{"id":161651,"date":"2008-01-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008"},"modified":"2015-03-02T02:07:00","modified_gmt":"2015-03-01T20:37:00","slug":"arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"Arayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil … on 7 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Arayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil … on 7 January, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA No. 959 of 2007()\n\n\n1. ARAYAPRATH KHADEEJA UMMA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 56 YEARS, THROUGH\n3. SUBAIDA,D\/O.KHADEEJA UMMA,AGED 48 YEARS\n4. ARAYAPATH KUNHAMINA,\n5.  ARAYAPATH ABOOBACKER,\n6.  ARAYAPATH HAIRUNEESSA,\n7. ARAYAPATH JAMEELA,\n8. ARAYAPATH ABDUL JABBAR\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. CHARUVILA PUTHAN VEETTIL K.K.NAKULAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :07\/01\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n                    ...........................................\n                    R.S.A.No. 959              OF 2007\n                    ............................................\n      DATED THIS THE            7TH        DAY OF JANUARY, 2008\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Plaintiffs in O.S.277 of 1991 on the file of Munsiff Court,<\/p>\n
Payyannur are the appellants. Defendants are the respondents.<\/p>\n
Appellants originally instituted the suit seeking a decree for<\/p>\n
permanent prohibitory injunction.                   Subsequently plaint was<\/p>\n
amended. Plaint schedule property which was originally 6 acres<\/p>\n
was subsequently enlarged to 9 acres and 68 cents. A decree for<\/p>\n
declaration of title and recovery of possession was also sought<\/p>\n
for.  Appellants contended that a total extent of 33 acres was<\/p>\n
obtained by Arayaprath Ayisumma under Ext.A1 sale deed dated<\/p>\n
9.8.1926 and on the death of Ayisumma the property devolved on<\/p>\n
the thavazhi of first appellant, which was partitioned under<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 partition deed in 1989, whereunder properties shown as<\/p>\n
schedule A, B, D and E were alloted to the appellants and C<\/p>\n
schedule property having an extent of 4 acres was alloted to<\/p>\n
A.Muhammed Sali. It was contended that subsequently under<\/p>\n
Ext.A4 gift deed executed on 29.12.1989, first appellant<\/p>\n
transferred his right in favour of appellants 5 to 8 and appellants<\/p>\n
have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
RSA 959\/2007                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
property and respondents have no right or title to the property<\/p>\n
and they are attempting to trespass into the property. So they<\/p>\n
are to be restrained by a permanent prohibitory injunction from<\/p>\n
trespassing into the plaint schedule property.        After the<\/p>\n
Commissioner submitted the report showing the extent of the<\/p>\n
property as 9.68 acres, plaint was amended contending that plot<\/p>\n
IJKL shown by the Commissioner is the property obtained under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 sale deed and plot ABCD shown by the Commissioner is<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule property which is covered under Ext.A1<\/p>\n
document and a portion of that property which is C schedule to<\/p>\n
the partition deed, which was alloted to Muhammed Sali, is also<\/p>\n
part of plot ABCD and Muhammed Sali is the power of attorney<\/p>\n
holder of second appellant and he has no dispute with regard to<\/p>\n
that and has no objection in getting more extent of land than<\/p>\n
what is shown in the document,       to the   appellants. It was<\/p>\n
contended that the disputed plot B which measures 5 acres and 7<\/p>\n
cents belongs to the appellants. Appellants sought a decree for<\/p>\n
declaration of title to plaint B schedule property as part of the<\/p>\n
property covered under Ext.A1 and A2. In case it is found that it<\/p>\n
is in the possession of the respondents, appellants sought a<\/p>\n
decree for recovery of possession on the strength of their title.<\/p>\n
RSA 959\/2007                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
Respondents resisted the suit contending that the property<\/p>\n
originally belonged to Vasudevan Nambissan and as per<\/p>\n
Kuzhikkanam deed of 9.9.1960, it was obtained by Kunhikannan<\/p>\n
who transferred it in favour of Narayani Amma and thereafter<\/p>\n
respondent obtained the property as per registered sale deed<\/p>\n
dated 2.5.1969 and plot B marked by the Commissioner is that<\/p>\n
property and he also obtained purchase certificate from the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal as per order in O.A.308 of 1977 and appellants have no<\/p>\n
right or possession to that property and therefore they are not<\/p>\n
entitled to the decree sought for.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     Learned Munsiff, on the evidence of PW1, DW1,<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A10, B1 to B4, C1 to C6 and X1 series and X2 series,<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit holding that appellants did not establish their<\/p>\n
title or possession to plaint B schedule property.       Learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff also found that the property was also not properly<\/p>\n
identified.   Appellants challenged the judgment before Sub<\/p>\n
Court, Payyannur in A.S.21 of 1998. Learned Sub Judge, on<\/p>\n
reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the findings of learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in the second<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Learned counsel appearing for appellants was heard.<\/p>\n
RSA 959\/2007                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
The argument of the learned counsel is that courts below did not<\/p>\n
properly appreciate the evidence and should have found that<\/p>\n
under Ext.A1, 33 acres was obtained by Ayisumma and only part<\/p>\n
of that property was obtained by thavazhi of first appellant and<\/p>\n
though in 1963 properties was divided under a registered<\/p>\n
partition deed, it was not produced. It was argued that property<\/p>\n
divided under Ext.A3 partition deed is the property alloted to<\/p>\n
thavazhi of first appellant under 1963 partition and the property<\/p>\n
within the boundaries shown therein were divided as schedules<\/p>\n
A to E and schedules A, B, D and E were alloted to appellants 1<\/p>\n
to 4 and C schedule property to Muhammed Sali and though the<\/p>\n
extent of the property shown in 1963 document is only 6 acres,<\/p>\n
within the boundary, actual extent of the property is 10 acres<\/p>\n
which was divided under Ext.A3 partition deed and therefore<\/p>\n
courts below should have found that appellants have title to<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property which is part of the property covered<\/p>\n
under Ext.A3 partition deed and it was originally obtained under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 sale deed and therefore finding of courts below that<\/p>\n
appellants have no title      or possession to plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property is not sustainable. Learned counsel also argued that<\/p>\n
even if it is to be found that plaint schedule property obtained by<\/p>\n
RSA 959\/2007                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants under Ext.A3 and A4 were not properly identified,<\/p>\n
appellants may not be denied their right to claim that property in<\/p>\n
appropriate proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any<\/p>\n
substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Though the<\/p>\n
suit was originally one for injunction, subsequently it was<\/p>\n
amended and relief of declaration of title in respect of plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule property and alternatively recovery of possession of<\/p>\n
plaint C schedule property, in case it is found that respondent is<\/p>\n
in possession of the property were sought.        Appellants can<\/p>\n
succeed in their claim only on establishing that plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property is part of the property obtained under Ext.A1 and<\/p>\n
subsequently divided under Ext.A3 partition deed. Admittedly<\/p>\n
the total extent of the property obtained under Ext.A1 is 33<\/p>\n
acres. Though appellants claimed title under Ext.A3 partition<\/p>\n
deed, it is admitted at the time of evidence that the property<\/p>\n
obtained under Ext.A1 was divided under registered partition<\/p>\n
deed 1409\/1963. When the property was already divided under<\/p>\n
a registered partition deed of 1963, it cannot thereafter be<\/p>\n
divided under Ext.A3 in 1989. The argument of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel is that the property divided under Ext.A3 is the property<\/p>\n
RSA 959\/2007                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
obtained by the thavazhi of first appellant under 1963 partition<\/p>\n
deed. But 1963 partition deed was not produced either before<\/p>\n
the trial court or first appellate court. Whatever it be, it is<\/p>\n
admitted case that property obtained by the thavazhi of first<\/p>\n
appellant under 1963 partition deed is only 6 acres. It was<\/p>\n
admitted by PW1 that as item No.5 of schedule C of that<\/p>\n
partition deed, 3 acres each in R.S.105 and 110 were obtained by<\/p>\n
the thavazhy. But suppresssing the fact tht property obtained by<\/p>\n
thavazhi is only 6 acres, in 1989 under Ext.A3, properties were<\/p>\n
divided into five shares and plots A, B, D and E were alloted to<\/p>\n
appellants 1 to 4 being a total extent of 6.44 acres. At the same<\/p>\n
time, as C schedule property, 4 acres was alloted to Muhammed<\/p>\n
Sali. The total extent divided is 10.44 acres. Plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property as originally stood was only 6.74 acres being plots A, B,<\/p>\n
D and E of Ext.A3.         It is after filing of report by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner, plaint was amended enhancing the extent of<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property to 9.68 acres. Evidently it is inclusive<\/p>\n
of   C schedule property covered under Ext.A3.         What was<\/p>\n
claimed by appellants in the amended plaint is that Muhammed<\/p>\n
Sali who is also the power of attorney holder of second appellant<\/p>\n
and therefore a decree may be granted.      When even according<\/p>\n
RSA 959\/2007                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
to appellants, C schedule property was alloted to Muhammed<\/p>\n
Sali and appellants to whom only properties covered under<\/p>\n
schedules A, B,D and E were alloted, cannot claim title to C<\/p>\n
schedule property therein. Appellants cannot claim title to the<\/p>\n
C schedule property of Ext.A3. Therefore for that sole reason,<\/p>\n
appellants are to be non-suited. Learned Munsiff and learned<\/p>\n
Sub Judge properly appreciated the evidence and rightly found<\/p>\n
that appellants did not establish their title to plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property.    Courts below also found that appellants did not<\/p>\n
properly identify the property obtained by them, and covered<\/p>\n
under Ext.A1 and thereafter divided under 1963 partition deed<\/p>\n
and later under 1989 partition deed. In such circumstances, I do<\/p>\n
not find any reason to interfere with the decree granted by<\/p>\n
courts below.\n<\/p>\n
      Appeal is dismissed in limine. Muhammed Sali to whom C<\/p>\n
schedule property in Ext.A3 was alloted being not a party to the<\/p>\n
suit, the findings in this suit will not be binding on him.<\/p>\n
                             M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Arayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil … on 7 January, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA No. 959 of 2007() 1. ARAYAPRATH KHADEEJA UMMA, … Petitioner 2. ABDUL SALAM, AGED 56 YEARS, THROUGH 3. SUBAIDA,D\/O.KHADEEJA UMMA,AGED 48 YEARS 4. ARAYAPATH KUNHAMINA, 5. ARAYAPATH ABOOBACKER, 6. ARAYAPATH HAIRUNEESSA, […]<\/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-161651","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nArayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil ... on 7 January, 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\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil ... on 7 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-01T20:37:00+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil … on 7 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-01T20:37:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1428,\"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\\\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008\",\"name\":\"Arayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil ... on 7 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-01T20:37:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil … on 7 January, 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":"Arayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil ... on 7 January, 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\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil ... on 7 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-01T20:37:00+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil … on 7 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-01T20:37:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008"},"wordCount":1428,"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\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008","name":"Arayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil ... on 7 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-01T20:37:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arayaprath-khadeeja-umma-vs-charuvila-puthan-veettil-on-7-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arayaprath Khadeeja Umma vs Charuvila Puthan Veettil … on 7 January, 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\/161651","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=161651"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161651\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161651"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161651"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161651"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}