{"id":132420,"date":"2009-06-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-05-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009"},"modified":"2014-06-04T02:25:41","modified_gmt":"2014-06-03T20:55:41","slug":"a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"A.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
A.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 375 of 2005()\n\n\n1. A.RAMESH SHENOY, S\/O.AYYUTH SHENOY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SUSILA AND DAYANANDA MALLER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. VITHALDAS LEELADAR, S\/O.LEELADAR\n\n3. BROTHER SADASIVA LEELADAR,\n\n4. BROTHER RAMA CHANDRA LEELADAR BHANDARI,\n\n5. BROTHER DAMODAR LEELADAR BHANDARI,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI\n\n Dated :01\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n            PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ.\n\n             ---------------------------------------------\n                       R.C.R. 375 OF 2005\n             ---------------------------------------------\n                       Dated: JUNE 1, 2009\n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Under challenge in this revision    filed by the tenant is the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversing the<\/p>\n
order of the Rent Control Court by which the RCP was dismissed<\/p>\n
by that court.   The parties will be referred to for convenience as<\/p>\n
the tenant and the landlord.     The landlord is a private religious<\/p>\n
and charitable trust by name “Susila and Dayananda Maller<\/p>\n
Religious and Charitable Trust” and the same is represented by<\/p>\n
its present four trustees.    The landlord invoked the grounds<\/p>\n
under sub-sec.(3) and clause (ii) of sub-sec.(4) of sec.11 of Act<\/p>\n
2\/1965. The ground under clause (ii) of sub-sec.(4) of sec.11<\/p>\n
was invoked in the context of erection of an unauthorised pandal<\/p>\n
in front of the tenanted premises.      The Rent Control Court as<\/p>\n
well as the Appellate Authority have concurrently declined<\/p>\n
eviction on that ground and, in the absence of any revision filed<\/p>\n
by the landlord, that ground does not survive any longer.       The<\/p>\n
R.C.R. 375 OF 2005               -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
need projected in the context of the surviving ground under sub-<\/p>\n
sec.(3) of sec.11 was that none of the present trustees of the<\/p>\n
landlord are able to manage the very valuable properties<\/p>\n
belonging to the Trust     and hence the Trust has resolved to<\/p>\n
appoint a manager and further that the petition schedule building<\/p>\n
is needed for accommodating the office of the manager.        The<\/p>\n
ground is expatiated by stating that the Trust owns extensive<\/p>\n
properties in the town and it has been decided to construct<\/p>\n
buildings, for the construction and management of which also a<\/p>\n
manager with an office is necessary.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The tenant resisted the RCP contending inter alia that<\/p>\n
the need and the claim are not bona fide and that the tenant is<\/p>\n
entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub-sec.(3) of<\/p>\n
sec.11 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      3.  The    Rent Control Court on evaluating the evidence<\/p>\n
adduced by the parties consisting of Exts.A1 to A4 and<\/p>\n
testimonies of Pws.1 and 2 on the side of the landlord and<\/p>\n
Exts.B1 to B4 and the testimony of RW.1 on the side of the<\/p>\n
tenant would hold that the claim and the need projected by the<\/p>\n
landlord is not bona fide.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   The Rent Control Appellate Authority, however, on<\/p>\n
R.C.R. 375 OF 2005                -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
considering    the  appeal   re-appreciated   the   evidence    and<\/p>\n
disagreeing with the Rent Control Court, found that the need and<\/p>\n
the claim for own occupation under sec.11(3) was bona fide.<\/p>\n
The tenant’s claim for protection of the second proviso to sub-<\/p>\n
sec.(3) of sec.11 was turned down on the basis of Ext.A1, the<\/p>\n
admitted rent chit, which discloses that the building in question is<\/p>\n
a residential building and that the purpose of the lease was<\/p>\n
residential only.\n<\/p>\n
     5. In this revision the tenant assails the findings and the<\/p>\n
decision of the     Rent Control Appellate Authority on various<\/p>\n
grounds.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   We have heard the submissions of Sri K.V.Pavithran,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri Jayesh<\/p>\n
Mohankumar, learned counsel for the respondent\/landlord.<\/p>\n
     7.     Drawing our attention to pages 9 and 10 of Ext.A2<\/p>\n
Minutes Book maintained by the Trust, Mr. Pavithran submitted<\/p>\n
that the first resolution adopted by the landlord Trust in this case<\/p>\n
was to initiate proceedings for evicting the tenant and to appoint<\/p>\n
a manager for the Trust properties only.     In the first resolution<\/p>\n
there is no decision at all to put up buildings.     Mr. Pavithran<\/p>\n
submitted that the total amount collected by the landlord Trust<\/p>\n
R.C.R. 375 OF 2005               -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
from all the tenants excluding the revision petitioner is only<\/p>\n
Rs.370\/- per mensem and, according to the learned counsel, the<\/p>\n
decision to appoint a manager on a monthly salary of Rs.600\/-<\/p>\n
for collecting a total monthly rent of Rs.370\/- from all the<\/p>\n
buildings belonging to the Trust is implicitly bereft of bona fides.<\/p>\n
Mr. Pavithran submitted that the so called decision to put up<\/p>\n
buildings was introduced only on second thoughts and through a<\/p>\n
subsequent resolution. Mr. Pavithran pointed out that though the<\/p>\n
said decision was taken long ago, till the year 2001 when the<\/p>\n
litigation reached the    Rent Control Appellate Authority, the<\/p>\n
landlord had not taken even the preliminary steps for<\/p>\n
accomplishing the said decision.      This again, according to the<\/p>\n
learned counsel, is a circumstance indicative of complete absence<\/p>\n
of bona fides in the need projected by the landlord. Referring to<\/p>\n
sub-secs.(3) and (7) of sec.11, Mr. Pavithran would submit that<\/p>\n
sub-sec.(3) of sec.11 will be available only to natural persons and<\/p>\n
not to the present landlord which is a private religious trust.<\/p>\n
The argument of the learned counsel was that sub-sec.(7) of<\/p>\n
sec.11 provides for filing of eviction petitions for own use by<\/p>\n
public, religious and charitable institutions and if it were to be<\/p>\n
said that sub-sec.(3) of sec.11 is available to private institutions<\/p>\n
R.C.R. 375 OF 2005               -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
like the present landlord, the same will defeat the very purpose<\/p>\n
and legislative intendment underlying sub-sec.(7) of sec.11.<\/p>\n
      8.    Sri Jayesh Mohankumar, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent, would draw our attention to the definition clause (3)<\/p>\n
of sec.2 of Act 2\/1965 and submit that the statute envisages all<\/p>\n
types of Trusts and other institutions also as landlords and under<\/p>\n
sec.11 of the Act, all landlords are entitled to maintain petitions<\/p>\n
for eviction against their tenants on        the various grounds<\/p>\n
mentioned under that section. As regards the grounds raised on<\/p>\n
the merits of the matter, Mr. Jayesh submitted that under the<\/p>\n
statutory scheme, the Rent Control Appellate Authority is the<\/p>\n
final court of facts and unless this Court finds any illegality,<\/p>\n
irregularity or impropriety about the findings of the appellate<\/p>\n
authority, there will not be any justification for interfering with<\/p>\n
the same. There is not much time lag between the two decisions<\/p>\n
recorded on pages 9 and 10 of Ext.A2. The necessity to have a<\/p>\n
manager was experienced by the landlord Trust because none of<\/p>\n
the Trustees were in a position to manage the affairs of the<\/p>\n
Trust, themselves.       Even without the decision to put up<\/p>\n
constructions, a manager and an office for him is necessary.<\/p>\n
Now that a decision has been taken to put up constructions, a<\/p>\n
R.C.R. 375 OF 2005                 -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
manager and an office has become all the more necessary, so<\/p>\n
submitted Mr. Jayesh.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   We have anxiously considered the rival submissions<\/p>\n
addressed at the Bar.      The argument of Mr. K.V.Pavithran that<\/p>\n
the eviction ground under sub-sec.(3) of sec.11 is available only<\/p>\n
to those landlords who are natural persons, does not appeal to us<\/p>\n
at all.    As rightly pointed out by Mr.Jayesh Mohankumar, the<\/p>\n
ground under sub-sec.(3) of sec.11 is available to all landlords<\/p>\n
and in terms of clause (3) of sec.2 of the Act, which gives<\/p>\n
an inclusive definition for the term “landlord”, landlords can also<\/p>\n
be trustees and administrators of Trusts and other institutions,<\/p>\n
registered or unregistered, public or private.      Sub-sec.(7) of<\/p>\n
sec.11 is a special provision intended for those landlords which<\/p>\n
are religious, public and charitable institutions. The existence of<\/p>\n
that provision in the statute book cannot be a valid reason to say<\/p>\n
that the institutions which do not fall within the ambit of that<\/p>\n
provision are not entitled to apply for eviction under sub-sec.(3)<\/p>\n
of sec.11. A Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us<\/p>\n
(PCK, J.) was also a party, has ruled by the judgment in Social<\/p>\n
Service Guild of Assissi Sisters v. Ouseph Chacko (2009 (2) KLT<\/p>\n
199) that the eviction grounds under sub-secs(7) and (3) of<\/p>\n
R.C.R. 375 OF 2005                -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
sec.11 are independent grounds and that the ground under sub-<\/p>\n
sec.(7) of sec.11 is the ground which applies where a religious,<\/p>\n
public or charitable institution needs the tenanted building for its<\/p>\n
purposes.    Here the landlord is neither a public trust nor a<\/p>\n
religious, public or charitable institution. It is a private Trust.<\/p>\n
Sec.11(7) will not have any application to the present landlord.<\/p>\n
We do not find any other ground of eviction in the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Act which enables a private institution or a private Trust to evict<\/p>\n
their tenants when the Trust needs the building occupied by the<\/p>\n
tenant bona fide for its own purposes than sub-sec.(3) of sec.11.<\/p>\n
      10. The bona fides in the context of sub-sec.(3) of sec.11 is<\/p>\n
a state of mind which is capable of being proved mainly by<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence and by direct oral evidence by the party<\/p>\n
who harbours the need.      In the present case, it is seen that on<\/p>\n
behalf of the Trust, one of its Trustees testified before the trial<\/p>\n
court regarding the genuineness of the need of the landlord<\/p>\n
Trust. The evidence of PW.1 was to the effect that none of the<\/p>\n
present trustees are in a position to manage the extensive and<\/p>\n
valuable Trust properties and that the Trust wants to improve its<\/p>\n
properties by putting up new constructions and that the Trust has<\/p>\n
decided to appoint a paid manager.          It cannot be in dispute<\/p>\n
R.C.R. 375 OF 2005                -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
that if there is need to appoint a paid manager, there is need also<\/p>\n
to provide the said manager with an office room. We are unable<\/p>\n
to accept the argument of Mr. Pavithran that because the need to<\/p>\n
put up buildings does not find a place in the first resolution<\/p>\n
adopted by the Trust, the need projected is to be treated as<\/p>\n
without bona fides.       After all, the second decision was taken<\/p>\n
on the very next day and, according to us, if the testimony of<\/p>\n
PW.1 that none of the Trustees are in a position to manage the<\/p>\n
affairs of the Trust properties and therefore the Trust has decided<\/p>\n
to appoint a manager is believable, then the need can be<\/p>\n
accepted as bona fide even in the absence of the subsequent<\/p>\n
decision to put up buildings.    It may be true that   the existing<\/p>\n
buildings of the Trust may not be fetching very high rent. But the<\/p>\n
tenant does not dispute the case of the landlord that the<\/p>\n
properties situated as they are in the heart land of the ancient<\/p>\n
municipal town of Thalassery are of immense capital value.      We<\/p>\n
do not find anything unnatural in a Trust, whose trustees are not<\/p>\n
able of looking after the properties themselves, in appointing a<\/p>\n
manager.       It has come out in evidence that the Trust has<\/p>\n
decided to put up buildings also. Of course, it is seen that the<\/p>\n
preliminary steps for putting up the buildings were taken at a<\/p>\n
R.C.R. 375 OF 2005               -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
slow pace only, but the landlord has its own explanation to offer.<\/p>\n
Even the construction is to be overseen by the manager and for<\/p>\n
want of the petition schedule building, they are unable to appoint<\/p>\n
and accommodate the manager immediately.\n<\/p>\n
      11. In this jurisdiction under sec.20 of the Act, we are not<\/p>\n
expected to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute our<\/p>\n
conclusions for the factual conclusions entered by the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority which have become final.       Having gone through the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, we are of the<\/p>\n
view that the conclusion entered by that authority are reasonable<\/p>\n
and founded on evidence. We see no warrant for interfering with<\/p>\n
the same. Hence the RCR will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      12. As his last submission Mr. Pavithran requested that six<\/p>\n
months time be granted for vacating the building.       Mr. Jayesh<\/p>\n
submitted that the tenant is not conducting any commercial<\/p>\n
activity in the building and that he is not even residing in the<\/p>\n
building. According to him, the tenant’s wife and children are<\/p>\n
possessed of a residential building and the tenant is residing in<\/p>\n
that building.    It was also submitted that before the       Rent<\/p>\n
Control Appellate Authority documents regarding the building<\/p>\n
owned and possessed by the wife and children were actually<\/p>\n
R.C.R. 375 OF 2005                -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
produced, but not accepted by that authority. He opposed grant<\/p>\n
of time. However, we are of the view that five months time from<\/p>\n
today can be granted to the revision petitioner for surrendering<\/p>\n
the petition schedule premises. Hence we decide the RCR in the<\/p>\n
following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
      The RCR is dismissed.    The Executing Court is directed not<\/p>\n
to enforce execution and order delivery of the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building in favour of the landlord till 31.10.2009 on condition<\/p>\n
that the revision petitioner gives an undertaking to the court<\/p>\n
below in the form of an affidavit stating that he will peacefully<\/p>\n
surrender the building to any of the trustees of the landlord Trust<\/p>\n
on or before 30.10.2009 within three weeks from today. There<\/p>\n
will be a further condition that the revision petitioner discharges<\/p>\n
the arrears of rent in respect of the building, which has fallen<\/p>\n
due after the year 2001 including the rent which falls due<\/p>\n
subsequently, till he gives actual surrender.<\/p>\n
                                    PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                      P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE<\/p>\n
mt\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court A.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 375 of 2005() 1. A.RAMESH SHENOY, S\/O.AYYUTH SHENOY, … Petitioner Vs 1. SUSILA AND DAYANANDA MALLER, … Respondent 2. VITHALDAS LEELADAR, S\/O.LEELADAR 3. BROTHER SADASIVA LEELADAR, 4. BROTHER RAMA CHANDRA LEELADAR BHANDARI, […]<\/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-132420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009 - 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\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-05-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-03T20:55:41+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\\\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-03T20:55:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2136,\"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\\\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009\",\"name\":\"A.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-03T20:55:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"A.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009 - 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\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-05-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-03T20:55:41+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\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-05-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-03T20:55:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009"},"wordCount":2136,"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\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009","name":"A.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-03T20:55:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-ramesh-shenoy-vs-susila-and-dayananda-maller-on-1-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Ramesh Shenoy vs Susila And Dayananda Maller on 1 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/132420","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=132420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/132420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=132420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=132420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=132420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}