{"id":134463,"date":"2007-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007"},"modified":"2015-07-14T11:25:20","modified_gmt":"2015-07-14T05:55:20","slug":"edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Edakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Edakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 152 of 1993()\n\n\n\n1. EDAKKADANKANI CHOTHI MAMMU\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. ODYKKAN VEETTIL MADHAVI AMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SMT.VIDHYA. A.C\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :02\/03\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n               ===========================\n\n                  S.A.  NO.152    OF 1993\n\n               ===========================\n\n\n\n         Dated this the 2nd day of March,2007\n\n\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Second   defendant   in   O.S.73\/85   on   the   file   of<\/p>\n
Munsiff Court, Taliparamba is the appellant.  First<\/p>\n
respondent   is   the   plaintiff   and   second   respondent<\/p>\n
the   first   defendant.         Suit   was   filed   seeking<\/p>\n
recovery   of   possession   of   plaint   schedule   building<\/p>\n
with   arrears   of   rent.     First   respondent   contended<\/p>\n
that   property   originally   belonged   to   Kalliyad<\/p>\n
tarwad in jenm right and she obtained possession of<\/p>\n
property under an oral lease and he constructed the<\/p>\n
building   and   later   purchased   jenm   right   as   per<\/p>\n
order in O.A.414\/1976 of Irikkur Land Tribunal.  It<\/p>\n
was   also   contended   that   while   so   the   building   was<\/p>\n
rented out to first defendant on a monthly rent of<\/p>\n
Rs.10\/-  on  20.2.1973  and  he  has  been  in  possession<\/p>\n
of   the   building   as   a   tenant   but   defaulted   to   pay<\/p>\n
the rent  subsequent to 1981 and therefore she sent<\/p>\n
Ext.A4 notice terminating the tenancy and demanding<\/p>\n
S.A..152\/93                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
surrender   of   possession,     but   first   defendant   did<\/p>\n
not   surrender   the   building   or     pay   the   rent.     It<\/p>\n
was   contended   that   when   first   defendant   attempted<\/p>\n
to   trespass   into   the   property,   plaintiff                              was<\/p>\n
compelled   to   file   O.S.73\/82   before   Munsiff   Court<\/p>\n
seeking   a   decree   for   injunction   and   though   first<\/p>\n
defendant                 denied   the   title            learned   Munsiff<\/p>\n
upholding   the   title   of     plaintiff       granted   a<\/p>\n
decree  for  injunction.    It  was  also  contended  that<\/p>\n
first   defendant   thereafter   filed   an   application<\/p>\n
before   the   Land   Tribunal   claiming   to   be   a<\/p>\n
kudikidappukaran without impleading  plaintiff  and<\/p>\n
knowing  about  it  plaintiff      got  himself  impleaded<\/p>\n
in         that         O.A.and         under         Ext.A3         order         the<\/p>\n
application   was   dismissed   and   contention   of   first<\/p>\n
defendant   is   in   collision       with     appellant   and<\/p>\n
therefore   plaintiff     is   entitled   to   the   decree.\n<\/p>\n
First defendant filed a written statement admitting<\/p>\n
that   the   property   originally   belonged   to   Kalliyad<\/p>\n
tarwad   but   denying   the   right   of   plaintiff     under<\/p>\n
the   lease.     It   was   contended   that     building   was<\/p>\n
constructed   by   Payyar   who   granted   a   lease   of   the<\/p>\n
building   to   first   defendant   and   he   was   continuing<\/p>\n
S.A..152\/93                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
in   possession   of   the   building   as   a   tenant   under<\/p>\n
Payyar   and   while   so,   Payyar   sold   the   property   to<\/p>\n
appellant   and   he   is   continuing   in   possession     as<\/p>\n
tenant   under   the   appellant.               Appellant   was<\/p>\n
impleaded.       Appellant   filed   a   written   statement<\/p>\n
reiterating   the   contentions   raised   by   first<\/p>\n
defendant.     According   to   appellant,   the   building<\/p>\n
though   originally   belonged   to   Kalliyad   tarwad   it<\/p>\n
was   outstanding   of   lease   in   favour   of   Payyar   and<\/p>\n
while   so   Payyar   constructed   the   building   and<\/p>\n
thereafter  granted  the  building  on  a  monthly    rent<\/p>\n
of   Rs.3\/-   to   first   defendant   and   later   Payyar<\/p>\n
transferred the right in favour of appellant and he<\/p>\n
is   the   absolute   owner   of     property   and     plaintiff<\/p>\n
is   not   entitled   to   the   decree   sought   for.     It   was<\/p>\n
contended that  decree in O.S. 73\/82 is not binding<\/p>\n
on   the   appellant   as   appellant   was   not   a   party<\/p>\n
therein and  the suit is only to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Learned Munsiff framed the necessary issues.\n<\/p>\n
On   the   evidence,   learned   Munsiff   found   that   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   belonged   to   plaintiff              under<\/p>\n
Ext.A6   purchase   certificate   issued   by                 Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal  and  Exts.A1  and  A2  decree  and  judgment  in<\/p>\n
S.A..152\/93                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
O.S.73\/82   establish   that   plaintiff   has   title   to<\/p>\n
the   property        eventhough   first   defendant            had<\/p>\n
denied   the     title   of   plaintiff.     Learned   Munsiff<\/p>\n
granted   a   decree   holding   that     under   Ext.A3   order<\/p>\n
of        Land   Tribunal,        title   of   plaintiff        was<\/p>\n
established.  Learned Munsiff also found that there<\/p>\n
is   no   evidence   to   prove   that   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property   belonged   to   Payyar   as   claimed   and   even<\/p>\n
Payyar   was   not   examined.     In   such   circumstance,<\/p>\n
case  of    appellant  was  rejected  upholding  the  case<\/p>\n
of   plaintiff   and         a   decree   for   recovery   of<\/p>\n
possession   of   the     building   with   arrears   of   rent<\/p>\n
was granted.\n<\/p>\n
        3.     The   decree   and   judgment   was   challenged<\/p>\n
before   Sub   Court,   Payyannur   by   appellant.   First<\/p>\n
defendant     did   not   challenge   the   decree,   though<\/p>\n
decree   is   for   recovery   of   possession   of             the<\/p>\n
building   from   the   possession   of   first   defendant<\/p>\n
with   arrears   of   rent.              Learned   Sub   Judge   on<\/p>\n
reappreciation of evidence confirmed the decree and<\/p>\n
judgment   and   dismissed   the   appeal.                 It   is<\/p>\n
challenged in this Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        4.    The  following  substantial  questions of  law<\/p>\n
S.A..152\/93                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
were formulated.\n<\/p>\n
      1)   Whether the findings of   courts below that<\/p>\n
Ext.A1   and   A2   judgment   and   decree   in   a   suit<\/p>\n
instituted by plaintiff  against first defendant is<\/p>\n
binding   on     appellant,   who   is   setting   up   a   rival<\/p>\n
title, is sustainable?\n<\/p>\n
      2)     Whether   courts   below   erred   in   upholding<\/p>\n
the title of plaintiff  and rejecting the title set<\/p>\n
up by  second defendant?\n<\/p>\n
      5.Learned   counsel   appearing   for   appellant   and<\/p>\n
first respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    The  arguments  of  learned counsel  appearing<\/p>\n
for   appellant   was   that   though   plaintiff     set   up<\/p>\n
tenancy   right   under   Kalliyad   tarwad,   apart   from<\/p>\n
producing   a   purchase   certificate,   there   was   no<\/p>\n
evidence to prove the   oral lease and courts below<\/p>\n
on   the   evidence   should   have   found   that     plaintiff<\/p>\n
did   not   establish   his     title.     It   was   argued   that<\/p>\n
when   appellant   was   not   a   party   to   O.S.73\/82,   the<\/p>\n
finding   in     Ext.A2   judgment   should   not   have   found<\/p>\n
binding on  appellant to deny the  title claimed by<\/p>\n
him.   It was argued that   courts below should have<\/p>\n
found   that     title   vests   with   appellant   and     first<\/p>\n
S.A..152\/93                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant   was   originally   a   tenant   under   Payyar   and<\/p>\n
the   right   of   Payyar   was   transferred   to   appellant<\/p>\n
under   Ext.B4   and   plaintiff     has   no   title   to   the<\/p>\n
building            and         the         decree         and         judgment          is<\/p>\n
unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
      7.         Learned   counsel   appearing   for   first<\/p>\n
respondent   argued   that   though   appellant   set   up   a<\/p>\n
title obtained from Payyar, no evidence was adduced<\/p>\n
to prove that there was a lease in favour of Payyar<\/p>\n
and even Payyar was not examined and   courts below<\/p>\n
appreciated             the   evidence   in   the                                 proper<\/p>\n
perspective and rightly found that appellant has no<\/p>\n
right   or   title   to   the   property   and   the     building<\/p>\n
belongs to plaintiff   and was rented out to   first<\/p>\n
defendant   and   therefore   the     appeal   is   only   to   be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      8.  The property admittedly originally belonged<\/p>\n
to   Kalliyad   tarward   in   jenm   right.                                     It   was<\/p>\n
outstanding   in   the       possession   of   tenant.     When<\/p>\n
plaintiff     contended   that   plaint   schedule   property<\/p>\n
was   outstanding   in   her   possession   as   per   an     oral<\/p>\n
lease,   appellant   contended   that   it   was   outstanding<\/p>\n
in     possession   of   one   Payyar   and   from   Payyar   he<\/p>\n
S.A..152\/93                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
obtained   the   title.                         Ext.A6   is   the   purchase<\/p>\n
certificate   obtained   by   plaintiff.     Ext.B3   is   the<\/p>\n
purchase   certificate   issued   by     Land   Tribunal   in<\/p>\n
favour   of   Payyar,   the   assignor   of     the   appellant.\n<\/p>\n
According to appellant, he purchased  property from<\/p>\n
Payyar   under   Ext.B4   sale   deed   dated   28.5.1982.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.A2   decree   in   O.S.73\/82,   a   suit   filed   by<\/p>\n
plaintiff  seeking a decree for injunction alleging<\/p>\n
that   first   defendant   is   a   building   tenant   and<\/p>\n
attempted   to   trespass   into                               plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property   shows   that   the   said   suit   was   filed   on<\/p>\n
3.4.82.     It   also   shows   that   an   emergent   order   was<\/p>\n
passed     in   favour   of   plaintiff     on   that   day.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.B4              sale         deed         was         executed         immediately<\/p>\n
thereafter.     In   Ext.A1   suit   first   defendant   had<\/p>\n
filed   a   written   statement   contending     that   he   is<\/p>\n
not   the   tenant   of     plaintiff     but   of   Payyar   and<\/p>\n
thereafter     rights   of   Payyar   was   transferred   in<\/p>\n
favour   of     appellant   herein   and   he   is   a   tenant   of<\/p>\n
the appellant.  Ext.B4 assignment deed was executed<\/p>\n
thereafter, evidently to show that first  defendant<\/p>\n
is a tenant of the     appellant.   Eventhough in the<\/p>\n
written   statement   filed   by   both   the   appellant   and<\/p>\n
S.A..152\/93                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
first   defendant   it   was   stated   that     monthly   rent<\/p>\n
payable   is   Rs.3\/-,   Ext.B4   does   not   show     the   rate<\/p>\n
of   rent.            It   only   shows   that                  building   was<\/p>\n
outstanding   in     the   possession   of   first   defendant<\/p>\n
as   a   building   tenant.     Ext.B4   does   not   disclose<\/p>\n
when the lease was granted.   It is also to be born<\/p>\n
in   mind   that,   though   appellant   was   not   a   party   to<\/p>\n
O.S.   73\/82,   learned   Munsiff   upheld   the   case   of<\/p>\n
plaintiff     and   granted   a   decree   for     permanent<\/p>\n
prohibitory injunction against first defendant from<\/p>\n
trespassing into the  plaint schedule property.  If<\/p>\n
appellant   is   the   landlord   of     first   defendant   as<\/p>\n
claimed   by   them,   he   would   have   definitely   known<\/p>\n
about   the   decree.     Subsequently   first   defendant<\/p>\n
filed   O.A.106\/82   before                         Land   Tribunal,Irikkur<\/p>\n
claiming   kudikidappu   right.   He   did   not   implead<\/p>\n
plaintiff              therein.                    Instead   he   impleaded<\/p>\n
appellant   as              first   respondent   and   Payyar   as<\/p>\n
second   respondent.     That   O.A   was   filed   in   1982.\n<\/p>\n
Evidently           it         was         filed          immediately         after<\/p>\n
institution of  O.S. 73\/82.  It is seen from Ext.A3<\/p>\n
order   that   plaintiff     got   herself   impleaded   as<\/p>\n
third respondent and disputed the kudikidappu right<\/p>\n
S.A..152\/93                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
claimed   by   first   respondent.     It   is   pertinent     to<\/p>\n
note   that   Ext.A3   does   not   show   that   the   right   of<\/p>\n
kudikidappu   claimed   by   first   defendant   was   denied<\/p>\n
or  disputed  by  appellant.    Moreover,  the  very  fact<\/p>\n
that     contention   of       appellant   in   the   written<\/p>\n
statement   was   that     rate   of   rent   payable   is   only<\/p>\n
Rs.3\/-   is   sufficient   enough   to   show   that   appellant<\/p>\n
was   in   favour   of   granting   kudikidappu   right   to<\/p>\n
first   defendant.     Ext.A3   order   also   shows   that<\/p>\n
Ext.A1   and   A2   judgments   in   O.S.73\/82   as   well   as<\/p>\n
report  of    the  Commissioner  submitted  in  that  suit<\/p>\n
were marked as Exts.B1 to B4 and B6 apart from the<\/p>\n
oral evidence tendered by first defendant as PW1 in<\/p>\n
O.S.73\/82.       Appellant   was   therefore   aware   of   the<\/p>\n
decree   granted   in   favour   of   plaintiff                in<\/p>\n
O.S.73\/82.  It cannot be disputed that by virtue of<\/p>\n
Exts.A1   and   A2   judgment   and   decree,   a   cloud   has<\/p>\n
been   cast   on   the   alleged   title   of     appellant   .\n<\/p>\n
Inspite of that, appellant did not take any step to<\/p>\n
remove   the   cloud   cast   on   the   alleged     title   by<\/p>\n
filing   a   suit   for   declaration   of   title.   Instead<\/p>\n
after   getting   impleaded   in   the   suit   filed   by<\/p>\n
plaintiff       a   contention   has   been   raised   that   he<\/p>\n
S.A..152\/93                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
has   got   absolute   title   to   the   property   under<\/p>\n
Ext.B4.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   As   rightly   found   by   courts   below,   even<\/p>\n
Payyar     who   is   alleged   to   be   the   tenant   of   the<\/p>\n
property         was   not   examined.   The   only   evidence<\/p>\n
tendered  by  appellant  was  his  own  evidence  as  DW1.\n<\/p>\n
Evidence   of   DW1   establish   that   he   does   not   know<\/p>\n
anything  about  the  lease.  His    evidence  also  shows<\/p>\n
that   there   are   hundred   acres   shown   in   the     survey<\/p>\n
number   of   the   plaint   schedule   property.     Even   if<\/p>\n
Payyar  was  a  cultivating  tenant  in  respect  of  some<\/p>\n
property   in   that   survey   number,   it   does   not   mean<\/p>\n
that   Payyar   was   a   cultivating   tenant   of           the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
      10.   Exts.A1   decree   and   judgment   shows   that     a<\/p>\n
Commission was taken out in O.S.73\/1982  and plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   was   identified     as   the   property<\/p>\n
covered   under   the     purchase   certificate.   Evidence<\/p>\n
establish   that   plaint   schedule   property   is     the<\/p>\n
property   belonging   to   plaintiff            under   Ext.A6<\/p>\n
purchase   certificate   and   appellant   has   no   right<\/p>\n
over the same.\n<\/p>\n
      11. Appreciating the entire evidence in  proper<\/p>\n
S.A..152\/93                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
perspective, I find no reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
factual findings  of  courts below.  Appeal is only<\/p>\n
to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      Appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                    M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR<\/p>\n
                                            JUDGE<\/p>\n
tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
     W.P.(C).NO. \/06<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Edakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 152 of 1993() 1. EDAKKADANKANI CHOTHI MAMMU … Petitioner Vs 1. ODYKKAN VEETTIL MADHAVI AMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN For Respondent :SMT.VIDHYA. A.C The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR […]<\/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-134463","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nEdakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007 - 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\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Edakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-14T05:55:20+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Edakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-14T05:55:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1797,\"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\\\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Edakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-14T05:55:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Edakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Edakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007 - 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\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Edakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-14T05:55:20+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Edakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-14T05:55:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007"},"wordCount":1797,"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\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007","name":"Edakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-14T05:55:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/edakkadankani-chothi-mammu-vs-odykkan-veettil-madhavi-amma-on-2-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Edakkadankani Chothi Mammu vs Odykkan Veettil Madhavi Amma on 2 March, 2007"}]},{"@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\/134463","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=134463"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134463\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134463"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134463"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134463"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}