{"id":157576,"date":"2007-10-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007"},"modified":"2014-11-21T06:35:10","modified_gmt":"2014-11-21T01:05:10","slug":"mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"Mrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat … on 16 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat … on 16 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA No. 767 of 2007()\n\n\n1. MRS.VIMALA AMMA, D\/O.KALYANI AMMA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KOOMUNDAKKAL MARUTHIYAT PRABHAVATHIAMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. KOOMUNDAKKAL MARUTHIYAT RADHA AMMA,\n\n3. AZHAKIL KUNHAMMAD, S\/O.ABDULLA,\n\n4. DO.BROTHER SIDDIQUE, S\/O.ABDULLA,\n\n5. MR.ABDURAHIMAN, S\/O.KUNHAMMAD,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.VALSALAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :16\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                      M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n\n                         ...........................................\n\n                        R.S.A.No. 767     OF    2007\n\n                        ............................................\n\n        DATED THIS THE    16th   DAY OF  OCTOBER, 2007\n\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Plaintiff   in   O.S.138   of   2000   on   the   file   of   Munsiff-<\/p>\n
Magistrate   Court,   Perambra   is   the   appellant.   Defendants   are<\/p>\n
respondents.  Appellant instituted the suit seeking a decree for a<\/p>\n
declaration   that   appellant   has   every   right   to   use   plaint   D<\/p>\n
schedule   property   as   a   pathway   to   plaint   A   schedule   property<\/p>\n
and   alternatively   that   she   has   a   right   to   use   plaint   A   schedule<\/p>\n
property as an easement of necessity  as well as quasi-easement<\/p>\n
and   a   consequential   injunction   restraining   respondents   3   to   5<\/p>\n
from   interfering   with   the   peaceful   enjoyment   of   plaint   D<\/p>\n
schedule way or from changing its nature.   Plaint A, B, C and D<\/p>\n
schedule properties admittedly originally belonged to the mother<\/p>\n
of appellant and respondents 1  and 2.   Under Ext.A2 gift deed,<\/p>\n
mother   gifted   plaint   A   schedule   property   to   appellant,   plaint   B<\/p>\n
schedule property to first respondent and C schedule property to<\/p>\n
second   respondent.     According   to   appellant,   plaint   D   schedule<\/p>\n
property is a way leading to plaint A schedule property from the<\/p>\n
western   road   and   it   was   kept   common   under   Ext.A2   gift   deed<\/p>\n
and the property gifted to respondents 1 and 2 are excluding the<\/p>\n
RSA 767\/2007                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
D   schedule   way.     It   was   contended   that   respondents   1   and   2<\/p>\n
subsequently   assigned   their   right   over   plaint   D   schedule<\/p>\n
property   in   favour   of   respondents   3   to   5   and   they   also   did   not<\/p>\n
derive   any   right   or   title   to   plaint   D   schedule   property   and<\/p>\n
appellant has a right to use plaint D schedule way to reach plaint<\/p>\n
A schedule property and respondents are not entitled to obstruct<\/p>\n
the same.   Appellant claimed title to plaint D schedule property<\/p>\n
contending that it was kept common under Ext.A2 gift deed.  She<\/p>\n
also alternatively claimed a right of easement  by necessity.   By<\/p>\n
subsequent   amendment   a   right   of   way   by   quasi-easement   was<\/p>\n
also claimed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.   Respondents   filed   separate   written   statements.     First<\/p>\n
respondent   contended   that   no   pathway   was   in   existence   as   D<\/p>\n
schedule   property   and   as   per   sale   deed   dated   31.8.1998,   she<\/p>\n
assigned her right over plaint B schedule property   in favour of<\/p>\n
respondents 3 and 4 and appellant has no right over D schedule<\/p>\n
property and he  is  not entitled  to the  decree  for  declaration  or<\/p>\n
injunction sought for.   Respondents 2 and 5 filed a joint written<\/p>\n
statement contending  that  the way to the house  in  the plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule   property   was   from   the   road   which   is   situated   on   the<\/p>\n
western side and also from the pathway on the northern side and<\/p>\n
RSA 767\/2007                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
there was no way to plaint A schedule property from the east as<\/p>\n
claimed. It was contended that second respondent assigned her<\/p>\n
right over plaint C schedule property in favour of 5th respondent<\/p>\n
as per sale deed 1190 of 2000 and the pathway on the southern<\/p>\n
side of C schedule property was assigned and it was separately<\/p>\n
demarcated   as   a   way.     Property   on   the   northern   side   of   the<\/p>\n
pathway belongs to respondents and appellant has no right over<\/p>\n
the   same.     It   was   contended   that   appellant   has   no   right   over<\/p>\n
plaint   D   schedule   property   and   is   not   entitled   to   the   decree<\/p>\n
sought for.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.   Respondents 3 and 4 filed a separate written statement<\/p>\n
contending   that   there   was  no   pathway   as   D   schedule   shown   in<\/p>\n
the plaint at the  time  of assignment in  favour  of respondents 3<\/p>\n
and 4 or thereafter.  There was no dispute regarding existence of<\/p>\n
a way.   It was contended that   appellant has access available to<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule property is from the pathway on the northern<\/p>\n
side and the road on the western side and hence   is not entitled<\/p>\n
to the decree sought for.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.         Learned   Munsiff,   on   the   evidence   of   PW1,   DW1,<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A13 and Exts.C1 to C6, rejected the case of appellant<\/p>\n
that plaint D schedule property was kept common under Ext.A2<\/p>\n
RSA 767\/2007                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
gift deed.     Learned Munsiff  also  found   that  the   entire  property<\/p>\n
which lies to the east of plaint A schedule property was gifted in<\/p>\n
favour   of   respondents   1   and   2   and   no   pathway   was   kept   as<\/p>\n
common   as   claimed   by   appellant.     It   was   further   found   that<\/p>\n
appellant   is   not   entitled   to   a   right   of   way   through   plaint   D<\/p>\n
schedule   property   either   as   easement   by   prescription   or<\/p>\n
necessity  or quasi-easement.   The suit was therefore dismissed.<\/p>\n
Appellant challenged the decree and judgment before Additional<\/p>\n
District   Court,   Vadakara   in   A.S.64   of   2004.   Before   the   first<\/p>\n
appellate   court,   appellant   filed   an   application     under   Order   VI<\/p>\n
Rule   17   to   amend   the   plaint   incorporating   the   specific   plea   of<\/p>\n
right of way by quasi-easement.  It was allowed by first appellate<\/p>\n
court.     Learned   Additional   District   Judge,   on   reappreciation   of<\/p>\n
evidence,   confirmed   the   findings   of   learned   Munsiff   and<\/p>\n
dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal.<\/p>\n
      5. Learned counsel appearing for appellant was heard.  The<\/p>\n
argument of   learned counsel  is that   as per the measurements<\/p>\n
of schedule B and C in Ext.A2 gift deed, D schedule property was<\/p>\n
left   as   common   and   therefore   courts   below   should   have   found<\/p>\n
that   plaint   D   schedule   property   was   not   gifted   either   to   first<\/p>\n
respondent as B schedule or to second respondent as C schedule<\/p>\n
RSA 767\/2007                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
and plaint D schedule property is  the way to the family house in<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule property.  It was argued that even if no right of<\/p>\n
easement   by   necessity   will   arise   in   view   of   the   alternate   way<\/p>\n
available on the north and west of plaint A schedule property, in<\/p>\n
view  of the amendment  of  plaint  whereunder  a right of way  by<\/p>\n
quasi-easement is claimed, courts below should have found that<\/p>\n
appellant   has   a   quasi-easement   right   of   way   over   plaint   D<\/p>\n
schedule   property.       It   was   argued   that   the   plea   of   quasi-<\/p>\n
easement was not there when trial court dismissed the suit and<\/p>\n
first   appellate   court   rejected   the   case   for   the   reason   that<\/p>\n
appellant   has   claimed   title   to  the   property  and  is   therefore  not<\/p>\n
entitled   to   claim   a   quasi-easement   right   and   when   evidence<\/p>\n
establish   that   the   house   in   the   plaint   A   schedule   property   was<\/p>\n
more than 100 years old and the way to that house was towards<\/p>\n
the   east     plaint   D   schedule   property   should   be   the   way   and<\/p>\n
courts below should have found that plaint D schedule property<\/p>\n
was   used   as   a   way   to   plaint   A   schedule   property   even   before<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 gift deed and therefore it is an apparent way which was<\/p>\n
continuously   used   and   necessary   for   the   enjoyment   of   plaint   A<\/p>\n
schedule property and therefore appellant has a quasi-easement<\/p>\n
right and hence the decree and judgment passed by courts below<\/p>\n
RSA 767\/2007                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
are to be set aside. It was also argued that neither trial court nor<\/p>\n
first appellate court entered a specific finding with regard to the<\/p>\n
title  claimed by appellant to plaint D schedule property   and in<\/p>\n
such circumstances, findings of courts below are unsustainable.<\/p>\n
      6.   Ext.A2(copy of which was made available by appellant)<\/p>\n
establish that one common property belonging to the mother was<\/p>\n
gifted as three plots to three daughters. A schedule property was<\/p>\n
gifted to appellant, B schedule property to first respondent and C<\/p>\n
schedule   property   to   second   respondent.     B   and   C   schedule<\/p>\n
properties are lying north and south and A schedule property  is<\/p>\n
to   the   west   of   B   and   C   schedule   properties.     Though   it   was<\/p>\n
argued   that     plaint   B   and   C   schedule   properties   gifted   to<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2, will not take in plaint D schedule way and it<\/p>\n
was   kept   common,   a   reading   of   Ext.A2   disprove   the   said<\/p>\n
submission.     The   northern   boundary   of   plaint   B   schedule<\/p>\n
property   which   is   the   southern   plot   shows   that   the   northern<\/p>\n
boundary is the plaint C schedule property.  So also the southern<\/p>\n
boundary of C schedule property is   plaint B schedule property.<\/p>\n
If in fact plaint D schedule property was  kept as common for the<\/p>\n
usage  of the donees, it  would  have   been  specifically  mentioned<\/p>\n
in Ext.A2.  Apart from non-mentioning of such a common way or<\/p>\n
RSA 767\/2007                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
plot, Ext.A2 shows that the property gifted to second respondent<\/p>\n
is the property upto the northern boundary of  plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property which was gifted to  first respondent.  It does not show<\/p>\n
any   property   in   between   the   boundaries   of   plaint   B   and   C<\/p>\n
schedule   properties.   Learned  Munsiff  has  specifically  adverted<\/p>\n
to   this   aspect   in   paragraph   10   of   the   judgment   and   found   that<\/p>\n
case   of   appellant   that   plaint   D   schedule   property   was   kept<\/p>\n
common is not correct.  Therefore the argument that there is no<\/p>\n
specific   finding   by   courts   below   is   not   correct.     When   Ext.A2<\/p>\n
does not show that any portion of the property was kept common<\/p>\n
and   the   boundaries   of   plot   B   and   C   schedule   properties   show<\/p>\n
that   no   property   was   kept   common   in   between   the   said   plots,<\/p>\n
finding of courts below that plaint D schedule property was not<\/p>\n
kept common is perfectly correct.  If that be so, the claim of title<\/p>\n
to   plaint   D   schedule   property,   as   it   was   kept   common   under<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 gift deed cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.     Then   the   only   question   is   whether   appellant   has<\/p>\n
established any right of way through plaint D schedule property.<\/p>\n
As rightly found by courts below, the original pleading does not<\/p>\n
specifically   show   which   right   was   claimed   in   the   plaint   except<\/p>\n
that alternatively  a right of easement by necessity was claimed.<\/p>\n
RSA 767\/2007                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
It   is   not   disputed   that   to   the   north   of   the   plaint   A   schedule<\/p>\n
property there is a way. So also to the west of plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property   there   is   a   road.     In   such   circumstances,   the   claim   for<\/p>\n
right   of   way   by   easement   of   necessity   was   rightly   rejected   by<\/p>\n
courts   below.     The   right   of   easement   by   prescription   was   not<\/p>\n
claimed and cannot be claimed as till the date of Ext.A1 gift deed<\/p>\n
of   1988,   plaint     D   schedule   property   was   part   of   the   common<\/p>\n
property     and   after   the   splitting   of   the   property   under   Ext.A2,<\/p>\n
appellant  cannot claim a right of easement  by  prescription  in a<\/p>\n
suit instituted in the year 2000.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      8.   The other right of way which could be claimed is a right<\/p>\n
of   quasi-easement.     Though   there   was   no   specific   plea   in   the<\/p>\n
plaint,     a   right   of   quasi-easement   was   raised   before   learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff.     Learned   Munsiff   elaborately   considered   that   claim   in<\/p>\n
paragraph 10 of the judgment.  Relying on the text of Kathiar in<\/p>\n
law of easement and license, learned Munsiff found that in order<\/p>\n
to   substantiate   the   right   of   quasi-easement,   the   way   claimed<\/p>\n
should be apparent, continuous and necessary for the enjoyment<\/p>\n
of the tenament for which it is claimed and in the same stage in<\/p>\n
which   it   was   enjoyed   before   severance   from   the   tenament,   on<\/p>\n
which their liability is thrown.  Learned Munsiff on the evidence<\/p>\n
RSA 767\/2007                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
found that if there was such an apparent way which was enjoyed<\/p>\n
and was necessary for the enjoyment   at the time of splitting of<\/p>\n
the tenament, it would have been mentioned in Ext.A2.    On the<\/p>\n
evidence   it   was     found   that   there   was   no   such   apparent   way<\/p>\n
available to plaint A schedule property through plaint D schedule<\/p>\n
property at the time of Ext.A1 and  therefore  the  right of quasi-<\/p>\n
easement   claimed   by   appellant   is   also   not   sustainable,   when<\/p>\n
such   a   way   was   not   necessary   for   the   enjoyment   of   plaint   A<\/p>\n
schedule  property   as  a  way  is  available  on   the  north   and  west.<\/p>\n
Before the first appellate court appellant got amended the plaint<\/p>\n
raising   a   specific   plea   of   quasi-easement,   even   though   learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff   considered   that   question   elaborately.     First   appellate<\/p>\n
court   also   rejected   the   claim   raised   basing   on   quasi-easement.<\/p>\n
The   argument   of   learned   counsel   is   that   first   appellate   court<\/p>\n
rejected the case solely on the basis that such a right cannot be<\/p>\n
claimed without recognising the right of respondents 1 and 2 the<\/p>\n
assignees   of plaint  D schedule property; As  appellant    claimed<\/p>\n
title  to plaint D schedule property on the basis that it was kept<\/p>\n
common, the right cannot be claimed.   It cannot be said that the<\/p>\n
finding   of   first   appellate   court   that   when   appellant   contended<\/p>\n
that she is the owner  of plaint  D  schedule  property,    a right  of<\/p>\n
RSA 767\/2007                           10<\/span><\/p>\n
easement   cannot   be   claimed   over   D   schedule   proeprty   is   not<\/p>\n
correct.     Even   otherwise   on   the   evidence   appellant   did   not<\/p>\n
establish  that  at the   time  of Ext.A3,  plaint   D  schedule  property<\/p>\n
was   continuously   used   as   an   apparent   way   and   that   way   was<\/p>\n
necessary for the enjoyment of plaint D schedule property which<\/p>\n
was absolutely necessary  to establish  a right of quasi-easement<\/p>\n
of   way.     In   such   circumstances,   finding   of   courts   below     that<\/p>\n
appellant   is   not  entitled   to   a   right  of   way  by   quasi-easement  is<\/p>\n
also correct. As no substantial question of law is involved in the<\/p>\n
appeal, it     is dismissed  in limine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/-\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat … on 16 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA No. 767 of 2007() 1. MRS.VIMALA AMMA, D\/O.KALYANI AMMA, … Petitioner Vs 1. KOOMUNDAKKAL MARUTHIYAT PRABHAVATHIAMMA … Respondent 2. KOOMUNDAKKAL MARUTHIYAT RADHA AMMA, 3. AZHAKIL KUNHAMMAD, S\/O.ABDULLA, 4. DO.BROTHER SIDDIQUE, S\/O.ABDULLA, 5. MR.ABDURAHIMAN, […]<\/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-157576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat ... on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat ... on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-21T01:05:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat … on 16 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-21T01:05:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2063,\"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\\\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007\",\"name\":\"Mrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat ... on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-21T01:05:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat … on 16 October, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat ... on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat ... on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-21T01:05:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat … on 16 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-21T01:05:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007"},"wordCount":2063,"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\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007","name":"Mrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat ... on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-21T01:05:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-vimala-amma-vs-koomundakkal-maruthiyat-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs.Vimala Amma vs Koomundakkal Maruthiyat … on 16 October, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157576","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=157576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}