{"id":160687,"date":"2007-01-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007"},"modified":"2017-04-08T16:06:29","modified_gmt":"2017-04-08T10:36:29","slug":"p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"P.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP No. 30 of 2006()\n\n\n1. P.THANKAMONY, MANKULATHU VEEDU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. PONNAMMA, MANKULATHU VEEDU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. VISWANATHAN, MANKULATHU VEEDU,\n\n3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :24\/01\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n                   ===========================\n\n                     C.R.P.NO.30    OF 2006\n\n                   ===========================\n\n\n\n         Dated this the 24th   day of January, 2007\n\n\n\n                            O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
     Petitioner   is   the   applicant   before                      Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram  and  appellant before<\/p>\n
Appellate   Authority(L.R.),   Alappuzha.     Respondents<\/p>\n
1 and 2 are   respondents before the   Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
and        Appellate   Authority.                 Petitioner   filed<\/p>\n
O.A.247\/93   before   the   Land   Tribunal     for   purchase<\/p>\n
of   kudikidappu   right   claiming   that   she   is   a<\/p>\n
kudikidappukari.            Land   Tribunal   holding   that<\/p>\n
petitioner   did   not   adduce   any   oral   or   documentary<\/p>\n
evidence   to   prove   that   she   has   been   in   possession<\/p>\n
of   the   building   prior   to   1.4.1964   found     that   she<\/p>\n
is   not   entitled   to   the                  kudikidappu   right.\n<\/p>\n
Petitioner   challenged   that   order   before     Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority   (LR),   Alappuzha   in   A.A.35\/03.                       The<\/p>\n
Appellate          Authority         after          reiterating         the<\/p>\n
contentions   raised   by   both   the   petitioner   and<\/p>\n
respondents   dismissed   the   appeal   finding   that   on<\/p>\n
CRP 30\/06                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
going   through   the   lower   court   records   and   hearing<\/p>\n
their counsel there is no merit in the appeal. This<\/p>\n
petition   is   filed   challenging   that   order   under<\/p>\n
section 103 of Kerala Land Reforms Act.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for   petitioner<\/p>\n
and respondents were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for   petitioner<\/p>\n
argued   that   both   the   Land   Tribunal   and   the<\/p>\n
Appellate          Authority           did            not          consider           the<\/p>\n
entitlement   of   petitioner   for     kudikidappu   right<\/p>\n
and   instead   dismissed   the   application   for   the   sole<\/p>\n
reason   that   petitioner   did   not   establish   his<\/p>\n
possession         prior         to         1.4.1964              and         therefore<\/p>\n
petitioner   is   not   entitled   to   kudikidappu   right.\n<\/p>\n
The   question   whether   a   person   in   possession   of     a<\/p>\n
hut   who   was   put   in   possession   of   that   hut   even<\/p>\n
after   1.1.`70   is   entitled   to   claim   kudikidappu,if<\/p>\n
all the other ingredients are   established, is   no<\/p>\n
more   res integra, in view of the decision of this<\/p>\n
Court in Vidhyadharan v. Sivadas<\/a> (2001(2) KLT 605).\n<\/p>\n
Therefore   the   very   basis   of                                 rejection   of<\/p>\n
kudikidappu   right   claimed   by   petitioner   by   the<\/p>\n
Land   Tribunal   and   the   Appellate   Authority   is<\/p>\n
CRP 30\/06                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
      4.  Then the question is whether the petitioner<\/p>\n
is   entitled   to   kudikidappu   right?.     This   question<\/p>\n
was not independently considered by either the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal   or   the       Appellate   Authority.     Learned<\/p>\n
counsel   appearing   for   petitioner   argued   that   even<\/p>\n
if   the   petitioner   did   not   succeed   in   establishing<\/p>\n
his case that he has been put in possession of  the<\/p>\n
land  by the mortgagee, it is the  specific case of<\/p>\n
respondents,   in   O.S.2557\/03   filed   by   them     for<\/p>\n
redemption   of   the   mortgage,   where   petitioner   was<\/p>\n
impleaded as eighth  defendant, that petitioner was<\/p>\n
inducted  into  possession  by  the  mortgagee.    It  was<\/p>\n
argued   that   in   that   case   if   petitioner   is   not<\/p>\n
having   any   other   land,   where   he   could   erect   a<\/p>\n
homestead and the building is a hut, being its cost<\/p>\n
of   construction   less   than   Rs.750\/-   or   rental   value<\/p>\n
at   the   time   of   construction     less   than   Rs.5\/-,<\/p>\n
being  a  person  permitted  to  occupy  the  building  by<\/p>\n
the  mortgagee  a  person  in  lawful  possession  of  the<\/p>\n
land   she     is   entitled   to   claim   kudikidappu     and<\/p>\n
this   question   was   not   considered   by   the   Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal or Appellate Authority and so the case has<\/p>\n
CRP 30\/06                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
to   be   remitted   back   to   the   Land   Tribunal   for<\/p>\n
considering   the   question   afresh.     Learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing   for   respondents   vehemently   argued   that<\/p>\n
petitioner   has   no   specific   case   whether   she   was<\/p>\n
permitted to occupy the land or hut or whether she<\/p>\n
constructed   the   homestead   and   a   decree   for<\/p>\n
redemption   and     recovery   of   possession   was   already<\/p>\n
passed   in   O.S.2557\/93   and     in   such   circumstance,<\/p>\n
case need not be remanded and on the materials this<\/p>\n
court can find   that petitioner is not entitled to<\/p>\n
kudikidappu right.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     True,   in   the   application   filed   before   the<\/p>\n
Land   Tribunal   for   purchase   of   kudikidappu   right,<\/p>\n
petitioner   did   not   specifically   plead   with   regard<\/p>\n
to   either   the   entrustment   or   whether   entrustment<\/p>\n
was   of   the   land   and   she   constructed   the   homestead<\/p>\n
or   she   was   entrusted   with   the   hut.     What   was<\/p>\n
contended in the petition was that she has been in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   hut     since   1965   and   its   cost   of<\/p>\n
construction was Rs.200\/- and there is no liability<\/p>\n
to   pay   rent.        Learned   counsel   appearing   for<\/p>\n
respondents   also   pointed   out   that   in   the   written<\/p>\n
statement         filed         before         Munsiff         Court         in<\/p>\n
CRP 30\/06                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
O.S.2557\/93,   case   of   the   petitioner   was   that<\/p>\n
mother   of   respondents   permitted   petitioner   to   put<\/p>\n
up a hut in the plaint schedule property on 16.8.65<\/p>\n
and   if   so,   it   could   only   be   a   homestead   and   the<\/p>\n
case   could   only   be   that   petitioner   was   put   in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   land   by   mortgagor   and   not   by<\/p>\n
mortgagee. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner<\/p>\n
pointed   out   that   even   before   Appellate   Authority,<\/p>\n
as   seen   from   the   order,   what   was   contended   by<\/p>\n
respondents   was   that   mortgagee   put     petitioner   in<\/p>\n
possession  of    property  and  even  if  petitioner  did<\/p>\n
not establish the claim that she was entrusted with<\/p>\n
the   land   and   she   constructed   a   homestead,       the<\/p>\n
case   pleaded   by   respondent   enables   petitioner   to<\/p>\n
claim that admitted facts satisfies the  definition<\/p>\n
of   kudikidappukaran   as   provided   under   sub   section<\/p>\n
(25)   of   Section   2   and   therefore   petitioner   is   a<\/p>\n
kudikidappukari.     On   hearing   both   the   counsel,   it<\/p>\n
is  clear  that  the  question  whether  petitioner  is  a<\/p>\n
kudikidappukari,   as   defined   under   sub   section   (25)<\/p>\n
of   Section     2,   is   to   be   considered   first   by   Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal.   As   the   Land   Tribunal   and   the   Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority   did   not   consider   this   question,   that<\/p>\n
CRP 30\/06                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
question cannot be decided in this revision for the<\/p>\n
first time  in exercise of the revisional powers of<\/p>\n
this   court.   The   order   of   Appellate   Authority   and<\/p>\n
the   Land   Tribunal   are   set   aside.     O.A.247\/93   is<\/p>\n
remanded   to   the   Land   Tribunal,   Thiruvananthapuram<\/p>\n
for   fresh   disposal   in   accordance   with   law.     The<\/p>\n
Land   Tribunal   is   directed   to   dispose   of   O.A.247\/93<\/p>\n
as   expeditiously   as   possible,   at   any   rate,   within<\/p>\n
four   months   from   the   date   of   receipt   of   records.\n<\/p>\n
The   parties   are   entitled   to   adduce   further<\/p>\n
evidence, if they chose.\n<\/p>\n
      Civil Revision Petition is disposed as above.\n<\/p>\n
                                       M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR<\/p>\n
                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
     W.P.(C).NO. \/06<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP No. 30 of 2006() 1. P.THANKAMONY, MANKULATHU VEEDU, … Petitioner Vs 1. PONNAMMA, MANKULATHU VEEDU, … Respondent 2. VISWANATHAN, MANKULATHU VEEDU, 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble […]<\/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-160687","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 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\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-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=\"2007-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-08T10:36:29+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-08T10:36:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":950,\"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\\\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007\",\"name\":\"P.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-08T10:36:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 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":"P.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 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\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-08T10:36:29+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-08T10:36:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007"},"wordCount":950,"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\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007","name":"P.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-08T10:36:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-thankamony-vs-ponnamma-on-24-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Thankamony vs Ponnamma on 24 January, 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\/160687","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=160687"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160687\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160687"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160687"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160687"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}