{"id":142850,"date":"2009-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009"},"modified":"2015-03-16T00:21:34","modified_gmt":"2015-03-15T18:51:34","slug":"v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"V.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
V.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAFA.No. 61 of 1994(G)\n\n\n\n1. V.ANANDAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :28\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                   P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
               ——————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                                AFA 61 OF 1994\n<\/p>\n
               ——————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
                           Dated         August 2009\n\n                                    Judgment\nRAMAN, J.\n\n<\/pre>\n
     The appellant is the plaintiff. The suit is one for realisation<\/p>\n
of damages. The plaintiff was working as a Blue Printer in the<\/p>\n
Kallada Irrigation Project at Kottarakkara. While so, he met with<\/p>\n
an accident on 17.2.1983. The accident occurred when he<\/p>\n
opened a bottle containing ammonia. Thereafter, he was taken<\/p>\n
to the District Hospital, Kollam, from where he was sent to the<\/p>\n
Ophthalmic Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram on 27.02.1983 where<\/p>\n
he underwent treatment for over 48 days as an inpatient. The<\/p>\n
plaintiff lost sight of his right eye, despite the special treatment<\/p>\n
given to him. He claimed compensation for the disability which is<\/p>\n
more than 50%.\n<\/p>\n
     2. According to the plaintiff, his claim for compensation was<\/p>\n
disposed of by the Government on 17.12.1987 granting him a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.3,500\/- as ex gratia payment. He contended that the<\/p>\n
said amount is grossly inadequate and disproportionate to the<\/p>\n
AFA 61\/94                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
nature of the injury suffered by him and the loss cannot be<\/p>\n
assessed in terms of money. He estimated the compensation for<\/p>\n
damages at Rs.3 lakhs, but limited his claim in the suit to<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/- with 12% interest.\n<\/p>\n
      3. In the written statement field by the defendants, it was<\/p>\n
contended that the suit is not maintainable and that it is barred<\/p>\n
by limitation. They admitted the fact that the plaintiff lost his eye<\/p>\n
sight as a result of the incident. That he was a Blue Printer at<\/p>\n
Kallada Irrigation Project at Kottarakkara was also admitted. The<\/p>\n
incident occurred while opening the ammonia gas bottle. The<\/p>\n
defendants contended that the plaintiff should have taken<\/p>\n
sufficient care while opening the bottle. There is negligence on<\/p>\n
the part of the plaintiff in handling the bottle which resulted in the<\/p>\n
accident. All possible help has been extended to the plaintiff by<\/p>\n
the defendants. The defendants admitted that the plaintiff joined<\/p>\n
duty on expiry of his leave, he was given promotion and still he<\/p>\n
was in service. But, they disowned their liability to compensate<\/p>\n
the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The court below framed two issues for trial. One is<\/p>\n
AFA 61\/94                            3<\/span><\/p>\n
whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the plaint amount as<\/p>\n
damages from the defendants and the other is whether the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is entitled to get interest thereon.<\/p>\n
      5. The evidence consists of Exts.A1 to A7 and PW1 was<\/p>\n
examined. The fact that the plaintiff was working as Blue Printer<\/p>\n
at Kallada Irrigation Project and sustained injury during the<\/p>\n
course of his employment while opening an ammonia gas bottle<\/p>\n
is beyond dispute. True that he was taken to the hospital and for<\/p>\n
expert treatment, again taken to the Ophthalmic Hospital,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram. These facts are not seriously in dispute.<\/p>\n
The fact that as a result of the accident, he has suffered 50%<\/p>\n
disability is also not very much in dispute. But according to the<\/p>\n
defendants, the accident happened due to the negligence on the<\/p>\n
part of the plaintiff.     The court below rightly found that the<\/p>\n
defendants have taken an inconsistent plea. They contended<\/p>\n
that the liquid ammonia bottle was opened by him in the course<\/p>\n
of his employment and that as the same was kept under<\/p>\n
pressure in the bottle, it would spurt out if not handled carefully.<\/p>\n
But, in another place, they would say that the work is so simple<\/p>\n
AFA 61\/94                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
that it does not involve any risk. There is no case for the<\/p>\n
defendants that the normal care a person would have taken in<\/p>\n
handling such goods in similar circumstances, is not taken by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff. Though he had been in the job for the past several<\/p>\n
years, such a thing has not occurred to him on any previous<\/p>\n
occasion. According to them, this is nothing but a professional<\/p>\n
hazard.\n<\/p>\n
      6. It cannot be said that there is any negligence on the part<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff in opening the ammonia gas bottle. Therefore, we<\/p>\n
agree with the finding of the court below that there is no<\/p>\n
negligence on the part of the plaintiff, on a careful analysis of the<\/p>\n
evidence in the case. The said finding has been arrived at<\/p>\n
correctly and calls for no interference by this court. The court<\/p>\n
below also found that the compensation claimed by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
is quite reasonable. But the suit was dismissed on the ground of<\/p>\n
limitation. It was found by the trial court that the accident<\/p>\n
occurred on 17.2.1983 and the plaintiff should have instituted<\/p>\n
the suit within three years from the date of the accident. But<\/p>\n
according to the plaintiff, the period of limitation starts from<\/p>\n
AFA 61\/94                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
17.12.1987, the date on which ex gratia payment was made to<\/p>\n
him. The court below did not accept the said contention. The<\/p>\n
time limit for filing the compensation petition for injury sustained<\/p>\n
by a person is three years and the same runs from the date, the<\/p>\n
cause of action arose. The date of accident is therefore, the date<\/p>\n
on which the cause of action arose in this case. In those<\/p>\n
circumstances, it was held that the suit is barred by limitation<\/p>\n
and it was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     7. The plaintiff filed AS No.99\/94 before this court. The<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge by the judgment impugned in this appeal<\/p>\n
confirmed the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal<\/p>\n
against which the appeal from the first appeal is filed.        The<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge found that under Article 112            of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act, the suit should have been instituted within three<\/p>\n
years. The fact that the Government paid some amount as ex<\/p>\n
gratia, will neither extend the period of limitation nor can it be<\/p>\n
taken as an acknowledgment of their liability to pay any<\/p>\n
compensation. Further, it should be seen that the very payment<\/p>\n
of the ex gratia amount is beyond three years and not within the<\/p>\n
AFA 61\/94                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
period of three years from the date of arising of the cause of<\/p>\n
action. The court also found that the word ex gratia means an<\/p>\n
act of grace and it is not an acceptance of liability on their part.<\/p>\n
      8. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that<\/p>\n
the trial court as well as this court in the first appeal has erred in<\/p>\n
holding that the suit was barred by limitation. It was contended<\/p>\n
that in respect of the injury suffered by him, he had preferred an<\/p>\n
application for compensation before the State Government and<\/p>\n
that could be deemed to have been rejected only on 17.12.1987,<\/p>\n
when Ext.A1 order was passed. If that be so, the time begins to<\/p>\n
run only from the said date and the compensation petition filed<\/p>\n
in 1998 is well within the period of limitation. In support of his<\/p>\n
claim, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the<\/p>\n
decision of this court in Jay Laxmi Salt Works (P) Ltd. v. State<\/p>\n
of Gujarat<\/a> (1994) 4 SCC 1). A reading of the said decision<\/p>\n
shows that it was a case where compensation was paid<\/p>\n
consequent on the breach of a bund. The period of limitation<\/p>\n
was computed in that case on the basis of the then available<\/p>\n
AFA 61\/94                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
article namely, Article 36 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The said<\/p>\n
Article reads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
      __________________________________________
\n      Description of suit  Period of        Time from
\n                           Limitation       which period
\n                                            begins to run
\n      _________________________________________________<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      36. For compensation
\n      for any malfeasance,                  When the
\n      misfeasance or non-                   malfeasance,
\n      feasance independent Two years        misfeasance or
\n      of contract and not                   non-feasance
\n      herein specially                      takes place
\n      provided for
\n      _________________________________________________<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      9. Going by the above article, the time begins from the date<\/p>\n
on which the malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance takes<\/p>\n
place. In the above case, a bund was decided to be erected so<\/p>\n
as to prevent the sea water flowing in several creeks in the area<\/p>\n
near the seaside of the bund from flowing further to the claimed<\/p>\n
site and making the lands in that area saltish and the erection of<\/p>\n
the bund was completed in 1955. The breach was occurred in<\/p>\n
the bund and that flooded the area. It was then that<\/p>\n
compensation was claimed. In that context Article 36 would<\/p>\n
AFA 61\/94                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
apply and the time begins from the date on which the claim was<\/p>\n
rejected by the State Government.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     10. In the case on hand, even assuming that Article 36<\/p>\n
(presently Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963) is applied, it<\/p>\n
could not be said that there was any malfeasance, misfeasance<\/p>\n
or non-feasance. Neither in the pleading nor in the evidence,<\/p>\n
there is anything to show that the State was negligent in any<\/p>\n
manner, resulting in the unfortunate incident. On going through<\/p>\n
the evidence on record, it can be seen that it was an<\/p>\n
employment hazard and there was no negligence on the part of<\/p>\n
the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
     11. Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which is<\/p>\n
admittedly applicable to the case on hand, reads as follows :<\/p>\n
     _________________________________________
\n     Description of    Period of      Time from which
\n     application       Limitation     period begins to run
\n     ___________________________________________________<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     113. Any suit for
\n     which no period
\n     of limitation is  Three years    When the right to sue
\n     provided elsewhere               accrues
\n     in this schedule
\n     ___________________________________________________<\/p>\n
AFA 61\/94                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
A reading of the above article shows that the time begins to run<\/p>\n
from the date the right to sue accrues.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      12. We heard the parties. Article 113 of the Limitation Act<\/p>\n
is a residuary article as per which three years is the period of<\/p>\n
limitation. The plaintiff has no case that the suit in question falls<\/p>\n
under any other article.      Then the question is when did the<\/p>\n
cause of action arise. When the suit itself is for compensation<\/p>\n
arising out of an accident, in the absence of any averments to<\/p>\n
the contrary, the cause of action will start from the date on which<\/p>\n
the accident occurred. The fact that some amount was paid to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff by way of ex gratia by the government cannot be<\/p>\n
taken as an admission of their liability to compensate the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. The word ex gratia itself denotes as a gratuitous<\/p>\n
payment not arising out of any legal obligation. Further, this was<\/p>\n
paid beyond the period of three years from the date of accident.<\/p>\n
Therefore this payment does not give any fresh period of<\/p>\n
limitation. It is seen from the records that the plaintiff had<\/p>\n
undergone treatment for 48 days from the date of incident<\/p>\n
before his disability was finally determined. Even assuming that<\/p>\n
AFA 61\/94                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
the time is taken as to begin to run from the expiry of 48 days<\/p>\n
from the date of incident, still, the suit would be barred by<\/p>\n
limitation. In the circumstances, the view taken by the trial court,<\/p>\n
as affirmed by the learned single judge of this court is correct<\/p>\n
and it does not call for any interference. In the circumstances,<\/p>\n
we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed<\/p>\n
without any costs.\n<\/p>\n
      13. But, before parting with the case, we may add to say<\/p>\n
that the “limitation” only bars the remedy through the court. But<\/p>\n
the claim is sustained on evidence. So, the Government in a<\/p>\n
welfare State may still consider the claim for a just<\/p>\n
compensation for the loss suffered, owing to an injury sustained<\/p>\n
while in employment. Therefore, the dismissal of the case will<\/p>\n
not stand in the way of payment of a just compensation to the<\/p>\n
victim and any representation       made in this behalf deserves<\/p>\n
sympathetic consideration.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                      P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE\n\n                                      P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE\n\n                            True copy\n                                                 PA TO JUDGE\n\nAFA 61\/94    11\n\n\n\nsta\n\nAFA 61\/94    12\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court V.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AFA.No. 61 of 1994(G) 1. V.ANANDAN … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN Dated :28\/08\/2009 O […]<\/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-142850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-15T18:51:34+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-15T18:51:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1855,\"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\\\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009\",\"name\":\"V.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-15T18:51:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"V.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-15T18:51:34+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-15T18:51:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009"},"wordCount":1855,"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\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009","name":"V.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-15T18:51:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-anandan-vs-state-of-kerala-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Anandan vs State Of Kerala on 28 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142850","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=142850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}