{"id":131052,"date":"2010-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010"},"modified":"2014-01-26T14:01:00","modified_gmt":"2014-01-26T08:31:00","slug":"mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 29695 of 2009(O)\n\n\n1. MARY JAMES, AGED 54, W\/O.JAMES,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SARASWATHY AMMA, AGED 61,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. K.S.BABU, AGED 46,\n\n3. K.S.MANOJ, AGED 31,\n\n4. SHIJO T.JAMES, AGED 29, S\/O.JAMES,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :06\/04\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                        P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                   W.P.(C). No. 29695 of 2009\n            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n            Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010.\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
          Petitioner instituted O.S. 80 of 2008 before the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s Court, Muvattupuzha, which was a suit for<\/p>\n
injunction against the defendants from filling up a thodu,<\/p>\n
which is running through the property owned by the<\/p>\n
defendants, from obstructing the flow of water through<\/p>\n
it or diverting its direction or from doing any act<\/p>\n
detrimental to the cultivation and enjoyment of plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
          2. First plaintiff is the absolute owner of plaint<\/p>\n
A schedule property and the defendants owns plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule    lying on the south of plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property. A thodu starts from the properties lying on the<\/p>\n
south eastern side of the plaint A and B schedule<\/p>\n
properties and flows towards                      north west and then<\/p>\n
towards north through the culvert of the river road and<\/p>\n
reaches plaint B schedule property. It then goes towards<\/p>\n
WPC. 29695\/2009.               2<\/span><\/p>\n
north through plaint A and B schedule properties through the<\/p>\n
western side and reaches Kothamangalam river. According<\/p>\n
to the plaintiffs, the thodu has a depth of 4 feet and width of<\/p>\n
3 feet. That thodu was in existence for a considerably long<\/p>\n
period and water collected in the plaint schedule properties<\/p>\n
and the properties on the south eastern side of the plaint A<\/p>\n
and B schedule properties and the properties during rainy<\/p>\n
season are drained out from the said thodu and thus<\/p>\n
prevented the flooding in the fields and agricultural lands. It<\/p>\n
is contended that the plaintiffs acquired prescriptive right of<\/p>\n
easement over C schedule thodu. The suit was laid when<\/p>\n
the defendants tried to reclaim plaint B schedule property.<\/p>\n
The defendants filled up a portion of plaint C schedule thodu<\/p>\n
and attempted to divert the flow of water from the culvert<\/p>\n
towards north.\n<\/p>\n
           3. The defendants resisted the suit and contended<\/p>\n
that there is no thodu described as plaint C schedule and the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs had no right to use any portion of plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
for any purpose.\n<\/p>\n
WPC. 29695\/2009.               3<\/span><\/p>\n
           4.   The suit was posted for trial on    6.8.2009.<\/p>\n
According to the plaintiffs, while preparations were being<\/p>\n
done to face trial, it was found that some mistakes had crept<\/p>\n
in the boundary descriptions of the plaint C schedule<\/p>\n
property.      In the plaint, the southern boundary was<\/p>\n
mistakenly shown as Panchayat road and the western<\/p>\n
boundary was shown as Kocherikudy Babu’s property. The<\/p>\n
commission report revealed that a narrow strip of land was<\/p>\n
left on the southern side of the thodu and the northern side<\/p>\n
of the southern boundary of plaint B schedule property and<\/p>\n
also a narrow strip was left on the western side of the thodu<\/p>\n
slightly away from the eastern boundary of plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property. In order to bring the boundary description of the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property in tune with the commissioner’s<\/p>\n
plan, I.A. 2125 of 2009 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking<\/p>\n
amendment of the plaint incorporating the above aspects.<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 is the copy of the said application. The court below<\/p>\n
dismissed the petition by Ext.P5 order.\n<\/p>\n
WPC. 29695\/2009.              4<\/span><\/p>\n
            5. According to the petitioner, there was an<\/p>\n
interim injunction in his favour.        On 11.7.2009 the<\/p>\n
defendants in violation of the order of injunction put up a<\/p>\n
new thodu through the eastern side of the plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property and diverted the flow of water to plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property so as to destroy the cultivation therein. Hence the<\/p>\n
plaintiff filed I.A. 2230 of 2009 and I.A. 2229 of 2009 for<\/p>\n
appointment of Advocate Commissioner to report about the<\/p>\n
violation.   The report and sketch of the Commissioner is<\/p>\n
produced as Exts.P6 and P6(a). It became necessary for the<\/p>\n
plaintiff to incorporate new relief by way of amendment of<\/p>\n
the plaint as a result of the action of the defendants in<\/p>\n
violation of the order of injunction.      Incorporating the<\/p>\n
necessary amendments, they filed I.A. 2263 of 2009 seeking<\/p>\n
amendment of the plaint. That was also dismissed by Ext.P8<\/p>\n
order. Exts.P5 and P8 are under challenge.<\/p>\n
            6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<\/p>\n
pointed out that the grounds relied on by the petitioner to<\/p>\n
dismiss the amendment applications are not justifiable. As<\/p>\n
WPC. 29695\/2009.               5<\/span><\/p>\n
regards Ext.P5, it is pointed out that one fails to understand<\/p>\n
how the character of the suit is changed. It may be true that<\/p>\n
there is a change in the description of the boundary of C<\/p>\n
schedule property. But that will not change the character<\/p>\n
and nature of the suit and that remains the same. At the<\/p>\n
time of filing the suit, the plaintiffs were not aware of the<\/p>\n
narrow strip of land was left on the south and west of plaint<\/p>\n
C schedule thodu.       The thodu was running       along the<\/p>\n
southern and western sides of plaint B schedule properties.<\/p>\n
When they realised the mistake they sought amendment<\/p>\n
pointing out the proper boundaries.\n<\/p>\n
           7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents<\/p>\n
pointed out that the petitioner, who sought amendment<\/p>\n
regarding the boundaries of C schedule is not so innocent<\/p>\n
as he tries to be. If the amendment is allowed, that would<\/p>\n
mean that the plaintiff could locate the thodu said to be<\/p>\n
running through the property anywhere in the western side<\/p>\n
of plaint B schedule property. That cannot be permitted.<\/p>\n
WPC. 29695\/2009.                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
           8. It was also pointed out that Ext.P5 order was<\/p>\n
passed on 10.8.2009 and it is only now that the petitioner<\/p>\n
has sought to challenge the same. The belated attempt of<\/p>\n
challenging Ext.P5 shows that the petitioner had accepted<\/p>\n
the order initially and it is as a result of an after thought the<\/p>\n
present challenge has been made.\n<\/p>\n
           9. Though the argument of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondents look very attractive, on a closer scrutiny<\/p>\n
it can be found to be without any basis.            One fails to<\/p>\n
understand how the character of the suit is changed as<\/p>\n
found by the court below. All that is sought to be amended<\/p>\n
is the boundary of plaint C schedule property in the light of<\/p>\n
the Commission report. The position of the thodu as alleged<\/p>\n
in the plaint remains the same except that it is not on the<\/p>\n
southern and western boundary, but little inside the property<\/p>\n
leaving a narrow strip of land on the west and south.<\/p>\n
           10.      Learned     counsel    appearing    for  the<\/p>\n
respondents pointed out that the commission report was<\/p>\n
filed on 22.5.2008 and Ext.P4 application for amendment<\/p>\n
WPC. 29695\/2009.               7<\/span><\/p>\n
was filed only on 4.8.2009. There is no justification for the<\/p>\n
belated prayer for amendment.        Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner pointed out that the reason has been mentioned<\/p>\n
in the petitioner and there is no reason to disbelieve the said<\/p>\n
facts.\n<\/p>\n
           11. May be that there is some delay in filing the<\/p>\n
amendment application, namely, Ext.P4,         But one must<\/p>\n
notice that the Commission sketch was there and if in fact<\/p>\n
the decree was to be passed in favour of the plaintiff, the<\/p>\n
sketch would be made a part of the decree. It is not as if the<\/p>\n
parties were in dark regarding the location of C schedule<\/p>\n
thodu,even initially, the commission report only showed that<\/p>\n
a narrow strip of land is left on the southern and western<\/p>\n
side of the thodu and in order to avoid a future controversy,<\/p>\n
the plaintiff sought amendment of the plaint, though it could<\/p>\n
have been done earlier. But they have also given reasons as<\/p>\n
to why delay occurred.        One fails to understand what<\/p>\n
prejudice could be caused to the respondent by allowing the<\/p>\n
WPC. 29695\/2009.                8<\/span><\/p>\n
amendment.       At any rate, the reason given by the court<\/p>\n
below to decline the amendment cannot be sustained in law.<\/p>\n
           12. It is true that the amendment application was<\/p>\n
filed on the date of trial. But it could not be said that the<\/p>\n
defendants were taken by surprise that they were aware of<\/p>\n
the true state of affairs as the Commission report had<\/p>\n
already been filed.        It is also pointed out that the<\/p>\n
amendment sought for by Ext.P4 application was in terms of<\/p>\n
the Commission report. Therefore it could not also be said<\/p>\n
that the amendment would take them by surprise.<\/p>\n
           13.      As   regards   the second     amendment<\/p>\n
application, Ext.P7, that was based on subsequent events. it<\/p>\n
is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that<\/p>\n
there was an injunction against the respondents.       It was<\/p>\n
violating the order of injunction that    they had tried to<\/p>\n
construct a new thodu on the eastern side of plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule property. It was to avoid a contention ultimately if<\/p>\n
the plaintiff succeeds that there was no relief as regards the<\/p>\n
new thodu that the amendment was sought for to<\/p>\n
WPC. 29695\/2009.                9<\/span><\/p>\n
incorporate necessary reliefs in that regard also. There was<\/p>\n
no justification on the part of the lower court in not allowing<\/p>\n
the amendment applications.         Learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner pointed out that the reason is not acceptable at<\/p>\n
all.\n<\/p>\n
           14.     Learned     counsel   appearing    for  the<\/p>\n
respondents on the other hand pointed out that even<\/p>\n
assuming the allegations to be true, that creates a new<\/p>\n
cause of action and therefore the plaintiff will have to resort<\/p>\n
to another suit. It is not in respect of C schedule thodu that<\/p>\n
anything had been done by the defendants and the<\/p>\n
allegation is that he had cut open a new thodu in his own<\/p>\n
property through the eastern side. That has nothing to do<\/p>\n
with the subject matter of the present suit. So accordingly,<\/p>\n
it is contended that it is as separate cause of auction and a<\/p>\n
separate will have to be filed.\n<\/p>\n
           15. Though the argument may look attractive, on<\/p>\n
a close scrutiny it can be found to be without basis. One<\/p>\n
may have to look at the plaint, and the relief B sought for in<\/p>\n
WPC. 29695\/2009.               10<\/span><\/p>\n
the plaint. The injunction sought for is that the defendants<\/p>\n
shall not commit any act which would adversely affect the<\/p>\n
agricultural operation in plaint A schedule property.       The<\/p>\n
allegation made now in the amendment application by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is that by cutting open a new thodu on the eastern<\/p>\n
side, water will flow into plaint A schedule property and<\/p>\n
destroy their crops. As to the exact effect, one has to note<\/p>\n
the relief in that respect in the plaint. In the plaint, there is<\/p>\n
a prayer to injunct the defendants from doing any acts<\/p>\n
detrimental to the cultivation and enjoyment of the plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property. Therefore the contention that a separate<\/p>\n
suit will have to be filed cannot be accepted.             Even<\/p>\n
otherwise, it is an act done during the pendency of the suit<\/p>\n
and, if it adversely affect the parties and they can seek<\/p>\n
appropriate reliefs in the same suit itself.<\/p>\n
            16.   The reasons given by the court below to<\/p>\n
dismiss the applications are unsustainable in law. According<\/p>\n
to the lower court they ought to have been more diligent,<\/p>\n
and their filing of the application on the date of trial cannot<\/p>\n
WPC. 29695\/2009.                11<\/span><\/p>\n
be countenanced.       It is pointed out that the incident is<\/p>\n
alleged to have taken place on 11.7.2009 and therefore if<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs were diligent, they would have filed it earlier.<\/p>\n
           17.   The commission report is dated 19.8.2009.<\/p>\n
The amendment application was moved on 26.8.2009. That<\/p>\n
means soon after the commission report was filed, the<\/p>\n
application for amendment was also filed.         It could not<\/p>\n
therefore be said that the plaintiff was not diligent in this<\/p>\n
regard.\n<\/p>\n
           18. None of the grounds relied on by the court<\/p>\n
below to decline the amendment as per Exts.P4 and P7<\/p>\n
petitions are legally acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
           19.   For the proper adjudication of the issues<\/p>\n
involved in the suit, these amendments are necessary. Of<\/p>\n
course, proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC provides that<\/p>\n
once the trial commenced, unless there are compelling<\/p>\n
reasons, amendment shall not be allowed. Viewed from that<\/p>\n
angle, Ext.P4 is highly belated.    But one has to notice that<\/p>\n
the amendments are required for a proper adjudication of<\/p>\n
WPC. 29695\/2009.               12<\/span><\/p>\n
the issues involved in the suit.      Even assuming that the<\/p>\n
amendment sought for is belated, it ought to be allowed so<\/p>\n
as to avoid multiplicity of suits. Viewed from this angle, it<\/p>\n
has to be said that both the amendment applications ought<\/p>\n
to have been allowed and at any rate any delay caused to<\/p>\n
the respondents can be compensated by awarding costs.<\/p>\n
           20. Going by the reliefs sought for in the plaint<\/p>\n
also the amendment sought for are quite appropriate.<\/p>\n
           In the result, this writ petition is allowed, Exts. P5<\/p>\n
and P8 are set aside and the amendment applications are<\/p>\n
allowed subject to the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.1500\/-<\/p>\n
within two weeks from the date of this judgment.<\/p>\n
                                             P. BHAVADASAN,
\n                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
sb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 29695 of 2009(O) 1. MARY JAMES, AGED 54, W\/O.JAMES, … Petitioner Vs 1. SARASWATHY AMMA, AGED 61, … Respondent 2. K.S.BABU, AGED 46, 3. K.S.MANOJ, AGED 31, 4. SHIJO T.JAMES, AGED 29, S\/O.JAMES, For […]<\/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-131052","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 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\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-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=\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-26T08:31:00+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-26T08:31:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2074,\"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\\\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Mary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-26T08:31:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 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":"Mary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 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\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-26T08:31:00+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-26T08:31:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010"},"wordCount":2074,"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\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010","name":"Mary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-26T08:31:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-james-vs-saraswathy-amma-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mary James vs Saraswathy Amma on 6 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\/131052","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=131052"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131052\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131052"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131052"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131052"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}