{"id":147616,"date":"2010-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-05-20T01:28:01","modified_gmt":"2017-05-19T19:58:01","slug":"raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Raveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Raveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 285 of 1999(A)\n\n\n\n1. RAVEENDRAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. P.K.RAJAMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.C.CHARLES\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JAIJI ITTEN\n\n\n Dated :03\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.\n                --------------------------\n                     A.S.NO.285 OF 1999\n                --------------------------\n               DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2010\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Plaintiff in O.S.No.463\/95 on the file of the sub Court,<\/p>\n
Ernakulam is the appellant. The suit was filed for specific<\/p>\n
performance. The court below declined to grant a decree for<\/p>\n
specific performance.     A decree was passed allowing        the<\/p>\n
plaintiff to realise the advance amount of Rs.10,000\/- with<\/p>\n
interest thereon. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree to<\/p>\n
the extent it denies the relief for specific performance, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has preferred this appeal. The parties hereinafter are<\/p>\n
referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant as arrayed in the<\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n
     2. Ext.A1 is the agreement for sale executed between the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant owns the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property. The extent of the plaint schedule property is 3<\/p>\n
cents. Ext.A1 is dated 26\/5\/1994. The price agreed to be paid is<\/p>\n
                                -2-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.285\/99<\/p>\n
Rs.60,000\/-. An amount of Rs.10,000\/- was received on the date<\/p>\n
of Ext.A1 agreement as advance.          The period      fixed for<\/p>\n
performance of the contract is one year from the date of Ext.A1<\/p>\n
agreement. These facts are not disputed. It is the plaintiff’s case<\/p>\n
that he is ready and willing to pay the balance consideration, that<\/p>\n
in spite of her repeated demands, the defendant did not care to<\/p>\n
execute the sale deed as per the terms and conditions stipulated in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 agreement.      Ext.A2 is the Lawyer notice issued on<\/p>\n
24\/3\/1995 requesting the defendant to fulful her part of the<\/p>\n
agreement and to execute the sale deed. Ext.A6 is the reply<\/p>\n
notice dated 7\/4\/ 1995.     Exts.A2 and A4 are issued by the<\/p>\n
respective parties within the period fixed for execution of the<\/p>\n
agreement. In Ext.A6 reply the defendant informed the plaintiff<\/p>\n
that she is unable to execute the sale deed in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff for the reasons stated in her notice dated 24\/3\/1995,<\/p>\n
which is marked as Ext.A4. In Ext.A4 the defendant informed<\/p>\n
the plaintiff that some items of properties including the disputed<\/p>\n
property were mortgaged to the bank for availing a loan in the<\/p>\n
                                -3-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.285\/99<\/p>\n
name of her husband, that the bank will not release the original<\/p>\n
documents until the entire amounts due to the bank are paid and<\/p>\n
therefore it has become impossible to sell the property. It is<\/p>\n
further informed by the defendant that she wanted the agreement<\/p>\n
to be cancelled and expressed her willingness to return the<\/p>\n
advance amount. Ext.A6 reply notice issued by the defendant<\/p>\n
would show that the defendant was not prepared to execute the<\/p>\n
sale deed as demanded by the plaintiff. Exts.A4 and A6 referred<\/p>\n
supra are notices sent by the defendant before the expiry of the<\/p>\n
period fixed by the parties for execution of the sale deed. Ext.A7<\/p>\n
is the Lawyer notice dated 13\/4\/95 issued by the plaintiff to the<\/p>\n
defendant in which it is stated that the conduct of the defendant<\/p>\n
in not willing to execute the sale deed is unfair, that the reasons<\/p>\n
stated are untrue and that the plaintiff is ready and willing to<\/p>\n
perform of the terms and conditions of the agreement and<\/p>\n
requested the defendant to execute the sale deed as agreed.<\/p>\n
      3. In Ext.A4 notice and Ext.A6 reply the only reason stated<\/p>\n
is that since the property is mortgaged to the a bank, she is unable<\/p>\n
                               -4-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.285\/99<\/p>\n
to execute the sale deed. In the written statement a contrary stand<\/p>\n
is taken. It is contended that page No.2 and the last page of<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 agreement are fabricated, that the plaintiff replaced page<\/p>\n
No.2 and that the signature of one of the witnesses seen in the<\/p>\n
last page of the agreement is not genuine. Velayudhan Pillai is<\/p>\n
one of the witnesses to Ext.A1 agreement. It is also alleged that<\/p>\n
in the 2nd page of the agreement the period is stated as one year,<\/p>\n
in fact the agreed period of six months. The defendant admitted<\/p>\n
the execution of Ext.A1 agreement and the receipt of Rs.10,000\/-<\/p>\n
as advance. The only contention raised before the court below is<\/p>\n
that two pages of Ext.A1 agreement are not genuine and are<\/p>\n
fabricated.\n<\/p>\n
      4. In Ext.A1 the parties agreed to execute the sale deed<\/p>\n
within the time prescribed therein. It is stated that there is no<\/p>\n
liability outstanding in the property and further stipulated that if<\/p>\n
for any reason it is found that any liability is outstanding, that<\/p>\n
will be cleared by the defendant before the execution of the sale<\/p>\n
deed.\n<\/p>\n
                                -5-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.285\/99<\/p>\n
      5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of<\/p>\n
PW1, DWs.1 and 2 and Exts.A1 to A11(a). No documentary<\/p>\n
evidence was adduced by the defendant. The court below<\/p>\n
examined the issues in the light of the contentions raised in the<\/p>\n
written statement.      The court below specifically examined<\/p>\n
whether the period fixed in Ext.A1agreement is one year or six<\/p>\n
months and whether the signature of the witness, Velayudhan<\/p>\n
Pillai is a fabircated one as alleged in the written statement. The<\/p>\n
court below, after examining the oral evidence of the parties and<\/p>\n
the documents produced by the plaintiff held that there is no<\/p>\n
reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 and that the period<\/p>\n
fixed for execution of the sale deed is one year. The court below<\/p>\n
held that the contention of the defendant that the period fixed for<\/p>\n
execution of the sale deed is six months is false. The further<\/p>\n
question examined by the court below is whether the signature of<\/p>\n
Velayudhan Pillai in the last page of Ext.A1 is a fabricated one.<\/p>\n
After discussing the evidence and the attendant circumstances,<\/p>\n
the court below held that the evidence of Velayudhan Pillai, who<\/p>\n
                                -6-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.285\/99<\/p>\n
was examined as DW2, shows that the signature in Ext.A1 is not<\/p>\n
fabricated as contended in the written statement. Thus, the<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the defendant in the suit are found against.<\/p>\n
The court below thereafter examined the terms of Ext.A1<\/p>\n
agreement, Ext.A2 letter, Ext.A4 lawyer notice, Ext.A6 and<\/p>\n
Ext.A7 reply notices.     The court below on the basis of the<\/p>\n
pleadings of the parties and the oral and documentary evidence<\/p>\n
on record, found that the plaintiff was ready to pay the balance<\/p>\n
sale consideration; but the defendant was not ready to execute the<\/p>\n
sale deed in his favour. Following the decision reported in De-<\/p>\n
Smet (India) Private Ltd. v. B.P. Industrial Corporlation (P)<\/p>\n
Ltd. (AIR 1980 Allahabad 253, the court below, after finding<\/p>\n
that the breach of agreement is committed by the defendant,<\/p>\n
decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff is entitled to get back<\/p>\n
the advance amount with interest at the rate of 12% per annum<\/p>\n
and the costs of the suit. The court below did not go into the<\/p>\n
question whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific<\/p>\n
performance. In fact, the relief sought for in the plaint is to pass a<\/p>\n
                                -7-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.285\/99<\/p>\n
decree for specific performance of the contract.<\/p>\n
      6. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to this<\/p>\n
Court’s attention the decision of the Apex Court in Boothalinga<\/p>\n
Agencies v. V.T.C. Poriaswami Nadar (AIR<\/a> 1969 SC 110).<\/p>\n
Paragraph 10 of the said decision reads as follows:<\/p>\n
         “The doctrine of frustration of contract is really an<\/p>\n
         aspect or part of the law of discharge of contract<\/p>\n
         by   reason    of  supervening    impossibility    or<\/p>\n
         illegality of the act agreed to be done and hence<\/p>\n
         comes within the purview of Section 56 of the<\/p>\n
         Indian contract Act.    It should be noticed that<\/p>\n
         Section 56 lays down a rule of positive law and<\/p>\n
         does not leave the matter to be determined<\/p>\n
         according to the intention of the parties.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            7. The Apex Court further held that the principle of<\/p>\n
this case applies to the Indian law and that Section 56 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Contract Act cannot apply to a case of “self-induced<\/p>\n
frustration.”    In other words, the doctrine of frustration of<\/p>\n
contract cannot apply where the event which is alleged to have<\/p>\n
frustrated the contract arises from the act or election of a party.<\/p>\n
                                -8-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.285\/99<\/p>\n
      8. The learned counsel also relied on the decision reported<\/p>\n
in Prakash Chandra v. Angadlal and others (AIR<\/a> 1979 SC<\/p>\n
1241). The Apex Court laid down the the principles governing<\/p>\n
the grant of a decree for specific performance as an agreement for<\/p>\n
sale. The Apex Court held that the ordinary rule is that specific<\/p>\n
performance should be granted. It ought to be denied only when<\/p>\n
equitable considerations        point to its refusal and the<\/p>\n
circumstances show that damages would constitute an adequate<\/p>\n
relief.\n<\/p>\n
      9. The facts I have discussed above would point out that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff, after paying the part of the sale consideration, has<\/p>\n
repeatedly demanded the defendant to execute the sale deed. The<\/p>\n
defendant in Ext.A4 lawyer notice and Ext.A6 reply notice<\/p>\n
replied that she is not prepared to execute the sale deed. In the<\/p>\n
written statement strange contention was raised stating that some<\/p>\n
of the pages of Ext.A1 are fabricated. Even before expiry of the<\/p>\n
period of time fixed for execution of the sale deed, the defendant<\/p>\n
has determined not to execute the sale deed. The reasons stated<\/p>\n
                                -9-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.285\/99<\/p>\n
in Exts.A4 and A6 are not the reasons which can be put forward<\/p>\n
for defeating the rights of the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the<\/p>\n
court below ought to have decreed the suit as prayed for in the<\/p>\n
plaint. The relief prayed for in the plaint is for a decree for<\/p>\n
specific performance of the contract. I do not find any reason to<\/p>\n
reject the claim of the plaintiff for a decree for specific<\/p>\n
performance.    The court below wrongly followed a decision<\/p>\n
reported in De-Smet (India) Pvt. Ltd’s case (AIR 1980<\/p>\n
Allahabad 253). The court below did not even frame necessary<\/p>\n
issue as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific<\/p>\n
performance. The denial of decree for specific performance is<\/p>\n
unjust and unfair in the facts and circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n
      In the result, the decree and judgment passed by the court<\/p>\n
below are modified. A decree for specific performance of Ext.A1<\/p>\n
agreement is passed directing the defendant to execute sale deed<\/p>\n
in respect of the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
and to put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property on the date of execution of the sale deed, after receiving<\/p>\n
                             -10-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.285\/99<\/p>\n
the balance sale consideration, failing which the plaintiff shall<\/p>\n
approach the court below for execution of the sale deed through<\/p>\n
court. The time for payment of the balance sale consideration is<\/p>\n
fixed as three months from today.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal is allowed. The plaintiff is entitled to costs through<\/p>\n
out.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             HA RUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                     JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
kcv.\n<\/p>\n
                 -11-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.285\/99<\/p>\n
                    HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.\n<\/p>\n
                 ————————–\n<\/p>\n
                     A.S.NO.285 OF 1999\n<\/p>\n
                 ————————–\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                             JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                          3rd March, 2010<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Raveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 285 of 1999(A) 1. RAVEENDRAN … Petitioner Vs 1. P.K.RAJAMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.C.CHARLES For Respondent :SRI.JAIJI ITTEN Dated :03\/03\/2010 O R D E R HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ————————– A.S.NO.285 OF 1999 ————————– DATED THIS THE 3RD […]<\/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-147616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRaveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-19T19:58:01+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-19T19:58:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1820,\"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\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Raveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-19T19:58:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Raveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-19T19:58:01+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-19T19:58:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010"},"wordCount":1820,"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\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010","name":"Raveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-19T19:58:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-p-k-rajamma-on-3-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raveendran vs P.K.Rajamma on 3 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/147616","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=147616"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147616\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}