{"id":134685,"date":"2010-06-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-06T09:41:59","modified_gmt":"2017-02-06T04:11:59","slug":"sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 17961 of 2010(O)\n\n\n1. SUDHA, TC 25\/3155(1 & 2) M.R.R.A.,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. PRAMOD CHANDRAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.L.MOHANAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :18\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                    THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n            ====================================\n                     W.P(C) No.17961 of 2010\n            ====================================\n             Dated this the 18th   day of June, 2010\n\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
       Respondent\/plaintiff is the owner in possession of plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule where he has constructed a building and is residing with<\/p>\n
family. On its south, it is not disputed before me is the plot shown<\/p>\n
as plaint    B schedule which belonged to defendant No.1.        It is<\/p>\n
also not disputed that three cents towards east of plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
was assigned to petitioner\/defendant No.2       where she     started<\/p>\n
construction of a residential building.    According to the report<\/p>\n
(Ext.P5) of the Advocate Commissioner the ground floor of building<\/p>\n
has been completed and petitioner has proceeded to construct its<\/p>\n
first floor. At that time respondent filed O.S. No.1446 of 2009 in<\/p>\n
the court of learned Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram complaining that<\/p>\n
construction being embarked upon in the three cents is without<\/p>\n
obtaining permit and approved plan from the local authority and is<\/p>\n
without leaving sufficient space in between plaint A and B<\/p>\n
schedules.    He also filed I.A. No.7922 of 2009 for an order for<\/p>\n
temporary injunction to restrain petitioner from proceeding with<\/p>\n
further construction. That application was opposed by petitioner<\/p>\n
contending that she has obtained permit and the plan approved<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.17961 of 2010
\n                                 -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
from the local authority, construction is strictly in accordance with<\/p>\n
the plan and permit and that it is not correct to say that the<\/p>\n
required space between plaint A and B schedules has not been<\/p>\n
left.   Learned Munsiff was not impressed by the contentions<\/p>\n
raised by respondent, held that there is no violation as<\/p>\n
complained by the respondent and dismissed the application.<\/p>\n
Respondent took up the matter in appeal – C.M.A. No.13 of 2010<\/p>\n
in the court of learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram.<\/p>\n
Learned District Judge was of view that construction being carried<\/p>\n
on by    petitioner is not in accordance with the approved plan<\/p>\n
(Ext.P4) and permit and hence it has to be stopped. Accordingly<\/p>\n
appeal was allowed and petitioner was restrained from making<\/p>\n
further construction in the plaint B schedule in violation of the<\/p>\n
approved plan and permit      except    or in accordance with the<\/p>\n
modified plan and permit if any to be obtained by the petitioner. It<\/p>\n
was    also directed that construction if any already made in<\/p>\n
violation of the plan and permit granted if not ratified or modified<\/p>\n
plan obtained in tune with the present construction from the<\/p>\n
authorities concerned will be subject to the result of the suit.<\/p>\n
That judgment is under challenge in this Writ Petition.      Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for petitioner contends that there is no violation of the<\/p>\n
Building Rules and learned District Judge has also not found so,<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.17961 of 2010
\n                                  -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
instead, violation found is for the approved plan, Ext.P4. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel would contend that there is no violation and at any rate<\/p>\n
even if it is assumed that there is slight variance from the<\/p>\n
approved plan, it does not in any way violate the relevant rules<\/p>\n
and no safety or nuisance of the public at large is involved. Hence<\/p>\n
it is not necessary to stop construction of building at this stage.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel construction if any made in<\/p>\n
violation of the Rules can be directed to be removed by the<\/p>\n
learned Munsiff on conclusion of trial. Learned counsel undertook<\/p>\n
that in case it is found that construction is in violation of the Rules<\/p>\n
petitioner is prepared to rectify the mistake and make the<\/p>\n
construction in tune with the relevant statutory provisions.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions              in M\/s.<\/p>\n
Rajatha Enterprises v. S.K. Sharma (AIR<\/a> 1989 SC 860)<\/p>\n
Narahari Rao v. Sate of Kerala (1999 [1] KLJ 969).<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is<\/p>\n
violation of the Rule in that width of the road in front of plaint A<\/p>\n
and B schedules is not left as required in the Rules, not to say that<\/p>\n
there is violation of the approved plan in that regard. It is also<\/p>\n
contended that learned District Judge was right in concluding that<\/p>\n
sufficient rear space has not been left by petitioner in constructing<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.17961 of 2010
\n                                -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the building. Learned counsel contends that there is violation of<\/p>\n
the Rules and even regularisation under Rule 143 of the Rules is<\/p>\n
not permissible as held by a Division Bench of this Court in<\/p>\n
Lazer Robert v. Mohammed Sheriff<\/a> (2008 [4] KHC<\/p>\n
1016)<\/p>\n
      2.    I have gone through the judgment of learned District<\/p>\n
Judge and find that there is no finding that any of the provisions<\/p>\n
of the Rules has been violated in the matter of construction. On<\/p>\n
the other hand the finding is that there is       violation of the<\/p>\n
approved plan (Ext.P4) in that sufficient rear space as directed in<\/p>\n
the approved plan has not been left by the petitioner in<\/p>\n
constructing the building. In Ext.P4, approved plan open space<\/p>\n
required to be left in between the building of petitioner and the<\/p>\n
compound wall of respondent is stated to be one metre on the<\/p>\n
one side and 1.10 metres on the other side. Under Rule 62(3) of<\/p>\n
the Rules rear side shall have an average space of one metre with<\/p>\n
a minimum of 0.50 metre. In other words, even if at a point on<\/p>\n
the rear side width of the space is only 0.50 metre it is sufficient<\/p>\n
that the average width is one metre.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    Now I shall refer to the         report of Advocate\n\nCommissioner on which both sides place reliance.         It is seen\n\n<\/pre>\n
from page 2 of the report that plaint A schedule property is well<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.17961 of 2010
\n                                 -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
bounded by compound wall on all sides. Plaint B schedule is on<\/p>\n
its southern side with the three cents belonging to the petitioner<\/p>\n
being on the eastern side of plaint B schedule. In page 4 of Ext.P5<\/p>\n
there is reference to width of open space between the compound<\/p>\n
wall of plaint A schedule and plaint B schedule as 88 cms.     but it<\/p>\n
is further stated that distance from the pillar of the building in<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule (constructed by the petitioner) to the compound<\/p>\n
wall of plaint A schedule is 97 cms. There is no reference to the<\/p>\n
average width of the rear space on that side. Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
respondent has invited my attention to the objection filed by<\/p>\n
petitioner to Ext.P5, report where it is stated that distance<\/p>\n
between northern side of plaint B schedule is 90 cms. According<\/p>\n
to the learned counsel for respondent in the light of that stand, it<\/p>\n
is idle for petitioner to contend   relying on what is stated     in<\/p>\n
Ext.P5, report about distance from the pillar to the compound<\/p>\n
wall of plaint A schedule as 97 cms.      It is argued by learned<\/p>\n
counsel that the outer line of the construction in plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
goes beyond the pillars and hence distance between the outer line<\/p>\n
of the building and compound wall of plaint A schedule is less than<\/p>\n
97 cms.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    As of now what is revealed from Ext.P5 is that though<\/p>\n
it is stated that distance from plaint A schedule is 88 cms., the<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.17961 of 2010
\n                                 -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
distance from the pillar of construction in plaint B schedule to the<\/p>\n
compound wall of plaint A schedule is 97 cms. Concededly both<\/p>\n
the above descriptions are in excess of the minimum requirement<\/p>\n
of   0.50 metre referred to in Rule 62(3) of the Rules which<\/p>\n
provided that the average width shall not be less than one metre.<\/p>\n
But report of Advocate Commissioner (Ext.P5) does not reveal<\/p>\n
that average width of the open space between construction in<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule and compound wall of plaint A schedule is less<\/p>\n
than one metre.    I do not forget that in the sketch accompanying<\/p>\n
Ext.P5, report also Advocate Commissioner has shown distance as<\/p>\n
88 cms, as sated in page 4 of Ext.P5. But it is not clear from the<\/p>\n
sketch whether the said      88 cms is from the pillar in pliant B<\/p>\n
schedule to the compound wall in plaint A schedule. Further down<\/p>\n
in Ext.P5 Advocate Commissioner has categorically stated that<\/p>\n
open space is 97 cms. Either way there is no material on record<\/p>\n
to conclude that average width is less than one metre. Therefore<\/p>\n
relying on Ext.P5 it is not possible to say now that there is<\/p>\n
violation of Rule 62(3) of the Rules.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Now    I shall come to alleged violation of the approved<\/p>\n
plan (Ext.P4).   No doubt as per that plan space to be        left in<\/p>\n
between plaint A and B schedules should be one metre on one<\/p>\n
side and 1.10 metres on the other and going by Ext.P5 that<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.17961 of 2010
\n                                  -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
distance has not been left since       that even according to the<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner, width from the pillar of building in plaint<\/p>\n
B schedule and compound wall of plaint A schedule is 97 cms (or<\/p>\n
88 cms as learned counsel for respondent would urge) and to that<\/p>\n
extent there is a prima facie a variation from the approved plan.<\/p>\n
      6.   Learned    counsel    for respondent     has  a  further<\/p>\n
contention that in putting up compound wall in front of plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule petitioner has not left that much width on the public line<\/p>\n
abutting that compound wall as indicated in the approved plan but<\/p>\n
learned counsel was fair enough to concede that the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner was neither requested nor has reported the width<\/p>\n
of the said pathway.     If that be so that matter is not to be<\/p>\n
considered in this proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   Learned counsel for respondent contended that since<\/p>\n
construction is at variance with the approved plan further<\/p>\n
construction of the building is to be prevented. Decision (Lazer<\/p>\n
Robert v. Mohammed Sheriff<\/a> – supra) relied on by learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent states that when there is violation of<\/p>\n
the relevant Rules no question of regularisation under Rule 143 of<\/p>\n
the Rules arose.      But that question        does not arise for<\/p>\n
consideration for the time being since at present there is only a<\/p>\n
variation of the approved plan and permit but not in any way<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.17961 of 2010
\n                                 -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
violating the relevant Rules and it is well within the power of the<\/p>\n
authority concerned to regularise the same. The Supreme Court<\/p>\n
in M\/s.Rajatha Enterprises v. S.K. Sharma (AIR<\/a> 1989<\/p>\n
SC 860) and a Division Bench of this Court in Narahari Rao v.<\/p>\n
Sate of Kerala (1999 [1] KLJ 969) stated that when there is no<\/p>\n
violation of Rules and what is made out is only a variance with<\/p>\n
the approved plan and it is not shown that construction has in<\/p>\n
any way caused danger or nuisance to the public at large it is not<\/p>\n
necessary that civil court should interfere and direct demolition of<\/p>\n
the structure.    I do not forget in those cases issue considered<\/p>\n
was whether     construction which was not in       violation of the<\/p>\n
relevant Rules but in variance with the approved plan and permit<\/p>\n
should be pulled down.      Here is a case where petitioner has<\/p>\n
invested substantial amount     and going by the report of the<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner construction       of ground floor has been<\/p>\n
completed and petitioner is proceeding with construction of      first<\/p>\n
floor.  I must also bear in mind that       extent of land in the<\/p>\n
ownership, possession and control of petitioner is only three cents<\/p>\n
where the construction is being made.           Petitioner has the<\/p>\n
opportunity to seek regularisation of the construction if violation is<\/p>\n
only of the approved plan. In these circumstances I do not think<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.17961 of 2010
\n                                  -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
it necessary that at this stage the      court has to interfere with<\/p>\n
construction of the building. After all if ultimately it is found that<\/p>\n
construction made by petitioner in any way violated the relevant<\/p>\n
Rules or petitioner is not able to get regularisation of the<\/p>\n
construction and it is necessary in the interest of justice to do so<\/p>\n
the civil court has authority to direct petitioner to demolish the<\/p>\n
construction. At this stage I bear in mind the undertaking made<\/p>\n
by learned counsel for petitioner that if the construction is found<\/p>\n
to be in violation of the relevant Rules petitioner is prepared to<\/p>\n
demolish such portion which violated the Rules.           Undertaking<\/p>\n
made by the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner is recorded.<\/p>\n
In the light of what I have stated above I am not persuaded to<\/p>\n
think that petitioner should be prevented from                 further<\/p>\n
construction of the building until the suit is disposed of.   As such<\/p>\n
the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
      Resultantly, this Writ petition succeeds. Judgment in C.M.A.<\/p>\n
No.13 of 2010 of learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is<\/p>\n
set aside and the order passed by the learned Munsiff is<\/p>\n
restored.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
vsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 17961 of 2010(O) 1. SUDHA, TC 25\/3155(1 & 2) M.R.R.A., … Petitioner Vs 1. PRAMOD CHANDRAN, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.L.MOHANAN For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :18\/06\/2010 O R […]<\/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-134685","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 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\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-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=\"2010-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-06T04:11:59+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\\\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-06T04:11:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2082,\"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\\\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Sudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-06T04:11:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 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":"Sudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 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\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-06T04:11:59+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\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-06T04:11:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010"},"wordCount":2082,"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\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010","name":"Sudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-06T04:11:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sudha-vs-pramod-chandran-on-18-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sudha vs Pramod Chandran on 18 June, 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\/134685","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=134685"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/134685\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=134685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=134685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=134685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}