{"id":121119,"date":"2000-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000"},"modified":"2017-06-05T16:00:48","modified_gmt":"2017-06-05T10:30:48","slug":"kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000","title":{"rendered":"Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: D.P.Mohapatro, K.T.Thomas<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nKOCHKUNJU NAIR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKOSHY ALEXANDER AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t24\/03\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nD.P.Mohapatro, K.T.Thomas\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>      J\t U D G M E N T Thomas J.  A Full Bench of the KeralaHigh  Court\t has  held that when a person has  land\t in  co-<br \/>\nownership with another, whatever be its extent, it would not<br \/>\ndisentitle  him to claim the rights of a  Kudikidappukaran<br \/>\nunder  the  provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,\t1963<br \/>\n(for  short  the  Act).\t  Having held  so  the\tFull  Bench<br \/>\nproceeded   to\tconsider  whether   appellant  has  such  an<br \/>\nentitlement.   It was found that the land in his  possession<br \/>\nis  not in co-ownership with others and hence the Full Bench<br \/>\nrepelled his claim to have Kudikidappu rights.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  predecessor of respondent (late Geevargis  Koshy)<br \/>\nwas  the  owner\t of a building which he rented\tout  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant  in  the year 1963 for conducting a tea-shop.\t  As<br \/>\nper  a\tsettlement in the family of the said  Geevargis\t the<br \/>\nsaid  building and the land on which it is situate have been<br \/>\nallotted  to the share of first respondent.  Two suits\twere<br \/>\nfiled  in respect of this building, one by the appellant for<br \/>\na declaration that the building is his, and the other by the<br \/>\nfirst  respondent together with Geevargis Koshy for recovery<br \/>\nof possession of the building.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  suits underwent a checkered carrier and when they<br \/>\nreached\t the  Kerala  High Court on an earlier\toccasion  in<br \/>\nSecond\tAppeal a direction was issued to the trial court  on<br \/>\n11.9.1982  to refer the question (which relates to the claim<br \/>\nof  appellant that he is entitled to Kudikidappu rights)  to<br \/>\nthe Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Act.  Pursuant<br \/>\nto  the reference made by the trial court the Land  Tribunal<br \/>\nanswered  the  question in favour of the  appellant  holding<br \/>\nthat  he is Kudikidappukaran.  Accordingly the suit filed by<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t was  dismissed by the trial court  but\t the<br \/>\nDistrict  Court\t before\t which respondents filed  a  regular<br \/>\nappeal,\t reversed  the\tfinding\t and decreed  the  suit\t for<br \/>\nrecovery  of possession on the premise that appellant has in<br \/>\nhis  possession\t land  in  excess  of  ten  cents  in  area.<br \/>\nAppellant  took\t up the matter before the Kerala High  Court<br \/>\nagain in Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the High Court, appellant adopted a contention that<br \/>\nsince  the land is held by him in co-ownership with his wife<br \/>\nand son it cannot be taken into consideration while deciding<br \/>\nwhether\t he has right of Kudikidappukaran.  When the  Second<br \/>\nAppeal\tcame up before a Division Bench an earlier  decision<br \/>\nof  another  Division  Bench was cited before  it  (Chakkara<br \/>\nRamakrishnan  and  others  vs.\t Kuruvaikkandy\tKumaran\t and<br \/>\nothers\t(1980 Kerala Law Notes 19).  But the Division  Bench<br \/>\nwhich  heard the Second Appeal could not persuade themselves<br \/>\nto  follow the said decision as learned judges were inclined<br \/>\nto  take  the  view  that  possession  of  other  lands\t in<br \/>\nco-ownership  by a person claiming to be a  Kudikidappukaran<br \/>\nin  excess  of the limits prescribed under Section 2(25)  of<br \/>\nthe  Act  will dis- entitle him from claiming  the  benefits<br \/>\nthereunder. Hence the matter was placed before a Full Bench<br \/>\nwhich  again  concurred\t with the view adopted\tin  Chakkara<br \/>\nRamakrishnan (Supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>      We  are  unable to uphold the view of the\t Full  Bench<br \/>\nthat the property held in co- ownership cannot be taken into<br \/>\naccount\t  while\t considering  whether\tthe   claimant\t has<br \/>\npossession of land exceeding the limit prescribed in Section<br \/>\n2(25)  of  the\tAct.   The said sub-section,  which  is\t the<br \/>\ndefinition  clause,  is extracted below (only  the  material<br \/>\nportion\t   which    is\t  necessary    for    this    case):<br \/>\nKudikidappukaran means a person who has neither a homestead<br \/>\nnor  any land exceeding in extent three cents in any city or<br \/>\nmajor  municipality or five cents in any other\tmunicipality<br \/>\nor  ten\t cents\tin  any\t  panchayat  area  or  township,  in<br \/>\npossession  either as owner or as tenant, on which he  could<br \/>\nerect a homestead..\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  word homestead in the context would only mean a<br \/>\ndwelling house.\t As the land said to be in the possession of<br \/>\nthe  appellant is situated in a panchayat area the necessary<br \/>\nrequirements  can be re-cast like this:\t The person claiming<br \/>\nto be a Kudikidappukaran should not have, in his possession,<br \/>\nland  exceeding\t ten  cents in a panchayat area,  either  as<br \/>\nowner or as tenant on which he could erect a dwelling house.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Here  the\t contention is that if the person  has\tonly<br \/>\nco-ownership  over the land it cannot be said that he is the<br \/>\nowner  thereof, nor is he in possession of it.\t Conflicting<br \/>\ndecisions have been adopted by the Kerala High Court on that<br \/>\npoint  at different times.  In Vasudevan vs.  Sreemathi Amma<br \/>\n(1966  Kerala  Law Times 594) a single judge took  the\tview<br \/>\nthat  the  person who has joint ownership of  the  necessary<br \/>\nextent\t of   land  is\tdisentitled   to   the\t rights\t  of<br \/>\nKudikidappukaran.   But\t a  contrary view was adopted  by  a<br \/>\nDivision  Bench\t in Pennamma vs.  St.  Pauls Convent  (1972<br \/>\nKerala\tLaw  Times 12).\t Another Division Bench has held  in<br \/>\nVasistha Vadhyar vs.  Mohini Bai (1975 Kerala Law Times 365)<br \/>\nthus:\tA  member  of a joint family has  no  ownership\t or<br \/>\npossession  exclusively\t on  any  portion  of  the  property<br \/>\nbelonging  to the joint family.\t Therefore, the fact that  a<br \/>\nperson\towns  land  with  others   as  joint  tenant  cannot<br \/>\ndisentitle him from the protection extended under s.2(25) of<br \/>\nthe  Act.   On\tthe words of the section, this is  the\tonly<br \/>\nconclusion  that  can  be   arrived  at.  Nonetheless,\tthe<br \/>\nDivision  Bench\t doubted whether the above principle can  be<br \/>\nextended  to  a tenant-in-common since possession of such  a<br \/>\nperson\tis different from the possession of a co-parcener or<br \/>\nmember\tof  a tarwad.  However, a single judge in  Damodaran<br \/>\nvs.   Vasukutty (1978 Kerala Law Times 1) took the view that<br \/>\nthere is no distinction between a member of joint family and<br \/>\na  tenant-in-common or a co-owner and that he too can  claim<br \/>\nto be a Kudikidappukaran.\n<\/p>\n<p>      We  are  not  now considering the question  whether  a<br \/>\nperson\twho  has  right in a joint family  property  can  be<br \/>\ntreated\t as  one  in  possession of that land.\t But  we  do<br \/>\nconsider  now whether a person who is a co-owner along\twith<br \/>\nothers\tcan  be\t treated  as  owner and\t whether  he  is  in<br \/>\npossession thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Ownership\t imports  three\t essential  rights,  namely,<br \/>\nright  to  possession, right to enjoy and right to  dispose.<br \/>\nIf  an\towner  is  wrongly deprived  of\t possession  of\t his<br \/>\nproperty  he  has a right to be put in\tpossession  thereof.<br \/>\nAll  the  three\t essentials  are satisfied in  the  case  of<br \/>\nco-owner  of  a land.  All co-owners have equal\t rights\t and<br \/>\nco-ordinate  interest  in the property, though their  shares<br \/>\nmay  be either fixed or indeterminate.\tEvery co-owner has a<br \/>\nright to enjoyment and possession equal to that of the other<br \/>\nco-owner  or  co-  owners.   Each co-owner  has,  in  theory<br \/>\ninterest  in  every  infinitesimal portion  of\tthe  subject<br \/>\nmatter\tand each has the right, irrespective of the quantity<br \/>\nof  his\t interest,  to be in possession of  every  part\t and<br \/>\nparcel\tof the property, jointly with others.  (vide Mitras<br \/>\nCo- ownership and Partition, Seventh Edn.)<\/p>\n<p>      A\t three-Judge Bench of this Court has held in <a href=\"\/doc\/942903\/\">Sri Ram<br \/>\nPasricha  vs.\tJagannath and ors.<\/a>(AIR 1976 SC 2335) that  a<br \/>\nco-owner  owns\tevery part of the composite  property  along<br \/>\nwith  others.  The following statement of law has been\tmade<br \/>\nby their Lordships:\n<\/p>\n<p>      Jurisprudentially\t it  is not correct to say  that  a<br \/>\nco-owner of a property is not its owner.  He owns every part<br \/>\nof the composite property along with others and it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid  that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner  of<br \/>\nthe  property.\tThe position will change only when partition<br \/>\ntakes place.\n<\/p>\n<p>      To  hold\tthat  a\t co-owner is not an  owner  and\t his<br \/>\npossession  is not the possession envisaged in Section 2(25)<br \/>\nof  the Act is in conflict with the correct legal  position.<br \/>\nIf  a  co- owner wants to erect homestead on the land he  is<br \/>\nfree to do so.\tWhen a division of the co-ownership property<br \/>\ntakes  place the co-owner who put up the homestead can claim<br \/>\nthat  the said portion may be allotted to his share.  Courts<br \/>\nwould  ordinarily grant such equitable relief when  claimed.<br \/>\n[vide  Nutbehari  Das v.  Nanilal Das and ors.(AIR  1937  PC\n<\/p>\n<p>61)].\tIf the other co-owner objects to the construction of<br \/>\na homestead he can get the co- ownership property divided by<br \/>\npartition,  and if the other party is not readily willing to<br \/>\nthat  course it is open to him to get it partitioned through<br \/>\nsuit.\tThese are various remedies available to the co-owner<br \/>\nin  respect of his land.  Merely because he has to resort to<br \/>\nsuch  steps it cannot be said that a co-owner cannot erect a<br \/>\nhomestead on his land.\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  view adopted by the Full Bench of the Kerala High<br \/>\nCourt  that  once  the claimant is a  co-owner\tof  whatever<br \/>\nextent\tof  land, he must be treated as a person who has  no<br \/>\nland  on which he could erect a homestead, has\tpreposterous<br \/>\nlegal implications.  For example, a co-owner having 50 acres<br \/>\nof  land  along\t with  another\t co-owner  claims  right  of<br \/>\nKudikidappu as against another person who has only a wee bit<br \/>\nof  land.   If\tthe  Full Bench view  gains  acceptance\t the<br \/>\nclaimant  must\tbe declared entitled to\t Kudikidappu  right.<br \/>\nSuch  an  order\t would\tbe unjust and  inequitable,  if\t not<br \/>\nridiculous.   The  Full Bench of Kerala High Court has\tgone<br \/>\nwrong in adopting such a view.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Learned\tcounsel\t for   the  appellant  alternatively<br \/>\ncontended  that even if this co- ownership land can be taken<br \/>\ninto  account, the area of his land, after partition,  would<br \/>\nfall below 10 cents in extent.\tExt.B-16 is a Partition Deed<br \/>\nof  the year 1952 executed by the appellant and his  brother<br \/>\nas  per\t which\t27\u00bd cents of land has been allotted  to\t the<br \/>\nappellant,  his wife and son who was then a minor.  Person<br \/>\nis  defined  in\t Section 2(43) of the Act  as  including  a<br \/>\ncompany,  family, joint family, association or other body of<br \/>\nindividuals.  Section 2(14) of the Act defines family<br \/>\nas  consisting\tof husband, wife and their unmarried  minor<br \/>\nchildren or such of them as exist.\n<\/p>\n<p>      A\t combined reading of the above definitions leads  to<br \/>\nthe only conclusion that appellant (with or without his wife<br \/>\nand  minor  son)  has  27\u00bd  cents  of  land.   There  is  no<br \/>\ncontention  that  the  nature of the land is  such  that  no<br \/>\nhomestead  could be erected thereon.  Even if the minor\t son<br \/>\nwould  have  claimed  his share\t after\tattaining  majority,<br \/>\nappellant and his wife together will still have land much in<br \/>\nexcess of 10 cents.\n<\/p>\n<p>      So  looking from any angle, appellant has no right  to<br \/>\nclaim  that  he\t is  a Kudikidappukaran in  respect  of\t the<br \/>\nbuilding  which\t is  the  subject matter of  the  suit.\t  We<br \/>\ntherefore  dismiss  this  appeal, without any  order  as  to<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000 Bench: D.P.Mohapatro, K.T.Thomas PETITIONER: KOCHKUNJU NAIR Vs. RESPONDENT: KOSHY ALEXANDER AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/03\/2000 BENCH: D.P.Mohapatro, K.T.Thomas JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T Thomas J. A Full Bench of the KeralaHigh Court has held that [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-121119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-05T10:30:48+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\\\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-05T10:30:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1775,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000\",\"name\":\"Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-05T10:30:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-05T10:30:48+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\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000","datePublished":"2000-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-05T10:30:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000"},"wordCount":1775,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000","name":"Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-05T10:30:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochkunju-nair-vs-koshy-alexander-and-others-on-24-march-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kochkunju Nair vs Koshy Alexander And Others on 24 March, 2000"}]},{"@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\/121119","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=121119"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/121119\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=121119"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=121119"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=121119"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}