{"id":14936,"date":"2007-03-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007"},"modified":"2014-09-04T01:28:19","modified_gmt":"2014-09-03T19:58:19","slug":"p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"P.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS No. 89 of 1994(B)\n\n\n\n1. P.R.RAMAKRISHNAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. T.G.KUNHIKANNAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.R.RAJEEV\n\n                For Respondent  :SMT.PRABHA R.MENON\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR\n\n Dated :26\/03\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                                      K.Padmanabhan Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 – – – – — – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
                                         A.S.No. 89 of 1994-B<\/p>\n
                                 – – — – – –  — – – – – – – – — – – – – – —\n<\/p>\n
\n                            Dated, this the 26th   day of March, 2007.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                 Judgment<\/p>\n
        Defendants   1   to   3   in   O.S.No.63   of   1991   on   the   file   of   the   Subordinate<\/p>\n
Judge’s   Court,   Quilandy   are   the   appellants.     Appeal   is   filed   challenging   the<\/p>\n
judgment   and   decree   passed   by   the   trial   court   by  which     the     suit   filed   by   the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs  claiming damages was decreed in part.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        2.     Respondents   are   brothers.     They   filed   the   suit   for   damages   on   the<\/p>\n
following averments.   Second  respondent was unmarried at the relevant  point of<\/p>\n
time.  P.W.4, one  K.K.Narayanan, who was working  as a teacher at  Government<\/p>\n
Valad High School at Wayanad   informed second respondent   that he knows the<\/p>\n
third appellant   and she will be a suitable bride for him.   1st   respondent and   his<\/p>\n
neighbour  G.K.Kunhikannan along with P.W.4 approached the first appellant and<\/p>\n
made the proposal to first defendant that the second plaintiff would like to marry<\/p>\n
his daughter.     Respondents along with others went to the house of appellants to<\/p>\n
see the third appellant   and they were satisfied with the third appellant.   She also<\/p>\n
liked the second respondent.  Subsequently, first appellant along with others came<\/p>\n
to   the   house   of   respondents   and   they   were   also   satisfied   with   the   family<\/p>\n
background of the respondents.  Accordingly, respondents along with others again<\/p>\n
A.S.No.89   of 1994                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
went to the house of third appellant and decided to conduct the marriage.  At that<\/p>\n
time, father of the     respondents was laid up due to illness and he was unable to<\/p>\n
move about and it was not possible for him to go to the house of the bride to fix a<\/p>\n
date for   marriage.   Father of the bride and their relatives agreed to come to the<\/p>\n
house of the respondents for that purpose and accordingly they came to the house<\/p>\n
of the respondents on 10-03-1991. A decision was taken  to conduct the marriage<\/p>\n
ceremony at Guruvayoor  SreeKrishna Temple. For the purpose of fixing the time<\/p>\n
of marriage respondents1 and 2 along with others who accompanied them and first<\/p>\n
respondent   and   others   went   to   the   office   of     one   N.Kunhirama     Panicker,   an<\/p>\n
astrologer  After reaching the  office of the astrologer they had agreed to conduct<\/p>\n
the  marriage  ceremony on  22nd  April,  1991.  Appellants   1  and  2   had  agreed  that<\/p>\n
they   will   be   reaching   Guruvayoor   Temple   on   the   previous   day.   Respondents<\/p>\n
printed the invitation cards  and they along with their friends and relatives went to<\/p>\n
Guruvayoor on the previous day and stayed  at  Guruvayoor Sathram owned by the<\/p>\n
Temple.   Appellants did not turn up   and thereby respondents were put to much<\/p>\n
hardship.  Respondents  spent an amount of Rs.15,000\/- as expenses and suffered a<\/p>\n
damage of Rs.25,000\/- and the suit was filed claiming Rs.40,000\/- as damages.<\/p>\n
           3.  Defendants  filed the written statement denying all the averments.  It was<\/p>\n
contended  that   the  suit  was  not  maintainable.     It was further   contended  that   the<\/p>\n
courts   at   Kozhikode   District   have   no   jurisdiction   to   entertain   a   suit   as   the<\/p>\n
defendants   were     residing   within   the   jurisdiction   of   Wayanad   Courts.     It   is<\/p>\n
A.S.No.89   of 1994                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
admitted   that   P.W.4   mooted   the   marriage   proposal   for   third   appellant   and   they<\/p>\n
were informed that the second respondent will be a suitable bridegroom   for the<\/p>\n
third appellant.  It was further contended that the  appellants were made to believe<\/p>\n
that second respondent  was a Government employee   and he was much younger<\/p>\n
than what he actually was.  Subsequently when the appellants made  enquiry it was<\/p>\n
revealed     that   second   respondent   was   aged   more   than   40   years   and   he   was  not<\/p>\n
having   any   employment   and   his   conduct   and   character   are   not   good.     So   they<\/p>\n
backed   out   from   the   proposal.     There   was   no   understanding   to   solemnize   the<\/p>\n
marriage on 22-04-1991 as contended by the plaintiffs. The averment that  on 10-<\/p>\n
03-1991,     appellants   along   with   friends   and   relatives   came   to   the   house   of   the<\/p>\n
respondents for fixing the marriage was denied.   The averment that they went to<\/p>\n
the office  of P.W.3  astrologer and  scheduled the marriage to be conducted on 22-<\/p>\n
04-2001   was   also   denied.     The   averment   that     respondents   and   others     went   to<\/p>\n
Guruvayoor and spent more than Rs.15,000\/- was also denied.  The averment that<\/p>\n
respondents sustained mental agony, financial loss etc. were denied.  The averment<\/p>\n
that respondents sustained  a  damage to the tune of Rs.25,000\/-  was also denied.<\/p>\n
It was further contended that the suit was filed for the  purpose of solely harassing<\/p>\n
the   defendants.     The   trial   court   found   that   the   plaintiffs   had   spent   more   than<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- and they  have suffered mental agony and loss of reputation to the tune<\/p>\n
of   Rs.10,000\/-   and   hence   they   are   entitled   to   get   an   amount   of   Rs.20,000\/-   as<\/p>\n
damages.  Challenging the judgment and decree, this appeal is filed.<\/p>\n
A.S.No.89   of 1994                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
        4.     The  only point   arising   for   consideration   is  whether   the  finding   of   the<\/p>\n
court   below   that   respondents   1   and   2   are   entitled   to   get   a   compensation   of<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- is sustainable or not.   The materials on record show that there was a<\/p>\n
proposal from the side  of respondents to the effect  that second respondent would<\/p>\n
like to marry the third appellant who is the daughter of the first appellant.  Second<\/p>\n
respondent     is the  brother of  the  first  respondent.     That fact  is admitted  by the<\/p>\n
appellants   also.     But   the   question   to   be   decided   is   whether   the   case   of   the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs-respondents that on 10-03-1991, appellants along with their friends and<\/p>\n
relatives came to the house of respondents and agreed to conduct the marriage at<\/p>\n
Guruvayoor   and   whether   the  case   of   the   respondents   that   from   the   house   of<\/p>\n
respondents all of them went together to the office of P.W.3, the astrologer, and<\/p>\n
the   marriage   was   scheduled   to   be   conducted   on   22nd  April,   1991is   correct.<\/p>\n
Respondents rely on Ext.A1 to show that  there was an agreement on 10-03-1991<\/p>\n
by   which   both   sides   agreed   to   conduct   the   marriage   on   22-4-1991.     The<\/p>\n
genuineness of Ext.A1 was disputed  by the appellants. Ext.A1 is stated to be  the<\/p>\n
slip written by P.W.3 on 10-03-1991.  It was written in a plain paper.  It does not<\/p>\n
contain   the   signature   or   handwriting   of  the   appellants.     Originally  the   names   of<\/p>\n
parties alone were written.  It does not contain the stars or horoscope of the boy or<\/p>\n
girl.     The   date   10-03-1991   is   written   in   different   ink.     While   cross   examining<\/p>\n
P.W.1 a suggestion was put to P.W.1 that the entire writings in Ext.A1 were not<\/p>\n
made by one person . Another   suggestion was also made to him that that was a<\/p>\n
A.S.No.89   of 1994                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
document fabricated for the purpose of creating evidence for this case.  Regarding<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, the case put forward by respondents is that appellants 1 and 2 with their<\/p>\n
friends   and   relatives   came   to   the   house   of   respondents   and   from   there   first<\/p>\n
respondent,   the   appellants   and   others   went   to   the   office   of   one   N.K.Panicker-<\/p>\n
P.W.3 who is an astrologer and he fixed 22nd April 1991 as the date of  marriage.<\/p>\n
In the plaint there was no averment that Ext.A1 was given to the first respondent<\/p>\n
by D.W.2.  There was also no averment that two copies of the slip were prepared<\/p>\n
and one was given to appellants and another one to respondents.  P.W.1 during his<\/p>\n
chief examination had asserted that P.W.3, after fixing the date,  wrote  two slips<\/p>\n
and one was given to the first respondent and another one to the first appellant.  It<\/p>\n
is further deposed that Ext.A1 was  given to the first plaintiff by P.W.3 .  P.W.3 is<\/p>\n
the astrologer.   During  chief  examination  he deposed that  he  prepared  two slips<\/p>\n
and gave both slips to the father of the third appellant.  During cross examination<\/p>\n
also he asserted   that he wrote   two slips and both slips were handed over to the<\/p>\n
father of the third appellant.   If that be so,   the case put forward by P.W.1 at the<\/p>\n
time of giving evidence that Ext.A1 was given to him cannot be accepted. So no<\/p>\n
reliance   can   be   placed   on   Ext.A1   to   hold   that   the  appellants  agreed   for   the<\/p>\n
marriage between third appellant and second respondent to be solemnized on 22-4-<\/p>\n
1991.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        5  .    There is yet another  aspect.   Even P.W.1 has no case that  as per the<\/p>\n
custom prevailing in the community, the betrothal ceremony will be conducted in<\/p>\n
A.S.No.89   of 1994                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
the house of the bridegroom.   According to the respondents,  because of the illness<\/p>\n
of   the   father   of   the   bridegroom,   the   betrothal   ceremony   was   agreed   to   be<\/p>\n
conducted   in   the   house   of   the   respondents.   P.W.1   deposed   that   the   decision   to<\/p>\n
conduct the marriage was taken at his house and they went to the office of P.W.3<\/p>\n
only   for   fixing   the   date   of   marriage.     The   evidence   of   P.W.3   assumes   more<\/p>\n
importance.  According to him, he is an astrologer by profession and normally he<\/p>\n
is fixing the dates for marriage.  It is also admitted by him that Ext.A1 was written<\/p>\n
in plain paper as all his letter pads were exhausted.  He deposed that the brother of<\/p>\n
the bridegroom and 2-3 others and the father of the bride and 2-3 others came to<\/p>\n
his office.  According to him, they came to the office  by  sheer chance.  Then he<\/p>\n
deposed that he prepared two slips and father of bridegroom gave him dakshina .<\/p>\n
He had admitted that the normal practice is to peruse horoscopes of parties at the<\/p>\n
house of  bride and that too, on the date of betrothal ceremony.  He deposed that  at<\/p>\n
the time of betrothal, there will be some ceremony and the date of marriage will be<\/p>\n
fixed.   He had candidly admitted that before fixing the date of marriage , in this<\/p>\n
particular case, he had not seen or verified  the horoscope of bride or bridegroom.<\/p>\n
According to him, since the marriage is to be scheduled in the temple, he only gave<\/p>\n
an auspicious date.  It is very difficult to believe the oral evidence of P.W.3 when<\/p>\n
he   says   that   an   astrologer   had   fixed   the   date   of   marriage   without   seeing   the<\/p>\n
horoscope and that too at his office contrary to the ordinary practice of  fixing  it in<\/p>\n
the   house   of   the   bride.     Even   accepting   the   contention   of   the   respondents   that<\/p>\n
A.S.No.89   of 1994                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
because of the illness of the father of the respondents, the parents and relatives of<\/p>\n
the   bride   had   agreed   to   conduct   the   ceremony   in   the   house   of   the   bridegroom<\/p>\n
normally one would expect that ceremony at the house of the respondents and not<\/p>\n
in the office of an astrologer.  So no reliance can be placed on  the oral evidence of<\/p>\n
P.Ws.   1   and   3     .       In   the   absence   of   evidence   regarding   the   agreement   by  the<\/p>\n
appellants  for   the   marriage  to   be  scheduled   on  22-4-1991,  they  cannot  be   made<\/p>\n
liable   for   any   damage.     So   the   further   question   whether   respondents   went   to<\/p>\n
Guruvayoor,   suffered   damage   etc.   does   not   arise   in   this   case.     I   hold   that   the<\/p>\n
evidence on  record is not sufficient to hold that there was an agreement between<\/p>\n
the appellants and respondents  and third appellant had agreed to marry the second<\/p>\n
respondent at Guruvayoor on 22-04-1991.  So the findings of the court below that<\/p>\n
since   the   appellants   backed   out   from   the   agreement   for   marriage,     respondents<\/p>\n
suffered   damage   and   appellants   are   liable   to   compensate   are   unsustainable   and<\/p>\n
liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        In the result, appeal is allowed.   Judgment and decree passed by the court<\/p>\n
below are set aside.  Suit is dismissed.  Parties are  directed to suffer their costs.<\/p>\n
C.M.P.No.407 of 1994 shall stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                            K.Padmanabhan Nair,<\/p>\n
                                                            Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\ns.\n<\/p>\n
\nA.S.No.89   of 1994    8<\/span><\/p>\n
                                   K.Padmanabhan Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          A.S.No. 89 of 1994<\/p>\n
                                           Judgment<\/p>\n
                                     26th March, 2007.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS No. 89 of 1994(B) 1. P.R.RAMAKRISHNAN … Petitioner Vs 1. T.G.KUNHIKANNAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.R.RAJEEV For Respondent :SMT.PRABHA R.MENON The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR Dated :26\/03\/2007 O R D E R K.Padmanabhan Nair, J. […]<\/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-14936","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-03T19:58:19+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\\\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-03T19:58:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2000,\"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\\\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007\",\"name\":\"P.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-03T19:58:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-03T19:58:19+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\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-03T19:58:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007"},"wordCount":2000,"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\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007","name":"P.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-03T19:58:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-r-ramakrishnan-vs-t-g-kunhikannan-on-26-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.R.Ramakrishnan vs T.G.Kunhikannan on 26 March, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14936","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=14936"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14936\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14936"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14936"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14936"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}