{"id":12142,"date":"2010-11-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-07T23:26:28","modified_gmt":"2018-01-07T17:56:28","slug":"joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Joy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Joy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 412 of 2010()\n\n\n1. JOY,S\/O.KUNJACHAN,KODUMANNETHU HOUSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.A.VARGHESE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :09\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                  THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.\n\n                 ----------------------------------------\n\n                     O.P(C).No.457 of 2010\n\n                                  and\n\n                      C.R.P.No.412 of 2010\n\n                  ---------------------------------------\n\n            Dated this 09th day of November, 2010\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and petition under Article 227<\/p>\n
of the Constitution arise from the same subject matter,<\/p>\n
enforcement of a decree for execution of a sale deed pursuant to<\/p>\n
an agreement for sale executed by petitioner in favour of<\/p>\n
respondent. Respondent alleged that in spite of his being ready<\/p>\n
and willing to perform his part of the contract petitioner failed to<\/p>\n
perform his part and filed O.S.No.100 of 2001 in the court of<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge, Pathanamthitta for a decree for specific<\/p>\n
performance. That suit resulted in a decree on December 14,<\/p>\n
2005 as per which petitioner was directed to execute the sale<\/p>\n
deed after receiving `.4,47,500\/- within a period of three months<\/p>\n
from the date of decree and in case petitioner failed to do so<\/p>\n
permitting respondent to realise balance sale consideration and<\/p>\n
get the sale deed executed. Period of three months expired on<\/p>\n
13-02-2006 but, petitioner did not take any steps to comply with<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.457 of 2010 and C.R.P.No.412 of 2010
\n                                     : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the direction in the decree. On July 21, 2006 respondent filed<\/p>\n
E.P.No.104 of 2006 to direct petitioner to execute the sale deed<\/p>\n
in favour of a nominee of his. The balance sale consideration as<\/p>\n
per the decree was deposited in the trial court on March 6, 2007.<\/p>\n
Execution petition was objected by petitioner on various grounds.<\/p>\n
Petitioner filed I.A.No.194 of 2008 on the trial side of the same<\/p>\n
court to rescind the contract under Sec.28 of the Specific Relief<\/p>\n
Act (for short, “the Act”). That application was opposed by the<\/p>\n
respondent. Learned Sub Judge dismissed I.A.No.194 of 2008<\/p>\n
which is under challenge in C.R.P.No.412 of 2010. In the light of<\/p>\n
objection raised by petitioner to the execution petition on the<\/p>\n
ground that decree directs sale of property to the respondent and<\/p>\n
hence sale deed could not be executed in favour of his nominee,<\/p>\n
respondent filed application in the execution court for<\/p>\n
amendment of the execution petition to the extent that sale deed<\/p>\n
is to be executed in favour of respondent. That application was<\/p>\n
allowed by the learned Sub Judge which is under challenge at the<\/p>\n
instance of petitioner\/judgment debtor in O.P(C).No.457 of 2010.<\/p>\n
      Following contentions are raised before me.\n<\/p>\n
                 (i)   Decree      is   one   for mandatory<\/p>\n
          injunction. Executing court was not correct in<\/p>\n
          allowing amendment of the execution petition<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.457 of 2010 and C.R.P.No.412 of 2010
\n                                     : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
          after three years of the decree (December 14,<\/p>\n
          2005).\n<\/p>\n
                 (ii)  Executing court was not justified in<\/p>\n
          allowing the respondent to proceed with<\/p>\n
          execution petition filed on 21-07-2006 without<\/p>\n
          respondent seeking extension of time for<\/p>\n
          deposit of the amount on the trial side.\n<\/p>\n
                 (iii) Learned Sub Judge was not correct<\/p>\n
          in dismissing I.A.No.194 of 2008 and at any rate<\/p>\n
          without going into the question whether it was<\/p>\n
          just and equitable to permit respondent get the<\/p>\n
          sale deed executed.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     It    is    contended        by  learned  counsel    for<\/p>\n
petitioner\/judgment debtor that in so far as decree is one for<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction, period of limitation for its execution is<\/p>\n
three years from the date of decree as provided under Article 135<\/p>\n
of the Limitation Act and hence the application for amendment<\/p>\n
filed after three years of the decree to execute the sale deed in<\/p>\n
favour of respondent could not have been entertained. I stated<\/p>\n
that the purport of amendment was to correct the prayer in the<\/p>\n
execution petition to the effect that sale deed be executed in the<\/p>\n
name of respondent instead of his nominee (as originally prayed<\/p>\n
for).\n<\/p>\n
      3.     Contention that decree is for mandatory injunction<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted.         True, the decree directs petitioner by an<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.457 of 2010 and C.R.P.No.412 of 2010
\n                                     : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
order of mandatory injunction to execute the sale deed. The copy<\/p>\n
of decree states that the suit was for specific performance. It<\/p>\n
leaves me in no doubt that in whatever manner relief has been<\/p>\n
worded by the learned Sub Judge, it continued to be a suit for<\/p>\n
specific performance.          Court fee is also paid for specific<\/p>\n
performance. Hence the contention that decree is for mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction cannot be accepted. Even otherwise assuming that the<\/p>\n
suit is for mandatory injunction still the argument advanced by<\/p>\n
learned counsel cannot be accepted since the execution petition<\/p>\n
was filed on 21-07-2006, certainly from three years of the decree<\/p>\n
in compliance of Article 135 of the Limitation Act. What is done<\/p>\n
by respondent after three years of the date of decree is only to<\/p>\n
seek amendment of the execution petition to the effect that the<\/p>\n
sale deed be executed not in the name of his nominee as<\/p>\n
originally prayed in the execution petition but in the name of<\/p>\n
respondent himself.        That cannot be treated as an execution<\/p>\n
petition attracting period of limitation under Article 135 of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Next contention is that in so far as respondent has not<\/p>\n
deposited sale consideration within three months from the date of<\/p>\n
decree (December 14, 2005) it required extension of time on the<\/p>\n
part of respondent for deposit of the amount. It is pointed out by<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.457 of 2010 and C.R.P.No.412 of 2010
\n                                     : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel that executing court could not have extended<\/p>\n
time even if it was requested for.            It is also contended that<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge was not correct in dismissing I.A.No.194 of<\/p>\n
2008 without considering whether it was just and equitable to<\/p>\n
permit the respondent to get sale deed executed. Reliance is<\/p>\n
placed on the decisions in Narayanan Nair Raman Nair Vs.<\/p>\n
Govindan Nair Raman Nair (AIR 1952 Travancore-Cochin<\/p>\n
440), Ramankutty Guptan Vs. Avara (1992(2) KLT 608) and<\/p>\n
Anandavally Vs. Nadesan (1992(2) KLT 833). Per contra it is<\/p>\n
contended by learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent<\/p>\n
that the decree did not specify that respondent had to deposit the<\/p>\n
amount within any particular time and hence it could not be said<\/p>\n
that there was non compliance of the decree by the respondent<\/p>\n
so that respondent was required to move under Sec.28 of the Act<\/p>\n
for extension of time. At any rate in the absence of any evidence<\/p>\n
of positive default on the part of respondent to comply with the<\/p>\n
decree, executing court was justified in allowing respondent to<\/p>\n
proceed with execution of the decree and the trial court in<\/p>\n
dismissing I.A.No.194 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    No doubt, as held by this court in Anandavally Vs.<\/p>\n
Nadesan (supra) in a suit for specific performance plaintiff has<\/p>\n
to show that he was always ready and willing to perform his part<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.457 of 2010 and C.R.P.No.412 of 2010
\n                                     : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
of the contract and that must extent up to the time of execution<\/p>\n
of the sale deed. If the decree directs decree holder to perform<\/p>\n
his duty within a time stipulated certainly it is required to be so<\/p>\n
done and if not, he may have to seek extension of time under<\/p>\n
Sec.28 of the Act as held in Narayanan Nair Raman Nair Vs.<\/p>\n
Govindan Nair Raman Nair (supra). The power for extension<\/p>\n
of time under Sec.28 of the Code is not vested with the executing<\/p>\n
court but with the trial court. The decree does not cast any<\/p>\n
liability on respondent to deposit balance sale consideration<\/p>\n
within any particular time though Order XX Rule 12A of the code<\/p>\n
of Civil Procedure required the court to specify time for deposit<\/p>\n
of the amount. Unfortunately the decree does not say so. It<\/p>\n
cannot therefore be said that there was any failure on the part of<\/p>\n
respondent to deposit the amount within the stipulated time and<\/p>\n
the court was bound to rescind the contract under Sec.28 of the<\/p>\n
Act though, it does not mean that respondent could have slept<\/p>\n
over the matter for any length of time and asked for extension of<\/p>\n
time for deposit of the amount.            Two decisions supports the<\/p>\n
argument of learned Senior Advocate for respondent – Iiyas son<\/p>\n
of Faizi & Ors. Vs. IIIrd Addl. Dist. Judge, Meerut & Anr.<\/p>\n
(2006(3) ALJ 312)and Venkatakrishna Reddy Vs. M.<\/p>\n
Anjappa (AIR 2009 Andhra Pradesh 179). The decree does<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.457 of 2010 and C.R.P.No.412 of 2010
\n                                     : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
not direct respondent to deposit the amount within any specified<\/p>\n
time and hence it could not be said that there was any positive<\/p>\n
refusal on the part of respondent to comply with the decree<\/p>\n
which enabled petitioner to get rescission of the contract.<\/p>\n
      6.    As per the decree, time provided to the petitioner to<\/p>\n
receive the balance sale consideration and execute the sale deed<\/p>\n
expired on 13-03-2006. There is no case or evidence that in the<\/p>\n
meantime petitioner had done anything on his part. Instead, he<\/p>\n
remained idle. Respondent on his part, filed E.P.No.104 of 2006<\/p>\n
on 21-07-2006 ie, after four months of expiry of the time given to<\/p>\n
the petitioner as per the decree. Petitioner chose to file<\/p>\n
I.A.No.194 of 2008 only in the year, 2008 after respondent filed<\/p>\n
execution petition on 21-07-2006 and deposited balance sale<\/p>\n
consideration on 06-03-2007. Certainly it was to get rid of the<\/p>\n
execution petition already launched by respondent that petitioner<\/p>\n
chose to file I.A.No.194 of 2008 after the execution petition was<\/p>\n
filed and deposit was made.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge while dismissing I.A.No.194 of 2008 has not<\/p>\n
gone into the question whether it was just and equitable to<\/p>\n
permit respondent to proceed with execution of the decree.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel requested that the matter may be remitted to<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.457 of 2010 and C.R.P.No.412 of 2010
\n                                     : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the trial court for fresh consideration.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    A remand cannot be ordered for the mere asking.<\/p>\n
Binding authorities on the point say that a remand must be<\/p>\n
avoided as far as possible if on the materials on record the issue<\/p>\n
can be determined. The decree was executable at the instance of<\/p>\n
petitioner also. If petitioner was ready and willing to perform his<\/p>\n
part of the contract he could have sought execution of the decree<\/p>\n
rather than waiting for two years after filing of the execution<\/p>\n
petition to file an application for cancellation of contract. This<\/p>\n
court indicated in Joseph George Vs. Chacko Thomas (1992<\/p>\n
(1) KLT 6, paragraph 10), that in the absence of positive<\/p>\n
refusal to complete the contract, rescission of contract is not<\/p>\n
permissible. In the absence of evidence of positive refusal or<\/p>\n
wilful negligence of respondent in the matter executing court was<\/p>\n
correct in permitting respondent to enjoy the fruits of the decree.<\/p>\n
I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned order.<\/p>\n
      10.   But, fact remained that respondent deposited balance<\/p>\n
sale consideration of `.4,47,500\/- in the executing court only on<\/p>\n
06-03-2007. That means, from the expiry of the time provided to<\/p>\n
the petitioner to get sale deed executed (13-03-2006) till     06-<\/p>\n
03-2007 balance sale consideration was in the hands of<\/p>\n
respondent and he was enjoying its advantage. Petitioner lost<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.457 of 2010 and C.R.P.No.412 of 2010
\n                                     : 9 :<\/span><\/p>\n
interest on the said amount during the said period.          Having<\/p>\n
regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I consider it<\/p>\n
proper to direct respondent to pay interest @ 7.5% per annum<\/p>\n
from 13-03-2006 till 06-03-2007 (date of deposit in the executing<\/p>\n
court) on the balance sale consideration in the light of decision of<\/p>\n
this court in Thomas E.P. Vs. K.C. Sivadasan and Ors. (2009<\/p>\n
(3) KLJ 781).\n<\/p>\n
      Resultantly these petitions are dismissed but, I direct the<\/p>\n
respondent to deposit in the executing court for payment to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, interest @7.5% per annum on the balance sale<\/p>\n
consideration of `.4,47,500\/- from 13-03-2006 till 06-03-2007<\/p>\n
within two months from this day failing which it will be open to<\/p>\n
the petitioner to execute this order in the executing court as<\/p>\n
provided under law and realise the             said amount from the<\/p>\n
respondent and his assets with cost of execution.<\/p>\n
                                 (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
Sbna\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Joy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 412 of 2010() 1. JOY,S\/O.KUNJACHAN,KODUMANNETHU HOUSE, … Petitioner Vs 1. K.A.VARGHESE, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE For Respondent :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.) The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :09\/11\/2010 O R D E R THOMAS […]<\/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-12142","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJoy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010 - 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\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Joy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-07T17:56:28+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Joy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-07T17:56:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1983,\"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\\\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Joy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-07T17:56:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Joy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Joy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010 - 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\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Joy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-07T17:56:28+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Joy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-07T17:56:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010"},"wordCount":1983,"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\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010","name":"Joy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-07T17:56:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/joy-vs-k-a-varghese-on-9-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Joy vs K.A.Varghese on 9 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/12142","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=12142"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12142\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}