{"id":124530,"date":"2009-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-07T04:16:13","modified_gmt":"2018-10-06T22:46:13","slug":"madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Madhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Madhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 736 of 2008()\n\n\n1. MADHAVAN GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 66,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. BALAKRISHNAE GOPI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :02\/04\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n               K.P. Balachandran, J.\n            --------------------------\n               R.S.A.No.736 of 2008\n            --------------------------\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    The defendant in O.S.No.234\/04 on the file of<\/p>\n
the  Munsiff’s   Court,   Karunagappally   is   the<\/p>\n
appellant  in  this  Regular  Second  Appeal  filed<\/p>\n
assailing the concurrent verdicts passed by the<\/p>\n
courts below in favour of the respondent\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
directing  the  appellant\/defendant   to  pay   the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff   the    plaint    claim    of<\/p>\n
Rs.54,000\/- together with interest at 12% per annum<\/p>\n
on the principal sum of Rs.40,000\/- from the date<\/p>\n
of suit till realisation.\n<\/p>\n
    2.  The respondent as plaintiff instituted the<\/p>\n
suit aforesaid, inter alia, on the allegations that<\/p>\n
the appellant\/defendant is the absolute owner in<\/p>\n
possession  of  an  extent  of  fourteen  cents  of<\/p>\n
property comprised in Sy.No.2005 (R.S.No.24\/21) of<\/p>\n
Thekkumbhagom  Village,  he  having  obtained   the<\/p>\n
property under Sale Deed No.661\/73 of SRO, Chavara;<\/p>\n
RSA 736\/08                2<\/span><\/p>\n
that on 21.4.2001, the appellant\/defendant entered<\/p>\n
into Exhibit A1 agreement for sale to him of the<\/p>\n
said property; that as per the terms of the said<\/p>\n
agreement, the property was agreed to be sold for a<\/p>\n
total consideration of Rs.45,000\/-; that on the<\/p>\n
date of execution of the agreement for sale, he<\/p>\n
paid an amount of Rs.40,000\/- as advance and the<\/p>\n
balance    sale  consideration  of   Rs.5,000\/- was<\/p>\n
payable within two months from 21.4.2001; that he<\/p>\n
was ready and willing to perform his part of the<\/p>\n
contract,   but  the   appellant\/defendant  was not<\/p>\n
prepared to execute the sale deed, receiving the<\/p>\n
balance     consideration   of   Rs.5,000\/-;   that<\/p>\n
therefore, he demanded the appellant\/defendant to<\/p>\n
return the advance amount with interest, but he did<\/p>\n
not do that either and that on 2.7.2001, he caused<\/p>\n
a lawyer notice to be issued to the appellant\/<\/p>\n
defendant demanding return of the advance money<\/p>\n
with interest under Exhibit A2 postal registration<\/p>\n
receipt and that was accepted by the appellant\/<\/p>\n
RSA 736\/08                3<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant under Exhibit A3 postal acknowledgment<\/p>\n
card, but he did not comply with the demand.<\/p>\n
     3.   The appellant\/defendant resisted the suit<\/p>\n
denying   execution of  Exhibit  A1  agreement  and<\/p>\n
receipt    of advance  amount  of  Rs.40,000\/-  and<\/p>\n
contending   that   the   respondent\/plaintiff  had<\/p>\n
instituted the suit for realisation of money to the<\/p>\n
tune of Rs.37,166\/- against his son Lalu as O.S.No.<\/p>\n
339\/01 before the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam that on<\/p>\n
I.A.No.1664\/01 filed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5<\/p>\n
CPC, the court ordered notice and under the pretext<\/p>\n
of effecting service of notice, the respondent\/<\/p>\n
plaintiff and some other persons came to his house<\/p>\n
and threatened him that the court had ordered<\/p>\n
attachment of the movables kept in his house and<\/p>\n
they directed him to handover some signed blank<\/p>\n
papers and stamp papers to the respondent\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
if he wanted to avoid attachment; that thereafter,<\/p>\n
the respondent\/plaintiff and others have forcibly<\/p>\n
obtained some signed blank papers and stamp papers<\/p>\n
RSA 736\/08                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
from    him;  that  he   apprehends  that  the   suit<\/p>\n
agreement is brought into existence fabricating<\/p>\n
those papers; that the respondent\/plaintiff has no<\/p>\n
cause of action and that the suit has to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   It is vehemently contended before me by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant\/defendant that<\/p>\n
Exhibit A1 agreement is unenforceable in law since<\/p>\n
the signatures of the appellant\/defendant therein<\/p>\n
is obtained under coercion and fraud; that the<\/p>\n
present    suit  is  barred  in  the  light  of   the<\/p>\n
admission made by the respondent\/plaintiff at the<\/p>\n
time of evidence that an earlier suit had been<\/p>\n
filed based on Exhibit A1, which was withdrawn by<\/p>\n
him; that however, the first appellate court should<\/p>\n
not have dismissed I.A.No.71\/08 filed by him for<\/p>\n
receipt of additional documents in evidence and<\/p>\n
that the suit should not have been decreed without<\/p>\n
convincing     evidence    regarding    passing    of<\/p>\n
consideration.\n<\/p>\n
RSA 736\/08                5<\/span><\/p>\n
     5. Though argument is advanced to the effect<\/p>\n
that Exhibit A1 agreement is unenforceable in law<\/p>\n
since the signatures of the appellant\/defendant was<\/p>\n
obtained    under  coercion  and   fraud,  there   is<\/p>\n
absolutely no pleading which brings the defence<\/p>\n
case    within  the  scope of  the  agreement  being<\/p>\n
vitiated by fraud and coercion. The only contention<\/p>\n
is that an Officer of the court along with a few<\/p>\n
others    approached the  house  of  the   appellant\/<\/p>\n
defendant to attach the movables in a suit filed<\/p>\n
against    his  son  and  he   was  asked  to   affix<\/p>\n
signatures on certain blank papers and stamp papers<\/p>\n
and accordingly he signed and delivered the signed<\/p>\n
blank     papers  and  stamp  papers   for   avoiding<\/p>\n
attachment. There is no case of any coercion having<\/p>\n
been exercised or any fraud having been played to<\/p>\n
get Exhibit A1 agreement executed.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   Counsel for the appellant\/defendant submits<\/p>\n
that    there   are two   witnesses  to  Exhibit  A1<\/p>\n
agreement, who are examined respectively as PW2 and<\/p>\n
RSA 736\/08               6<\/span><\/p>\n
DW2, of whom, PW2 has supported the case of the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff and DW2 has supported the case<\/p>\n
of the appellant\/defendant.\n<\/p>\n
     7.    It is worthy to note that the material<\/p>\n
witness to the cause is the Officer of the court,<\/p>\n
who went over to the house of the appellant\/<\/p>\n
defendant to effect attachment of the movables and<\/p>\n
returned    the  warrant  without   effecting   the<\/p>\n
attachment consequent on some developments that<\/p>\n
have taken place at the house of the appellant\/<\/p>\n
defendant. The said Officer of the court is the<\/p>\n
best    person to  give evidence  as  to  what  all<\/p>\n
transpired at the house of the appellant\/defendant<\/p>\n
which paved way for him to return the warrant<\/p>\n
without    effecting  attachment.  The   appellant\/<\/p>\n
defendant has not cared to examine the said witness<\/p>\n
who would have given truthful version of what has<\/p>\n
transpired at the house of the appellant\/defendant.<\/p>\n
In the normal course, the Officer of the court, if<\/p>\n
examined, would have given some evidence which<\/p>\n
RSA 736\/08                7<\/span><\/p>\n
would     throw light as   to  whether Exhibit   A1<\/p>\n
agreement was being duly executed by the appellant\/<\/p>\n
defendant     or that  his  signatures were   being<\/p>\n
obtained on blank papers and stamp papers. The<\/p>\n
appellant\/defendant who has raised contention on<\/p>\n
the lines that he has not executed Exhibit A1<\/p>\n
agreement at all and that the respondent\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
was bringing into existence Exhibit A1 misusing the<\/p>\n
signed blank papers and stamp papers obtained from<\/p>\n
him cannot be heard to contend further that the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff should have proved passing of<\/p>\n
consideration   to  the  full extent  or  that  the<\/p>\n
consideration stated to have been paid was not<\/p>\n
actually paid, but was being adjusted in some other<\/p>\n
manner.\n<\/p>\n
     8.    The next contention that the respondent\/<\/p>\n
plaintiff admitted, when cross-examined, that he<\/p>\n
had filed an earlier suit for specific performance<\/p>\n
and that was withdrawn has to be accepted to hold<\/p>\n
that the present suit is barred by res judicata is<\/p>\n
RSA 736\/08                8<\/span><\/p>\n
untenable as the number of the said suit or the<\/p>\n
manner in which it was withdrawn are not brought<\/p>\n
out in evidence and the appellant\/defendant has no<\/p>\n
case that he is served with summons in any such<\/p>\n
case. The further contention that certain documents<\/p>\n
were produced before the first appellate court<\/p>\n
along with I.A.No.71\/08 and that was improperly<\/p>\n
refused   to  be  admitted  in  evidence is   not  a<\/p>\n
contention that can be advanced before this Court<\/p>\n
when such documents, which are said to have been<\/p>\n
produced along with I.A.No.71\/08, are not even<\/p>\n
attempted   to  be  produced  and  got  admitted  in<\/p>\n
evidence before this Court and the said IA also is<\/p>\n
not produced and there is no evidence as to what<\/p>\n
all    were the   documents  which  the   appellant\/<\/p>\n
defendant wanted to get admitted in evidence at the<\/p>\n
stage    of first  appeal  and  whether  those  were<\/p>\n
admissible.\n<\/p>\n
     9. On the evidence adduced by both sides in the<\/p>\n
suit, the courts below have concurrently found that<\/p>\n
RSA 736\/08                9<\/span><\/p>\n
the defence set up is false and that the appellant\/<\/p>\n
defendant   has  received  the  advance  amount   of<\/p>\n
Rs.40,000\/- under the suit agreement and it was,<\/p>\n
therefore,    that   the  suit   was   decreed   for<\/p>\n
realisation of the said amount with interest till<\/p>\n
date of suit as claimed and thereafter at the rate<\/p>\n
of 12% per annum on the principal sum from the date<\/p>\n
of suit till realisation.   The decree so passed by<\/p>\n
the courts below appreciating the evidence in the<\/p>\n
proper    perspective  and  concurrently  does   not<\/p>\n
deserve to be interfered with in this Regular<\/p>\n
Second Appeal.    There is no question of law and<\/p>\n
much less any substantial question of law that<\/p>\n
arises for consideration by this Court in this<\/p>\n
Regular Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result, I dismiss this Regular Second<\/p>\n
Appeal in limine refusing admission.<\/p>\n
2nd April, 2009           (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
\ntkv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Madhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 736 of 2008() 1. MADHAVAN GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 66, … Petitioner Vs 1. BALAKRISHNAE GOPI, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN Dated :02\/04\/2009 O R […]<\/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-124530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMadhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009 - 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\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-06T22:46:13+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-06T22:46:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1399,\"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\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Madhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-06T22:46:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Madhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009 - 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\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-06T22:46:13+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-06T22:46:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009"},"wordCount":1399,"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\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009","name":"Madhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-06T22:46:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-gopalakrishnan-vs-balakrishnae-gopi-on-2-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madhavan Gopalakrishnan vs Balakrishnae Gopi on 2 April, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/124530","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=124530"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/124530\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=124530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=124530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=124530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}