{"id":145530,"date":"2009-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009"},"modified":"2016-12-12T01:57:15","modified_gmt":"2016-12-11T20:27:15","slug":"neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Neendakara Sreesakthi … vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Neendakara Sreesakthi … vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 180 of 2009()\n\n\n1. NEENDAKARA SREESAKTHI SWATHANTHRA NAIR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. HARIHARAN PILLAI, S\/O.NARAYANAN PILLAI,\n3. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS,\n4. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS,\n5. KRISHNANKUTTY KURUP, AGED 53 YEARS,\n6. VISWAMBARAN PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS,\n7. MANMADHAN PILLAI, AGED 43 YEARS,\n8. SANTHOSH KUMAR, AGED 39 YEARS,\n9. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS,\n10. SIVANKUTTY PILLAI, AGED 36 YEARS,\n11. UDAYAKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS,\n12. BABYKUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 43 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. VISHNUBHAKTHAN PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS,\n\n3. RAJAN PILLAI, AGED 58 YEARS,\n\n4. SREEKANDAN PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS,\n\n5. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS,\n\n6. HRISIKESAN NAIR, AGED 58 YEARS,\n\n7. BABURAJAN PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS,\n\n8. SURENDRAN PILLAI, S\/O.NARAYANA PILLAI,\n\n9. VIKRAMAN PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS,\n\n10. VENUGOPAL, AGED 43 YEARS,\n\n11. LATHESAN PILLAI, S\/O.KRISHNA PILLAI,\n\n12. N.RADHAKRISHNAN PILLAI, AGED 67 YEARS,\n\n13. V.DAMODHARAN PILLAI, AGED 66 YEARS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.V.RAJA\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :30\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n               S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n                   -------------------------------\n                 C.R.P.NO.180 OF 2009 (E)\n                 -----------------------------------\n       Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
     Leave granted to the respondents to institute a suit<\/p>\n
under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of<\/p>\n
the 1st petitioner, which is claimed to be a public trust, is<\/p>\n
challenged by the petitioners contending that it is not a public<\/p>\n
trust but a private trust.        The 1st revision petitioner\/1st<\/p>\n
respondent in the original petition, namely Neendakara<\/p>\n
Sreesakthi Swathanthra Nair Karayogam is functioning at<\/p>\n
Neendakara and carrying out various activities in accordance<\/p>\n
with a registered bye-law constituted in the year 1105.<\/p>\n
Whereas, the petitioners in the original petition have a case<\/p>\n
that   even    before   the   constitution     of  the registered<\/p>\n
bye-laws, a public trust was in existence and to regulate its<\/p>\n
activities, a bye-law had been constituted in the year 1092 and<\/p>\n
later in 1105, and at present, the provisions thereof are<\/p>\n
ineffective and also that there is malfeasance and misfeasance<\/p>\n
CRP.180\/09                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
by those in management of the Karayogam, necessitating the<\/p>\n
intervention of the court to frame a scheme and other allied<\/p>\n
reliefs, the respondents in the petition dispute even the status<\/p>\n
of the Karayogam as a public trust.        The learned District<\/p>\n
Judge, after going through the allegations in the plaint and<\/p>\n
taking note of the objections raised by the respondents\/<\/p>\n
petitioners herein, came to the conclusion that at the stage of<\/p>\n
granting leave for permission to institute the suit, only the<\/p>\n
plaint allegations need be gone into and a meticulous scrutiny<\/p>\n
and consideration on disputed questions is not at all<\/p>\n
necessary. It was also observed that in the grant of leave,<\/p>\n
notice to the respondents is also not essential, and the<\/p>\n
question of leave need be looked into on the allegations raised<\/p>\n
in the plaint.   In that view of the matter and after satisfied<\/p>\n
from the allegations canvassed by the respondents in their<\/p>\n
copy of the plaint produced with the original petition, leave<\/p>\n
was granted for instituting the suit under Section 92 of the<\/p>\n
CPC. Propriety and correctness of that decision is challenged<\/p>\n
in the revision.\n<\/p>\n
CRP.180\/09                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
      2. The learned counsel for the petitioners\/respondents 1,<\/p>\n
2, 4 to 11 and 13 and 14, inviting my attention to the<\/p>\n
registered bye-laws of the 1st petitioner contended that the<\/p>\n
provisions made thereunder clearly and demonstrably disclose<\/p>\n
beyond doubt that the members of the trust are ascertainable<\/p>\n
and limited. In a case where members are ascertainable the<\/p>\n
trust constituted can never be considered as a public trust, but<\/p>\n
only a private trust, submits the counsel. My attention has<\/p>\n
also been invited to the allegations raised in the plaint<\/p>\n
wherein also the provisions of the bye-laws have been<\/p>\n
reproduced in extenso stating that such provisions are binding<\/p>\n
on the trust, but they have become ineffective over efflux of<\/p>\n
time.   Without examining the bye-laws, which alone was<\/p>\n
produced with the petition, the court below had jumped into<\/p>\n
the conclusion that the allegations made out in the petition<\/p>\n
make out a case that the reliefs are claimed in respect of a<\/p>\n
public trust, according to the counsel. In fact the allegations<\/p>\n
set out in the plaint militate against the case canvassed by the<\/p>\n
petitioners in the original petition, according to the counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondents, as to the character of the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
CRP.180\/09                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
as a public trust.      So much so, the matter requires a<\/p>\n
reconsideration, after setting aside the impugned order, is the<\/p>\n
submission of the counsel. On the other hand, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that even in<\/p>\n
the objections raised by the respondents, no case was<\/p>\n
canvassed disputing the character of the 1st respondent as a<\/p>\n
public trust, which was specifically alleged in the original<\/p>\n
petition and also in the copy of the plaint. The case of the<\/p>\n
respondents\/petitioners in the original petition, according to<\/p>\n
the counsel is that even before the registration of the bye-laws<\/p>\n
in 1092 and 1105, the 1st respondent trust was in existence<\/p>\n
and by registration of the bye-laws, only guidelines have been<\/p>\n
formulated for its governance and that will no way change the<\/p>\n
character of that body as a public trust. So much so, it is the<\/p>\n
submission of the counsel that no interference with the order<\/p>\n
passed by the learned District Judge is called for in exercise of<\/p>\n
the revisional jurisdiction vested with this Court.<\/p>\n
      3. Perusing the impugned order with reference to the<\/p>\n
submissions made by the counsel on both sides, I find it may<\/p>\n
CRP.180\/09                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
be inappropriate for this Court in exercise of the revisional<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to determine the character of the 1st respondent as<\/p>\n
a public trust or not on the basis of the registered bye-laws of<\/p>\n
1105, which is banked upon by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioners to contend that it discloses that the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
is a private trust. By grant of leave, no question is finally<\/p>\n
adjudicated    and   whatever     challenges    the    petitioners<\/p>\n
(respondents in the original petition) have against the case<\/p>\n
advanced by the respondents (petitioners in the original<\/p>\n
petition) including a challenge as to whether the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent is a public trust or not is open for adjudication in<\/p>\n
the suit. So much so, no prejudice or injury is caused to the<\/p>\n
respondents at this stage by the grant of leave accorded by<\/p>\n
the court on its prima facie satisfaction that the 1st respondent<\/p>\n
is a public trust. The respondents in their objections have also<\/p>\n
not raised specifically a dispute challenging the character of<\/p>\n
the 1st respondent as a public trust has also got some decisive<\/p>\n
effect in the decision rendered by the court, which of course,<\/p>\n
I make it clear will not preclude them from canvassing that<\/p>\n
challenge in the trial of the suit.         On the facts and<\/p>\n
CRP.180\/09                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances presented, I find no interference with the<\/p>\n
impugned order passed by the learned District Judge is called<\/p>\n
for, and the revision is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
                            S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
\n                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n
prp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Neendakara Sreesakthi … vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 180 of 2009() 1. NEENDAKARA SREESAKTHI SWATHANTHRA NAIR … Petitioner 2. HARIHARAN PILLAI, S\/O.NARAYANAN PILLAI, 3. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS, 4. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, 5. KRISHNANKUTTY KURUP, AGED 53 YEARS, […]<\/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-145530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNeendakara Sreesakthi ... vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 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\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Neendakara Sreesakthi ... vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-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=\"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-11T20:27:15+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Neendakara Sreesakthi … vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-11T20:27:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":971,\"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\\\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Neendakara Sreesakthi ... vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-11T20:27:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Neendakara Sreesakthi … vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 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":"Neendakara Sreesakthi ... vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 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\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Neendakara Sreesakthi ... vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-11T20:27:15+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Neendakara Sreesakthi … vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-11T20:27:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009"},"wordCount":971,"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\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009","name":"Neendakara Sreesakthi ... vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-11T20:27:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/neendakara-sreesakthi-vs-vishnubhakthan-pillai-on-30-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Neendakara Sreesakthi … vs Vishnubhakthan Pillai on 30 November, 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\/145530","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=145530"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145530\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}