{"id":146549,"date":"2009-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-25T18:08:13","modified_gmt":"2016-01-25T12:38:13","slug":"omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Omana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram … on 13 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Omana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram … on 13 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 784 of 1996(B)\n\n\n\n1. OMANA AMMA JANAKI AMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THE SADANADAPURAM AVADHOOTHASRAM\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.V.VASUDEVAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :13\/07\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                        P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                    == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
\n                            SA.No.784 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
                    = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
                    Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                             J U D G M EN T<\/p>\n
       The appellants are the legal heirs of the defendant in OS.No.213 of<\/p>\n
1996 on the file of the Munsiff, Kottarakkara.        The respondent herein<\/p>\n
instituted the above suit against against the predecessor of the appellants<\/p>\n
seeking a decree for eviction with arrears of rent with a pleading that the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property was let out to the predecessor of the appellants by<\/p>\n
virtue of Ext.A1 rent deed dated 6.2.1951 for a monthly rent of Rs.20\/- for a<\/p>\n
period of one year and that even after the expiry of the period of the lease,<\/p>\n
the deceased defendant was holding over as a tenant. The respondent while<\/p>\n
so, filed a petition as RCP.No.1\/1979 before the Rent Controller,<\/p>\n
Kottarakkara seeking an order of eviction under section 11 of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).<\/p>\n
That petition was dismissed. Against that, an appeal as BRCAS.No.4\/1980<\/p>\n
was preferred. That appeal was also dismissed. Thereupon a revision<\/p>\n
petition was filed before the District Court as RCRP.No.1\/1981 which was<\/p>\n
SA.No.784 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
                                   -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
also dismissed. Assailing that order CRP.No.608\/1982 was filed before this<\/p>\n
Court.    While so, Ext.A9 notification was issued by the Government<\/p>\n
whereby the building owned by the respondent was exempted from the<\/p>\n
purview of the ‘Act’. Thereupon the respondent sought permission of this<\/p>\n
Court to withdraw the revision petition with a plea that the revision petition<\/p>\n
had become infructuous. Accordingly, that revision petition was disposed<\/p>\n
off. Thereafter Ext.B1 notice dated 12.5.1986 was issued to the original<\/p>\n
defendant terminating the tenancy and calling upon him to surrender vacant<\/p>\n
possession of the shop room.       But, the building was not surrendered.<\/p>\n
Whereas Ext.A3 reply with untenable contentions were caused. It was also<\/p>\n
contended by the first respondent that the rent in respect of the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule building was kept in arrears from 1.4.1986. With these pleadings,<\/p>\n
the suit was instituted.\n<\/p>\n
       2.      The deceased defendant filed a written statement contending<\/p>\n
that the notification mentioned in the plaint is as a result of a fraud and it is<\/p>\n
void and that the transaction in between the first respondent and the first<\/p>\n
defendant is prior to the notification and so the notification is not binding<\/p>\n
upon the plaint schedule property and that it is incorrect to say that the civil<\/p>\n
revision petition before this Court has become infructuous and that in view<\/p>\n
SA.No.784 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
                                     -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
of the order in RCP 1\/79, the suit is barred by resjudicata and that the<\/p>\n
tenancy was not properly terminated and that the notice is not a valid one<\/p>\n
and that the defendant was not liable to be evicted and that since the first<\/p>\n
respondent refused to accept the rent and it has become arrears and prayed<\/p>\n
for dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
       3.      After raising the issues, parties were sent for trial. On the side<\/p>\n
of the respondents, the manager of the respondent was examined as Pw1<\/p>\n
and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The deceased defendant did not adduce<\/p>\n
any oral evidence. The notice caused by the respondent was marked as<\/p>\n
Ext.B1. The trial court on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a finding that<\/p>\n
by virtue of Ext.A9 notification the plaint schedule property is exempted<\/p>\n
from the purview of the ‘Act’ and that the tenancy was properly terminated<\/p>\n
and that there is arrears of rent and that defendant is liable to be evicted.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the suit was decreed.\n<\/p>\n
       4.      Assailing the judgment and decree, an appeal as AS.No.20 of<\/p>\n
1988 was preferred.        The learned Subordinate Judge, Kottarakkara by<\/p>\n
judgment and decree dated 25.11.1995 concurred with the trial court and the<\/p>\n
appeal was dismissed. Against the concurrent findings of the courts below,<\/p>\n
this second appeal was preferred.\n<\/p>\n
SA.No.784 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
                                      -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
       5.      The following are the substantial questions of law raised in the<\/p>\n
appeal memorandum.\n<\/p>\n
          A.     Does Ext.A1 rent deed and its terms survive after the
\n                 shop room was taken possession by the official
\n                 receiver appointed in OS.No.62\/1962 on the file of
\n                 the District Court, Kollam.\n<\/p>\n
          B. Can the plaintiff treat the defendant as a holding over
\n               tenant after the official receiver from 20.10.1963 to
\n               1.10.1970.     Can the plaintiff reply on Ext.A1 after
\n               receiver’s possession.\n<\/p>\n
          C. Is the suit hit by operation of S.106 of the Transfer of
\n               Property Act.\n<\/p>\n
          D. Is the tenancy validly terminated.\n<\/p>\n
          E. Is Ext.B1 notice legal and valid.\n<\/p>\n
          F. Has not the plaintiff made the defendant a defaulter in
\n               payment of rent by refusing to accept the rent sent by
\n               money order. On whom the burden lies.\n<\/p>\n
          G. Are the decisions rendered by the rent control court
\n               made mention in the judgment operate as resjudicata
\n               for a relief of recovery of possession of the shop room.<\/p>\n
          H. Is Ext.A9 notification bonafide or in public interest or
\n               passed to get over the adverse decisions rendered by the
\n               rent control court.\n<\/p>\n
          I. Did not the courts below err in not considering the case
\n               of the defendant in a true perspective.\n<\/p>\n
       6.      Having gone through the pleadings, evidence and hearing the<\/p>\n
SA.No.784 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
                                   -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel on either side, I find that the deceased defendant, the<\/p>\n
predecessor of the appellants was a tenant under the respondent by virtue of<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 lease deed.       Though the plaint schedule property was taken<\/p>\n
possession by the official receiver in OS.No.61\/1962, the nature of the<\/p>\n
transaction between the respondent and the deceased defendant was not<\/p>\n
disturbed.     More than that, the official receiver surrendered the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property back to the respondent. There is nothing to show that<\/p>\n
taking up of possession by the official receiver any way infringed with any<\/p>\n
of the rights of the respondent or that it had enured to any additional right<\/p>\n
to the tenant. So irrespective of taking up of possession of the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property by the receiver, the deceased defendant continued to hold<\/p>\n
on as a tenant under Ext.A1 lease deed. Grounds No.A and B are relating to<\/p>\n
the taking up of possession by the receiver. So, no question of law is<\/p>\n
involved as regards the taking up possession of the plaint schedule property<\/p>\n
by the receiver so as to be adjudicated in this second appeal.<\/p>\n
       7.      Grounds No.C, D and E are relate to the question of termination<\/p>\n
of tenancy.      Going through Ext.B1 it is seen that the intention of the<\/p>\n
respondents is specific and expressed in black and white and there is<\/p>\n
demand to surrender possession of the plaint schedule property. Due time<\/p>\n
SA.No.784 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
                                    -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
was given for surrender. The defendant did not care to adduce any evidence<\/p>\n
to show that the tenancy was not properly terminated. Ext.B1 notice is<\/p>\n
dated 12.5.1986. The suit was filed on 30.6.1986. The courts below had<\/p>\n
gone through the notice and arrived a conclusion that Ext.B1 is a valid<\/p>\n
notice terminating the tenancy. In the appeal memorandum, though it is<\/p>\n
vaguely stated that Ext.B1 is invalid as it didn’t satisfy the conditions in<\/p>\n
Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, there is no whisper as to which<\/p>\n
condition was violated or for what reason it is invalid. So the said plea is a<\/p>\n
hollow one and deserves no consideration. The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant could not point out any reason to conclude that the tenancy was<\/p>\n
not properly terminated or that there is any defect in Ext.B1. The finding of<\/p>\n
the courts below regarding the termination of tenancy is a question of fact<\/p>\n
and no question of law is involved especially in the absence of any material<\/p>\n
to conclude that Ext.B1 notice in any way defective. Hence these grounds<\/p>\n
are found against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
       8.      Ground No.F is relating to the arrears of rent. It is submitted by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the appellant that the rent happened to be in arrears<\/p>\n
because of the refusal by the respondent and now that was cleared.<\/p>\n
       9.      Ground No.G urged is that the order in RCP.1\/79 would<\/p>\n
SA.No.784 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
                                     -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
operate as resjudicata. It is admitted that while Ext.A9 notification was<\/p>\n
issued, the rent control proceedings were not finalised.        Pending civil<\/p>\n
revision petition before this Court, Ext.A9 notification exempting the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property from the purview of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and<\/p>\n
Rent Control) Act was issued. It is thereupon the respondents preferred the<\/p>\n
above suit before the lower court. So the rent control proceedings had not<\/p>\n
come to a finality so as to enable the appellant to contend that the suit was<\/p>\n
in any way barred by resjudicata. Adding to that, the main object of the<\/p>\n
‘Act’ is to regulate the leasing of buildings and to control the rent of such<\/p>\n
buildings. It also provides procedures for eviction of the buildings that<\/p>\n
comes within its purview. Any order passed under that ‘Act’ would ceased<\/p>\n
to operate, for any purpose other than to show that there was such<\/p>\n
proceedings, once the building is exempted from its purview by notification<\/p>\n
issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.1(3) of that ‘Act’. An<\/p>\n
order dismissing petition for eviction under Sec.11 of the ‘Act’ would not<\/p>\n
operate as resjudicata, in a suit for eviction instituted after exempting the<\/p>\n
building from the purview of the ‘Act’.\n<\/p>\n
       10.     Though it is alleged that Ext.A9 was issued as a result of fraud<\/p>\n
and hence void, no evidence was adduced to show that there was any fraud<\/p>\n
SA.No.784 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
                                -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
in issuing Ext.A9 or any way void. All the questions of law urged by the<\/p>\n
appellant lack substance. The appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly it is<\/p>\n
dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Kvs\/-\n<\/p>\n
SA.No.784 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
                      -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                               P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                              ==================
\n                                    SA.No.784 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
                              ==================<\/p>\n
                                          JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                        13th July, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Omana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram … on 13 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 784 of 1996(B) 1. OMANA AMMA JANAKI AMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. THE SADANADAPURAM AVADHOOTHASRAM … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.C.V.VASUDEVAN For Respondent :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER (SR.) The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN Dated […]<\/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-146549","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nOmana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram ... on 13 July, 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\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Omana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram ... on 13 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-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=\"2009-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-25T12:38:13+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Omana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram … on 13 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-25T12:38:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1658,\"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\\\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Omana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram ... on 13 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-25T12:38:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Omana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram … on 13 July, 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":"Omana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram ... on 13 July, 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\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Omana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram ... on 13 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-25T12:38:13+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Omana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram … on 13 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-25T12:38:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009"},"wordCount":1658,"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\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009","name":"Omana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram ... on 13 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-25T12:38:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/omana-amma-janaki-amma-vs-the-sadanadapuram-on-13-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Omana Amma Janaki Amma vs The Sadanadapuram … on 13 July, 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\/146549","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=146549"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146549\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}