{"id":1300,"date":"2008-07-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008"},"modified":"2014-12-04T07:55:40","modified_gmt":"2014-12-04T02:25:40","slug":"ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ashok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ashok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRP.No. 769 of 2008(E)\n\n\n1. ASHOK KUMAR, S\/O R.P.PARAMASWERAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. RAVEENDRAN, S\/O LATE R.P.PARAMESWARAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. RAJESWARI, W\/O P.K.VIJAYAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :24\/07\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n              K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.\n          ------------------------------------------------\n                   R. P. No.769 of 2008 in\n                   R. S. A. No.467 of 2008\n          ------------------------------------------------\n           Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008\n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    This review petition is filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant through a counsel engaged afresh<\/p>\n
seeking review of the judgment passed by this<\/p>\n
Court  on  24\/06\/08             in       R.S.A.467\/08        after<\/p>\n
hearing counsel on both sides.\n<\/p>\n
    2. It is seen from the judges papers that<\/p>\n
when this R.S.A came up for admission hearing<\/p>\n
on 05\/06\/08 and counsel advanced arguments on<\/p>\n
behalf of the appellant, this Court was of the<\/p>\n
view that there is absolutely no merit in the<\/p>\n
R.S.A, there being no substantial question of<\/p>\n
law involved and while the appeal was about to<\/p>\n
be dismissed in limine counsel submitted that<\/p>\n
at  least  notice          may        be      ordered      to the<\/p>\n
respondents for the limited purpose of having<\/p>\n
the  R.S.A    referred             to        Adalath       or  for<\/p>\n
R. P. No.769 of 2008            -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
       settlement otherwise on mediation as otherwise<\/p>\n
       an opportunity for the matter being settled<\/p>\n
       amicably between the brothers and sister would<\/p>\n
       be deprived of. It was in view of the said<\/p>\n
       submission      that notice  was issued  to the<\/p>\n
       respondents on admission by speed post with<\/p>\n
       acknowledgment due and the case was adjourned<\/p>\n
       to 24\/06\/08.\n<\/p>\n
                3. When the matter came up before this<\/p>\n
       Court on 24\/06\/08, respondents also entered<\/p>\n
       appearance through counsel. Counsel for the<\/p>\n
       respondents submitted that the property which<\/p>\n
       is subject matter of partition having only 4<\/p>\n
       and odd cents was found to be not feasible to<\/p>\n
       be divided equally by metes and bounds so as<\/p>\n
       to render the plots worthy to be put to use<\/p>\n
       and       so  in  final decree  proceedings the<\/p>\n
       property was ordered to be put to auction<\/p>\n
       among the sharers and accordingly auction was<\/p>\n
       conducted and that in the auction respondents<\/p>\n
R. P. No.769 of 2008             -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
       1 and 2 jointly bid the property for an amount<\/p>\n
       of Rs.18 lakhs and odd and also deposited an<\/p>\n
       amount of Rs.6,33,000\/- and odd towards the<\/p>\n
       share of the appellant and only a nominal<\/p>\n
       amount       remains  to be   deposited  and that<\/p>\n
       happened       on   account   of   a  mistake  in<\/p>\n
       calculation and that there is no chance for<\/p>\n
       any      compromise  being   effected between the<\/p>\n
       parties at that stage.\n<\/p>\n
                4. It was in the above circumstance that<\/p>\n
       counsel for the appellant submitted that the<\/p>\n
       appellant be granted at least three months’<\/p>\n
       time to surrender vacant possession of the<\/p>\n
       scheduled       building in   his  occupation and<\/p>\n
       accordingly, time was granted also on consent<\/p>\n
       of counsel for the respondents. But for the<\/p>\n
       final request so made by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
       appellant, the R.S.A which was found to be<\/p>\n
       devoid of any merit there being no question of<\/p>\n
       law and much less any substantial question of<\/p>\n
R. P. No.769 of 2008            -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
       law was to be dismissed in limine without any<\/p>\n
       relief at all granted to the appellant. It is<\/p>\n
       such a judgment that is sought to be got<\/p>\n
       reviewed by the appellant filing this review<\/p>\n
       petition      through another  lawyer giving  up<\/p>\n
       engagement      of   the   earlier  counsel  and<\/p>\n
       advancing complaints against him.<\/p>\n
                5. Counsel who is now appearing for the<\/p>\n
       appellant\/petitioner     submits  that the  shop<\/p>\n
       rooms were not included in the schedule to the<\/p>\n
       partition by the counsel in the court below<\/p>\n
       and the appellant was not aware of the non-<\/p>\n
       inclusion of the shop rooms in the plaint<\/p>\n
       because the plaint was drafted in English. If<\/p>\n
       that be so, I see that all the pleadings in<\/p>\n
       this R.S.A and also in this Review Petition<\/p>\n
       are in English and even the affidavit sworn to<\/p>\n
       by the petitioner in English shows that he has<\/p>\n
       signed in it without properly understanding<\/p>\n
       what he has sworn to as it does not contain a<\/p>\n
R. P. No.769 of 2008            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
       certification by the counsel that what all is<\/p>\n
       written in the affidavit is translated into<\/p>\n
       Malayalam      and  the  deponent  was  made   to<\/p>\n
       understand      the  contents  to  which  he  was<\/p>\n
       swearing.       Such   are   methods   which   a<\/p>\n
       cantankerous      litigant  may  adopt  to  avoid<\/p>\n
       parting with possession of property when he is<\/p>\n
       in possession of the property to the exclusion<\/p>\n
       of the other co-sharers.\n<\/p>\n
                6. Further, in view of the averment in<\/p>\n
       the Review Petition that the property which is<\/p>\n
       worth more than Rs.40 lakhs was bid in auction<\/p>\n
       by the respondents for a paltry amount of<\/p>\n
       Rs.18 lakhs the counsel for the petitioner was<\/p>\n
       asked as to whether the petitioner is prepared<\/p>\n
       to take the property for Rs.40 lakhs so that<\/p>\n
       he himself will get 1\/3rd share out of the said<\/p>\n
       amount to be deposited or he needs to deposit<\/p>\n
       only 2\/3rd of Rs.40 lakhs so that himself as<\/p>\n
       also the other sharers who are the respondents<\/p>\n
R. P. No.769 of 2008            -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
       who purchased the property in auction will get<\/p>\n
       the       benefit. Counsel  for the respondents<\/p>\n
       agreed to that course, setting aside the sale<\/p>\n
       in favour of the respondents. Counsel for the<\/p>\n
       petitioner consulted the review petitioner who<\/p>\n
       is present in the court and submitted that he<\/p>\n
       is not prepared to take the property for Rs.40<\/p>\n
       lakhs but that he wants the property to be put<\/p>\n
       to public auction. In other words what was<\/p>\n
       done by the trial court was to order an<\/p>\n
       auction between the sharers and the appellant<\/p>\n
       wants the property to be put to auction in<\/p>\n
       public. Counsel for the respondent points out<\/p>\n
       that the decision taken by the final decree<\/p>\n
       court to put the property for auction between<\/p>\n
       the sharers was assailed before this Court in<\/p>\n
       W.P.(C) No.10989\/07 by the present petitioner\/<\/p>\n
       appellant and the action taken by the final<\/p>\n
       decree court was approved by this Court vide<\/p>\n
       judgment in the Writ Petition wherein it was<\/p>\n
R. P. No.769 of 2008            -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
       observed by this Court that it is settled<\/p>\n
       practice that in a partition suit when the<\/p>\n
       property is incapable of being divided by<\/p>\n
       metes and bounds, in order to protect the<\/p>\n
       interests of all the parties, firstly the<\/p>\n
       property is proposed to be sold among sharers<\/p>\n
       and if it is not possible, in public auction<\/p>\n
       and that it is that course that was adopted by<\/p>\n
       the       learned Munsiff  in the final   decree<\/p>\n
       proceedings and that it cannot be found fault<\/p>\n
       with. The appellant\/petitioner who advances<\/p>\n
       contention      on the  lines aforementioned by<\/p>\n
       moving a review petition before this Court<\/p>\n
       does so despite a finding entered into by this<\/p>\n
       Court as regards the propriety of property<\/p>\n
       being put to auction between the sharers vide<\/p>\n
       judgment in W.P.(C) 10989\/07 and deserves to<\/p>\n
       be confirmed. Similar is his conduct in making<\/p>\n
       allegations      against  his own  counsel  who<\/p>\n
       appeared before this court and attempted to<\/p>\n
R. P. No.769 of 2008            -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
       safeguard his interest.\n<\/p>\n
                7. In the result, I dismiss this Review<\/p>\n
       Petition      with cost  of  Rs.1.000\/-  to  the<\/p>\n
       counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
\n                                                  JUDGE
\n       kns\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ashok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP.No. 769 of 2008(E) 1. ASHOK KUMAR, S\/O R.P.PARAMASWERAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. RAVEENDRAN, S\/O LATE R.P.PARAMESWARAN, … Respondent 2. RAJESWARI, W\/O P.K.VIJAYAN, For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE PALLATTUKARAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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-1300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAshok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 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\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ashok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-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=\"2008-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-04T02:25:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ashok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-04T02:25:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1125,\"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\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-04T02:25:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ashok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 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":"Ashok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 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\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ashok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-04T02:25:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ashok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-04T02:25:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008"},"wordCount":1125,"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\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008","name":"Ashok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-04T02:25:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ashok-kumar-vs-raveendran-on-24-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ashok Kumar vs Raveendran on 24 July, 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\/1300","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=1300"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1300\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}