{"id":155682,"date":"2008-05-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2"},"modified":"2017-10-10T07:15:02","modified_gmt":"2017-10-10T01:45:02","slug":"justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Justin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Justin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 420 of 2008()\n\n\n1. JUSTIN F.ROSARIO,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ELEAMMA PEREIRA.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. PERIRA NAZARETH XAVIER.\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :22\/05\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n               K.P. Balachandran, J.\n            ---------------------------\n               R.S.A.No.420 of 2008\n            ---------------------------\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    The appellant before me is an obstructor to the<\/p>\n
execution of the decree in O.S.No.1460\/03 on the<\/p>\n
file of the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram,<\/p>\n
who filed E.A.No.81\/07 in E.P.No.85\/06 in the said<\/p>\n
suit O.S.No.1460\/03. It appears that no application<\/p>\n
had been filed by the decree holders complaining of<\/p>\n
such resistance or obstruction, but, still the<\/p>\n
Munsiff was disposing of E.A.No.81\/07 filed by the<\/p>\n
appellant adjudicating the claim advanced over the<\/p>\n
scheduled  property  by  the  appellant\/obstructor.<\/p>\n
However,  inasmuch  as  the  application  has  been<\/p>\n
considered on merits by the execution court as also<\/p>\n
by the first appellate court, I do not find any<\/p>\n
reason why sticking to technicalities, the decree<\/p>\n
holders are to be directed to file appropriate<\/p>\n
application for removal of obstruction.     Counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant also wanted this appeal to be<\/p>\n
heard on merits and the claim of the appellant<\/p>\n
RSA 420\/08                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
being     considered  on   merits.     Consequently,<\/p>\n
therefore, in the event of the dismissal of this<\/p>\n
appeal, the execution court can direct that the<\/p>\n
decree    holders  be  put  in   possession of   the<\/p>\n
scheduled property in execution of the decree.<\/p>\n
     2.   The case of the appellant in E.A.No.81\/07<\/p>\n
filed by him before the execution court, briefly<\/p>\n
stated,    is  that  he  had been  residing in   the<\/p>\n
building bearing Door No.T.C.34\/1613 comprised in<\/p>\n
Sy.No.1818\/2 of Pettah Village; that he has been<\/p>\n
thus in absolute possession and enjoyment of 20.5<\/p>\n
cents of land and building therein since 1990; that<\/p>\n
his title and possession over the property is<\/p>\n
perfected by adverse possession by reason of his<\/p>\n
continuous, open and uninterrupted possession for<\/p>\n
more than the statutory period; that on 3.1.2007 he<\/p>\n
came to know that delivery order was passed by the<\/p>\n
execution court against the defendants in the suit,<\/p>\n
who   are   not  residing in  the  building in   the<\/p>\n
scheduled property; that the suit has been filed by<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs in the suit in connivance with the<\/p>\n
RSA 420\/08                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
third defendant, who is the elder brother of the<\/p>\n
appellant himself; that the decree is not binding<\/p>\n
on the petitioner\/appellant, who is not a party to<\/p>\n
the said suit; that the respondents\/plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
no right to get the property delivered over to them<\/p>\n
from the possession of the petitioner\/appellant and<\/p>\n
that    a  decree  be   passed  declaring  that  the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/appellant   is   the  absolute  owner   in<\/p>\n
possession of the scheduled property, as he has<\/p>\n
perfected his title thereto by adverse possession<\/p>\n
and limitation.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   The respondents\/decree holders resisted the<\/p>\n
application contending that the appellant is the<\/p>\n
younger son of the fourth defendant and younger<\/p>\n
brother of the first defendant and he has no<\/p>\n
connection at all with the scheduled property, as<\/p>\n
he is married and is residing with his two children<\/p>\n
at Cheriyathura and his wife is employed in Gulf<\/p>\n
and has no manner of right or possession over the<\/p>\n
scheduled property and he has come forward to help<\/p>\n
the judgment debtors by protracting the litigation.<\/p>\n
RSA 420\/08               4<\/span><\/p>\n
The    judgment debtors  and  the   appellant  have<\/p>\n
fabricated sham documents anticipating eviction of<\/p>\n
the judgment debtors from the scheduled properties.<\/p>\n
He is only an agent of the judgment debtors and has<\/p>\n
no independent right over the scheduled property.<\/p>\n
The appellant and his children were residing in a<\/p>\n
hut near seashore.  The said hut was not having any<\/p>\n
door number and they have been using the address of<\/p>\n
the scheduled property for correspondence.      The<\/p>\n
appellant is bound by the decree and E.A.No.81\/07<\/p>\n
filed by him has only to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   The execution court, on the basis of the<\/p>\n
evidence adduced in the enquiry, which consisted of<\/p>\n
oral    evidence of  PWs  1  and  2  and   DW1  and<\/p>\n
documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A6, B1 to B11<\/p>\n
(a) and X1 and X1(a), held that the appellant does<\/p>\n
not have any independent right, title or interest<\/p>\n
over the decree schedule property or the building<\/p>\n
therein and dismissed the application with costs.<\/p>\n
The    appellant  filed  A.S.No.20\/08  before   the<\/p>\n
District Court, Thiruvananthapuram and that was<\/p>\n
RSA 420\/08                5<\/span><\/p>\n
dismissed vide judgment dated 25.3.2008, confirming<\/p>\n
the order passed by the execution court against the<\/p>\n
appellant.   Hence this Regular Second Appeal.<\/p>\n
     5.    Heard arguments of the counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   It is not in dispute that judgment debtors<\/p>\n
3 and 4 are respectively the father and mother of<\/p>\n
the appellant; that the first judgment debtor is<\/p>\n
his elder brother and that the second judgment<\/p>\n
debtor is the wife of the first judgment debtor.<\/p>\n
According   to  the   appellant,  he  has   been  in<\/p>\n
possession of the building in the decree schedule<\/p>\n
property   since  1990  and  was   residing  in  the<\/p>\n
property and building therein comprised in Sy.No.<\/p>\n
1818\/2 ever since his birth along with his brother<\/p>\n
and parents. According to him, he was residing<\/p>\n
along with his father till 1990 and thereafter he<\/p>\n
was residing alone till 1997 and after his marriage<\/p>\n
in 1997 he has been residing with his wife.      His<\/p>\n
case is that his father and brother were colluding<\/p>\n
with    the decree  holders  so  as  to  defeat  his<\/p>\n
RSA 420\/08                6<\/span><\/p>\n
legitimate rights.      The appellant has produced<\/p>\n
Exhibit    A1  duplicate  Secondary  School  Leaving<\/p>\n
Certificate, Exhibit A1 passport issued in his<\/p>\n
favour, Exhibit A3 Electoral Identity Card, Exhibit<\/p>\n
A4 copy of the voters list, Exhibit A5 certificate<\/p>\n
of income issued by the Village Officer, Pettah and<\/p>\n
Exhibit A6 residential certificate issued from the<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram    Corporation.  All  the   same,<\/p>\n
Exhibit B1 showed that the appellant and his wife<\/p>\n
are also having another residence bearing Door<\/p>\n
No.45\/43\/1 in the West Assembly Constituency of<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram   District.    According  to  the<\/p>\n
appellant, who has tendered evidence as PW1, the<\/p>\n
scheduled property was the asset belonging to his<\/p>\n
grandmother and he does not know the right of the<\/p>\n
grandmother over the property in dispute nor does<\/p>\n
he know the rights of the decree holders over the<\/p>\n
decree schedule property.     According to him, his<\/p>\n
father    permitted him  to  reside  in  the  decree<\/p>\n
schedule property when he demanded money, which is<\/p>\n
due   from   his  father.  There  is  absolutely  no<\/p>\n
RSA 420\/08                7<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence to establish those aspects.<\/p>\n
     7.   It is pertinent to note that the appellant<\/p>\n
does not know who is the actual owner of the<\/p>\n
property in dispute as also the building therein.<\/p>\n
A mere possession of the land by the appellant<\/p>\n
would not suffice to claim title over the property<\/p>\n
in dispute by adverse possession.    He has to show<\/p>\n
that the right he claims is independent of the<\/p>\n
rights of the judgment debtors and further that he<\/p>\n
was holding the property adverse to the real owner<\/p>\n
openly and uninterruptedly for the required length<\/p>\n
of time, without any obstruction.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   In the instant case, the decree passed in<\/p>\n
the   suit  is  directing  defendants  1  to  6   to<\/p>\n
surrender the decree schedule property and the<\/p>\n
building therein to the respondents\/decree holders.<\/p>\n
Exhibits B6 to B9 are respectively the plaint,<\/p>\n
written statement, judgment and decree in O.S.No.<\/p>\n
1460\/03. It is seen that Exhibit B9 decree was<\/p>\n
confirmed vide Exhibit B10 common judgment passed<\/p>\n
by the District Court in A.S.Nos.172\/04 and 75\/06<\/p>\n
RSA 420\/08                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
on 18.12.2006 and the appeal preferred therefrom<\/p>\n
was   dismissed  by   this  court  vide  Exhibit B11<\/p>\n
judgment in R.S.A.No.52\/07.\n<\/p>\n
     9.   It  is  pursuant  thereto   that  execution<\/p>\n
petition was filed by the decree holders and it was<\/p>\n
then     that  the   appellant  came   forward   with<\/p>\n
obstruction to resist execution of the decree. It<\/p>\n
is true that the appellant was not made a party in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.1460\/03 filed by the respondents, but his<\/p>\n
elder brother and his wife and the parents of the<\/p>\n
appellant were the defendants in the said suit and<\/p>\n
they have vehemently contested the suit up to this<\/p>\n
Court. It is further seen that the elder brother of<\/p>\n
the   appellant   filed  O.S.No.1744\/00  against the<\/p>\n
respondents    for  declaration  of  title  and   for<\/p>\n
consequential injunction.    The said suit was also<\/p>\n
contested up to this Court in vain.\n<\/p>\n
     10.   It is worthwhile to note in this context<\/p>\n
that    the  appellant,  who  has  alleged  collusion<\/p>\n
between the decree holders and the judgment debtors<\/p>\n
in O.S.No.1460\/03, has avoided impleadment of the<\/p>\n
RSA 420\/08                9<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment debtors in O.S.No.1460\/03 in the EA filed<\/p>\n
by them.    The claim of adverse possession advanced<\/p>\n
by the appellant was the very same contention<\/p>\n
raised by the elder brother and parents of the<\/p>\n
appellant    in  O.S.No.1460\/03,  which  was  found<\/p>\n
against concurrently up to this Court. In O.S.No.<\/p>\n
1744\/00 (Exhibit B4) filed by the elder brother of<\/p>\n
the appellant also, the claim advanced was the very<\/p>\n
same claim that he raised in O.S.No.1460\/03. There<\/p>\n
is absolutely no evidence or circumstance available<\/p>\n
in the case to conclude that there is any collusion<\/p>\n
between    the  judgment  debtors  and  the   decree<\/p>\n
holders. On the other hand, what is seen is that<\/p>\n
decree    was  obtained by   the  respondents\/decree<\/p>\n
holders after long drawn out fight with the brother<\/p>\n
and parents of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     11.   It is also apposite to point out in this<\/p>\n
context that the elder brother and parents of the<\/p>\n
appellant had no contention at all in the suit that<\/p>\n
the appellant also is a person having any right or<\/p>\n
interest over the decree schedule property and the<\/p>\n
RSA 420\/08                10<\/span><\/p>\n
building therein or even that he is in occupation<\/p>\n
of the said house or that he also is a necessary<\/p>\n
party to the suit.      In the suit for recovery of<\/p>\n
possession filed by the respondents based on title,<\/p>\n
there is, however, substantial representation and<\/p>\n
the non impleadment of the appellant is not at all<\/p>\n
fatal to the suit. The appellant himself, even<\/p>\n
according to his case, was born and brought up in<\/p>\n
the building in the scheduled property, which pre-<\/p>\n
supposes that his parents were in occupation under<\/p>\n
their independent right and that he came into<\/p>\n
occupation for the sole reason that he is the son<\/p>\n
of his parents.       The nature of his possession<\/p>\n
cannot turn to be adverse to the real owner and as<\/p>\n
long as his parents are alive, possession of the<\/p>\n
appellant cannot disturb the rights of his parents<\/p>\n
or alter the nature of possession detriment to the<\/p>\n
real owners.     The appellant has also no case that<\/p>\n
his      possession   started   with    a   wrongful<\/p>\n
dispossession    of  the   rightful  owner and   his<\/p>\n
exclusive    possession  was  publically and  openly<\/p>\n
RSA 420\/08              11<\/span><\/p>\n
hostile to the rights of the real owner.        The<\/p>\n
documents produced on the side of the appellant to<\/p>\n
advance claim over the scheduled property and the<\/p>\n
building therein are all documents obtained after<\/p>\n
dispute    arose between   the   respondents\/decree<\/p>\n
holders on one side and the parents and the elder<\/p>\n
brother of the appellant on the other.  It is seen<\/p>\n
observed by the appellate court that the appellant<\/p>\n
as PW1 has admitted that he is a voter in the<\/p>\n
constituency where his wife’s house is situated and<\/p>\n
that it was when he was confronted with Exhibit B1<\/p>\n
voters list of Thiruvananthapuram West Assembly<\/p>\n
Constituency. This also suggests that the appellant<\/p>\n
was not having residence in the scheduled building<\/p>\n
and as contended by the respondents, he was having<\/p>\n
his residence somewhere else and he has been set up<\/p>\n
by the judgment debtors to resist eviction in<\/p>\n
execution of the decree in O.S.No.1460\/03 passed<\/p>\n
concurrently against them by the trial court, first<\/p>\n
appellate   court and  by  this  Court.  There   is<\/p>\n
absolutely no iota of evidence to substantiate the<\/p>\n
RSA 420\/08               12<\/span><\/p>\n
claim advanced by the appellant.   The dismissal of<\/p>\n
the claim of independent possession and perfection<\/p>\n
of title by adverse possession advanced by the<\/p>\n
appellant was repelled by the execution court as<\/p>\n
also by the first appellate court concurrently and<\/p>\n
there is no question of law and much less, any<\/p>\n
substantial question of law to be considered in<\/p>\n
this case by this Court in this Regular Second<\/p>\n
Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     This Regular Second Appeal is, hence, devoid of<\/p>\n
any merit and is dismissed in limine refusing<\/p>\n
admission.\n<\/p>\n
22nd May, 2008            (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
\ntkv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Justin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 420 of 2008() 1. JUSTIN F.ROSARIO, … Petitioner Vs 1. ELEAMMA PEREIRA. … Respondent 2. PERIRA NAZARETH XAVIER. For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN Dated :22\/05\/2008 O […]<\/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-155682","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJustin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008 - 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\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Justin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2\" \/>\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=\"2008-05-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-10T01:45:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Justin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-10T01:45:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":1975,\"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\\\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Justin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-10T01:45:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Justin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Justin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008 - 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\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Justin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-10T01:45:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Justin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-10T01:45:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2"},"wordCount":1975,"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\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2","name":"Justin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-10T01:45:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/justin-f-rosario-vs-eleamma-pereira-on-22-may-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Justin F.Rosario vs Eleamma Pereira on 22 May, 2008"}]},{"@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\/155682","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=155682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155682\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}