{"id":151276,"date":"2007-10-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007"},"modified":"2014-05-24T02:01:03","modified_gmt":"2014-05-23T20:31:03","slug":"kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Kunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA No. 408 of 2005(F)\n\n\n1. KUNJAMMA, W\/O. MOHAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. JANCY MOHAN, D\/O. LATE MOHAN,\n3. BODHI P.MOHAN, S\/O. LATE MOHAN,\n4. KABINI P.MOHAN, D\/O. LATE MOHAN,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.G.THANIA, D\/O. GOMATHY AMMA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRIR.AZAD BABU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :09\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n            ===========================\n             R.S.A. NO. 408    OF 2005\n            ===========================\n\n      Dated this the 9th day of October, 2007\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    Defendants in O.S.No.950\/2001 on the file of<\/p>\n
Munsiff  Court,  Alappuzha   are  the   appellants.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff is the respondent.  Respondent instituted<\/p>\n
the suit seeking a decree for mandatory injunction<\/p>\n
to vacate the plaint schedule building contending<\/p>\n
that plaint schedule property belongs absolutely to<\/p>\n
the respondent under Ext.A3 partition deed and<\/p>\n
appellants  were  jointly  allotted    B   schedule<\/p>\n
property under Ext.A3 partition deed and they have<\/p>\n
no right over the plaint schedule property and<\/p>\n
respondent permitted appellants to reside in the<\/p>\n
building  in  the  property    free  of  rent,   as<\/p>\n
respondent was  residing outside the State due to<\/p>\n
their employment and after the husband of the<\/p>\n
respondent retired from service, due to cardiac<\/p>\n
surgery he was practically invalid and respondent<\/p>\n
is living with the meagre pension and she intends<\/p>\n
R.S.A.408\/2005              2<\/span><\/p>\n
to    return   to  the  native   place  and  take  up<\/p>\n
residence     in  the  plaint schedule  property  and<\/p>\n
therefore      licence granted to the appellants were<\/p>\n
revoked and they were directed to surrender vacant<\/p>\n
possession of the building,        but they are not<\/p>\n
prepared for the same.      Suit was instituted for a<\/p>\n
mandatory      injunction  directing  appellants   to<\/p>\n
surrender vacant possession of building.        First<\/p>\n
appellant      filed  a  separate  written  statement<\/p>\n
contending that she has no authority to bind the<\/p>\n
other appellants who were minors at the time of<\/p>\n
execution of the partition deed and     the partition<\/p>\n
deed is not binding on the minor children and<\/p>\n
respondent did not pay        the amount as directed<\/p>\n
under      the  partition deed  and  therefore  first<\/p>\n
appellant      is  not  liable  to  surrender  vacant<\/p>\n
possession of the building and respondent is not<\/p>\n
entitled to the decree sought for.    Appellants 2 to<\/p>\n
4 in their joint written statement contended that<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 partition deed was not binding on them and<\/p>\n
the partition deed is void abinitio and first<\/p>\n
R.S.A.408\/2005             3<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant     is  not  entitled  to  bind  the  other<\/p>\n
appellants, who were only minors at the time of<\/p>\n
executing the partition deed or to execute it      on<\/p>\n
their behalf and first appellant is a lady without<\/p>\n
any education and respondent played fraud on her<\/p>\n
and created Ext.A3 and respondent is not entitled<\/p>\n
to the decree sought for.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of PW1 and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A5 rejected the case of the appellants<\/p>\n
that Ext.A3 partition deed is not binding on the<\/p>\n
appellants 2 to 4 holding that Section 8(2) of<\/p>\n
Hindu      Minority and   Guardianship  Act   has  no<\/p>\n
application to     a   partition entered into by the<\/p>\n
co-sharers      and under   Ext.A3   properties  were<\/p>\n
allotted to the appellants jointly and Ext.A3 is<\/p>\n
binding on the appellants.     But it was found that<\/p>\n
even if Ext.A3 is voidable at the instance of the<\/p>\n
minor children, they should have filed a suit<\/p>\n
within three years of attaining majority and as<\/p>\n
they did not do so, they are not entitled to<\/p>\n
challenge      the partition  deed.    Accepting  the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.408\/2005               4<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence       of  PW1   learned  Munsiff   held   that<\/p>\n
appellants      are  residing  in  the  building     as<\/p>\n
permitted by respondent and as that licence was<\/p>\n
terminated, respondent is entitled to the decree<\/p>\n
sought      for.    Holding  that  respondent  did  not<\/p>\n
establish that she is entitled to get mesne profits<\/p>\n
as claimed in the suit, a decree for mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction directing appellants to surrender vacant<\/p>\n
possession of the building was passed.<\/p>\n
      3.     Appellants  challenged  the   decree   and<\/p>\n
judgment        before   Sub   Court,   Alappuzha    in<\/p>\n
A.S.135\/2004.      Appeal was filed after the period of<\/p>\n
limitation, along with I.A.2322\/2004 an application<\/p>\n
to condone the delay of two months and eight days<\/p>\n
in filing the appeal.          Learned Sub Judge not<\/p>\n
satisfied with the grounds shown by the appellants<\/p>\n
to condone the delay, dismissed I.A.2322\/04 and<\/p>\n
consequently dismissed the appeal as barred by<\/p>\n
time.         This  appeal is  filed  challenging   the<\/p>\n
dismissal      of  the  appeal  contending  that  first<\/p>\n
appellate      court  should  not  have  dismissed  the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.408\/2005               5<\/span><\/p>\n
application to condone the delay in filing the<\/p>\n
appeal and should have found that Ext.A3 partition<\/p>\n
deed is not binding on appellants 2 to 4 who are<\/p>\n
minors at the time of execution of the partition<\/p>\n
deed.\n<\/p>\n
      4.      As notice before admission was issued<\/p>\n
respondent appeared through a counsel.<\/p>\n
      5.      Learned counsel appearing for appellants<\/p>\n
and respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     The argument of learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for appellants is that first appellate court should<\/p>\n
not have denied an opportunity to the appellants to<\/p>\n
have a decision on merits and in the interest of<\/p>\n
justice       delay of 68 days in filing the appeal<\/p>\n
should have been condoned and        dismissal of the<\/p>\n
appeal is to be set aside.     Learned counsel counsel<\/p>\n
also      argued that when Ext.A3 partition deed was<\/p>\n
entered into, appellants 2 to 4 were minors and no<\/p>\n
permission of the court was taken for executing<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 partition deed and Ext.A3 partition deed was<\/p>\n
not for the benefit of appellants 2 to 4 the    minor<\/p>\n
R.S.A.408\/2005              6<\/span><\/p>\n
children      and therefore it should have been found<\/p>\n
that Ext.A3      is not binding on the appellants 2 to<\/p>\n
4 and if so appellants being co-owners are entitled<\/p>\n
to continue their residence in the building and<\/p>\n
therefore the decree is unsustainable.         Learned<\/p>\n
counsel also argued that even if Ext.A3 is taken as<\/p>\n
binding on all the appellants, it being            the<\/p>\n
dwelling      house of  the  appellants,    which  was<\/p>\n
allotted to respondent under Ext.A3, they have       a<\/p>\n
right of residence in the dwelling house     being the<\/p>\n
female children or and therefore a decree for<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction should not have been     granted.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel appearing for respondent pointed<\/p>\n
out that for executing Ext.A3 partition deed, no<\/p>\n
permission of the court as provided under section 8<\/p>\n
(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is<\/p>\n
necessary and as rightly found by courts below,<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 cannot be challenged for      non-compliance of<\/p>\n
Section 8(2) of the Act.         Learned counsel also<\/p>\n
argued      that    under  Ext.A3,    plaint  schedule<\/p>\n
property was allotted to the share of respondent<\/p>\n
R.S.A.408\/2005               7<\/span><\/p>\n
and as       respondent was residing outside the State,<\/p>\n
appellants were permitted to reside in the building<\/p>\n
and their residence in the building       could only be<\/p>\n
as a licensee and as      respondent had to return back<\/p>\n
to the native place after           retirement of her<\/p>\n
husband,         intimation   given  and   inspite   of<\/p>\n
termination      of     licence,  appellants  did   not<\/p>\n
surrender        vacant   possession   and    therefore<\/p>\n
respondent is entitled to the decree for mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction granted by the trial court.          It was<\/p>\n
further argued that there is no merit in the first<\/p>\n
appeal itself and in such circumstance, there is no<\/p>\n
necessity to remand the suit for fresh disposal<\/p>\n
after condoning the delay as sought for by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for appellants.\n<\/p>\n
      7.     Appeal was  admittedly  not   filed within<\/p>\n
time.      Though delay was only 68 days, the reason<\/p>\n
shown for condoning        the delay was   pendency of<\/p>\n
settlement talk between the parties,         which was<\/p>\n
denied by respondent.      The decree was passed by the<\/p>\n
trial court on 30.10.2003.       First appellate court<\/p>\n
R.S.A.408\/2005               8<\/span><\/p>\n
found that for execution of the decree, respondent<\/p>\n
filed E.P on 16.9.2004 and delivery of the property<\/p>\n
was ordered on 9.12.2005.       Even then,  appeal was<\/p>\n
not filed immediately.       Appeal was filed only on<\/p>\n
20.12.2004.      The copy of the judgment of the trial<\/p>\n
court establish that       carbon copy of the judgment<\/p>\n
was received as early as 4.12.2003.       The question<\/p>\n
is whether in such circumstance       dismissal of the<\/p>\n
application for condonation on the ground that<\/p>\n
there is no satisfactory reason for non filing of<\/p>\n
the appeal within      time.  As rightly pointed out by<\/p>\n
first appellate court, when the only reason shown<\/p>\n
by    appellants to condone the delay is the pendency<\/p>\n
of settlment talk between the parties and         facts<\/p>\n
revealed      would  establish   that   there  was   no<\/p>\n
settlement talk and inspite of the decree for<\/p>\n
mandatory     injunction  and   filing  of    execution<\/p>\n
petition      in September, 2004, it cannot be believed<\/p>\n
that        appellants did not file an appeal because<\/p>\n
of a       settlement talk.   In such circumstance, it<\/p>\n
cannot be said that       dismissal of the application<\/p>\n
R.S.A.408\/2005              9<\/span><\/p>\n
for condonation of delay was unjustifiable.<\/p>\n
      8.      Even on  merits,  I  do not  find  that<\/p>\n
appellants are entitled to get any relief in the<\/p>\n
appeal.       As rightly found by the   trial court,<\/p>\n
Section 8(2) of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act<\/p>\n
cannot apply to the     execution of a partition deed<\/p>\n
whereunder      properties obtained by three children<\/p>\n
of     Gomathyamma   were  partitioned  between   the<\/p>\n
daughter and       legal heirs of deceased son, the<\/p>\n
appellants      herein,  and     mother  Gomathyamma.<\/p>\n
Therefore appellants are not entitled to challenge<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 on the ground that they are minors at the<\/p>\n
time of execution of Ext.A3 or on the ground that<\/p>\n
no leave of the court was obtained for entering<\/p>\n
the partition deed.       If that be so, Ext.A3 is<\/p>\n
binding on the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
      9. Under Ext.A3 plaint schedule property was<\/p>\n
allotted to the respondent.      Hence respondent has<\/p>\n
title to the property.      It was argued by learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for appellants that eventhough<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 provides for payment of Rs.20,000\/- to the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.408\/2005              10<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants it was not paid and therefore respondent<\/p>\n
is not entitled to claim title      under Ext.A3.  Even<\/p>\n
if    the     argument of  the  learned  counsel   that<\/p>\n
respondent did not perform her obligation            is<\/p>\n
accepted,       remedy of    appellants is to realise<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- due to them under Ext.A3 partition<\/p>\n
deed. They are not entitled to challenge the title<\/p>\n
of respondent obtained under Ext.A3.          Therefore<\/p>\n
respondent is entitled to claim possession of the<\/p>\n
building, on the strength of the title.<\/p>\n
      10. Learned counsel appearing for      appellants<\/p>\n
also     argued    that under   section  23  of   Hindu<\/p>\n
Succession Act, first appellant and appellants 2<\/p>\n
and 4 being the female children of first appellant<\/p>\n
have a right of residence in the building which was<\/p>\n
the dwelling house        separated under Ext.A3 and<\/p>\n
therefore respondent is not entitled to       a decree<\/p>\n
for mandatory injunction.       The argument based on<\/p>\n
Section 23 advanced by the learned counsel cannot<\/p>\n
also be accepted.      Section 23 provides that where a<\/p>\n
Hindu intestate has left surviving him or her both<\/p>\n
R.S.A.408\/2005              11<\/span><\/p>\n
male and female heirs specified in Class I of the<\/p>\n
Schedule      and  his  or  her  property  includes   a<\/p>\n
dwelling house wholly occupied by members of his or<\/p>\n
her      family,    then,   notwithstanding    anything<\/p>\n
contained in the      Act, the right of any such female<\/p>\n
heir to claim partition of the dwelling house shall<\/p>\n
not arise until the male heirs choose to divide<\/p>\n
their respective shares therein, but the female<\/p>\n
heir shall be entitled to a right of residence<\/p>\n
therein.      What is provided under section 23 is that<\/p>\n
when a property which is left behind by a Hindu<\/p>\n
intestate is to be divided between male and female<\/p>\n
heirs as provided under Schedule I, and             the<\/p>\n
property      so  divided  includes  a  dwelling  house<\/p>\n
wholly occupied by members of his or her family,<\/p>\n
then a female         heir is not entitled to seek<\/p>\n
partition unless the male       heir choose to divide<\/p>\n
the property.       It has no application in a case<\/p>\n
where the property      has already been divided as in<\/p>\n
the    instant    case.    Moreover,  because  of   the<\/p>\n
repealing of section 23, by Amendment Act 39 of<\/p>\n
R.S.A.408\/2005             12<\/span><\/p>\n
2005, appellants are not entitled to advance the<\/p>\n
plea based on Section 23. In such circumstance, I<\/p>\n
find no substantial question of law involved in the<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      The appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned counsel appearing for appellants then<\/p>\n
submitted that    a reasonable time may be granted to<\/p>\n
the appellants to surrender vacant possession of<\/p>\n
the building.     Appellants are granted three  months<\/p>\n
time      to  surrender  vacant   possession  of   the<\/p>\n
building.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                           JUDGE
\ntpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n
    W.P.(C).NO. \/06\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA No. 408 of 2005(F) 1. KUNJAMMA, W\/O. MOHAN, … Petitioner 2. JANCY MOHAN, D\/O. LATE MOHAN, 3. BODHI P.MOHAN, S\/O. LATE MOHAN, 4. KABINI P.MOHAN, D\/O. LATE MOHAN, Vs 1. P.G.THANIA, D\/O. GOMATHY AMMA, … Respondent […]<\/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-151276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 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\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-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=\"2007-10-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-23T20:31:03+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\\\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-23T20:31:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1906,\"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\\\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Kunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-23T20:31:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 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":"Kunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 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\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-23T20:31:03+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\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-23T20:31:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007"},"wordCount":1906,"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\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007","name":"Kunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-23T20:31:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjamma-vs-p-g-thania-on-9-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kunjamma vs P.G.Thania on 9 October, 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\/151276","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=151276"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151276\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}