{"id":127543,"date":"2008-01-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008"},"modified":"2016-07-26T11:39:46","modified_gmt":"2016-07-26T06:09:46","slug":"veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"Veerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Veerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 76 of 1996(5)\n\n\n\n1. VEERANDI  @ KUNJUKUTTAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. BALAMEENAKSHI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :10\/01\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n\n\n                                            K.T.SANKARAN, J.\n\n                               --------------------------------------------\n\n                                   S.A. NO.   76  OF 1996  A\n\n                               --------------------------------------------\n\n                              Dated this the 10th January,  2008\n\n\n                                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
        The defendant in O.S.No.145 of 1991, on the file of the Court of the<\/p>\n
Munsiff  of Alathur, is the appellant in this Second Appeal.   The suit was<\/p>\n
filed  by the  respondent  for realisation of   a sum  of   Rs.11,000\/-  due  from<\/p>\n
the   defendant   on   the   basis   of   Ext.A1   promissory   note.     The   trial   court<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit.   On appeal by the plaintiff, the Lower Appellate Court<\/p>\n
reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed the suit<\/p>\n
as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant borrowed a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.11,000\/-   from   her   on   25.12.1988   and   executed   Ext.A1   promissory<\/p>\n
note.  The amount was borrowed for the purpose of the grocery business<\/p>\n
of   the   defendant.     The   case   of   the   plaintiff   is   that   the   defendant   was<\/p>\n
working   as   a   cattle   boy   in   the   plaintiff’s   house   for   quite   long   time   and<\/p>\n
when he desired to start a business, the amount was given as a loan to<\/p>\n
the defendant.  The defendant denied the execution of Ext.A1 promissory<\/p>\n
note  and   also   denied   the   loan  transaction.     His   case   is   that   the   plaintiff<\/p>\n
used to purchase goods from his shop and that a sum of Rs.1,180\/- was<\/p>\n
due from her.  When the amount was demanded, the plaintiff did not pay.<\/p>\n
S.A. NO.76 OF 1996<\/p>\n
                                                    ::  2  ::\n<\/p>\n
\nThere was a quarrel on account of the same.   The suit was filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in such circumstances.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         3.     Before   the   trial   court,   the   plaintiff   was   examined   as  PW1   and<\/p>\n
one Ramakrishnan, who is alleged to have witnessed the transaction, was<\/p>\n
examined   as   PW2.     The   defendant   was   examined   as   DW1.     The   trial<\/p>\n
court  dismissed  the  suit  on  the  ground  that Ext.A1  promissory note  was<\/p>\n
not   confronted   to   the   defendant   when   he   was   cross   examined   by   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.     It   was   held   therefore,   that   it   is   to   be   taken   that   there   was   no<\/p>\n
cross examination of the defendant regarding execution of the promissory<\/p>\n
note.  The Appellate Court considered the documentary and oral evidence<\/p>\n
in   the   case   in   great   detail   and   held   that   the   defendant   has   executed<\/p>\n
Ext.A1  promissory note and a sum of  Rs.11,000\/-  was borrowed by him<\/p>\n
from   the   plaintiff.     The   decision   was   arrived   at   by   the   court   below   on<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence and after analysing the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
of the case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         4.  The following substantial questions of law are formulated in the<\/p>\n
Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         “i)       In a suit based on a promissory note, when execution<\/p>\n
                   of the promissory note is denied, whether the plaintiff<\/p>\n
                   is bound to prove the handwriting and signature found<\/p>\n
                   in   the   document   to   be   that   of   the   defendant   before<\/p>\n
                   the plaintiff can succeed in the suit.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
S.A. NO.76 OF 1996<\/p>\n
                                                 ::  3  ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         ii)     When  the  witness  examined  to prove execution  of  a<\/p>\n
                 document admits that he does not know the contents<\/p>\n
                 of that document, whether his evidence can be relied<\/p>\n
                 on to prove execution of that document.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         iii)    Whether the uncorroborated testimony of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
                 is   sufficient   to   prove   execution   of   a   disputed<\/p>\n
                 document.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         iv)     Whether   the   absence   of   any   expert   evidence<\/p>\n
                 regarding   the   handwriting   and\/or   signature   in   a<\/p>\n
                 disputed document raises an adverse inference under<\/p>\n
                 Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Learned  counsel for the appellant submitted that the execution<\/p>\n
of   Ext.A1   is   not   proved   in   accordance   with   law.     He   submitted   that   the<\/p>\n
signature   in   Ext.A1   is   not   proved   to   be   that   of   the   defendant.     Though<\/p>\n
PW2 was examined as a witness to the transaction, he  has not identified<\/p>\n
the signature of the defendant in Ext.A1.  Learned counsel also submitted<\/p>\n
that   PW2   is   an   interested   witness   and   he   belongs   to   the   same   political<\/p>\n
party  in  which  the   plaintiff’s   husband   is   a   member.     It   is   also   submitted<\/p>\n
that the scribe of Ext.A1 was not examined and the best evidence was not<\/p>\n
produced before Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        6.     Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent,   on   the   other   hand,<\/p>\n
submitted   that   on   a   reading   of   the   evidence   of   PWs.1   and   2,   it   can   be<\/p>\n
seen that Ext.A1 was executed by the defendant.  The specific case of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   is   that   the   defendant   was   working   in   the   plaintiff’s   house   as   a<\/p>\n
S.A. NO.76 OF 1996<\/p>\n
                                                 ::  4  ::\n<\/p>\n
\ncattle   boy   for   about   ten   years.     When   PW1   was   cross   examined,   the<\/p>\n
defendant   has   not   disputed   the   same   by   putting   necessary   questions.<\/p>\n
When the defendant was examined as DW1, he has not denied the same<\/p>\n
in  the  chief  examination.    In the  cross examination,  DW1   stated  that  he<\/p>\n
had   not   instructed   the   counsel   to   put   questions   to   PW1   in   cross<\/p>\n
examination   touching   upon   this   matter.     Learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
respondent   also   submitted   that   the   substantial   questions   of   law<\/p>\n
formulated in the Second Appeal do not really arise for consideration, in<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances of the case, and the court below was right in<\/p>\n
passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        7.  The question involved in the case is whether the defendant had<\/p>\n
borrowed Rs.11,000\/- from the plaintiff after executing Ext.A1 promissory<\/p>\n
note.  According to the plaintiff, the defendant was working as a cattle boy<\/p>\n
in   her  house   for   about   ten   years.     This   is   not   denied   by   the   defendant.<\/p>\n
When  PW1  was examined,  no  question  was put  to  her touching  on  this<\/p>\n
aspect.    The  defendant  has not stated anything in his chief  examination<\/p>\n
denying   this   case   of   the   plaintiff.     That   shows   that   the   defendant   was<\/p>\n
working as a servant in the house of the plaintiff.  It is not denied that the<\/p>\n
defendant  started  business in 1988  or 1989.    It is  only probable that   he<\/p>\n
would have asked for a loan from the plaintiff.    It is also natural that  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff would have lent money to the defendant in the peculiar facts and<\/p>\n
S.A. NO.76 OF 1996<\/p>\n
                                               ::  5  ::\n<\/p>\n
\ncircumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        8.     The   plaintiff   stated   in   evidence   that   the   promissory   note   was<\/p>\n
written   by   Narayanan   Kutty,   a   document   writer   in   the   locality,   and   the<\/p>\n
transaction   was   witnessed   by   PW2   Ramakrishnan.     Ramakrishnan   is<\/p>\n
admittedly a political activist.  It is also proved that the plaintiff’s husband<\/p>\n
is a sympathiser of  that political party.   It is suggested by the defendant<\/p>\n
that   the   defendant   joined   another   political   party   and   because   of   that<\/p>\n
enmity   PW2   deposed   against   the   defendant.     I   have   gone   through   the<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and  DW1.  On going through the evidence and<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, I concur with the view taken by the court below.  It is also relevant<\/p>\n
to  note  that  a  lawyer notice  was  sent  to the  defendant   before  instituting<\/p>\n
the suit.   There was no reply to the said notice.   The explanation offered<\/p>\n
by the defendant for not sending a reply is that no amount was due from<\/p>\n
him to the plaintiff and, therefore, he did not send any reply.  It is difficult<\/p>\n
to accept this explanation.  Failure to send a reply to Ext.A2 lawyer notice<\/p>\n
is an important circumstance to see whether the case of the defendant is<\/p>\n
true and genuine and  also in considering whether the case of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
that   the   amount   was   advanced   to   the   defendant   is   true   or   false.     The<\/p>\n
totality of the facts  and circumstances of  the case  was taken  note  of  by<\/p>\n
the   court   below   and   it   came   to   the   conclusion   that   the   promissory   note<\/p>\n
was executed by the defendant  and amount was borrowed by him.   It is<\/p>\n
S.A. NO.76 OF 1996<\/p>\n
                                                 ::  6  ::\n<\/p>\n
\ntrue that Ext.A1 was not confronted to the defendant while he was cross<\/p>\n
examined.  It was also not confronted to PW2 and he has not stated that<\/p>\n
the   signature   of   the   defendant   is   seen   in   Ext.A1.     But   the   evidence   of<\/p>\n
PW2   would   indicate   that   there   was   a   money   transaction   between   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   and   defendant   and   that   he   was   present   on   that   occasion.     The<\/p>\n
evidence of PW2 would also indicate that the promissory note was written<\/p>\n
by   Narayanan   Kutty   and   that   it   was   signed   by   the   defendant   at   the<\/p>\n
residence   of   PW1   in  the   presence   of   PW2.     When   the   oral   evidence   is<\/p>\n
considered as a whole, it cannot be said that the view taken by the court<\/p>\n
below   is   either   perverse   or   illegal.     The   substantial   questions   of   law<\/p>\n
framed in the Second Appeal  do not  really arise for consideration in the<\/p>\n
Second   Appeal   as   the   execution   of   the   document   is   proved   by   the<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs.1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        9.   For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere<\/p>\n
with the well considered judgment passed by the court below.   However,<\/p>\n
taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am<\/p>\n
of the view that the interest awarded is excessive.   The court below has<\/p>\n
awarded  interest   at  the  rate of  12%  from the  date  of  suit  till the date  of<\/p>\n
decree and at 6% from the date of decree till realisation.  I am inclined to<\/p>\n
reduce   the   interest   payable   from   the   date   of   suit   to   the   date   of   decree<\/p>\n
from 12%  to 7.5%.\n<\/p>\n
\nS.A. NO.76 OF 1996<\/p>\n
                                                   ::  7  ::\n<\/p>\n
         In the result, the Second Appeal is partly allowed and the judgment<\/p>\n
and   decree   passed   by   the   court   below  is   modified   only   to   the   extent   of<\/p>\n
reducing   interest   from   12%   to   7.5%   for   the   period   from   the   date   of<\/p>\n
institution   of   the   suit   to   the   date   of   decree.     In   all   other   respects,   the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of the court below shall stand confirmed.   No order<\/p>\n
as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                            (K.T.SANKARAN)<\/p>\n
                                                                                    Judge<\/p>\n
ahz\/<\/p>\n
        K.T.SANKARAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————-<\/p>\n
——————————————-<\/p>\n
    S.A..NO. 76 OF 1996 A<\/p>\n
             JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
        10th January,  2008<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
——————————————-<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Veerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 76 of 1996(5) 1. VEERANDI @ KUNJUKUTTAN … Petitioner Vs 1. BALAMEENAKSHI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU For Respondent :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN Dated :10\/01\/2008 O R D E 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-127543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVeerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008 - 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\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Veerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-26T06:09:46+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\\\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Veerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-26T06:09:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1562,\"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\\\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008\",\"name\":\"Veerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-26T06:09:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Veerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Veerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008 - 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\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Veerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-26T06:09:46+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\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Veerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-26T06:09:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008"},"wordCount":1562,"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\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008","name":"Veerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-26T06:09:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerandi-kunjukuttan-vs-balameenakshi-on-10-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Veerandi @ Kunjukuttan vs Balameenakshi on 10 January, 2008"}]},{"@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\/127543","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=127543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127543\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}