{"id":128190,"date":"2010-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010"},"modified":"2014-10-16T02:10:21","modified_gmt":"2014-10-15T20:40:21","slug":"jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 188 of 2010()\n\n\n1. JOLLY JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MANU K.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :15\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n               PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &\n               C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n    ------------------------------------------------\n             R. C. R. No.188 of 2010\n    ------------------------------------------------\n       Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010\n\n                       ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J<\/p>\n
      Under challenge in this revision filed under<\/p>\n
Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Rent   Control    Appellate    Authority,    Kottayam<\/p>\n
confirming the order of eviction passed against<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner under Section 11(2)(b).<\/p>\n
The respondent\/landlord sought to evict the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner on the ground of arrears of rent<\/p>\n
only. Before instituting the Rent Control Petition,<\/p>\n
the respondent issued Ext.A4 notice intimating the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner of the default in payment of<\/p>\n
rent and giving him opportunity to discharge the<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.188 of 2010          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
       arrears. Significantly, the revision petitioner did<\/p>\n
       not respond to that notice at all. However, when<\/p>\n
       the RCP was filed alleging arrears of rent at the<\/p>\n
       agreed contract rate of Rs.1,500\/-, it was<\/p>\n
       contended by the revision petitioner that the Rent<\/p>\n
       Control     Petition is  bad   for  non-joinder    of<\/p>\n
       necessary parties. Ext.A1 lease deed executed<\/p>\n
       between the revision petitioner and the father of<\/p>\n
       the respondent was admitted. But the contention<\/p>\n
       was that the father of the respondent late Thomas<\/p>\n
       was not the only owner of the building. There<\/p>\n
       were other co-owners for the building. It is<\/p>\n
       virtually conceded that the petitioner’s father was<\/p>\n
       one of the co-owners. It was also contended that<\/p>\n
       petitioner’s father is survived not by the petitioner<\/p>\n
       alone. It is in the above context that the<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.188 of 2010          -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
       contention is raised that the RCP is bad for non-<\/p>\n
       joinder of co-owners of the petitioner’s father as<\/p>\n
       well as the other legal heirs of the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
       father. A plea of discharge was also raised in<\/p>\n
       respect of the quantum of rent alleged as arrears.<\/p>\n
       It   was     contended   that  furniture  worth   a<\/p>\n
       substantial amount was purchased by one of the<\/p>\n
       co-owners of the petitioner’s father from the<\/p>\n
       respondent’s     furniture   shop  and   that   the<\/p>\n
       understanding was that credit will be given to the<\/p>\n
       value payable for the furniture against rent in<\/p>\n
       arrears. It was also contended that a sum of<\/p>\n
       Rs.1,25,000\/-     had    been   received   by   the<\/p>\n
       petitioner’s father at the time of executing Ext.A1<\/p>\n
       agreement by way of security. It is contended that<\/p>\n
       the said amount is to be adjusted against rent<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.188 of 2010          -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
       allegedly in arrears.\n<\/p>\n
             2. At trial before the Rent Control Court, the<\/p>\n
       evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, B1 and B2<\/p>\n
       and oral testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 and DW1.<\/p>\n
       Ext.A2 was a will executed by the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
       father bequeathing entirety of his assets in favour<\/p>\n
       of the petitioner. PW2 was one of the attestors to<\/p>\n
       Ext.A2. The Rent Control Court on appreciating<\/p>\n
       the evidence came to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
       petitioner in the RCP was able to establish<\/p>\n
       existence of landlord-tenant relationship between<\/p>\n
       the parties and also that the allegation regarding<\/p>\n
       arrears of rent stood established on the basis that<\/p>\n
       despite Ext.A4 statutory notice arrears of rent was<\/p>\n
       not discharged within the statutory period of 15<\/p>\n
       days. Eviction order under Section 11(2)(b) was<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.188 of 2010         -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
       passed directing the revision petitioner to put the<\/p>\n
       landlord in possession within 30 days. The<\/p>\n
       Appellate      Authority considering  the   appeal<\/p>\n
       preferred by the revision petitioner re-appraised<\/p>\n
       the entire evidence. That Authority also concurred<\/p>\n
       with all the conclusions of the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
       and confirmed the order of eviction. The Appellate<\/p>\n
       Authority, however noticed, Section 11(2)(c) and<\/p>\n
       granted to the revision petitioner one month’s<\/p>\n
       time to have the order of eviction vacated by<\/p>\n
       making requisite application under Section 11(2)<\/p>\n
       (c).\n<\/p>\n
             3. In this revision filed under Section 20,<\/p>\n
       various grounds have been raised by the revision<\/p>\n
       petitioner assailing the judgment of the Appellate<\/p>\n
       Authority. Sri.Harindramohan Nair, the learned<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.188 of 2010         -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
       counsel for the revision petitioner addressed us<\/p>\n
       very strenuously and extensively on all those<\/p>\n
       grounds. Sri.Harindramohan Nair submitted that it<\/p>\n
       has been specifically contended by the revision<\/p>\n
       petitioner through the statement of objections<\/p>\n
       that the Rent Control Petition is bad for non-<\/p>\n
       joinder of necessary parties. According to him,<\/p>\n
       though Ext.A1 is admitted, the contentions<\/p>\n
       specifically raised is that Ext.A1 was executed in<\/p>\n
       favour of the respondent’s father as a person<\/p>\n
       representing all the co-owners of the building.<\/p>\n
       Rent, if any, collected by the respondent’s father<\/p>\n
       was paid to him for the benefit of the co-owners.<\/p>\n
       Sri.Harindramohan Nair further submitted that the<\/p>\n
       genuineness of Ext.A2 will is seriously disputed.<\/p>\n
       According to him, Ext.A2 will does not pertain to<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.188 of 2010         -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
       the petition schedule building. Even if it pertains<\/p>\n
       to the petition schedule building inasmuch as<\/p>\n
       petitioner’s father the party to Ext.A2 was having<\/p>\n
       only co-ownership rights over the property the<\/p>\n
       present eviction proceedings without the junction<\/p>\n
       of the other co-owners is bad. He argued that the<\/p>\n
       appreciation of pleadings and evidence by the<\/p>\n
       authorities under the statute was highly erroneous<\/p>\n
       and requested that the judgment of the Appellate<\/p>\n
       Authority be vacated.\n<\/p>\n
             4. We have very anxiously considered the<\/p>\n
       submissions of the learned counsel. As directed by<\/p>\n
       us Sri.Harindramohan Nair placed before us copy<\/p>\n
       of the Rent Control Petition and the statement of<\/p>\n
       objections filed. We have appraised the above<\/p>\n
       pleadings raised by the parties. We will at once<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.188 of 2010         -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
       remind ourselves of the contours of this Court’s<\/p>\n
       jurisdiction in which we are presently sitting. In<\/p>\n
       the present jurisdiction under Section 20 which is<\/p>\n
       revisional in nature this Court is not expected<\/p>\n
       ordinarily to make a re-appraisal of the evidence<\/p>\n
       for the purposes of substituting the factual<\/p>\n
       conclusions arrived at by the final fact finding<\/p>\n
       authority the Rent Control Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
       especially when the same has been made<\/p>\n
       concurrently with the Rent Control Court. We find<\/p>\n
       on scanning the judgment of the Appellate<\/p>\n
       Authority that the factual conclusions arrived at<\/p>\n
       therein     are  founded    on evidence   –   oral<\/p>\n
       documentary      and  circumstantial  which   was<\/p>\n
       available. Ext.A1 is admitted to be rental<\/p>\n
       arrangement     in respect of the building      in<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.188 of 2010         -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
       question. The parties to Ext.A1 are the revision<\/p>\n
       petitioner and late Thomas, the respondent’s<\/p>\n
       father. As observed by the learned Appellate<\/p>\n
       Authority, there is nothing on the face of Ext.A1 to<\/p>\n
       indicate that Ext.A1 was brought into existence by<\/p>\n
       the late father of the respondent on behalf of<\/p>\n
       somebody else also. Ext.A2 is a will executed by<\/p>\n
       the late father of the respondent. Its due<\/p>\n
       execution and attestation has been proved by<\/p>\n
       PW2 who is admittedly one of the attestors<\/p>\n
       thereto. The revision petitioner is a stranger to<\/p>\n
       Ext.A2. He is not competent to challenge the<\/p>\n
       genuineness of Ext.A2. The persons who ought to<\/p>\n
       have been aggrieved by Ext.A2 have not come<\/p>\n
       forward so far, as rightly observed by the District<\/p>\n
       Judge to challenge Ext.A2. The revision petitioner<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.188 of 2010         -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
       concedes the respondent (the petitioner in the<\/p>\n
       RCP) to be at least a co-owner. It is trite by<\/p>\n
       decisions of this Court that even a co-owner will<\/p>\n
       be able to maintain petition for eviction provided<\/p>\n
       there is no opposition from the fellow co-owners<\/p>\n
       in the matter. Ext.A2 is admittedly the document<\/p>\n
       which governs the tenancy. It has become evident<\/p>\n
       that the rent payable as per Ext.A2 is in arrears.<\/p>\n
       The contention is one of adjustment against the<\/p>\n
       price of furniture supplied to one of the so called<\/p>\n
       co-owners of the deceased father of the petitioner<\/p>\n
       in the RCP and that a sum of Rs.1,25,000\/- is<\/p>\n
       outstanding with the deceased father of the<\/p>\n
       respondent. These are contentions on which it was<\/p>\n
       for the revision petitioner to have adduced cogent<\/p>\n
       evidence for substantiating. Revision petitioner<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.188 of 2010           -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
       failed in doing so.\n<\/p>\n
             5. It is trite by various decisions of this Court<\/p>\n
       that order of eviction passed by the Rent Control<\/p>\n
       Court under Section 11(2)(b) unlike such orders<\/p>\n
       passed under other grounds is only provisional or<\/p>\n
       tentative, in the sense that the same is liable to<\/p>\n
       be vacated by making requisite deposit under<\/p>\n
       Section 11(2)(c). Statutory authorities are not<\/p>\n
       expected to consider the question of proprietary<\/p>\n
       title over the building which is subject matter of<\/p>\n
       the lease. They are expected to be concerned only<\/p>\n
       with    the    existence    of  the    landlord-tenant<\/p>\n
       relationship which stands proved as per Ext.A2<\/p>\n
       between the revision petitioner and the deceased<\/p>\n
       father of the respondent. Under the above<\/p>\n
       circumstances, we do not find any illegality,<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.188 of 2010        -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
       irregularity or impropriety with the judgment of<\/p>\n
       the Appellate Authority. We clarify that deposit of<\/p>\n
       the arrears of rent in terms of the eviction order<\/p>\n
       presently passed for getting the same vacated<\/p>\n
       under Section 11(2)(c) will be complete discharge<\/p>\n
       for the revision petitioner against claims by<\/p>\n
       anybody else for rent in respect of the building in<\/p>\n
       question.\n<\/p>\n
             6. Subject to the above clarification, we<\/p>\n
       dismiss the RCR, however, granting to the revision<\/p>\n
       petitioner two months’ time from today for getting<\/p>\n
       the eviction order vacated under Section 11(2)(c).<\/p>\n
                                     PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
\n                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                     C. K. ABDUL REHIM
\n                                                   JUDGE
\n       kns\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 188 of 2010() 1. JOLLY JOSEPH, AGED 40 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. MANU K.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-128190","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 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\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-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=\"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-15T20:40:21+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\\\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-15T20:40:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1533,\"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\\\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Jolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-15T20:40:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 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":"Jolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 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\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-15T20:40:21+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\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-15T20:40:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010"},"wordCount":1533,"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\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010","name":"Jolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-15T20:40:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jolly-joseph-vs-manu-k-thomas-on-15-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jolly Joseph vs Manu K.Thomas on 15 July, 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\/128190","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=128190"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128190\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128190"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128190"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}