{"id":123892,"date":"2010-03-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-30T20:05:01","modified_gmt":"2016-12-30T14:35:01","slug":"asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Asmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Asmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 245 of 2010()\n\n\n1. ASMABEEVI, D\/O.KUNHU MUHAMMED, AGED\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KUNHIMALU @ KHADEEJA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. RAZACK,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :18\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                  THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n          = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                          R.S.A. NO.245 of 2010\n          = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n             Dated this the 18th      day of March, 2010\n\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                          ———————\n<\/p>\n
\n      Appellant before me is the plaintiff in O.S.No.167 of<\/p>\n
1998. That is a suit for recovery of possession of the property<\/p>\n
referred to in the plaint schedule. According to the appellant<\/p>\n
property belong to her as per document No.1094 of 1996<\/p>\n
executed by one Latheef.           The said Latheef had earlier<\/p>\n
assigned 7= cents of land to the appellant and her children<\/p>\n
as per document No.2641 of 1988. Property of respondents is<\/p>\n
situated on the    south    of the suit property.       She alleged<\/p>\n
trespass into the suit property on 18.3.1998. Respondents<\/p>\n
contended that appellant has no title or possession over the<\/p>\n
disputed plot of land and that Latheef had no property with<\/p>\n
him after assignment deed No.2641 of 1988 (relating to the<\/p>\n
7.5 cents assigned to the appellant and her children). They<\/p>\n
also contended that execution of assignment deed No.1094 of<\/p>\n
1996 was only to facilitate a false claim over their property.<\/p>\n
Appellant gave evidence as P.W1 and proved Exts.A1 to A4.<\/p>\n
On the side of respondents D.W.1 was examined and they<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.245 of 2010
\n                             -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
proved Exts.B1 to B3. Exhibit C1 series are the report and<\/p>\n
plan produced by the Advocate Commissioner. Trial court<\/p>\n
found that appellant is not entitled to recover possession<\/p>\n
of the property.       That finding was based also on an<\/p>\n
admission made by the appellant as P.W.1 that the entire<\/p>\n
property of Latheef was assigned to her as per Ext.B2,<\/p>\n
assignment deed No.2641 of 1988.            After 1350 days<\/p>\n
appellant filed A.S.No.67 of 2008 with I.A. No.1648 of 2007<\/p>\n
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (for short, “the Act”)<\/p>\n
to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Reason stated in<\/p>\n
the affidavit     is that she had   instructed her counsel to<\/p>\n
prefer an appeal, counsel promised to do so but in August,<\/p>\n
2007 when she made enquiry she was told that no appeal<\/p>\n
had been filed. Application was opposed by the respondent<\/p>\n
denying the statements in the affidavit of the appellant as<\/p>\n
to cause of delay and contending that there was no<\/p>\n
sufficient cause to condone the delay.        Appellant gave<\/p>\n
evidence as P.W1.       Respondents examined her counsel as<\/p>\n
R.W.1. Learned Sub Judge found that reasons stated by the<\/p>\n
appellant for condonation of delay is proved to be incorrect<\/p>\n
and hence the request for condonation of delay cannot be<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.245 of 2010
\n                             -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
entertained.        I.A. No.1648 of 2007 was dismissed.<\/p>\n
Consequence was dismissal of A.S. No.67 of 2008. Hence<\/p>\n
the Second Appeal raising by way of substantial question of<\/p>\n
law whether first appellate court was legally correct on the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of the case in dismissing I.A.<\/p>\n
No.1658 of 2007. Learned counsel has placed reliance on<\/p>\n
the decisions of the Supreme court in Collector, Land<\/p>\n
Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji (AIR<\/a> 1987 SC<\/p>\n
1353), State of Kerala v. Havea Combines<\/a> (2009<\/p>\n
[1] KLT 451) and State of Karnataka v. Moideen<\/p>\n
Kunhi (AIR<\/a> 2009 SC 2577).               Learned     counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that the expression “sufficient cause” must be<\/p>\n
given liberal interpretation so as to advance cause of<\/p>\n
justice, appellant has a meritorious case to be argued<\/p>\n
before the first appellate court and on the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, also considering the pitiable<\/p>\n
situation in which the appellant is placed first appellate<\/p>\n
court ought to have exercised discretion in favour of the<\/p>\n
appellant and condoned the delay. According to learned<\/p>\n
counsel even if delay is condoned what could happen at the<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.245 of 2010
\n                              -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
worst is that if the appeal of the appellant is not meritorious<\/p>\n
it would end in a dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
       2.     Section 5 of the Act gives discretionary<\/p>\n
jurisdiction on the court to condone delay when it is shown<\/p>\n
that party concerned was prevented by sufficient cause<\/p>\n
from not filing the appeal on time. The Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd (AIR<\/a> 1962 SC 361)<\/p>\n
has stated that      discretion in that regard can be exercised<\/p>\n
only if sufficient cause is shown as is clear from the<\/p>\n
expression “may be admitted” occurring in Sec.5 of the Act.<\/p>\n
No doubt, authoritative pronouncements on the point say<\/p>\n
that in considering whether sufficient cause is made out<\/p>\n
courts have to adopt a liberal approach so as to advance<\/p>\n
the cause of justice. At the same time courts cannot also<\/p>\n
be oblivious of the fact that law of limitation is a Statute<\/p>\n
of peace and repose intended to give finality for decisions<\/p>\n
of the court and to prevent long, dormant claims being<\/p>\n
raked up again. Question whether a party was prevented<\/p>\n
by sufficient cause from not preferring the appeal on time<\/p>\n
has to depend on the facts and circumstances of each<\/p>\n
case.    In    Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v.<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.245 of 2010
\n                               -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Katiji (supra) Supreme Court has stated the guidelines to<\/p>\n
be borne in mind         while considering sufficient cause is<\/p>\n
made out.         One of the circumstances stated is that<\/p>\n
ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an<\/p>\n
appeal late.      Legislature has conferred power on the court<\/p>\n
under Sec.5 of the Act to enable the court to do substantial<\/p>\n
justice to the parties by disposing of matters on merit. In<\/p>\n
State of Kerala v. Havea Combines<\/a> (supra) mistaken<\/p>\n
legal advice was held to be not generally applicable as<\/p>\n
sufficient cause to condone delay.       It was held that the<\/p>\n
question whether         there was sufficient case must be<\/p>\n
decided on the facts of the case.      In State of Karnataka<\/p>\n
v. Moideen Kunhi<\/a> (supra) decision taken is that the<\/p>\n
expression      ‘sufficient cause’    must receive   a liberal<\/p>\n
consideration to advance cause of justice. I think, there<\/p>\n
could be no quarrel on the above propositions. Power of<\/p>\n
the court is to administer justice and in cases where a<\/p>\n
liberal interpretation of the expression ‘sufficient cause’ is<\/p>\n
required it is the responsibility of the court to do so. It is<\/p>\n
also the position of law that whether circumstances pleaded<\/p>\n
would amount to sufficient cause has to be decided on the<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.245 of 2010
\n                           -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
facts pleaded. Court cannot go beyond the facts pleaded to<\/p>\n
hold that party concerned has sufficient cause to prefer the<\/p>\n
appeal beyond the prescribed time. The Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Pundik J.Patil v. Executive Engineer (2009 [1]<\/p>\n
KLT SN 25 (Case No.26) SC ) held that incorrect statement<\/p>\n
made in the application seeking condonation of delay itself<\/p>\n
is sufficient to reject the application without any further<\/p>\n
enquiry      as to whether the averments made in the<\/p>\n
application reveal sufficient cause to condone the delay.<\/p>\n
That is because a party taking a false stand to get rid of<\/p>\n
the bar of limitation should not be encouraged to get any<\/p>\n
premium on the falsehood on his part by condoning delay.<\/p>\n
       3.     Now coming to the facts pleaded in the case on<\/p>\n
hand as I stated earlier case set up by the appellant is that<\/p>\n
after the suit was dismissed on 9.10.2003 copy of judgment<\/p>\n
and    decree were applied    on 3.11.2003 and      she had<\/p>\n
instructed the counsel to prefer the appeal and the counsel<\/p>\n
in turn promised to do so.     In August, 2007 (i.e., after<\/p>\n
almost 4 years) she enquired about the matter and learnt<\/p>\n
that no appeal had been preferred.          Appellant gave<\/p>\n
evidence as P.W1 in that line. But in cross-examination she<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.245 of 2010
\n                              -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
stated that she got back the case records from her counsel<\/p>\n
on 27.11.2003. This is also proved by the endorsement<\/p>\n
made by the appellant (Ext.X1) to that effect. She has also<\/p>\n
stated that she       had consulted several lawyers in the<\/p>\n
matter and all of them had advised her to file appeal. But<\/p>\n
to none of them the case file which was with her was given.<\/p>\n
Respondents examined the counsel for the appellant as<\/p>\n
R.W.1.     He stated that after the dismissal of the suit<\/p>\n
appellant got back the file from him (as admitted by P.W.1<\/p>\n
and as seen from Ext.X1). Thereafter appellant approached<\/p>\n
the Women’s Commission, Lok Adalath and the Police with<\/p>\n
her case as to recoverability of the property.<\/p>\n
       4.     The only ground pleaded by the appellant is<\/p>\n
about the      instruction given to the counsel and promise<\/p>\n
made      by him to file appeal. That has been proved to be<\/p>\n
incorrect, if not false by the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1<\/p>\n
and Ext.X1. Once reason stated by the appellant is found<\/p>\n
to be incorrect then the question of liberal interpretation of<\/p>\n
the expression “sufficient cause” based on incorrect facts<\/p>\n
did not arise as observed by the Supreme Court in Pundik<\/p>\n
J.Patil v. Executive Engineer (supra). In such a situation<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.245 of 2010
\n                            -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
court cannot travel beyond the case pleaded by the<\/p>\n
appellant to find out a case for the appellant and then hold<\/p>\n
that there is sufficient cause and condone the delay.<\/p>\n
Appellant has to blame herself for the delay. In the light of<\/p>\n
the above I am inclined to think that by no stretch of<\/p>\n
imagination reason stated by the appellant can be brought<\/p>\n
within the mischief of the expression “sufficient cause”.<\/p>\n
That being the legal and factual position I do not find<\/p>\n
anything illegal in the    first appellate court refusing to<\/p>\n
condone the delay.        No substantial question of law is<\/p>\n
involved.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Second Appeal is dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
       Interlocutory Application Nos.618 and 619 of 2010<\/p>\n
shall stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                              THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
vsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Asmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 245 of 2010() 1. ASMABEEVI, D\/O.KUNHU MUHAMMED, AGED … Petitioner Vs 1. KUNHIMALU @ KHADEEJA, … Respondent 2. RAZACK, For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH […]<\/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-123892","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAsmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 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\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Asmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-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=\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-30T14:35:01+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Asmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T14:35:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1548,\"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\\\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Asmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-30T14:35:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Asmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 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":"Asmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 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\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Asmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-30T14:35:01+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Asmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T14:35:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010"},"wordCount":1548,"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\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010","name":"Asmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-30T14:35:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/asmabeevi-vs-kunhimalu-khadeeja-on-18-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Asmabeevi vs Kunhimalu @ Khadeeja on 18 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\/123892","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=123892"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123892\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}