acting or purporting to act in<\/p>\n
      the   discharge   of   his   official   duty”   employed   in<\/p>\n
      Section  197(1) of the Code, are capable of a narrow<\/p>\n
      as well  as a wide interpretation.   If these words  are<\/p>\n
      construed too narrowly, the section will be rendered<\/p>\n
      altogether sterile, for, “it is not part of an official duty<\/p>\n
      to   commit   an   offence,   and   never   can   be”.     In   the<\/p>\n
      wider   sense,   these   words   will   take   under   their<\/p>\n
      umbrella every act constituting an offence committed<\/p>\n
      in   the   course   of   the   same   transaction   in   which   the<\/p>\n
      official   duty   is   performed   or   purports   to   be<\/p>\n
      performed.  The right approach to the import of these<\/p>\n
      words lies between two extremes.   While on the one<\/p>\n
      hand,   it   is   not   every   offence   committed   by   a   public<\/p>\n
      servant   while   engaged   in   the   performance   of   his<\/p>\n
      official   duty,   which   is   entitled   to   the   protection   of<\/p>\n
      Section 197(1) an act constituting an offence, directly<\/p>\n
      and   reasonably   connected   with   his   official   duty   will<\/p>\n
      require   sanction   for   prosecution   under   the   said<\/p>\n
      provision.     As   pointed   out   by   Ramaswami.K   in<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2712\/06                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
      Baijnath   v.   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh,   AIR   1966   SC<\/p>\n
      220   at   P.222   “It   is   the   quality   of   the   Act   that   is<\/p>\n
      important and if it falls within the scope and range of<\/p>\n
      his   official   duties,   the   protection   contemplated   by<\/p>\n
      Section   197   of   the   Criminal   Procedure   Code   will   be<\/p>\n
      attracted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                 (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      10.    The   real   test   to   be   applied   is   reiterated     in   the   same<\/p>\n
decision in paragraph 15 in the following words which have been<\/p>\n
accepted by the three Judge Bench in  Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna<\/p>\n
Das<\/a> [AIR 2006  SC 1599]  also in  paragraph  15 of  Rizwan Ahmed<\/p>\n
Javed Shaikh v. Jammal Patel AIR<\/a> 2001 SC 2198:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             “The   real   test   to   be   applied   to   attract   the<\/p>\n
      applicability   of   Section   197(3)   is   whether   the   act<\/p>\n
      which   is   done   by   a   public   officer   and   is   alleged   to<\/p>\n
      constitute   an   offence   was   done   by   the   public   officer<\/p>\n
      whilst   acting     in   his   official   capacity   though   what   he<\/p>\n
      did   was   neither   his   duty   nor   his   right   to   do   as   such<\/p>\n
      public   officer.     The   act   complained   of   may   be   in<\/p>\n
      exercise of the duty or in the absence of such duty or<\/p>\n
      in   dereliction   of   the   duty,   if   the   act  complained   of   is<\/p>\n
      done   while   acting   as   the   public   officer   and   in   the<\/p>\n
      course   of   the   same   transaction   in   which   the   official<\/p>\n
      duty was performed or purports to be performed, the<\/p>\n
      public officer would be protected.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                                 (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      11.    The  question again is one  of applying  this real  test to<\/p>\n
the facts scenario available in this case.   The learned counsel for<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2712\/06                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
the   respondent   clearly   concedes   that   for   all   acts   done   till   the<\/p>\n
deceased   who   was   chased   by   the   petitioners   reached   the   well<\/p>\n
would   qualify   for   protection   under   Section   197   Cr.P.C.     So   far,<\/p>\n
there   is   no   controversy.     The   crucial   question   is   hence   whether<\/p>\n
the   act   which   led   to   the   deceased   falling   into   the   well   and   the<\/p>\n
alleged   subsequent   throwing   of   the   stone   into   the   well   after<\/p>\n
exhorting   the   accused   to   come   out   would   qualify   for   exemption<\/p>\n
under Section 197 Cr.P.C.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       12.    It   is   of   course   not   the   duty   of   any   public   servant   to<\/p>\n
commit   any   offence.     At   the   same   time   every   culpable   act<\/p>\n
committed by him under the cloak or the cover of his official duty<\/p>\n
will   not   qualify   him   for   protection   under   Section   197   Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
Alert appreciation of facts is necessary.  Without any dispute, the<\/p>\n
deceased was required by the petitioners, in accordance with law,<\/p>\n
to be arrested.   They were justified in chasing him to ensure his<\/p>\n
arrest.     Even   after   he   fell   into   the   well,   the   petitioners   were<\/p>\n
obliged to save him and get him out of the well to arrest him, in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.  It can certainly be said that it is not part of<\/p>\n
the   official   duty   to   throw   a   stone   into   the   well   at   a   person   who<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2712\/06                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
while being chased had fallen into the well.  But according to me,<\/p>\n
in   any   view   of   the   matter,   the   petitioners   cannot   be   denied   the<\/p>\n
protection   of   Section   197   Cr.P.C   in   as   much   as   they   were<\/p>\n
essentially   performing   the   function   in   the   discharge   of   their<\/p>\n
official   duty   –   of   attempting   to   arrest   the   deceased   who   was<\/p>\n
required to be arrested in accordance with law.  Throwing a stone<\/p>\n
into   the   well   even   if   it   be   for   the   purpose   of   ensuring   that   the<\/p>\n
deceased comes out of the well may not be strictly justified; but at<\/p>\n
any rate, it cannot be held that such conduct was totally outside<\/p>\n
the   official   duty   of   the   petitioners.     They   were   essentially<\/p>\n
performing   official   duty   and   were   acting   or   purporting   to  act   in<\/p>\n
the discharge of their official duty for the purpose of Section 197<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C  and  to me, it  will   be  imprudent  and irrational   to  cull  out<\/p>\n
the   one   alleged  act   of   throwing  a   stone   into   the   well   where  the<\/p>\n
deceased accused had fallen, to take it out of the sweep of Section<\/p>\n
197 Cr.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
       13.    It follows from the above discussions that applying the<\/p>\n
real   test   enumerated   in  Rizwan   Ahmed   Javed   Shaikh   v.   Jammal<\/p>\n
Patel<\/a>   [AIR   2001   SC   2198]  accepted   in  Sankaran   AIR   2006   SC<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2712\/06                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
1599  the   conclusion   is   safe   that   the   accused   persons   that   is<\/p>\n
petitioners   1   and   2   herein   and   the   second   respondent\/the   third<\/p>\n
accused   are   entitled   to   the   protection   of   Section   197(2)   on   the<\/p>\n
strength   of   the   notification   under   Section   197(3)   Cr.P.c   dated<\/p>\n
06\/12\/1977.   Cognizance taken must therefore be held to be bad<\/p>\n
in law.\n<\/p>\n
       14.    This     Criminal   Miscellaneous   Case           is   in   these<\/p>\n
circumstances   allowed.     Cognizance   taken   by   the   learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate     and   all   subsequent   acts   including   C.P.79\/05   and<\/p>\n
S.C.No.106\/06   against   the   petitioners   as   also   the   second<\/p>\n
respondent are quashed.  This order  will not in any way fetter the<\/p>\n
liberty   of   the   first   respondent   to   prosecute   the   accused   if   and<\/p>\n
after   obtaining   the   requisite   sanction  under   Section    197   of   the<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C,  in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      (R.BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
jsr<\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2712\/06    12<\/span><\/p>\n
Crl.M.C.No.2712\/06    13<\/span><\/p>\n
         R.BASANT, J<\/p>\n
           C.R.R.P.No.\n<\/p>\n
              ORDER<\/p>\n
21ST DAY OF JULY 2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl MC No. 2712 of 2006() 1. P.KUNHI BAVA, … Petitioner 2. C.DAMODARAN, Vs 1. THAZHEPURAM NABEESU, … Respondent 2. M.SURESH, P.C.NO.2973, 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.SOHAN For Respondent :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE […]<\/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-119135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 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\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-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=\"2007-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-22T10:16:46+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-22T10:16:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2335,\"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\\\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007\",\"name\":\"P.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-22T10:16:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 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":"P.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 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\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-22T10:16:46+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-22T10:16:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007"},"wordCount":2335,"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\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007","name":"P.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-22T10:16:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kunhi-bava-vs-thazhepuram-nabeesu-on-14-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Kunhi Bava vs Thazhepuram Nabeesu on 14 February, 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\/119135","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=119135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}