{"id":123683,"date":"2010-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010"},"modified":"2014-10-13T00:59:23","modified_gmt":"2014-10-12T19:29:23","slug":"a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"A vs Joseph on 15 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
A vs Joseph on 15 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 185 of 2010()\n\n\n1. A,,OMO MAOR. W\/O.K.S.RAVINDRAN NAIR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, W\/O.GOPALAN NAIR,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. JOSEPH,S\/O.MATHEW AGED 41 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. RENJITH JOHN, AGED 38 YEARS,\n\n3. JAYAN, S\/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR,\n\n4. SMITH JAYAN, W\/O.JAYAN, AGED 36 YEARS,\n\n5. ADV.S.SUNIL KUMAR, S\/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR,\n\n6. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 59 YEARS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :K.S.RAVINDRAN NAIR(PARTY-IN-PERSON)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.J.MICHAEL\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :15\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                          THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.\n\n                    ----------------------------------------\n\n                   R.S.A.Nos.169 and 185 of 2010\n\n                    ---------------------------------------\n\n                 Dated this 15th day of March, 2010\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      These appeals arise from common judgment and decree of<\/p>\n
learned District Judge, Thodupuzha in A.S.Nos.66 of 2008 and 67 of<\/p>\n
2008, respectively confirming judgment and decree of learned Munsiff,<\/p>\n
Thodupuzha in O.S.No.217 of 2007. The appeals are at the instance of<\/p>\n
defendant Nos.2 and 3.        Parties, for the sake of convenience are<\/p>\n
referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as in the trial court.<\/p>\n
      2.    Dispute is concerning the alignment and use of a pathway<\/p>\n
referred to in Ext.A3, settlement deed No.3006 of 1999 executed by<\/p>\n
defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and other members of their family As per that<\/p>\n
settlement deed properties were settled in favour of different sharers.<\/p>\n
The F schedule therein, 44 cents was allotted to one Radhakrishnan<\/p>\n
from whom plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 purchased it as per Ext.A1, sale deed<\/p>\n
No.4035 of 2006. Of the said 44 cents, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 sold 10<\/p>\n
cents to plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 as per sale deed No.2474 of 2007.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 sold another 26 cents to one Radhakrishnan (he is<\/p>\n
not a party to the proceeding). The remaining 8 cents of plaintiff Nos.1<\/p>\n
and 2 situated towards the north eastern portion of the 44 cents (F<\/p>\n
schedule in Ext.A3) is the property described in plaint A schedule. The<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.169 and 185 of 2010
\n                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
10 cents sold in favour of plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 is plaint B schedule.<\/p>\n
According to the plaintiffs as per Ext.A1, assignment deed they are<\/p>\n
also entitled to make use of the common pathway provided as per<\/p>\n
Ext.A3, settlement deed No.3006 of 1999.         The said pathway is<\/p>\n
described in the plaint as C schedule. Plaintiffs say that defendants<\/p>\n
are causing obstruction to their user of plaint C schedule and hence<\/p>\n
the suit for prohibitory injunction.    Defendant Nos.2 and 3 while<\/p>\n
resisting the suit made a counter claim. According to defendant Nos.1<\/p>\n
and 3, pathway described in plaint C schedule is not the one referred<\/p>\n
to in Ext.A3, settlement deed.      They would say that the pathway<\/p>\n
referred to in Ext.A3 originated from the Vazhithala-Purappuzha road<\/p>\n
on the extreme south, went “straight” towards north through plaint A<\/p>\n
and B schedules, ends in B schedule of Ext.A3 and all the allottees<\/p>\n
under Ext.A3 have right over the said way. That pathway, defendant<\/p>\n
Nos.2 and 3 extended up to the property of defendant No.2 (E<\/p>\n
schedule in Ext.A3 situated on the north of F schedule of that<\/p>\n
document (which is the 44 cents, portion of which are plaint A and B<\/p>\n
schedules). It is also the contention of defendant Nos.2 and 3 that for<\/p>\n
their convenience they constructed a new way which is described in<\/p>\n
the plaint as C schedule over which plaintiff have no right or interest.<\/p>\n
In the circumstance, they prayed for a decree for prohibitory injunction<\/p>\n
against plaintiffs using plaint C schedule way. Learned Munsiff was of<\/p>\n
the view that plaint C schedule is the pathway referred to in Ext.A3<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.169 and 185 of 2010
\n                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
which extended only up to the B schedule in Ext.A3 set apart to the<\/p>\n
share of defendant No.3, Lakshmikutty Amma. Ext.A3 does not say<\/p>\n
that the said way extended further towards west to reach the E<\/p>\n
schedule allotted to defendant No.2.        Learned Munsiff also found<\/p>\n
against the contention of defendant Nos.2 and 3 that plaint C schedule<\/p>\n
is the new pathway formed by them and accordingly dismissed the<\/p>\n
counter claim while a decree was granted in favour of the plaintiffs as<\/p>\n
prayed for. Decree in favour of plaintiffs was challenged in A.S.No.66<\/p>\n
of 2008 while dismissal of the counter claim was challenged in<\/p>\n
A.S.No.67 of 2008. Learned District Judge has confirmed the finding of<\/p>\n
learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeals.          Hence these second<\/p>\n
appeals urging by way of substantial questions of law whether courts<\/p>\n
below are legally and factually correct in concluding that plaint C<\/p>\n
schedule is the pathway referred to in Ext.A3, settlement deed and<\/p>\n
whether courts below went wrong in not finding that plaintiffs<\/p>\n
instituted the suit after destroying the existing pathway.<\/p>\n
      3.    Appellants\/defendant Nos.2 and 3 are represented by their<\/p>\n
power of attorney holder, Sri.K.S.Ravindran Nair, a retired Engineer<\/p>\n
vide order on I.A.No.444 of 2010, I have permitted Sri.K.S.Ravindran<\/p>\n
Nair to address arguments on behalf of appellants\/defendant Nos.2 and<\/p>\n
3.    He contends that the photographs (Ext.B1 series) taken<\/p>\n
immediately after alleged destruction of the existing pathway would<\/p>\n
eloquently indicate that there was such a pathway in existence as<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.169 and 185 of 2010
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
referred to in Ext.A3 which has nothing to do with the plaint C<\/p>\n
schedule. According to Sri. K.S.Ravindran Nair in the way courts below<\/p>\n
have granted decree in favour of the plaintiffs, defendant No.2 has no<\/p>\n
access to the property belonging to her (E schedule in Ext.A3). He has<\/p>\n
also a contention that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are not being permitted<\/p>\n
to take water from the well in the tarvad property. Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
plaintiffs in response contends that there is no acceptable evidence as<\/p>\n
to the existence of a way other than plaint C schedule and that<\/p>\n
contention of appellants\/defendant Nos.2 and 3 that the pathway<\/p>\n
referred to in Ext.A3 extended up to the E schedule in Ext.A3 allotted<\/p>\n
to defendant No.2 is belied by the description of counter claim pathway<\/p>\n
as well as Ext.A3.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     Going by Exts.C1(a) and C2(a), plaint C schedule way starts<\/p>\n
from Vazhithala-Purappuzha road on the extreme south, it goes<\/p>\n
towards north, takes a slight deviation towards east and then goes<\/p>\n
further towards north. It ends at the north eastern corner of plaint A<\/p>\n
and B schedules (which is the north-eastern portion of B schedule in<\/p>\n
Ext.A3). In Ext.A3 a common way originating from Vazhithala-<\/p>\n
Purappuzha road on the south and going straight towards north is<\/p>\n
provided for the use of all sharers under Ext.A3. But it is relevant to<\/p>\n
note from Ext.A3 that the said pathway reached only upto the property<\/p>\n
where B schedule house (in Ext.A3) is situated. It is also not disputed<\/p>\n
before me that E schedule allotted to defendant No.2 as per Ext.A3 is<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.169 and 185 of 2010
\n                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
situated on the north western side of F schedule (the 44 cents acquired<\/p>\n
by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as per Ext.A1). In other words going by the<\/p>\n
description in Ext.A3, the way does not reach up to the E schedule in<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 allotted to defendant No.2. It is also relevant to note that in the<\/p>\n
boundary descriptions of the separate schedules in Ext.A3, except for E<\/p>\n
schedule allotted to defendant No.2 the common way referred to in<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 is described as a boundary. But the boundary description for E<\/p>\n
schedule allotted to defendant No.2 as per Ext.A3 is the property<\/p>\n
referred to in B schedule in Ext.A3 and comprised in survey<\/p>\n
No.214\/1\/1, 214\/2 and 214\/5\/2.       Therefore from Ext.A3 it is not<\/p>\n
possible to say that the common way referred to therein extended up<\/p>\n
to E schedule referred in Ext.A3 and allotted to defendant No.2 and<\/p>\n
hence plaint C schedule is not the way referred to in Ext.A3.<\/p>\n
      5.    Yet another contention raised by the power of attorney<\/p>\n
holder on behalf of defendant Nos.2 and 3 is that the way referred to in<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 goes “straight” towards north while, what the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner has reported in Ext.C1(a) and C2(a) is a pathway which<\/p>\n
starts from Purappuzha road on the extreme south, goes towards<\/p>\n
north, takes a (slight) deviation towards east and then again goes<\/p>\n
towards north. According to the power of attorney holder, pathway<\/p>\n
referred to in Ext.A3 went “straight” towards north cutting across the F<\/p>\n
schedule (part of which is the plaint A and B schedules). But, that<\/p>\n
contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the eastern<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.169 and 185 of 2010
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
boundary of F schedule is given as the common pathway (referred to in<\/p>\n
Ext.A3). Learned counsel for plaintiffs points out that even as per the<\/p>\n
counter claim schedule described in the written statement, pathway<\/p>\n
claimed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 does not extend to E schedule on<\/p>\n
the north-west of plaint A and B schedules (F schedule in Ext.A3). I am<\/p>\n
also unable to accept the contention that because the common way is<\/p>\n
stated in Ext.A3 as “straight”, it should go like a straight line without<\/p>\n
any deviation at all.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    Yet another contention is that Ext.B1 series, photographs<\/p>\n
which according to the power of attorney holder were taken<\/p>\n
immediately after the filing of the suit and after the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
(allegedly) interfered with the existing pathway would show that the<\/p>\n
pathway referred to in Ext.A3 was destroyed by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs<\/p>\n
have an explanation that there was no such interference on any such<\/p>\n
pathway and instead, at a time when plaint C schedule was not usable<\/p>\n
as it was slippery in rainy season some alternative access was used.<\/p>\n
Whatever be the correctness of that explanation, in the light of what I<\/p>\n
have stated from the description in Ext.A3, I am unable to accept the<\/p>\n
contention that plaint C schedule is not the way referred to in Ext.A3<\/p>\n
and that instead, it is the exclusive way of defendant Nos.2 and 3. This<\/p>\n
court while considering the second appeal is concerned only with<\/p>\n
substantial question of law involved. True, a finding of fact if perverse<\/p>\n
or is not supported by any evidence involved a substantial question of<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.169 and 185 of 2010
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
law. Courts below have found against case of defendant Nos. 2 and 3<\/p>\n
with reference to the relevant recitals in Ext.A3 and the evidence.<\/p>\n
Courts below have only protected the right of plaintiffs to sue plaint C<\/p>\n
schedule    way.       The   decree does    not  affect  the   right  of<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendant Nos.2 and 3 to use the said way. Decision of the<\/p>\n
courts below is based on the evidence on record. In the circumstance,<\/p>\n
I am inclined to think that there is no substantial question of law<\/p>\n
involved in the appeals requiring admission.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    So far as grievance of appellants\/defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as<\/p>\n
to their right to draw water from the well in the tarvad property which<\/p>\n
the power of attorney holder says have been in use for the last 150<\/p>\n
years is concerned, that is not the subject matter of the suit.        If<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendant Nos.2 and 3 have any such right and that is<\/p>\n
infringed they can seek appropriate reliefs in appropriate proceeding.<\/p>\n
       With the above observations the second appeals are dismissed<\/p>\n
in limine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    THOMAS P JOSEPH,
\n                                                           JUDGE
\nSbna\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court A vs Joseph on 15 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 185 of 2010() 1. A,,OMO MAOR. W\/O.K.S.RAVINDRAN NAIR, … Petitioner 2. LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, W\/O.GOPALAN NAIR, Vs 1. JOSEPH,S\/O.MATHEW AGED 41 YEARS, … Respondent 2. RENJITH JOHN, AGED 38 YEARS, 3. JAYAN, S\/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, 4. SMITH JAYAN, […]<\/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-123683","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA vs Joseph on 15 March, 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\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A vs Joseph on 15 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-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=\"2010-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-12T19:29:23+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\\\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A vs Joseph on 15 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-12T19:29:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1765,\"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\\\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010\",\"name\":\"A vs Joseph on 15 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-12T19:29:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A vs Joseph on 15 March, 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":"A vs Joseph on 15 March, 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\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A vs Joseph on 15 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-12T19:29:23+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\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A vs Joseph on 15 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-12T19:29:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010"},"wordCount":1765,"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\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010","name":"A vs Joseph on 15 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-12T19:29:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-vs-joseph-on-15-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A vs Joseph on 15 March, 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\/123683","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=123683"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123683\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123683"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123683"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123683"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}