{"id":137875,"date":"2010-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2"},"modified":"2014-04-07T09:14:40","modified_gmt":"2014-04-07T03:44:40","slug":"rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Rajeswari vs Suresh on 30 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Rajeswari vs Suresh on 30 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 450 of 2010()\n\n\n1. RAJESWARI, W\/O.BALAN PEECHIYODE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SURESH, S\/O.KITTA, PEECHIYODE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :30\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       P.BHAVADASAN, J.\n                       -------------------------\n                     R.S.A No. 450 of 2010\n                       --------------------------\n                Dated this the 30th June, 2010\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The defendant in O.S No.280\/99 before the Munsiff’s<\/p>\n
Court, Chittur, who suffered a decree at the hands of the<\/p>\n
trial court which was confirmed in appeal is the appellant<\/p>\n
before this Court.     The parties and facts       hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as are available before the trial court.<\/p>\n
      2.   The subject matter of this appeal relates to a<\/p>\n
pathway which is shown as plaint B schedule property.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff  obtained    plaint    A schedule property as per<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 document. According to him, the plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property is the portion of plaint A schedule and it lies well<\/p>\n
separated from the properties of the defendant.          The<\/p>\n
defendant trespassed into B schedule property and put up<\/p>\n
a fence. In spite of demand, defendant did not remove the<\/p>\n
fence. The suit was one for injunction initially but was<\/p>\n
amended later for declaration, recovery of possession and<\/p>\n
for other reliefs including mandatory injunction.<\/p>\n
      3.   The suit was resisted by the defendant pointing<\/p>\n
out that     B schedule property belonged to her.           A<\/p>\n
contention was also taken that plaintiff had no manner of<\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 450 of 2010
\n                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
right over plaint B schedule property and asserted that she<\/p>\n
had not trespassed into any portion of property owned by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff. Therefore she prayed for dismissal of the<\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    The trial court raised necessary issues for<\/p>\n
consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of<\/p>\n
PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked from the side<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff.  Defendant was    examined as DW1 and<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 was marked. Exts C1 to C3 are the commission<\/p>\n
report and plan.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    The trial court on a meticulous    evaluation of<\/p>\n
evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
plaintiff had succeeded in establishing his title over plaint<\/p>\n
B schedule property and obstruction had been caused by<\/p>\n
the defendant. Accordingly the suit was decreed.<\/p>\n
     6.    The defendant carried the matter in appeal as<\/p>\n
A.S.No.36 of 2006. The appellate court on re-evaluation of<\/p>\n
the evidence on record came to the same conclusion as that<\/p>\n
of the trial court. Both the court belows have come to the<\/p>\n
same conclusion with reference to the boundaries in the<\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 450 of 2010
\n                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
documents and sketch and report prepared by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner. It was held that plaint B is a portion of A<\/p>\n
schedule covered by Ext.A1.       Accordingly, the appellate<\/p>\n
court confirmed the decree in favour of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
     7.    Learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
pointed out that the courts below were not justified in<\/p>\n
granting a decree    because     the  commissioner’s report<\/p>\n
shows that the commissioner was not able to identify the<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property.       It is also contended that<\/p>\n
plaintiff cannot succeeded on the basis of the weakness of<\/p>\n
the defence case.     In support of the said proposition,<\/p>\n
learned counsel    relied the decision reported in Sayed<\/p>\n
Muhammed Mashur         Kunhi Koya Thangal Vs. Badagara<\/p>\n
Jumayath Palli Dharas Committee and Others [2004 (7)<\/p>\n
SCC 708].    It was also contended that the court below<\/p>\n
ought not to have remitted the commissioner’s report<\/p>\n
without an application to that effect. In short, there is<\/p>\n
nothing to show that plaint B schedule is taken into by the<\/p>\n
document of title of plaintiff namely Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 450 of 2010
\n                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
     8.     Learned counsel appearing for the respondent<\/p>\n
on the other hand pointed out that very reading of the<\/p>\n
boundaries of plaint A schedule in Ext.A1 document of title<\/p>\n
of plaintiff and Ext.B1 is the document of title of defendant<\/p>\n
whose controversy can be resolved.\n<\/p>\n
     9.     Learned counsel also pointed out that it is not<\/p>\n
correct to say that the commissioner was unable to identify<\/p>\n
the property.     Survey sketch clearly shows that the<\/p>\n
commissioner was able to locate plaint B schedule property<\/p>\n
and he has shown IT in the report.\n<\/p>\n
     10. The assignors of both the plaintiff and the<\/p>\n
defendant is the same person. Ext.B1 is in favour of the<\/p>\n
defendant at the prior point of time.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ext.B1 indicates that<\/p>\n
                      –\n<\/p>\n
                      –\n<\/p>\n
                      -     PWD\n\n                      -\n\n<\/pre>\n
     The boundaries mentioned in Ext.A1 reads thus:<\/p>\n
                 –\n<\/p>\n
                 –<\/p>\n
\n\nR.S.A No. 450 of 2010\n                               5<\/span>\n\n\n        -                                  PWD\n\n                 -\n\n<\/pre>\n
     11. The recital in Ext.B1 schedule also shows that on<\/p>\n
the northern side is      . In Ext.A1, on the<\/p>\n
northern it is shown as<\/p>\n
     12. On a reading of Ext.B1, it can be seen that the<\/p>\n
the northern boundary of the property      obtained by the<\/p>\n
defendant is      . (portion left for the way). That<\/p>\n
in fact is the portion set apart for pathway by the assignor<\/p>\n
in Ext.B1. Ext.A1 in favour of the plaintiff in the schedule<\/p>\n
makes mention that ”                      (including<\/p>\n
the portion left for way). So it is clear that<\/p>\n
 (portion set apart for way) in Ext.B1 is the same as<\/p>\n
  (including the way) in Ext.A1. It is significant<\/p>\n
to note that western boundary of Ext.A1 is shown as (tea<\/p>\n
shop of kitta)                                PWD   .\n<\/p>\n
Necessarily therefore the property covered by Ext.A1 has to<\/p>\n
extend till the P.W.D road on the west.       Now one may<\/p>\n
have a look at the commissioner’s report.       Initially the<\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 450 of 2010
\n                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
Commissioner did not measure the property and prepared a<\/p>\n
rough sketch. To that report and sketch defendant had no<\/p>\n
objection. The plan and survey sketch later prepared were<\/p>\n
remitted    to  the   Commissioner    for  making    certain<\/p>\n
corrections and accordingly the Commissioner made the<\/p>\n
corrections and resubmitted. Objection is taken to said<\/p>\n
order of the Court on the ground that Court could not have<\/p>\n
suo mutu remitted the report. The contention has no basis.<\/p>\n
It is the duty of the Court to ensure that a proper plan and<\/p>\n
report are filed so as to enable the Court      to properly<\/p>\n
appreciate the evidence in the case. Defendant filed an<\/p>\n
objection pointing out that her property had not been<\/p>\n
measured. It is contended that without doing so the finding<\/p>\n
could not have been entered into. The contention too has<\/p>\n
no basis. The suit was not one for fixation of boundaries.<\/p>\n
On evidence it is found that B schedule is taken by Ext.A1<\/p>\n
deed. Defendant has no case that by the inclusion of B<\/p>\n
schedule in A1 as located by the Commissioner, the extent<\/p>\n
of the property obtained by him is reduced. So also giving<\/p>\n
by the boundaries       already noticed by no stretch of<\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 450 of 2010
\n                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
imagination B1 document of title of defendant can take in<\/p>\n
B schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
      13. Both the courts below have considered this<\/p>\n
contention in detail and have come to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
there is no merit in the contention at all.              The<\/p>\n
Commissioner’s report shows that B schedule forms part of<\/p>\n
the property of the plaintiff. Initially the property was not<\/p>\n
measured. The commissioner has in his report stated that<\/p>\n
he has also verified the      prior document of title    and<\/p>\n
partition deed in the family of the assignor of plaintiff as<\/p>\n
well as the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
      14. It therefore follows that the Commissioner has<\/p>\n
verified the document and after measuring the property a<\/p>\n
sketch has been prepared. It is also pointed out that going<\/p>\n
by the commissioner’s report the defendant is in possession<\/p>\n
of plaintiff’s property and obstruction has been caused by<\/p>\n
him. Considering the above facts, the court below held<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff who is the owner of the B schedule<\/p>\n
property is entitled to get recovery of that property on the<\/p>\n
basis of her title. It could not be said that it was on the<\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 450 of 2010
\n                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
basis of the weakness    in the defence case decree was<\/p>\n
granted in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the decision<\/p>\n
reported in Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal<\/p>\n
Vs. Badagara Jumayath Palli Dharas Committee and others<\/p>\n
[(2004) 7 SCC 708) has no application to the           case.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff was able to successfully establish that B schedule<\/p>\n
forms part of the A schedule which she obtained under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1. The courts below rightly decreed the suit in favour<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
     No interference is called for by this Court since it is<\/p>\n
not shown that findings of the lower appellate court are<\/p>\n
either perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record.<\/p>\n
No substantial questions of law arise for consideration in<\/p>\n
this appeal.     The appeal is without merits and it is<\/p>\n
accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
\nma<\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 450 of 2010
\n                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
R.S.A No. 450 of 2010
\n                        10<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Rajeswari vs Suresh on 30 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 450 of 2010() 1. RAJESWARI, W\/O.BALAN PEECHIYODE, … Petitioner Vs 1. SURESH, S\/O.KITTA, PEECHIYODE, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH For Respondent :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN Dated :30\/06\/2010 O R D E R P.BHAVADASAN, […]<\/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-137875","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajeswari vs Suresh on 30 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\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajeswari vs Suresh on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-07T03:44:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajeswari vs Suresh on 30 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-07T03:44:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":1388,\"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\\\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Rajeswari vs Suresh on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-07T03:44:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajeswari vs Suresh on 30 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":"Rajeswari vs Suresh on 30 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\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajeswari vs Suresh on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-07T03:44:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajeswari vs Suresh on 30 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-07T03:44:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2"},"wordCount":1388,"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\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2","name":"Rajeswari vs Suresh on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-07T03:44:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajeswari-vs-suresh-on-30-june-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajeswari vs Suresh on 30 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\/137875","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=137875"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137875\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137875"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}