{"id":159661,"date":"2009-11-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-04-19T22:39:04","modified_gmt":"2017-04-19T17:09:04","slug":"koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Koodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Koodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 900 of 2009()\n\n\n1. KOODALIYAN RAGHAVAN, S\/O.THALA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KUNNUMPURATH WILSON,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. KOODALIYIL THALA, D\/O.CHEERAKUTTY,\n\n3. KOODALIYIL NARAYANI,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.G.ARUN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :18\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                          THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                            R.S.A. NO.900 of 2009\n                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                Dated this the 18th     day of November,    2009\n\n                                J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                                ———————-\n<\/p>\n
\n       Second Appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned Sub<\/p>\n
Judge, Thalassery in A.S. No.119 of 2005 reversing judgment and<\/p>\n
decree of learned Munsiff, Kuthuparamba in O.S. No.549 of 1998.<\/p>\n
Respondent No.1 sued appellant and others for declaration of title and<\/p>\n
prohibitory injunction.      Trial court decreed the suit holding that<\/p>\n
property has not been properly identified. On appeal at the instance<\/p>\n
of respondent No.1, first appellate court found that property has been<\/p>\n
properly identified as per Exts.C1 and C2, respondent No.1 has title<\/p>\n
over the suit property and granted the reliefs as prayed for. That<\/p>\n
judgment and decree are under challenge at the instance of<\/p>\n
defendant No.2. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendants as<\/p>\n
in the trial court for convenience.\n<\/p>\n
       2.    According plaintiff suit property along with other items<\/p>\n
belonged to defendant No.1 under an oral lease which was renewed as<\/p>\n
per registered deed No.1345 of 1952. Defendant No.1 got purchase<\/p>\n
certificate from the Land Tribunal in the year 1976, a copy of which is<\/p>\n
marked as Ext.A1.      She gifted a portion of the property to defendant<\/p>\n
No.2 and the remaining property to defendant No.3. Exhibit A2 is the<\/p>\n
R.S.A. NO.900 of 2009
\n                                   -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
copy of assignment deed No.3077 of 1986 executed by defendant<\/p>\n
No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of the suit property.<\/p>\n
Defendant No.3, as per Ext.A4 assigned the suit property in favour of<\/p>\n
plaintiff on 3.11.1997.     Later, defendant No.1 cancelled gift deed<\/p>\n
No.3077 of 1986 as per a cancellation deed copy of which is marked<\/p>\n
as Ext.A5. Apprehending trespass plaintiff laid the suit for declaration<\/p>\n
of his title over the suit property and prohibitory injunction against<\/p>\n
trespass by defendant Nos.1 and 2.         Defendant No.3, assignor of<\/p>\n
plaintiff did not contest the suit. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed separate<\/p>\n
written statements but raising identical contentions.     According to<\/p>\n
them defendant No.1 got the property in the year 1952 and though the<\/p>\n
document mentioned the extent of the property as 35 x 35 Koles she<\/p>\n
had not measured the property at that time. She thought that the<\/p>\n
total extent of the property is 1.50 acres and under that impression<\/p>\n
assigned 75 cents on the western side to defendant No.2 (the<\/p>\n
document is not produced) and the remaining portion          in favour of<\/p>\n
defendant No.3 as per Ext.A2.      75 cents on the west of the property<\/p>\n
assigned to defendant No.2 was taken by defendant No.1 on oral<\/p>\n
lease for and on behalf of defendant No.2 at a time when he was a<\/p>\n
minor.    After defendant No.2 attained majority he is in possession of<\/p>\n
the said 75 cents. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 claimed that plaintiff has<\/p>\n
R.S.A. NO.900 of 2009
\n                                   -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
not acquired any title over the suit property as no such extent was<\/p>\n
available for defendant No.3 to assign to the plaintiff. Trial court<\/p>\n
found that identity of the property is not established and that plaintiff<\/p>\n
failed to prove his title and possession. Plaintiff lost the case in the<\/p>\n
trial court. First appellate court reversed that judgment and decree<\/p>\n
and granted relief to the plaintiff. Hence the Second Appeal raising by<\/p>\n
way of substantial question of law whether court could grant a decree<\/p>\n
for declaration of title and injunction without identification of the<\/p>\n
property and when the plaintiff failed to prove his possession of the<\/p>\n
property. Further substantial question of law raised is whether when<\/p>\n
the assignor of the plaintiff has no title     or possession plaintiff as<\/p>\n
assignee could claim the same. It is contended by learned counsel<\/p>\n
that findings entered by the first appellate court are erroneous and<\/p>\n
give rise to the substantial questions of law above stated.<\/p>\n
       3.    So far as the identification of the property is concerned,<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 has not produced the document                in his favour<\/p>\n
executed by defendant No.1.         Exhibit A1 is the copy of purchase<\/p>\n
certificate   obtained by defendant No.1 on 16.2.1976 and it is in<\/p>\n
respect of 41.28 ares.     Boundary descriptions are given in Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
Exhibit A2 is the gift deed dated 21.11.1986 executed by defendant<\/p>\n
No.1 in favour of defendant No.3.      There, it is stated that defendant<\/p>\n
R.S.A. NO.900 of 2009
\n                                 -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
No.1 got the property as per an oral lease and marupat (document<\/p>\n
No.1345 of 1952). As per Ext.A2, 75 cents (described in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule) was gifted to defendant No.3.      Boundary descriptions in<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 would show that on the east of the said 75 cents is the property<\/p>\n
gifted to defendant No.2. Northern and western boundary descriptions<\/p>\n
are as in Ext.A1. Properties on the southern side belonged to Chirutha<\/p>\n
and    husband of defendant No.3.        Exhibit A3 is the receipt for<\/p>\n
payment of revenue for 75 cents obtained by defendant No.3. It is<\/p>\n
that property which defendant No.3 has assigned in favour of plaintiff<\/p>\n
as per Ext.A4. In Ext.A4 extent of the property is stated as 75 cents<\/p>\n
and the boundary descriptions are as in Ext.A2.       Exhibit A5 is the<\/p>\n
copy of cancellation deed dated 4.11.1997 executed by defendant<\/p>\n
No.1 cancelling Ext.A2, gift deed in favour of defendant No.3. It is<\/p>\n
interesting to note that though defendant Nos.1 and 2 contended that<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 had not that much extent of property as stated in the<\/p>\n
purchase certificate and as such there was no such property in<\/p>\n
existence as stated in      Ext.A2 to be gifted to defendant No.3,<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 has stated the boundary descriptions of the property in<\/p>\n
Ext.A5, cancellation deed in the same way it is given in Ext.A2. In fact<\/p>\n
the statement in Ext.A5 is that defendant No.3 got Ext.A2 executed by<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 on misrepresentation.      But there is no evidence to<\/p>\n
R.S.A. NO.900 of 2009
\n                                 -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
show any such misrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Contention raised on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2 is<\/p>\n
that property on the west of the property gifted to defendant No.2 was<\/p>\n
acquired by defendant No.1 on lease on behalf of defendant No.2 at a<\/p>\n
time when the latter was a minor and on his attaining majority he took<\/p>\n
possession of the said property.   It is not as if there was no property<\/p>\n
available on the west of property gifted to defendant No.2, instead,<\/p>\n
claim is that property on the west was acquired by defendant No.1 on<\/p>\n
behalf of defendant No.2 on oral lease when the latter was a minor.<\/p>\n
That contention is not established by any evidence.                After<\/p>\n
measurement of the property with the assistance of Village Assistant<\/p>\n
and relevant records Advocate Commissioner has reported that plot<\/p>\n
No.1 measuring 42.99 cents and plot No.2 measuring 39.99 cents<\/p>\n
(together 74.98 cents) is the property gifted to defendant No.2 and<\/p>\n
plot No.3 is 74.99 cents on the further west gifted to defendant No.3<\/p>\n
as per Ext.A2     (which defendant No.3 conveyed to plaintiff as per<\/p>\n
Ext.A4). Ofcourse there was some discrepancy in the survey number<\/p>\n
and extent which the first appellate court observed is not fatal since<\/p>\n
boundary descriptions are clear and encompassed the suit property.<\/p>\n
First appellate court also observed that apart from challenging Exts.C1<\/p>\n
and C2 there was no attempt on the part of defendant Nos.1 and 2 to<\/p>\n
R.S.A. NO.900 of 2009
\n                                   -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
remit the report and plan. Though defendant No.2 filed a work memo<\/p>\n
before the Commissioner to identify the 42.99 cents in his possession<\/p>\n
under the oral lease, he did not produce the document concerning the<\/p>\n
gift in his favour. It is in the above circumstances that first appellate<\/p>\n
court answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff. There is proper<\/p>\n
identification of the property and plaintiff has proved his title based on<\/p>\n
the documents produced. No substantial question of law as urged in<\/p>\n
the Second Appeal is involved for a decision.\n<\/p>\n
      Second Appeal is dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
      Interlocutory Application No.1998 of 2009 shall stand dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                              THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
vsv<\/p>\n
R.S.A. NO.900 of 2009
\n                         -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                                 THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n<\/p>\n
                                ===================
\n                                  R.S.A. NO.900 OF 2009
\n                                ===================<\/p>\n
                                      J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
                                18TH NOVEMBER, 2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Koodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 900 of 2009() 1. KOODALIYAN RAGHAVAN, S\/O.THALA, … Petitioner Vs 1. KUNNUMPURATH WILSON, … Respondent 2. KOODALIYIL THALA, D\/O.CHEERAKUTTY, 3. KOODALIYIL NARAYANI, For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN For Respondent :SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH […]<\/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-159661","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKoodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Koodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-19T17:09:04+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Koodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-19T17:09:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1319,\"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\\\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Koodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-19T17:09:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Koodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Koodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Koodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-19T17:09:04+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Koodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-19T17:09:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009"},"wordCount":1319,"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\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009","name":"Koodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-19T17:09:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/koodaliyan-raghavan-vs-kunnumpurath-wilson-on-18-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Koodaliyan Raghavan vs Kunnumpurath Wilson on 18 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159661","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=159661"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/159661\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=159661"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=159661"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=159661"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}