{"id":126755,"date":"2007-10-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007"},"modified":"2014-04-11T16:53:48","modified_gmt":"2014-04-11T11:23:48","slug":"jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Jojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev No. 39 of 2007()\n\n\n1. JOJO, AGED 50, S\/O.AUGUSTINE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. JOSEPH, AGED 72, S\/O.VALOORAN PAILEE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :25\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n          K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ\n\n         ================================================\n\n                                 R.C.R.No. 39 OF 2007\n\n         ================================================\n\n                      Dated this the 25th  day of October, 2007.\n\n\n                                          ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Balakrishnan Nair,J<\/p>\n
       The   tenant   is   the   revision   petitioner   and   the   landlord   is   the<\/p>\n
respondent.   The R.C.P was filed under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and<\/p>\n
11(8)   of   the   Kerala   Building   (Lease   &   Rent   Control)   Act.   The   Rent<\/p>\n
Controller   dismissed   the   application.     The   landlord   appealed.     The<\/p>\n
appeal was allowed permitting eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11<\/p>\n
(3).  Though the claim under Section 11(8) was dismissed by the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller  the said decision was not challenged in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       2.     Since   the   rate   of   rent   is   not   disputed,   there   is   no   serious<\/p>\n
challenge on the finding under Section 11(2)(b) except the contention<\/p>\n
that some amount received from the tenant as advance is liable to be<\/p>\n
adjusted towards the arrears of rent.  This is a point which the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner can raise before the Execution Court during the proceedings<\/p>\n
under Section 11(2)(c).\n<\/p>\n
       3.     The   main   point   canvassed   before   us   is   regarding   the<\/p>\n
sustainability of finding under Section 11(3).  The brief facts necessary<\/p>\n
for the consideration of the said point are the following:-\n<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No. 39\/2007                            : 2:<\/span><\/p>\n
       The landlord was running a small jewellery shop in a small room<\/p>\n
in his residential building which is by the side of the public road.  Since<\/p>\n
the   jewelery   business   was   not   profitable,   he   has   stopped   it   and<\/p>\n
presently   he   is   running   there   a   shop   selling   vessels,   utensils   etc.   of<\/p>\n
brass, copper and aluminium etc.  Since the present room  housing the<\/p>\n
business establishment is part of his residential building, he would like<\/p>\n
to   shift   it   to   the   petition   schedule   building   which   is     part   of   a   line<\/p>\n
building   owned   by   him.     Altogether,   there   are   4   rooms   in   that   line<\/p>\n
building of which two are occupied by tenants and two are occupied by<\/p>\n
his son for doing business.  One of the rooms occupied by the tenants<\/p>\n
is the petition schedule room.   He bona fide requires the said room for<\/p>\n
his own occupation.  The tenant resisted the said claim stating that the<\/p>\n
said requirement is not bona fide.   He has been running the business<\/p>\n
in the present premises for a long period.   So he can continue there.\n<\/p>\n
The   claim   that   he   requires   additional   accommodation   for   residential<\/p>\n
purpose   and   the   rooms   available   are   not   sufficient   for   residential<\/p>\n
purpose is made without any basis.  He has got ample space for doing<\/p>\n
the   business   in   the   present   building.     There   are   two   other   rooms<\/p>\n
adjacent   to  the  existing room  in the   possession   of the   petitioner.    If<\/p>\n
the   petitioner   wants   to   expand   his   business,   the   said   rooms   can   be<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No. 39\/2007                         : 3:<\/span><\/p>\n
used.     The   tenant   also   disputes   the   statement   of   the   landlord<\/p>\n
regarding the floor area of the present room in his possession.   It is<\/p>\n
also stated that by the side of the room in which the landlord’s son is<\/p>\n
doing business, there is vacant space.  The landlord can use that space<\/p>\n
for running business.\n<\/p>\n
       4.  From the side of the petitioner, PWs 1 and 2 were examined<\/p>\n
and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked.  From the side of the tenant, he got<\/p>\n
himself examined as RW1.  Ext. C1 commission report and Ext. C1(a)<\/p>\n
sketch were marked.   The Rent Controller found that the petitioner is<\/p>\n
residing in a very large building.  There is sufficient accommodation for<\/p>\n
the   use   of   his   family   members.     So   the   need   to   shift   the   existing<\/p>\n
business from his residential building is made without bona fides.  It is<\/p>\n
also found that there is a charthu behind the line building.   The  said<\/p>\n
charthu\/room can also be used for running the business.  So the claim<\/p>\n
of the landlord under Section 11(3) was held to be not bonafide based<\/p>\n
on the above said two facts.   Both the limbs under the 2nd  proviso to<\/p>\n
Section   11(3)   was   found   in   favour   of   the   landlord   by   the   Rent<\/p>\n
Controller also.\n<\/p>\n
       5.  The appellate authority found that the residential building is a<\/p>\n
small building having a total plinth area of 650 sq. feet.   So the need<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No. 39\/2007                          : 4:<\/span><\/p>\n
urged   by   the   landlord   to   shift   his   business   from   the   portion   of   the<\/p>\n
residential building is bonafaide and genuine.   It was also found that<\/p>\n
the   charthu\/room   in   possession   of   the   landlord   is   not   suitable   for<\/p>\n
starting the business.  So the claim made by the landlord was found to<\/p>\n
be bonafide.   The Rent Controller’s  finding under the 2nd  proviso was<\/p>\n
upheld by the appellate authority also.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     In   this   case,  the   learned   counsel  for   the   revision   petitioner<\/p>\n
mainly attacked the finding of the appellate authority that the need of<\/p>\n
the landlord is bonafide.  The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed<\/p>\n
out that the landlord was doing the business for  the last 14 years in<\/p>\n
the existing premises.   Therefore, the claim for a new space is made<\/p>\n
without   any   bonafides.     Further,   the   landlord’s   son   is   occupying   two<\/p>\n
rooms in the line building and he is   engaged in a business similar to<\/p>\n
that of the one run by the landlord.   Therefore, it is unnecessary for<\/p>\n
the landlord to start the very same business in the adjacent room.  It<\/p>\n
is   also   canvassed   that   the   landlord   was   an   old   person.     So,   it   is<\/p>\n
unnecessary  for him to shift the business.   The  finding regarding the<\/p>\n
bonafides is, therefore, unsustainable, it is submitted.\n<\/p>\n
       7.     We   find   it   difficult   to   accept   the   above   contentions   of   the<\/p>\n
counsel for the revision petitioner. Even if the landlord is an old man<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No. 39\/2007                          : 5:<\/span><\/p>\n
there is nothing wrong in his claim that he wants to shift the business<\/p>\n
to   a   more   convenient   place.     The   fact   that   his   son   is   engaged   in   a<\/p>\n
similar business is not a bar to the petitioner to do the same business<\/p>\n
in an adjacent room.   Further the charthu\/room found to be vacant is<\/p>\n
behind   the   line   building   and   the   same   cannot   be   put   to   use   for<\/p>\n
business purpose as the same does not face the adjacent road.   The<\/p>\n
learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   also   took   us   through   the   relevant<\/p>\n
portion  of   the  deposition   of  the   witnesses   dealing  with  the bona fide<\/p>\n
requirement.   But, we find that the finding of the appellate authority<\/p>\n
on this point is supported by materials on record and the reasonings<\/p>\n
for   the   finding   are   sound.     We   fully   agree   with   the   reasons   and<\/p>\n
conclusions of the appellate authority.   In the result, the attack made<\/p>\n
by   the   revision   petitioner   against   the   finding   under   Section   11(3)<\/p>\n
rendered by the appellate authority fails.\n<\/p>\n
       The   learned   counsel for  the  petitioner  prayed  for   some  time  to<\/p>\n
vacate the premises as he is running a business.  Having regard to the<\/p>\n
facts of the case, the petitioner is granted six months time from today<\/p>\n
to   vacate   the   premises   on   condition   that   he   files   an   unconditional<\/p>\n
undertaking   in   the   form   of   an   affidavit   before   the   Execution   Court<\/p>\n
undertaking to vacate the premises within six months from today.  He<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No. 39\/2007                 : 6:<\/span><\/p>\n
shall continue to pay the rent payable from time to time till the room is<\/p>\n
vacated.   The affidavit in this regard shall be filed within three weeks<\/p>\n
from today.\n<\/p>\n
                                K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                               T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
rv<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No. 39\/2007                    : 7:<\/span><\/p>\n
                                       K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &<\/p>\n
                                       T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ<\/p>\n
                                     ——————————————-\n<\/p>\n
                                       O.P. NO. 21  of 2004<\/p>\n
                                       —————————————-\n<\/p>\n
                                       25th  day of October, 2007<\/p>\n
                                                JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No. 39\/2007    : 8:<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev No. 39 of 2007() 1. JOJO, AGED 50, S\/O.AUGUSTINE, … Petitioner Vs 1. JOSEPH, AGED 72, S\/O.VALOORAN PAILEE, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR For Respondent :SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR The Hon’ble […]<\/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-126755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007 - 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\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-11T11:23:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-11T11:23:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1193,\"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\\\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Jojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-11T11:23:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Jojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007 - 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\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-11T11:23:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-11T11:23:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007"},"wordCount":1193,"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\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007","name":"Jojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-11T11:23:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jojo-vs-joseph-on-25-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jojo vs Joseph on 25 October, 2007"}]},{"@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\/126755","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=126755"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126755\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}