{"id":151636,"date":"2009-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-01-29T04:27:13","modified_gmt":"2018-01-28T22:57:13","slug":"m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"M.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 3270 of 2001(I)\n\n\n\n1. M.S.VASUDEV\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. K.R.NARAYANAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :30\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n           PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.\n\n                       ------------------------\n                     C.R.P.No.3270 OF 2001\n                       ------------------------\n\n              Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009\n\n                              ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C.Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n
      The second    respondent in the rent control petition, the<\/p>\n
alleged sub tenant      is in revision under Section 20, being<\/p>\n
aggrieved by the orders of the        Rent Control Court and the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority passed against him and also against the first<\/p>\n
respondent in the rent control petition on the grounds under<\/p>\n
Section 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent<\/p>\n
Control)Act,1965 (Act 2 of 1965) hereinafter referred to ‘the Act.<\/p>\n
The landlord had invoked the ground under clause (i) of sub<\/p>\n
section 4 of Section 11 – sub letting also.     The Rent Control<\/p>\n
Court, however did not grant eviction order under Section 11 (4)<\/p>\n
(i) finding that the transfer of premises in favour of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner,second respondent, by the tenant is not               an<\/p>\n
objectionable sub lease or transfer. To hold so, that court took<\/p>\n
into account the circumstance that the tenant and the alleged sub<\/p>\n
tenant are direct brothers and that the alleged sub tenant has<\/p>\n
CRP.3270\/2001                   -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
been in occupation of the building for quite a long period of time.<\/p>\n
The order of the Rent Control Court declining eviction on the<\/p>\n
ground under section 11(4)(i) has become final. In fact the land<\/p>\n
lord did not challenge that order before the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority and the appeal was preferred by the tenant<\/p>\n
only, against the order of eviction passed under section 11 (2)<\/p>\n
(b) and Section 11 (3) of the Act. We, therefore, in this revision<\/p>\n
need be concerned only, with the order of eviction passed under<\/p>\n
Section 11 (2) (b) and 11 (3).\n<\/p>\n
       2. The allegation of the landlord in the context of the<\/p>\n
ground under Section 11 (2) (b) was that the contract rent is<\/p>\n
Rs.200\/- per month on the basis of Ext.A1 lease deed dated<\/p>\n
14\/7\/1995 and that the rent at the rates mentioned therein has<\/p>\n
not been paid at all by the tenant in spite of statutory demand<\/p>\n
notice   issued  under  Section    11   (2)(b).     Even   though<\/p>\n
Sri.M.S.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner ,<\/p>\n
the second respondent in the rent control petition would assail<\/p>\n
the finding of the Rent Control Court regarding the rate of rent<\/p>\n
and also regarding the quantum of arrears, inter alia, on the<\/p>\n
CRP.3270\/2001                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
reason that the revision petitioner is not a party to Ext.A1 lease<\/p>\n
deed, we are not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings<\/p>\n
of the courts below entered in the context of Section 11(2)(b) of<\/p>\n
the Act. We also take into account the circumstance that the<\/p>\n
first entry of the revision petitioner into the schedule building was<\/p>\n
on the strength of the permission granted by his brother, the first<\/p>\n
respondent in the R.C.P. and the further circumstance that the<\/p>\n
petition schedule building is situated by the side of the State<\/p>\n
Highway at Kolazhi Junction, an important junction situated not<\/p>\n
far away from the Thrissur Municipal Corporation and at any rate<\/p>\n
the sum of Rs.200\/- per mensum is below the prevailing market<\/p>\n
rate for similar buildings in the said locality. We also take into<\/p>\n
account the circumstance that it is not an absolute order of<\/p>\n
eviction which is passed by the Rent Control Court under Section<\/p>\n
11(2)(b) of the Act. Any eviction order passed under Section 11<\/p>\n
(2)(b) of the Act is a provisional one which is liable to be vacated<\/p>\n
by the Rent Control Court.          Once the tenant deposits the<\/p>\n
quantified arrears and moves under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act.<\/p>\n
We, therefore, confirm the order of eviction passed under Section<\/p>\n
CRP.3270\/2001                   -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
11(2)(b) of the Act and grant one more month’s time from today<\/p>\n
to the revision petitioner to get the order of eviction vacated by<\/p>\n
depositing the requisite amounts.\n<\/p>\n
      3. We have gone through the findings entered by the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court and the Appellate Authority in the context of the<\/p>\n
ground under Sub-section 3 of Section 11 of the Act. The need<\/p>\n
projected by the landlord was that the building is required for<\/p>\n
occupation by his dependent son, who was examined as PW2, so<\/p>\n
that he could carry on business in electrical goods. It came on<\/p>\n
record that PW2 had passed ITI and had a certificate in electrical<\/p>\n
wiring.   It also became evident that he, who was previously<\/p>\n
employed in a Gulf country, has come back for good and<\/p>\n
presently without any employment. The defence of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner that the father-in-law of PW2 is having extensive<\/p>\n
immovable properties and that PW2 came home back for the<\/p>\n
purpose of looking after those properties was rightly repelled by<\/p>\n
the authorities below. The evidence is that the total extent of<\/p>\n
property belonged to the father-in-law is just 1 1\/2acres of<\/p>\n
garden land where some coconut trees and arecanut trees are<\/p>\n
CRP.3270\/2001                    -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
standing. According to us, there is no infirmity about the finding<\/p>\n
of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority that the<\/p>\n
need projected by the landlord is a bona fide one. The question<\/p>\n
whether the R.C.P.is liable to fail on account of the second<\/p>\n
proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act      will naturally depend on<\/p>\n
answer to the question as to who is the tenant.     The finding of<\/p>\n
the authorities below concurrently is that the tenant of the<\/p>\n
building is the first respondent in the R.C.P. Of course, the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court declined the order of eviction under Section 11(4)<\/p>\n
(i) of the Act taking the view that the sub-lease or transfer in<\/p>\n
favour of the second respondent is not an objectionable one and<\/p>\n
the same has been accepted by the landlord. Nevertheless the<\/p>\n
finding of the Rent Control Court was that the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
is only a sub-tenant. The Appellate Authority also concluded that<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner is a sub-tenant.      Therefore, both the<\/p>\n
authorities did not seriously go into the question whether the<\/p>\n
second respondent in the R.C.P.(revision petitioner herein) is<\/p>\n
entitled for the protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3)<\/p>\n
of the Act. Since the question whether the revision petitioner is<\/p>\n
CRP.3270\/2001                   -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
entitled to the protection of the second proviso to sub-section 3<\/p>\n
of Section 11 of the Act is closely connected with the status of<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner in the building, we find it necessary to<\/p>\n
examine the case of the parties regarding the ground of sub-<\/p>\n
letting once again, though the order declining eviction under<\/p>\n
Section 11(4)(i) of the Act has attained finality.<\/p>\n
      4. Ext.B10 is a consent letter dated 30-5-1983 issued by<\/p>\n
the landlord to the local Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity<\/p>\n
Board wherein the landlord admits that the revision petitioner is<\/p>\n
carrying on trade in the schedule building and virtually expresses<\/p>\n
his consent in the matter. Exts.B7, B8 and B9 are certified copies<\/p>\n
of property tax assessment registers maintained by the local<\/p>\n
authority, Kolazhi Panchayath, in respect of the building in<\/p>\n
question in relation to a long period from 1983 to 1994 which<\/p>\n
takes in the period covered by the date of issuance of the<\/p>\n
statutory intimation notice under Section 11(4)(i) of the Act. In<\/p>\n
all these documents, it is recorded that the revision petitioner is<\/p>\n
the person in possession of the petition schedule building.     In<\/p>\n
one of the documents, viz. Ext.B8 pertaining to the period from<\/p>\n
CRP.3270\/2001                    -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
1988-89 to 1992-93, it is clearly recorded that the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner’s status in the building is as tenant. Exts.B4 to B6<\/p>\n
receipt books, according to us, are receipt books kept in the<\/p>\n
usual course of business by the revision petitioner and all those<\/p>\n
books will reveal that the landlord has received rent from the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner recognizing the revision petitioner as the<\/p>\n
tenant of the building. Receipt books show that the amounts are<\/p>\n
received from Vasu (revision petitioner) towards the rent in<\/p>\n
respect of the building in question. This being the position, we<\/p>\n
are of the view that the evidence on record will justify a<\/p>\n
conclusion not only that the transfer of the building by the first<\/p>\n
respondent in the R.C.P     to the second respondent      which to<\/p>\n
begin with was unauthorised was condoned by the landlord but<\/p>\n
also that the landlord has recognized the revision petitioner as his<\/p>\n
own tenant by acquiescence.      It must be noted particularly that<\/p>\n
Exts.B4, B5 and B6 contained the signatures of the landlord. It<\/p>\n
should also be noted that documents, Exts.B7, B8 and B9 are<\/p>\n
documents enjoying their strong presumptions under Section 26<\/p>\n
of the Rent Control Act regarding the correctness of the entries<\/p>\n
CRP.3270\/2001                    -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
contained therein. In the teeth of all these documents the<\/p>\n
conclusion is irresistible that the landlord has recognized the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner as his own tenant.\n<\/p>\n
      5. On an evaluation of the evidence, we find that both the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Court and the Appellate Authority have proceeded to<\/p>\n
consider the question of tenant’s eligibility for protection under<\/p>\n
the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act on the premise<\/p>\n
that the tenant of the building is the first respondent in the R.C.P.<\/p>\n
Of course, we notice that the Rent Control Court has observed<\/p>\n
that the revision petitioner\/2nd respondent in the R.C.P.has<\/p>\n
admitted in his statement of objections that other buildings are<\/p>\n
available in the locality. The above portion of the pleadings of<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner was read over to us by Advocate Mr.<\/p>\n
M.K.Dileepkumar. But we find that the landlord was denying the<\/p>\n
averment that the buildings are available in the locality for the<\/p>\n
landlord to provide his son. We are not prepared to decide the<\/p>\n
question of the revision petitioner’s eligibility to the protection of<\/p>\n
the second proviso on the basis of the above apparent admission.<\/p>\n
The question whether the second respondent\/ revision petitioner<\/p>\n
CRP.3270\/2001                    -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
is entitled for protection of the second proviso to Section 11(3)<\/p>\n
of the Act, according to us, it should be considered afresh by the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Appellate Authority. Section 20A of Act 1965 will<\/p>\n
enable this Court to remand         appeals to the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority. We notice from provisions such as Sections<\/p>\n
23(1), 18(3) of the Rent Control Act and Rule 16(2) of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act that the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
has got power to conduct enquiries as the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
has.     We feel that considering the circumstance that the<\/p>\n
R.C.P.was filed way back in 1996, it is necessary in the interest of<\/p>\n
justice that the issue is remanded to the Rent Control Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority and not to the Rent Control Court.\n<\/p>\n
       6. The result of the above discussion is,      therefore, as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
      1. The revision petition is allowed to the limited extent of<\/p>\n
setting aside the order of eviction passed under Sub-Section 3 of<\/p>\n
Section 11 of the Act to the extent it pertains to the finding of<\/p>\n
the courts below regarding the eligibility for the protection of the<\/p>\n
second proviso to Section 11(3)) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
CRP.3270\/2001                     -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
      2. The finding that the landlord has a bona fide need under<\/p>\n
Section 11(3) of the Act of the schedule premises of occupation<\/p>\n
by his son,PW2, is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The finding of the Rent Control Court and the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority is modified and it is held that the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
has acquired the status of a tenant by acquiescence on the part<\/p>\n
of the landlord. As a      consequence the R.C.P.to the extent it is<\/p>\n
filed under Section 11(3) of the Act is remanded to the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Appellate Authority to decide the limited question<\/p>\n
whether the revision petitioner is entitled for the protection of the<\/p>\n
second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. Since oral evidence is<\/p>\n
already on record, both sides need be permitted by the court<\/p>\n
below to adduce documentary evidence regarding the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner’s eligibility for the protection to Section 11(3) of the<\/p>\n
Act. The enquiry as directed above will be completed by the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Appellate Authority within two months of the court<\/p>\n
reopening after mid-summer holidays and fresh decision will be<\/p>\n
taken by that Authority regarding the revision petitioner’s<\/p>\n
eligibility for eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act immediately<\/p>\n
CRP.3270\/2001                   -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
on completing the enquiry.The order of eviction passed against<\/p>\n
the first respondent under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act is<\/p>\n
extended to the second respondent\/revision petitioner also and<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner is given one month’s time from today for<\/p>\n
vacating that    order under Section 11(2)(c) of the Act after<\/p>\n
making deposits.\n<\/p>\n
     The civil revision petition is allowed to the above extent.<\/p>\n
But the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.<\/p>\n
                                    PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                        M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE<\/p>\n
dpk\/ks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 3270 of 2001(I) 1. M.S.VASUDEV … Petitioner Vs 1. K.R.NARAYANAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN For Respondent :SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI Dated :30\/03\/2009 O R D […]<\/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-151636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 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\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-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=\"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-28T22:57:13+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-28T22:57:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2088,\"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\\\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009\",\"name\":\"M.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-28T22:57:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 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":"M.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 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\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-28T22:57:13+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-28T22:57:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009"},"wordCount":2088,"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\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009","name":"M.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-28T22:57:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-s-vasudev-vs-k-r-narayanan-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.S.Vasudev vs K.R.Narayanan on 30 March, 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\/151636","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=151636"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151636\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151636"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151636"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151636"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}