{"id":127870,"date":"2010-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-02T21:33:34","modified_gmt":"2017-08-02T16:03:34","slug":"c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"C.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
C.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 444 of 2006()\n\n\n1. C.SUBBIAH, SON OF CHELLIAH,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. VEERIAH, SON OF CHELLIAH,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. PAPPACHAN.K.ELENJICKAL,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SATHISH NINAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :05\/04\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.\n                    ----------------------------------------\n                         R.S.A.No.444 of 2006\n                    ---------------------------------------\n                  Dated this 05th day of April, 2010\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The following substantial questions of law are framed for a<\/p>\n
decision:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    (i)When a suit or counter claim is made seeking a<\/p>\n
       declaration of title and recovery of possession is not the<\/p>\n
       plaintiff\/counter claimant bound to establish his title.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    (ii)Without producing the original title deed and without<\/p>\n
       having any valid explanation for non production of<\/p>\n
       original title deed was the Court justified in relying on<\/p>\n
       the copies produced which are inadmissible in evidence<\/p>\n
       to declare title.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (iii)When identity of the property claimed by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
       is not disputed and that admittedly the defendants<\/p>\n
       documents have no clear boundary descriptions of the<\/p>\n
       property claimed can the counter claim be allowed?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    (iv)Can the patta issued by the Tahsildar be valid as a valid<\/p>\n
       title deed in respect of a property in the Kannan Devan<\/p>\n
       Hills Village in the light of provisions in Kannan Devan<\/p>\n
       Hills (Resumption of Possession of lands) Act?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                  -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
These questions      arise  in   this   second  appeal   preferred   by<\/p>\n
appellants\/plaintiffs challenging concurrent finding entered by the<\/p>\n
courts below, consequent dismissal of the suit and decree in the<\/p>\n
counter claim. The dispute concerns about a cent of land situated<\/p>\n
towards the southern portion of the property admittedly belonging to<\/p>\n
the respondents, both items comprised in survey No.62\/28A of<\/p>\n
Kannan Devan Hills Village.       Appellants claimed that they are in<\/p>\n
possession of the      suit property since the last 35 years where<\/p>\n
appellant No.2 is running a petty shop since 1975 onwards. The suit<\/p>\n
property      has    been   assessed     by   the    Panchayath      for<\/p>\n
building\/professional tax purposes. Appellant No.2 has another shed<\/p>\n
in the suit property to store firewood. On the east of the suit property<\/p>\n
is the soil cutting and wire fencing. On the further east, it is the<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                 -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
property of Central Government.      Alleging that respondent tried to<\/p>\n
trespass into the suit property and open up a pathway, appellants<\/p>\n
filed the suit for a decree for prohibitory injunction. Respondent<\/p>\n
while resisting the suit made a counter claim. He claimed that he has<\/p>\n
right, title, interest and possession over 12.830 cents in survey<\/p>\n
No.62\/28A      (counter claim A schedule property) as per gift deed<\/p>\n
No.1809 of 1985 executed by his father who in turn got it from the<\/p>\n
KDH Private Limited Company in the year 1977 and that the suit<\/p>\n
property (counter claim B schedule property) forms its southern<\/p>\n
portion. The suit property and the rest of the property belonging to<\/p>\n
the respondent on the north lie contiguously.    Respondent obtained<\/p>\n
patta issued by the Tahsildar on 09-10-1995. The southern portion of<\/p>\n
the said 12.830 cents was left by the respondent to be used as car<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
parking area for the multi storied building constructed by him. It is<\/p>\n
not true that appellants are     in possession of the suit property.<\/p>\n
Respondent’s father had constructed a tin shed in the suit property in<\/p>\n
the year 1977 and the eastern portion of that shed was given into the<\/p>\n
possession of one Shanmughan as per license arrangement to run a<\/p>\n
barber shop. The western portion was given to appellant No.1 on a<\/p>\n
similar arrangement on payment of license fee of Rs.1.20 per day for<\/p>\n
conducting business which he carried on till 1985. While so, one<\/p>\n
Udayan trespassed into the counter claim B schedule property (suit<\/p>\n
property) in the year 1990 and he was evicted in the year 1997.<\/p>\n
Appellant No.1 influenced the local revenue authorities and obtained<\/p>\n
certain documents in his name as if he is in possession of counter<\/p>\n
claim B schedule property (suit property) but, those documents were<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                  -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
canceled by the Tahsildar on a complaint preferred by the<\/p>\n
respondent.       In the counter claim, respondent prayed for a<\/p>\n
declaration of his title over counter claim A and B schedule property<\/p>\n
and for recovery of possession of the said B schedule property (suit<\/p>\n
property). Trial court found the issues in favour of the respondent<\/p>\n
and dismissed the suit while, counter claim was decreed in part<\/p>\n
declaring title of respondent in the counter claim B schedule property<\/p>\n
and directing appellants to remove the unauthorised constructions in<\/p>\n
the counter claim B schedule property within one month from the<\/p>\n
date of the judgment. That was confirmed by the first appellate court.<\/p>\n
Hence this appeal. It is argued by learned counsel for appellants that<\/p>\n
counter claim of the respondent being based on the absolute title<\/p>\n
claimed by him over the suit property, burden lay on the respondent<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                 -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
to prove the title which has not been done in this case. According to<\/p>\n
the learned counsel, even an admissible copy of the patta relied on by<\/p>\n
the respondent is not produced and what is produced is only a copy<\/p>\n
attested by the      counsel concerned as a true copy which is not<\/p>\n
admissible as secondary evidence. It is also contended that the order<\/p>\n
granting patta in favour of respondent is invalid since it is issued in<\/p>\n
accordance with the provisions of the Kannan Devan Hills<\/p>\n
(Resumption of Lands) Act 1971 (for short, “the Act”). According to<\/p>\n
the learned counsel, at any rate Ext.B18 would show that appellant is<\/p>\n
a co-owner of the suit property and hence no declaration or<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction as prayed for could be granted.           Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for respondent would contend that title of the respondent is<\/p>\n
proved by sufficient evidence and that appellants cannot challenge<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                  -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
title of the respondent. It is also contended by learned counsel that<\/p>\n
the claim of appellants that at any rate they are co-owners of the suit<\/p>\n
property cannot stand in so far as there is neither plea nor evidence<\/p>\n
in that line. Alternatively, it is argued that even the documents of<\/p>\n
title relied by appellants show that appellants have no right to use the<\/p>\n
suit property and hence courts below are justified in granting relief<\/p>\n
on the counter claim.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.    Going by the averments in the plaint and contentions<\/p>\n
raised in the replication, appellants have no claim of title over the suit<\/p>\n
property and instead what is pleaded is possessory right. It is of<\/p>\n
course stated that appellants are awaiting issue of patta in their<\/p>\n
favour in respect of the suit property but concededly, no such patta<\/p>\n
has been issued to the appellants. Exts.A1 to A5 series are produced<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                 -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
by the appellants to prove their possessory right over the suit<\/p>\n
property. Ext.A1 is the certificate issued by the Village Officer on<\/p>\n
28.05.1997 certifying that appellants are in possession of the suit<\/p>\n
property. Exts.A2 to A4 are documents based on Ext.A1. It has come<\/p>\n
in evidence that on a complaint of respondent Ext.A1 was revoked<\/p>\n
which PW1, Village Officer who issued Ext.A1 has admitted. Hence<\/p>\n
based on Exts.A1 to A5 series, appellants cannot claim any possession<\/p>\n
over the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.   So far as entitlement of respondent over the suit property<\/p>\n
is concerned, his case is that it formed part of the 12.830 cents in<\/p>\n
survey No.62\/28A belonging to him as per          Ext.B10, gift deed<\/p>\n
No.1809 of 1985 executed by his father, the late Kuri Iype.          In<\/p>\n
Ext.B10 it is stated that the donor got that property for consideration<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
from the KDH (Private Limited) company. In Ext.B10 the southern<\/p>\n
boundary stated is post office road. Ext.B11 is the proceedings of<\/p>\n
District Collector, dated 09-10-1995. In Ext.B11 the subject referred<\/p>\n
is the Act and states that as per award dated 29-03-1974 issued by<\/p>\n
the Land Board of Kerala, 226.69.440 acres of land was either leased<\/p>\n
out, sold or gifted to outsiders by KDH (Private Limited) company<\/p>\n
which has to be examined by the District Collector and appropriate<\/p>\n
action taken in the matter to regularise occupation.        There is<\/p>\n
reference to the request of respondent for assignment of 12.830 cents<\/p>\n
which was got enquired by the District Collector         through the<\/p>\n
Tahsildar concerned. It is also stated in Ext.B11 that as per the<\/p>\n
award of Land Board of Kerala respondent has right over 12.830<\/p>\n
cents with the old building situated thereon purchased by his father<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
from the KDH (private limited) company.          Accordingly, District<\/p>\n
Collector accorded sanction for assignment of 12.830 cents in survey<\/p>\n
No.62\/28A as per the Kerala Land Assignments Rules 1964 (for short,<\/p>\n
“KLA Rules”) and      directed the Tahsildar    to issue patta.  It is<\/p>\n
accordingly that the Tahsildar issued patta in favour of respondent<\/p>\n
concerning the said 12.830cents in survey No.62\/28A. Ext.B13 is the<\/p>\n
photocopy of that patta signed by the advocate concerned as a true<\/p>\n
copy. That patta is issued under the KLA Rules, 1964.<\/p>\n
       4.   The argument of learned counsel for appellants is that<\/p>\n
while in Ext.B11, reference is made to the Act the patta issued is not<\/p>\n
in accordance with the rules framed under that Act but under<\/p>\n
provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act (for short, “the KLA<\/p>\n
Act”) and the Rules. Learned counsel would contend that it was not<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                 -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
possible for the District Collector to issue patta under the KLA Act<\/p>\n
and Rules in respect of land covered by the Act. Section 3 of the KLA<\/p>\n
Act refers to vesting of possession of certain lands and sub section 2<\/p>\n
(b) exempted “buildings, other than buildings belonging to<\/p>\n
trespassers, and lands appurtenant to”. According to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for respondent the 12.830 cents is the land appurtenant to<\/p>\n
the old building situated thereon, exempted from vesting under<\/p>\n
subsection 2(b) of Section 3 of the KLA Act and hence there was<\/p>\n
nothing illegal in the issue of patta in favour of the respondent under<\/p>\n
the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and the Rules,<\/p>\n
1964.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.   Though, not produced in evidence learned counsel for<\/p>\n
respondent has given for my perusal a certified copy of proceeding of<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                 -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the Land Board dated 28-03-1974 where, in paragraph 35 it is stated<\/p>\n
that 226.69.440 acres have been either leased out, sold or gifted to<\/p>\n
outsiders by the KDH (private limited) company and that in respect of<\/p>\n
the said area the District Collector, Idukki has to conduct appropriate<\/p>\n
enquiry and take necessary further action (to regularise occupation).<\/p>\n
The District Collector was directed to take further action to grant<\/p>\n
patta. In the case of outright sale or gift a list of areas continued to<\/p>\n
vest with the Government was also annexed to the order. In that list<\/p>\n
item “C” is the area leased out, gifted or sold for which claims were<\/p>\n
relinquished or in the possession of others but, not deducted form the<\/p>\n
total holdings of KDH (private limited) company. Serial No.7 relates<\/p>\n
to “building and land handed over to Mr. E K Kuri Iype – 0.1283 acres<\/p>\n
(i.e., the  12.830 cents in survey No.62\/28A         which respondent’s<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                 -: 13 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
father claimed by way of assignment from the KDH private limited).<\/p>\n
Thus the old building and land appurtenant to it which the KDH<\/p>\n
company had assigned to the father of respondent was exempted<\/p>\n
from vesting under section 3(2)(b) of the KLA Act and hence it was<\/p>\n
within the power of the District Collector to take action to issue patta<\/p>\n
to in respect of such lands. It is accordingly that by authority of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, District Collector has<\/p>\n
sanctioned issue of patta to the respondent as per Ext.B11 order. In<\/p>\n
the circumstance, the contention that patta issued under the KLA<\/p>\n
Rules is invalid cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.   The next argument is that Ext.B13 is not an admissible<\/p>\n
copy of the patta.      No doubt, Ext.B13 cannot be classified as<\/p>\n
secondary evidence as it is only a true copy signed by the Advocate.<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                  -: 14 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
But no      objection was raised at the time that document was<\/p>\n
introduced in evidence and hence in the light of the decision in<\/p>\n
Krishnan Nair. S. Vs. S. Jayakumari (2009 (4) KHC 692)<\/p>\n
appellant cannot at this stage raise objection regarding admissibility<\/p>\n
or acceptability of Ext.B13.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       7.   Now the question is whether disputed property formed<\/p>\n
part of the 12.830 cents covered by Exts.B10, B11 and B13. Burden<\/p>\n
of proof in the nature of counter claim is on the respondent.        In<\/p>\n
Ext.B10 southern boundary of the 12.830 cents stated is            post<\/p>\n
office road. It has come in evidence that on the south of disputed<\/p>\n
property, it is a post office (link) road. There is no case or evidence<\/p>\n
that in between the suit property and property admittedly belonging<\/p>\n
to the respondent there is any such road. Therefore it is clear from<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                 -: 15 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.B10 that the 12.830 cents in survey No.62\/28A extends up to the<\/p>\n
post office road on the south. Respondent has produced Ext.B3, plan<\/p>\n
for construction of building in the 12.830 cents where also the<\/p>\n
southern boundary of the said property is shown as the road. The<\/p>\n
Advocate commissioner in Ext.C3(a) has shown the actual extent<\/p>\n
available as 12.464 cents bounded by road on the south and the<\/p>\n
extent of counter claim B schedule property as 1.112 cents.         In<\/p>\n
Ext.B18, copy of assignment deed on which appellants now rely,<\/p>\n
southern boundary of the 12.830 cents is shown as post office (link)<\/p>\n
road. The Advocate commissioner who measured the property with<\/p>\n
the assistance of surveyor has also reported that disputed property<\/p>\n
(suit property, i.e., the counter claim B schedule property) is part of<\/p>\n
counter claim A schedule property. Finding of the courts below in<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                 -: 16 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
that regard requires no interference.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       8.   A contention is raised by learned counsel that there is no<\/p>\n
proper identification of the suit property. But in the light of Exts.C3<\/p>\n
and C3(a), that contention also cannot stand.      Thus courts below<\/p>\n
basing on the evidence on record rightly found that disputed property<\/p>\n
formed part of 12.830 cents covered by Exts.B10 and B13.<\/p>\n
       9.   A contention is now advanced by learned counsel for<\/p>\n
appellant that Ext.B18, copy of assignment deed in favour of<\/p>\n
respondent would show that appellants are co-owners of the suit<\/p>\n
property along with the respondent.       According to    the learned<\/p>\n
counsel if Ext.B18 is accepted, then there is no escape from the<\/p>\n
conclusion that appellants have right over the suit property in which<\/p>\n
case declaration and mandatory injunction prayed for cannot be<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                -: 17 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
granted against the appellants they being co-owners along with the<\/p>\n
respondent.      Learned counsel for respondent would contend that<\/p>\n
there is no claim of title based on Ext.B18 made by the appellants<\/p>\n
and instead, their contention is that the suit property did not form<\/p>\n
part of 12.830 cents, no such contention was raised in any of the<\/p>\n
courts below and hence at this stage that contention cannot be<\/p>\n
allowed to thrive.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       10.  I have gone through Ext.B18, certified copy of assignment<\/p>\n
deed No.2164 of 2001 dated 05-11-2001 executed by the assignee of<\/p>\n
respondent purportedly conveying his 976\/35000 undivided share in<\/p>\n
the A schedule property mentioned therein in favour of appellants.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel for appellants, A schedule stated in<\/p>\n
Ext.B18 is the 12.830 cents and hence      fractional interest of the<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                 -: 18 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
assignor under Ext.B18 i.e., 976\/35000 undivided shares must take in<\/p>\n
his fractional interest in the disputed property as well. But I must<\/p>\n
bear in mind that such a       contention was not advanced by the<\/p>\n
appellants in any of the courts below, not to say about lack of<\/p>\n
pleading in that regard. On the other hand contention raised by the<\/p>\n
appellants is that suit property does not formed part of the 12.830<\/p>\n
cents belonging to the respondent. Therefore it is not necessary for<\/p>\n
me to go into that question in this appeal but having regard to the<\/p>\n
contention raised by the appellants, I make it clear that it will be open<\/p>\n
to them to establish co-ownership right claimed by them over the<\/p>\n
disputed property as per Ext.B18 if they are otherwise entitled to<\/p>\n
that course. That need not result in interference with the decree<\/p>\n
granted by the courts below on the counter claim. Decree in the<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                 -: 19 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
counter claim only declares right of respondent as per Ext.B10, B11<\/p>\n
and B13. So far as the decree for mandatory injunction is concerned,<\/p>\n
even clause 5 of Ext.B18 would say that so far as the car parking area<\/p>\n
(disputed property) is concerned, appellants will have no right of<\/p>\n
enjoyment. If that be so, even if Ext.B18 is accepted as conferring<\/p>\n
title on appellants, they cannot put up any structure in the disputed<\/p>\n
property. Hence appellants are bound to remove the structures from<\/p>\n
the suit property. Trial court has only granted a mandatory injunction<\/p>\n
for removal of      structures in the suit property (counter claim B<\/p>\n
schedule property. That even in the light of clause 5 in Ext.B18 has<\/p>\n
to stand. The substantial questions of law are answered in the above<\/p>\n
lines. I make it clear that the title of respondent declared over the<\/p>\n
counter claim B schedule property will not prevent appellants from<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.444 of 2006
\n                                 -: 20 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
establishing the claim made by them on the strength of Ext.B18, if<\/p>\n
they are otherwise entitled to other course.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Resultantly with the observation that dismissal of the suit or<\/p>\n
decree on the counter claim declaring title of respondent over the suit<\/p>\n
property will not prevent appellants from establishing their claim on<\/p>\n
the strength of Ext.B18 if there are otherwise entitled to that course,<\/p>\n
the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Interlocutory Application No.444 of 2006 shall stand dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                 (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
Sbna\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court C.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 444 of 2006() 1. C.SUBBIAH, SON OF CHELLIAH, … Petitioner 2. VEERIAH, SON OF CHELLIAH, Vs 1. PAPPACHAN.K.ELENJICKAL, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.SATHISH NINAN For Respondent :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :05\/04\/2010 […]<\/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-127870","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 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\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-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=\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-02T16:03:34+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-02T16:03:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2969,\"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\\\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010\",\"name\":\"C.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-02T16:03:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 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":"C.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 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\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-02T16:03:34+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-02T16:03:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010"},"wordCount":2969,"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\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010","name":"C.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-02T16:03:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subbiah-vs-pappachan-k-elenjickal-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.Subbiah vs Pappachan.K.Elenjickal on 5 April, 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\/127870","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=127870"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127870\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}