{"id":15297,"date":"2010-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-25T21:36:41","modified_gmt":"2016-03-25T16:06:41","slug":"alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Alphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Alphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 895 of 1997(A)\n\n\n\n1. ALPHONSA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. BABY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.GEORGE VARGHESE KANNANTHANAM\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :05\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                          HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.\n                    --------------------------\n                          A.S.NO.895 OF 1997\n                    --------------------------\n               DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
             Plaintiff in O.S. No. 669\/87 on the file of the Sub Court,<\/p>\n
Thrissur is the appellant. The suit was filed for partition. The trial court<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit finding that the the plaintiff is not entitled for any<\/p>\n
share in the property. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed by<\/p>\n
the court below, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. The parties<\/p>\n
hereinafter referred are the plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in the<\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              2. Plaintiff and defendants are the        children of late<\/p>\n
Anthony. Plaintiff is his daughter and defendants are his sons. Plaint<\/p>\n
schedule properties 5 in number were obtained by the father-Anthony<\/p>\n
as per registered document Nos.4363 and 4364\/1957.               It is the<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s case that the whereabouts of the father are not known to<\/p>\n
                                     -2-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.895\/97<\/p>\n
anybody since 1977 and therefore, it is presumed that he is dead. At<\/p>\n
the time when the father left the house, the plaintiff was an unmarried<\/p>\n
girl. Plaintiff claimed partition and allotment of 1\/8th share.<\/p>\n
             3. Defendants 1, 4, 5 and 6 filed         written statement.<\/p>\n
According to them, the plaint schedule properties were not available for<\/p>\n
partition, that the father left home in September, 1978 and thereafter his<\/p>\n
whereabouts are not known and that the father and defendants have<\/p>\n
executed a registered partition deed No.3276\/74 dividing the properties<\/p>\n
in between the father and the defendants. It it contend that on the date<\/p>\n
of execution of the document an extent of 30 cents of land in<\/p>\n
Sy.No.706\/4 of Aranattukara Village was gifted to the plaintiff as per<\/p>\n
document No.3275\/74. It is further contended that certain properties<\/p>\n
were kept undivided and excluded as on the date of execution of<\/p>\n
document No.3276\/74. The said properties were entrusted with the 2nd<\/p>\n
                                      -3-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.895\/97<\/p>\n
defendant by all other sharers for management. The father executed a<\/p>\n
power of attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant in the year 1976. On<\/p>\n
the strength of the power of attorney, the 2nd defendant executed a<\/p>\n
release deed on 7\/12\/1984 conveying the right of the father in favour of<\/p>\n
the defendants. According to the defendants, since the properties were<\/p>\n
already divided among the sharers, there is no necessity for a further<\/p>\n
partition. The properties scheduled in the plaint are not partible and<\/p>\n
therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief claimed in the plaint.<\/p>\n
            4. In support of the case of the respective parties, Pws.1 to<\/p>\n
4 and Dws.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4, B1 to B4, X1 and<\/p>\n
X2 are marked. The court below examined the question as to whether<\/p>\n
the father of the plaintiff can be presumed to be dead. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
tendered evidence before the court below stating that her father is<\/p>\n
missing ever since 1977. DW4 is the cousin of Anthony, who is a<\/p>\n
                                   -4-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.895\/97<\/p>\n
Bishop. He also testified before the court below that he had occasion<\/p>\n
to attend the functions in the house of Anthony. He participated in the<\/p>\n
marriage ceremony of the 2nd defendant in 1977 and that of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in 1979. The Bishop testified before the court below that he<\/p>\n
did not know about the whereabouts of Anthony since 1976 and that<\/p>\n
Anthony was not seen present in the house on the occasion of the<\/p>\n
marriage of the 2nd defendant and the plaintiff.        In the written<\/p>\n
statement the defendants contended that the whereabouts of their<\/p>\n
father were not known since September, 1978. In the written statement<\/p>\n
they have no case that their farther was known to be alive since 1978.<\/p>\n
At the same time, they attempted to prove that their father was alive<\/p>\n
during 1987. Dws.1, 2 and 3 were examined. On a reading of their<\/p>\n
testimonies, it can be seen that they are not trustworthy witnesses and<\/p>\n
the evidence tendered by them does not inspire confidence of the court.<\/p>\n
                                    -5-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.895\/97<\/p>\n
The witnesses were taken by the defendants to the court below. They<\/p>\n
have testified certain facts which were not found pleaded by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. Therefore, the finding of the court below that the father of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff can be presumed to be dead, does not require interference.<\/p>\n
             5. Exts.A1 and A2 are the title deeds, which stand in the<\/p>\n
name of the father. Ext.B1 is the registered partition deed executed by<\/p>\n
Anthony and his sons. The daughter alone was not a party. By Ext. B1<\/p>\n
partition deed some items of properties belonged to the father were set<\/p>\n
apart in favour of his sons. The properties scheduled as A in the<\/p>\n
partition deed were allotted to the father and other shares were allotted<\/p>\n
to his sons. Items 4 and 5 in the plaint schedule are the properties<\/p>\n
allotted to the father by virtue of Ext.B1 partition deed. Item Nos. 1 to<\/p>\n
3 are the properties not included in Ext.B1 partition deed. It is not<\/p>\n
disputed by the plaintiff before this Court that item No.2 property is not<\/p>\n
                                    -6-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.895\/97<\/p>\n
available for partition. So, it can be held that item No.2 is not available<\/p>\n
for partition. It cannot be disputed that item Nos.1 and 3 are the<\/p>\n
properties left out of partition. Items. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are the properties<\/p>\n
which stand in the name of the father. According to the plaintiff, item<\/p>\n
Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 are the properties. which are available for partition<\/p>\n
and therefore the dismissal of the suit without passing a decree for<\/p>\n
partition is unsustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             6. The learned counsel for the defendants 3 to 5 relied on<\/p>\n
Ext.B3 power of attorney executed by the father-Anthony in favour of<\/p>\n
some of the defendants. Ext.B3 is dated 17\/1\/1976. The contesting<\/p>\n
defendants contended that the power of attorney holders on the strength<\/p>\n
of Ext.B3, executed Ext.B4 release deed dated 7-12-1984 releasing the<\/p>\n
properties belonging to the father in their capacity as the power of<\/p>\n
attorney holders of the father. Ext.B4 relates to item No.3 of the plaint<\/p>\n
                                    -7-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.895\/97<\/p>\n
schedule. The defendants contended that since the property was<\/p>\n
transferred on the strength of Ext.B3 power of attorney, the transferee<\/p>\n
has got right over      item No.3 and therefore, the said item is not<\/p>\n
available for partition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            7. It is not disputed that item No.1 is left out property at<\/p>\n
the time of execution of Ext.B1 partition deed dated 26\/10\/1974.<\/p>\n
Similarly, items 4 and 5 are the properties allotted to the father as per<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 partition deed. Said items are A schedule in Ext.B1 partition<\/p>\n
deed. On an appreciation of the contention of the parties it is clear that<\/p>\n
item Nos.1, 4 and 5 still stand in the name of the father and therefore,<\/p>\n
the properties are available for partition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            8. The contention of the defendants is that item No.3 is not<\/p>\n
available for partition. I have examined the contention in detail. The<\/p>\n
father executed a power of attorney on 17\/1\/1976. I have perused Ext.<\/p>\n
                                     -8-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.895\/97<\/p>\n
B3 power of attorney. Ext.B3 is not a general power of attorney<\/p>\n
empowering the power of attorney holder to deal with the property of<\/p>\n
Anthony. A limited right is conferred to the power of attorney holder.<\/p>\n
The power attorney holder was asked to take the document to the Sub<\/p>\n
Registrar’s Office and to carry out the procedures prescribed for<\/p>\n
registration. For that purpose, he was authorised to put his signatures<\/p>\n
in the official records, registers, documents etc. The power of attorney<\/p>\n
was intended only for registration of documents on behalf of Anthony.<\/p>\n
The other formalities to be followed in the Sub Registrar’s office shall<\/p>\n
be done by the power of attorney holder. It is specifically stated that<\/p>\n
the documents, if any, shall be taken to the Sub Registrar’s office for<\/p>\n
execution. So, the document does not give any authority to the power<\/p>\n
of attorney holder to convey the right of Anthony to any other person.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the contention of the defendants that in exercise of the<\/p>\n
                                  -9-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.895\/97<\/p>\n
power conferred on the power of attorney holders, they had released<\/p>\n
the right of Anthony in favour of the 2nd defendant, cannot stand.<\/p>\n
Another aspect is that Ext.B3 was executed on 17\/1\/1976 and during<\/p>\n
l976-77 Anthony left the house. Thereafter, his whereabouts are not<\/p>\n
known. Assuming that Ext.B3 empowers the power of attorney holders<\/p>\n
to execute documents for and on behalf of Anthony, I do not think that<\/p>\n
the power of attorney holders can exercise such right for and on behalf<\/p>\n
of a person, whose whereabouts were unknown for a period of more<\/p>\n
than 7 years. The power of attorney shall not be used for the purpose<\/p>\n
of conveying the rights of the executor at such a distance of time.<\/p>\n
Even if the execution was within three years, I do not think that the<\/p>\n
documents have any validity for the reason that the executor never<\/p>\n
instructed or intended to act upon such a document by a man, who left<\/p>\n
the house several years back. Therefore, the contention of the<\/p>\n
                                    -10-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.895\/97<\/p>\n
defendants that item No.3 is not partible on the strength of Ext.B4<\/p>\n
release deed dated 7\/12\/1984, cannot stand. In view of the above facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that item Nos. 1, 3, 4<\/p>\n
and 5 are available for partition. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a<\/p>\n
decree for partition.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            9. In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the court<\/p>\n
below is set aside. A decree is passed declaring that the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
entitled to 1\/8th share in plaint items 1, 3, 4 and 5 with mean profits.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff shall apply for passing a final decree within two months.<\/p>\n
The mean profits claimed by the plaintiff shall be assessed in the final<\/p>\n
decree proceedings. Costs shall come out of the estate.<\/p>\n
            Appeal is partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                         JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
kcv.\n<\/p>\n
                 -11-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.895\/97<\/p>\n
                     HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.\n<\/p>\n
                 ————————–\n<\/p>\n
                     A.S.NO.895 OF 1997\n<\/p>\n
                 ————————–\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                              JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                         5th February,2010<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Alphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 895 of 1997(A) 1. ALPHONSA … Petitioner Vs 1. BABY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.GEORGE VARGHESE KANNANTHANAM For Respondent :SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :05\/02\/2010 O R D E R HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ————————– A.S.NO.895 […]<\/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-15297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAlphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Alphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-25T16:06:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Alphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-25T16:06:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1624,\"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\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Alphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-25T16:06:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Alphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Alphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Alphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-25T16:06:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Alphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-25T16:06:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010"},"wordCount":1624,"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\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010","name":"Alphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-25T16:06:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alphonsa-vs-baby-on-5-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Alphonsa vs Baby on 5 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15297","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=15297"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15297\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}