{"id":153115,"date":"2010-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-27T18:50:57","modified_gmt":"2016-06-27T13:20:57","slug":"k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 142 of 2000(A)\n\n\n\n1. K.RAJAPPAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SUDHAKARAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.V.MATHEW\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :22\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                        P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                   S.A. Nos.142 & 143 of 2000\n            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n            Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010.\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
          The defendants in O.S. 970 of 1992 before the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s court, Alappuzha are the appellants in S.A.142<\/p>\n
of 2000. The plaintiff in O.S. 790 of 1992 is the appellant<\/p>\n
in S.A. 143 of 2000. O.S. 970 of 1992 was decreed and<\/p>\n
O.S. 790 of 1992 was dismissed. The parties and facts<\/p>\n
are hereinafter referred to as they are available in O.S.<\/p>\n
970 of 1992 as that was treated as the leading case<\/p>\n
before the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
          2. O.S. 970 of 1992 was a suit for declaration,<\/p>\n
eviction and recovery of possession filed by the<\/p>\n
respondents herein. O.S. 790 of 1992 was a suit filed by<\/p>\n
the appellant for injunction simplicitor. Referring to the<\/p>\n
facts in O.S. 970 of 1992, the plaint allegations are that<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule item No.1 having an extent of 11<\/p>\n
cents is comprised in Sy. No.388\/1 of Aryad South<\/p>\n
Village.  The property was assigned in the name of<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.           2<\/span><\/p>\n
Kankali, the father of the first plaintiff. As per a Will the<\/p>\n
property came to vests with plaintiffs 1 to 4. According to<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs there were three      kudikidappukars in the<\/p>\n
property including the first defendant. He had applied for<\/p>\n
purchase of kudikidappu as O.A. 26 of 1985 before the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal, Alappuzha. That application was allowed and he<\/p>\n
was allowed to purchase one cent of land as per the Kerala<\/p>\n
Land Reforms Act as kudikidappu. It is pointed out by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs that prior to the said application, he had earlier<\/p>\n
filed O.A. 483 of 1976 before the same Tribunal and one<\/p>\n
cent was granted to him as kudikidappu.            That was<\/p>\n
measured and demarcated. Meanwhile against the order in<\/p>\n
O.A.26 of 1985, the first defendant approached the appellate<\/p>\n
authority as per A.A. 4 of 1987. The appellate authority set<\/p>\n
aside the order of the Land Tribunal and remanded to the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. While the case stood<\/p>\n
thus, the first plaintiff filed O.S.12 of 1988 before the<\/p>\n
Additional Munsiff’s Court, Alappuzha for demarcation of one<\/p>\n
cent of property as kudikidappu. It so happened that after<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.            3<\/span><\/p>\n
remand, the first defendant withdrew O.A. 26 of 1985 and<\/p>\n
consequently the suit was dismissed.        According to the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs, the defendants are residing in plaint item No.2.<\/p>\n
They have no manner of right over the rest of the property.<\/p>\n
According to the plaintiffs, the defendants are bound to<\/p>\n
vacate plaint item No.2 and hand over possession to the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs. On the basis of the above allegations, the suit was<\/p>\n
laid.\n<\/p>\n
             3. Defendants 1, 2 and 4 contested the suit. They<\/p>\n
contended that the plaint schedule property does not belong<\/p>\n
to the plaintiffs.    It is the Government puramboke land,<\/p>\n
which is in the occupation of the defendants. These<\/p>\n
defendants denied that the first defendant had filed O.A. 483<\/p>\n
of 1976 and according to them, that is stage managed by<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs themselves to defeat the claims of the first<\/p>\n
defendant. The defendants have no knowledge about the<\/p>\n
said application and they are unaware of the same. Under<\/p>\n
the mistaken belief that the first defendant was occupying<\/p>\n
the property owned by the first plaintiff, he instituted O.A.<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.         4<\/p>\n
26 of 1985 for purchase of kudikidappu. The survey number<\/p>\n
shown in the application was 388\/3. But later it turned out<\/p>\n
to be that the property, in which the first defendant was<\/p>\n
residing as kudikidappukaran, was in survey No. 388\/1. In<\/p>\n
O.A. 26 of 1985, accepting the revenue inspector’s report,<\/p>\n
the first defendant was allowed to purchase one cent of land<\/p>\n
as kudikidappu. The matter was taken in appeal by him.<\/p>\n
The appellate court set aside the order and remanded it<\/p>\n
back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. In the<\/p>\n
meanwhile, the plaintiffs had instituted O.S. 12 of 1988<\/p>\n
seeking to have the one cent granted as kudikidappu<\/p>\n
measured and demarcated. However, after remand, since it<\/p>\n
was found that the real survey number of the property over<\/p>\n
which the first defendant lays claim is 388\/1 and that is<\/p>\n
Government puramboke, the application was not pursued<\/p>\n
before the Land Tribunal. The suit O.S.12 of 1988 came to<\/p>\n
be dismissed. According to these defendants, they are in<\/p>\n
occupation of 9 cents in Sy. No.388\/1\/1 for the last 40 years<\/p>\n
and they had preferential right for assignment.        These<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.             5<\/span><\/p>\n
defendants are occupying puramboke land and the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
have no manner of right over the suit property. Therefore<\/p>\n
they are not entitled to any relief.\n<\/p>\n
             4. The first defendant in turn laid O.S. 790 of<\/p>\n
1992 against the plaintiffs in the above case seeking<\/p>\n
injunction on the basis of the allegations almost similar to<\/p>\n
the contentions in the written statement in O.S. 970 of 1992.<\/p>\n
             5.    The trial court raised necessary issues for<\/p>\n
consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of<\/p>\n
P.Ws.1 to 3 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A11 from<\/p>\n
the side of the plaintiffs. The defendants had D.Ws. 1 and 2<\/p>\n
examined and had Exts. B1 to B8 marked. Exts. C1 to C4<\/p>\n
are the commission report, mahazar, plan etc.<\/p>\n
             6. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case,<\/p>\n
the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellants<\/p>\n
have not been able to establish their rights over the<\/p>\n
property involved in the proceedings and therefore decreed<\/p>\n
the suit against them and dismissed their suit. Though the<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.            6<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants carried the matters in appeal, the exercise turned<\/p>\n
out to be futile.\n<\/p>\n
             7. The following questions of law are raised in this<\/p>\n
appeal for consideration:\n<\/p>\n
             “a) Whether the courts below was right in<\/p>\n
      granting a declaration of title without the title of<\/p>\n
      the property being produced by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             b)   Whether the courts below was right in<\/p>\n
      treating Will executed by the father of plaintiff as<\/p>\n
      title deed especially when the description of the<\/p>\n
      plaint schedule property in this will varies from<\/p>\n
      identification made by commissioner.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             c) Whether the court below erred in holding<\/p>\n
      tat the documents prepared by the commissioner<\/p>\n
      in this case has more probative value than the<\/p>\n
      documents prepared by the commissioner in O.S.<\/p>\n
      12 of 1988 without evidence on the same.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             8. At the time when the appeals were taken up for<\/p>\n
hearing, it was found that some of the documents were not<\/p>\n
available.     On enquiry it was found that     they had been<\/p>\n
destroyed by the trial court. However counsel on both sides<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.           7<\/span><\/p>\n
made available photostat copies of the documents for<\/p>\n
perusal of this court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants<\/p>\n
pointed out that the court below have not understood the<\/p>\n
case put forward by the parties and have gone to<\/p>\n
misconception that the appellants almost admit that they<\/p>\n
are in occupation of the land over which the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
right. Learned counsel drew the attention of this court that<\/p>\n
the assertion of the plaintiffs in O.S. 970 of 1992 that they<\/p>\n
obtained 11 cents of puramboke land is not disputed by the<\/p>\n
appellant. But the issue was where exactly that 11 cents is<\/p>\n
to be located. Learned counsel brought to the notice of this<\/p>\n
court that admittedly the property over which both lay claim<\/p>\n
is comprised in 388\/1. It is a puramboke land. It has a vast<\/p>\n
extent of nearly 56 cents. There was no attempt from the<\/p>\n
side of the courts to ascertain as to whether exactly 11<\/p>\n
cents claimed by the plaintiffs lie. The evidence is to the<\/p>\n
effect, according to learned counsel, that the appellants<\/p>\n
have been found to be residing in the property for a long<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.            8<\/span><\/p>\n
time and under such circumstances the lower courts could<\/p>\n
not have held that they have no manner of right. It is also<\/p>\n
contended that there is nothing to show that the plaintiffs in<\/p>\n
O.S.     970      of 1992   had    to   accommodate      three<\/p>\n
kudikidappukars.      There is no evidence     regarding that<\/p>\n
aspect. Counsel would point out that that was a deliberate<\/p>\n
ploy employed by the plaintiffs to defeat the larger claim of<\/p>\n
the appellants. At any rate, according to learned counsel,<\/p>\n
without locating the 11 cents claimed by the plaintiffs, the<\/p>\n
courts below could not have granted a decree in their<\/p>\n
favour.\n<\/p>\n
             10.     Learned   counsel   appearing    for  the<\/p>\n
respondents on the other hand pointed out that the<\/p>\n
evidence is clear to the effect that the appellants were<\/p>\n
occupying the 11 cents       assigned to the predecessor in<\/p>\n
interest of the plaintiffs and which was acquired by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs as per the Will executed by their predecessor in<\/p>\n
interest. It was for the appellants to show the right based on<\/p>\n
which they lay claim to the suit property. Having failed to do<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.            9<\/span><\/p>\n
so, they are not entitled to any relief.       In other words,<\/p>\n
learned counsel points out that there are no grounds made<\/p>\n
out to interfere with the judgments and decrees of the<\/p>\n
courts below.\n<\/p>\n
             11. It is an admitted fact that the appellants are<\/p>\n
kudikidappukars under the respondents. From the records,<\/p>\n
it is seen that the first appellant is said to have instituted<\/p>\n
O.A. 486 of 1976 before the Land Tribunal, Alappuzha and<\/p>\n
the land Tribunal disposed of the application granting one<\/p>\n
cent to him as kudikidappu. The appellants would stoutly<\/p>\n
deny that such an application was ever made by them and<\/p>\n
according to them it is a fraud played by the plaintiffs to<\/p>\n
defeat their claims.       However, it is admitted by the<\/p>\n
appellants that they have filed O.A. 26 of 1985 against the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs claiming kudikidappu. They say that they were<\/p>\n
under the bonafide belief that the property which was being<\/p>\n
occupied by them was in Sy. No.388\/3. The records indicate<\/p>\n
that in O.A. 26 of 1985 the appellants were granted one cent<\/p>\n
as kudikidappu since the Land Tribunal was given to<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.            10<\/span><\/p>\n
understand that there were three kudikidappukars in the<\/p>\n
property.\n<\/p>\n
             12.    The appellants very vehemently submitted<\/p>\n
that though the finding of the Land Tribunal was that there<\/p>\n
were three kudikidappukars, no details whatsoever are<\/p>\n
available in this regard. According to learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants there is nothing to show that the plaintiffs’ claim<\/p>\n
is true.      However, adjudication of this issue is neither<\/p>\n
warranted at this point of time nor is this court competent<\/p>\n
to do so. That is a matter to be determined by the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal concerned.\n<\/p>\n
             13.    Coming back to the facts of the case,<\/p>\n
aggrieved by the order granting assignment of one cent, the<\/p>\n
appellant went in appeal against that order.          In the<\/p>\n
meanwhile, taking aid of the order of the Land Tribunal in<\/p>\n
O.A. 26 of 1985, the plaintiffs approached the Munsiff’s court<\/p>\n
for measurement and demarcation of one cent assigned by<\/p>\n
the Land Tribunal to the appellant.      A commissioner was<\/p>\n
deputed from the court to locate the said portion.         The<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.             11<\/span><\/p>\n
commissioner filed a report that Sy. No. of the property is<\/p>\n
388\/1 and not 388\/3. The Commissioner also reported that<\/p>\n
the property in Sy. No.388\/1 is puramboke property. In the<\/p>\n
light of this revelation, the appellants herein chose to<\/p>\n
withdraw O.A. 26 of 1985 because they found that they were<\/p>\n
not occupying the property owned and possessed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs, but they were in the puramboke property.<\/p>\n
             14.    They lay claim to 9 cents of land in Sy.\n<\/p>\n
No.388\/1. According to them the plaintiffs have no manner<\/p>\n
of right whatsoever in the property now in their possession.<\/p>\n
They actually did not dispute the claim of the plaintiffs that<\/p>\n
their predecessor in interest got assignment of 11 cents of<\/p>\n
property.       But their only dispute is that the 11 cents<\/p>\n
assigned in favour of the predecessor in interest of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs does not take in any portion of the property<\/p>\n
occupied and owned by them.\n<\/p>\n
             15. The plaintiffs in O.S. 970 of 1992 on the other<\/p>\n
hand would say that the appellants are occupying a portion<\/p>\n
of the property assigned to them.\n<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.           12<\/span><\/p>\n
             16. The courts below accepted the case of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs in O.S.970 of 1992. The question that arises for<\/p>\n
consideration is whether the lower courts were justified.<\/p>\n
             17. After going through the records and hearing<\/p>\n
learned counsel on either side, it is seen that both the courts<\/p>\n
below have grievously erred in their approach and<\/p>\n
conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
             18.    It may be immediately noticed that even<\/p>\n
though the plaintiffs in O.S.970 of 1992 claim that 11 cents<\/p>\n
were assigned to their predecessor in interest, they have not<\/p>\n
produced the assignment deed. Instead, they produced the<\/p>\n
Will executed by their father bequeathing the property to<\/p>\n
them. Property was sought to be identified on the basis of<\/p>\n
the recital in the will. As rightly pointed out by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant, that approach does not appear to<\/p>\n
be correct. Even assuming that the plaintiffs in O.S. 970 of<\/p>\n
1992 did not have the original assignment document with<\/p>\n
them, nothing prevented them from having the document<\/p>\n
produced by the authority concerned to establish the<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.           13<\/span><\/p>\n
identity of the property which was assigned to them. Both<\/p>\n
the courts simply go on to say that the appellants had failed<\/p>\n
to establish any right over the suit property and they should<\/p>\n
fail. The real issue involved was regarding the identity of<\/p>\n
the property.       Both the courts below have came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the property claimed by both sides is<\/p>\n
identical one.\n<\/p>\n
             19. From the records, it does not appear to be so.<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 is the mahazar which shows that one cent initially<\/p>\n
granted to the appellant as kudikidappu by the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal was located to be situated in Sy. No. 388\/1. The<\/p>\n
evidence shows that the property comprised in Sy. No.388\/1<\/p>\n
is puramboke property. Ext.B3 may be of some relevance in<\/p>\n
the present context.      That is the judgment in O.S. 12 of<\/p>\n
1988, which was filed by the first respondent herein against<\/p>\n
the first appellant. The suit was one for fixation of boundary<\/p>\n
and for perpetual injunction. The finding in Ext.B3 is that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has not been able to prove his title to the property<\/p>\n
claimed by him in Sy. No.388\/1.\n<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.            14<\/span><\/p>\n
             20.    In fact the appellants do not know if the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in O.S. 970 of 1992       have any property in Sy.<\/p>\n
No.388\/1. According to them, may be that the predecessor<\/p>\n
in interest of the plaintiffs have been assigned property in<\/p>\n
Sy. No.388\/1. But their contention is that that property is<\/p>\n
not the property occupied by the appellants.<\/p>\n
             21. It appears that a commission has been taken<\/p>\n
out in O.S. 790 of 1992 to note various aspects. A reference<\/p>\n
to that report may be useful. In paragraph 3 of the report<\/p>\n
the house and the surroundings occupied by the appellant<\/p>\n
and his family is described in detail. What is significant is<\/p>\n
that on the eastern side from north to west, and on the north<\/p>\n
towards east-west there is a well laid fence. On the eastern<\/p>\n
side of the eastern fence is the Alappuzha-Kattoor road. One<\/p>\n
must remember that the plaint schedule referred to in<\/p>\n
Ext.C4 is the plaint schedule in O.S. 790 of 1992.         In<\/p>\n
paragraph 7 the commissioner has reported that some<\/p>\n
portions of the property comprised in Sy. No. 388\/1 lies on<\/p>\n
the western side and some portion lies on the eastern side<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.          15<\/span><\/p>\n
of Alappuzha-Kattoor road. It appears that the plaintiffs in<\/p>\n
O.S. 970 of 1992 had shown the Will to the Commissioner.<\/p>\n
The commissioner has stated that going by the recitals in<\/p>\n
the Will, the plaintiffs have rights over 52 cents in Sy.<\/p>\n
No.388\/3 and 11 cents in Sy. No.388\/1, then they have a<\/p>\n
total extent of 63 cents. The commissioner in his report has<\/p>\n
extracted the boundaries shown in the Will. That does not<\/p>\n
tally with the boundaries at site.        According to the<\/p>\n
commissioner, the total extent of property in Sy. No.388\/1 is<\/p>\n
56 cents. The Commissioner also mentions that going by<\/p>\n
the Will, there is no road on the eastern side of the<\/p>\n
defendant’s property in O.S. 790 of 1992.        The definite<\/p>\n
finding of the commissioner that it is not possible to say<\/p>\n
whether the property claimed on the basis of the Will by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs in O.S. 970 of 1992 is the property claimed by the<\/p>\n
defendants in the said suit. The report also discloses that on<\/p>\n
the northern and eastern side of the property occupied by<\/p>\n
the appellants, there is a well laid fencing. The report in<\/p>\n
detail gives various structures found in the property in the<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.          16<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of the appellants.     Commissioner has noticed<\/p>\n
that the house occupied by the appellants is situate in Sy.<\/p>\n
No.388\/1-2. Commissioner has also noticed on the western<\/p>\n
side of the property possessed by the appellant, there is a<\/p>\n
thodu. It is also mentioned in the report that the property in<\/p>\n
Sy. No.388\/1 extends beyond that thodu also. That is also<\/p>\n
puramboke land. Further west is the property comprised in<\/p>\n
Sy. No.387\/13. Various other details were also given, which<\/p>\n
are not very relevant for the present purpose.<\/p>\n
             22. Going by the commission report referred to<\/p>\n
above, it is very evident that it cannot be conclusively said<\/p>\n
that the property occupied by the appellant is the property<\/p>\n
assigned to the respondents in these appeals.             The<\/p>\n
commissioner has noticed that on either side of Alappuzha-<\/p>\n
Kattoor road there are lands comprised in Sy.No.388\/1. It is<\/p>\n
significant to notice that the property now located by the<\/p>\n
commissioner is on the western side of the road.         It is<\/p>\n
possible that the assignment of atleast a portion of the<\/p>\n
property said to have been assigned to the predecessor in<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.           17<\/span><\/p>\n
interest of the plaintiffs in O.S.970 of 1992 could be on the<\/p>\n
eastern side of the road. That possibility cannot be ruled<\/p>\n
out. Under such circumstances, the courts below were not<\/p>\n
justified in coming to the conclusion that the property<\/p>\n
involved in both the suits is the same and the plaintiffs in<\/p>\n
O.S. 970 of 1992 have absolute rights over the same.<\/p>\n
             23.    One may at once refer to the evidence of<\/p>\n
P.W.1. He says that his claim is based on Ext.A1 Will. He<\/p>\n
speaks about the various documents produced by him. It is<\/p>\n
admitted by him that the land comprised in Sy. No.388\/1 is a<\/p>\n
puramboke land and also that the appellants reside therein.<\/p>\n
Pointed question was put to him whether he has any<\/p>\n
objection to the report and mahazar filed by the<\/p>\n
commissioner.        The reply was that he understood the<\/p>\n
contents therein and he has no objection to any of the<\/p>\n
statements contained therein. He candidly admits that the<\/p>\n
statements in the report that the appellants, who are the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs in O.S. 790 of 1992, are residing in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property in O.S. 970 of 1992 is correct. He says<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.            18<\/span><\/p>\n
that he does not know the point of time at which his<\/p>\n
predecessor in interest got assignment of the property<\/p>\n
comprised in Sy. No.388\/1. He then takes objection to the<\/p>\n
commission report as regards the boundaries mentioned by<\/p>\n
him. However, he admits that on the northern and eastern<\/p>\n
sides of the property occupied by the appellant herein, there<\/p>\n
is fencing. P.W.1 says that he has property on the western<\/p>\n
side of Alappuzha-Kattoor road. But he is unable to say the<\/p>\n
extent and survey number of the property. He says that<\/p>\n
Alappuzha-Kattoor road cuts through the property in Sy. No.<\/p>\n
388\/3.\n<\/p>\n
             24. The said claim of P.W.1 does not appear to be<\/p>\n
correct in the light of Ext.C4 report filed by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner. Whatever that be, there is infact a bonafide<\/p>\n
dispute regarding the identity of the property claimed by<\/p>\n
both the parties. Going by the commission report, one has<\/p>\n
to ascertain the property said to have been obtained by the<\/p>\n
predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs as well the property<\/p>\n
claimed by the       plaintiff in O.S. 790 of 1992.   Without<\/p>\n
S.A. 142 & 143\/2000.             19<\/span><\/p>\n
properly identifying the property, it will not be possible for<\/p>\n
the court to grant decree in O.S. 970 of 1992.<\/p>\n
             25. It is felt that a reconsideration of the entire<\/p>\n
matter is necessary at the hands of the trial court in order to<\/p>\n
do justice to the parties. In the result these appeals are<\/p>\n
allowed, judgments and decrees are set aside and the<\/p>\n
matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration<\/p>\n
in accordance with law and in the light of what has been<\/p>\n
stated above. The parties shall appear before the trial court<\/p>\n
on 18.8.2010. They shall be permitted to adduce further<\/p>\n
evidence if they so choose. The trial court shall make every<\/p>\n
endeavour to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as<\/p>\n
possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of<\/p>\n
appearance of the parties.       There will be no order as to<\/p>\n
costs.     Office of this court shall re-transmit the records<\/p>\n
forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            P. BHAVADASAN,
\n                                                 JUDGE<\/p>\n
sb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 142 of 2000(A) 1. K.RAJAPPAN … Petitioner Vs 1. SUDHAKARAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) For Respondent :SRI.M.V.MATHEW The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN Dated :22\/07\/2010 O R D E R P. BHAVADASAN, 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-153115","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 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\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-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=\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-27T13:20:57+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-27T13:20:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3383,\"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\\\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010\",\"name\":\"K.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-27T13:20:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"K.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 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\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-27T13:20:57+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-27T13:20:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010"},"wordCount":3383,"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\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010","name":"K.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-27T13:20:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-rajappan-vs-sudhakaran-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Rajappan vs Sudhakaran on 22 July, 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:\/\/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\/153115","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=153115"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153115\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153115"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153115"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153115"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}