{"id":141309,"date":"2007-04-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007"},"modified":"2018-10-14T22:17:17","modified_gmt":"2018-10-14T16:47:17","slug":"pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Pattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Pattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 550 of 1993(F)\n\n\n\n1. PATTATHIL RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. N SUDHEER & ANOTHER\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI T A RAMADASAN, A K ALEX, K ABOOTY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI P V MADHAVAN NAMBIAR, K P SANTHI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :04\/04\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                               M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n\n\n                          S.A.NO.550 OF 1993\n\n\n\n            Dated, this the 4\n                                        th\n\n                                               day of April, 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.178\/1983 on<\/p>\n
the         file         of         Munsiff              Court,         Taliparamba.\n<\/p>\n
Respondents   are   the   defendants.     The   suit   was<\/p>\n
filed   seeking   a   decree   for   permanent   prohibitory<\/p>\n
injunction.     The   plaint   schedule   property   is   40<\/p>\n
cents in survey No.36 of kuruvathur village.  The<\/p>\n
case  of    appellant  was  that one  acre 40  cents  in<\/p>\n
the   resurvey   number                          belonged   in   jenm   to<\/p>\n
Kadamberi   devaswom   and   it   was   obtained   by<\/p>\n
Kunhikannan   Nambiar   on   leasehold   right   and   while<\/p>\n
so as per the oral lease appellant obtained   one<\/p>\n
acre   40   cents   and   has   been   in   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
property and while so on the death of Kunhikannan<\/p>\n
Nambiar,   his   rights   devolved   on   his   widow   and<\/p>\n
children     and   they   assigned   their   right     in<\/p>\n
favour   of   the   appellant   under   Ext.B1   assignment<\/p>\n
deed   dated   27.2.1973   and   thereafter   as   per   two<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.550\/1993                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
  assignment   deeds   appellant   sold   50   cents   each   to<\/p>\n
  AbOObaCker   and   Aliyar   kunhi   and   another   and   the<\/p>\n
  remaining   40   cents   is   the   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
  property.     It   was   contended   that   the   jenm   right<\/p>\n
  of   40   cents   was   obtained   from   the   Land   Tribunal<\/p>\n
  under Ext.A1 purchase certificate and the tenancy<\/p>\n
  right   of     appellant   over     the   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
  property was upheld by the Taluk Land Board under<\/p>\n
  Ext.A2   order   and   respondents   have   no   right   over<\/p>\n
  the     said   property   and   therefore   they   are   to   be<\/p>\n
  restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction.\n<\/p>\n
  Respondents   in   their   written   statement   contended<\/p>\n
  that   appellant   had   right   over   only   one   acre<\/p>\n
  transferred   under   Ext.B1   assignment   deed   and   the<\/p>\n
  plaint   schedule   property   is   the   remaining<\/p>\n
  property   obtained   by   Kunhikannan   Nambiar   in   the<\/p>\n
  partition and appellant has no manner or right or<\/p>\n
  possession   over   the   same   and   he   is   not   entitled<\/p>\n
  to the decree for injunction sought for.\n<\/p>\n
        2.Learned         Munsiff         framed         the         necessary<\/p>\n
  issues.     On   the   evidence   of   PWs.1   to   3   and   DW1<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.550\/1993                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
  and   Exts.A1   to   A8   and   B1   to   B4,     upholding   the<\/p>\n
  case   of   the   appellant,   trial   court     granted   a<\/p>\n
  decree   restraining   respondents   by   a   permanent<\/p>\n
  prohibitory   injunction   from   trespassing   into   the<\/p>\n
  plaint schedule property.   Respondents challenged<\/p>\n
  the   decree   and   judgment   before   Sub   Court,<\/p>\n
  Payyannur   in   A.S.85\/1989.     The   first   appellate<\/p>\n
  court  on  reappreciation  of evidence found that<\/p>\n
  appellant obtained only one acre and not one acre<\/p>\n
  40   cents   and   the   southern   boundary   of   Ext.B1<\/p>\n
  proves that the property assigned under Ext.B1 is<\/p>\n
  only   the   property   to   the   north   of   the     plaint<\/p>\n
  schedule   property   and   southern   property   has   been<\/p>\n
  in   the   possession   of     respondents   and   appellant<\/p>\n
  did   not   establish   his   possession   over   the<\/p>\n
  property   and     he   is   not   entitled   to   the   decree<\/p>\n
  for   injunction   granted   by   the   trial   court.   The<\/p>\n
  appeal   was   allowed   and   the   decree   granted   by   the<\/p>\n
  trial   court   was   set   aside   and   the   suit   was<\/p>\n
  dismissed.     Second   Appeal   was   filed   challenging<\/p>\n
  the     decree   passed   by   the   appellate   court   in<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.550\/1993                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
  reversal   of   the   decree   granted     by   the   trial<\/p>\n
  court.\n<\/p>\n
         3. Second Appeal was admitted formulating the<\/p>\n
  following substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
               a)     In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the<\/p>\n
case   was   the   court   below   right   in   reversing     the<\/p>\n
decree of the trial court without a finding how and<\/p>\n
where      the             trial      court       went        wrong      in      its<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence oral and documentary?\n<\/p>\n
               b)     Is   the   first   appellate   courts   finding<\/p>\n
that   since   only   one   acre   is   seen   assigned   as   per<\/p>\n
Ext.B1,   plaintiff   is   not   entitled   to   anything   more<\/p>\n
correct?\n<\/p>\n
               c)     Is   the   lower   appellate   court   correct<\/p>\n
in   law   in   discarding   the   evidence   of   possession<\/p>\n
such          as         revenue           receipts         especially         when<\/p>\n
defendants relied only on their superior right?\n<\/p>\n
               d) In a suit for prohibitory injunction is<\/p>\n
it   necessary   to   pray   for   declaration   of   possession<\/p>\n
and   putting   up   a   boundary   (if   boundary   is<\/p>\n
demolished)?   Can   a   suit   for   prohibitory   injunction<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.550\/1993                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
be   dismissed   for   not   including   such   a   prayer<\/p>\n
stating that injunction is a discretionary remedy?\n<\/p>\n
             e)     Has   not   the   court   below   gone   wrong   in<\/p>\n
not  considering  that  plot  A  is  having  well  defined<\/p>\n
boundaries on all four sides which is indicative of<\/p>\n
possession of the same by the plaintiff?\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
was heard.\n<\/p>\n
5.        Even   according   to   appellant,   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   originally   belonged   to   devaswom<\/p>\n
and   was   obtained   on   leasehold   right   by   Kunhikannan<\/p>\n
Nambiar, the predecessor in interest of respondents<\/p>\n
2   to   7.   According   to   appellant,   from   Kunhikannan<\/p>\n
Nambiar appellant obtained one acre 40 cents as per<\/p>\n
an   oral   lease   and   has   been   in   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
property and while so the rights of legal heirs of<\/p>\n
Kunhikannan   Nambiar   were   obtained   under   Ext.B1<\/p>\n
assignment   deed   in   1973   and   respondents   have   no<\/p>\n
manner   of   right   or   possession   over   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property,   which   is   the   remaining   property<\/p>\n
left   with   the   appellant   after   alienating   one   acre<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.550\/1993                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
by   two   separate   assignment   deeds   in   favour   of<\/p>\n
Aboobacker   and   Aliyar   kunhi   and   another.     Though<\/p>\n
appellant   contended   that   he   obtained   an   oral   lease<\/p>\n
in 1960,  and as per the oral lease, he has been in<\/p>\n
possession   of   one   acre   40   cents,   as   rightly   found<\/p>\n
by   first   appellate   court   apart   from   the   interested<\/p>\n
version   of   the   appellant,   there   is   no   evidence   to<\/p>\n
substantiate the oral lease.   If in fact there was<\/p>\n
an oral lease in favour of the appellant, in Ext.B1<\/p>\n
the   existence   of   an   oral   lease   would   have   been<\/p>\n
mentioned.     At   least   it   would   have   been   mentioned<\/p>\n
that     the   property   which   was   transferred   under<\/p>\n
Ext.B1   was   outstanding   in   the   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
appellant as per a previous oral lease.  As against<\/p>\n
this   Ext.B1   shows   that   the   property   was   in   the<\/p>\n
possession              of         the         assignors         thereunder         and<\/p>\n
possession   was   transferred   to   the   appellant   only<\/p>\n
under that document.  The hollowness of the case of<\/p>\n
appellant    is  further  fortified  by  the  recitals  in<\/p>\n
Ext.B2   assignment   deed   executed   by   the   appellant<\/p>\n
himself   whereunder   50   cents   of   the   property<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.550\/1993                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
obtained   under   Ext.B1   was   transferred   to   Alyar<\/p>\n
kunhi.     There   is   no   whisper   in   Ext.B2   that   he   was<\/p>\n
in possession of the property as per an oral lease<\/p>\n
or  by any other arrangement before Ext.B1. Instead<\/p>\n
the  recital  was  that  he  obtained  possession  of  the<\/p>\n
property   under   Ext.B1,   which   falsifies   the   case   of<\/p>\n
oral   lease   of   1960.     Though   appellant   claim   right<\/p>\n
under   Ext.A1   purchase   certificate,   that   order   of<\/p>\n
the Land Tribunal was subsequently set aside by the<\/p>\n
Appellate   Authority,   in   an   appeal   filed   by   the<\/p>\n
respondents   and   the   O.A.   was   remanded   back   to   the<\/p>\n
Land   Tribunal   and   the   Land   Tribunal   thereafter<\/p>\n
dismissed   the   same   which   was   challenged   before   the<\/p>\n
Appellate   Authority   (Land   Reforms),   Kannur.     When<\/p>\n
the   appeal   was   dismissed,   that   order   was   also<\/p>\n
challenged   before   this   Court   in   C.R.P.3117\/00.\n<\/p>\n
That     C.R.P.   was   also   heard   today   and   it   was<\/p>\n
dismissed   as   per   separate   order,   rejecting   the<\/p>\n
claim of tenancy raised by the appellant in respect<\/p>\n
of  the  plaint  schedule  property.    Though  the  trial<\/p>\n
court   relied   on   the   property   tax   receipt   and   the<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.550\/1993                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
report   of   the   Commissioner,   the   first   appellate<\/p>\n
court   on   appreciating   the   evidence   found   that<\/p>\n
appellant   did   not   establish   his   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
property.                 That   factual   finding   cannot   be<\/p>\n
interfered  in exercise of the powers of this Court<\/p>\n
under   section   100   of     Code   of   Civil   Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
When   the   appellant   contended   that   he   has   been   in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property   as   per   an   oral   lease,<\/p>\n
which   is   found   to   be   false,   and   it   was   also   found<\/p>\n
that   appellant   obtained   possession   of   only   the<\/p>\n
property                   covered   under   Ext.B1   which   was<\/p>\n
admittedly   alienated   by   him,     case   of     appellant<\/p>\n
that   he   has   been   in   possession   of   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property can only be rejected, as has been<\/p>\n
done by the first appellate court.  Though reliance<\/p>\n
was   placed   on   the   southern   boundary   shown   in<\/p>\n
Ext.B2,   the   self   serving   recital   of   the   appellant<\/p>\n
in   Ext.B2   cannot   be   relied   on   especially   when<\/p>\n
Ext.B2   shows   that   the   right   transferred   thereunder<\/p>\n
is   the   right              obtained   under   Ext.B1   and   the<\/p>\n
property   transferred   under   Ext.B1   is   the   property<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.550\/1993             9<\/span><\/p>\n
which lies to the north of the property retained by<\/p>\n
the  assignors  of  the  appellant  and  the  property  so<\/p>\n
retained is the plaint schedule property.  There is<\/p>\n
no merit in the appeal.  It is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                       M.Sasidharan Nambiar<\/p>\n
                                 Judge<\/p>\n
      Tpl\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Pattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 550 of 1993(F) 1. PATTATHIL RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR … Petitioner Vs 1. N SUDHEER & ANOTHER … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI T A RAMADASAN, A K ALEX, K ABOOTY For Respondent […]<\/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-141309","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 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\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-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=\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-14T16:47:17+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\\\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-14T16:47:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1364,\"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\\\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Pattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-14T16:47:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 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":"Pattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 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\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-14T16:47:17+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\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-14T16:47:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007"},"wordCount":1364,"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\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007","name":"Pattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-14T16:47:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pattathil-raghavan-nambiar-vs-n-sudheer-another-on-4-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pattathil Raghavan Nambiar vs N Sudheer & Another on 4 April, 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\/141309","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=141309"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141309\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141309"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141309"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141309"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}