{"id":162303,"date":"2010-08-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-23T08:09:32","modified_gmt":"2016-03-23T02:39:32","slug":"k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 151 of 2010(B)\n\n\n1. K.P.SUBHAKARAN, S\/O.K.K.KUNHIRAMAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. V.P.CHANDRAN, S\/O.V.P.APPA, AGED 51\n3. K.P.GANGADHARAN, S\/O.K.KUNHIRAMAN,\n4. K.P.SHANMUGHAN, S\/O.K.KUNHIRAMAN,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. CHALIL SREEDHARAN, S\/O.KUNHIRAMAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE(CAVEATOR)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :10\/08\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                          P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                        R.S.A. No. 151 of 2010\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n            Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010.\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
          The defendants in O.S. 272 of 2003 before the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s court, Kuthuparamba, who suffered decree at<\/p>\n
the hands of trial court as well as lower appellate court<\/p>\n
are the appellants. The parties and facts are hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court.<\/p>\n
          2.     The plaintiff claimed to be the absolute<\/p>\n
owner in possession and                   enjoyment of the property,<\/p>\n
which he acquired as per Ext.A1 dated 2.5.1980. The<\/p>\n
property has access to road on two sides. According to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff, the defendants approached him and wanted<\/p>\n
him to provide a way through his property to have<\/p>\n
access to their property. The plaintiff was not inclined to<\/p>\n
accept the request.              It is stated that the defendants<\/p>\n
threatened him that they would cut open a way through<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
his property. Plaintiff has no other option but to approach<\/p>\n
the court for appropriate reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
            3. The defendants resisted the suit. Defendants<\/p>\n
1, 3 and 4 are the brothers of the wife of the plaintiff. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that the plaintiff has suppressed material facts<\/p>\n
and he is not entitled to any relief.         According to the<\/p>\n
defendants, the only passage to their house was through the<\/p>\n
property owned by the plaintiff, which gave access to these<\/p>\n
defendants to the public road on the eastern side. The road<\/p>\n
which runs through the property of the plaintiff has a width<\/p>\n
of three metres and had infact used by Kunhiraman, the<\/p>\n
predecessor in interest of the defendants and the members<\/p>\n
of his family.    By virtue of Ext.B1 partition deed dated<\/p>\n
4.2.1993, the property, which belonged to Kunhiraman was<\/p>\n
partitioned among his legal heirs. One of the shares was<\/p>\n
allotted to the wife of the plaintiff. In the partition deed, it is<\/p>\n
specifically stated that in continuation of the existing way, a<\/p>\n
portion of the property is left in common to be used as a<\/p>\n
way. It is pointed out by the defendants that this is the only<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.                3<\/span><\/p>\n
means of access to their property and they have been using<\/p>\n
it for a long period. They claimed both prescriptive right of<\/p>\n
easement and easement by necessity. They prayed for a<\/p>\n
dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
            4. The trial court raised necessary issues for<\/p>\n
consideration.   The evidence consists of the testimony of<\/p>\n
P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A4.<\/p>\n
The defendants had D.Ws.1 and 5 and had Exts. B1 to B8<\/p>\n
marked. Exts.C1 to C2(a) are the commission reports and<\/p>\n
plans. Exts.X1 and X1(a) are third party exhibits.<\/p>\n
            5. On a consideration of the evidence before it,<\/p>\n
the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendants<\/p>\n
have failed to establish a right of way through the property<\/p>\n
owned by the plaintiff and therefore a decree was granted in<\/p>\n
favour of the plaintiff.    Defendants carried the matter in<\/p>\n
appeal as A.S.23 of 2006 before the Sub Court, Thalassery.<\/p>\n
The said court after careful consideration of the evidence in<\/p>\n
the case confirmed the findings of the trial court. Hence this<\/p>\n
Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.                4<\/span><\/p>\n
            6.  The following questions of law are seen<\/p>\n
formulated in the Memorandum of Second Appeal:<\/p>\n
            “(1) Whether the pleading of plaintiff in O.S.<\/p>\n
      No.272 of 2003 before the Munsiff’s Court,<\/p>\n
      Kuthuparamba and his evidence before the court<\/p>\n
      can be accepted to pass a decree in favour of him.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (2)  Whether there is any suppression of<\/p>\n
      material facts in the plaint and the suppression<\/p>\n
      alleged by the defendants are sufficient enough to<\/p>\n
      deny the discretionary relief of injunction prayed<\/p>\n
      by the plaintiff.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (3) Whether any legal presumption can be<\/p>\n
      made that a road is existing through the plaint<\/p>\n
      schedule property on the basis of the recital in<\/p>\n
      Ext.B1, which was also signed by the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
      wife, keeping a common way to the different plots,<\/p>\n
      as a continuation of the way through the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
      property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (4) Whether the identification of the plaint<\/p>\n
      schedule property is a material question in a suit<\/p>\n
      for injunction and whether the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
      property is properly identified in this case.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (5) Whether there is any legal ground to pass<\/p>\n
      a decree in favour of the plaintiff in this case.<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.                5<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (6)  whether the pleadings in the written<\/p>\n
      statement and the evidence of the defence<\/p>\n
      witnesses are sufficient to establish their case of<\/p>\n
      easement by prescription and also by necessity.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (7) Whether the acts of defendants using the<\/p>\n
      plaintiff’s property as a continuation of the<\/p>\n
      passage stated in Ext.B1 amounts to trespass.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (8)   Whether the judgment and decree<\/p>\n
      passed in A.S. No.23\/06 by the Sub Court,<\/p>\n
      Thalassery is judicially correct and is there any<\/p>\n
      procedural irregularity.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
            7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants<\/p>\n
pointed out that the courts below have erred in law in<\/p>\n
decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. According to<\/p>\n
learned counsel, there is clear evidence to show that there<\/p>\n
was a way running through the property of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
starting from the main road on the east going towards west<\/p>\n
and providing access to the defendants to their properties.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
That road has been in existence for a long time and used<\/p>\n
even by the predecessor in interest of the defendants. The<\/p>\n
commission report clearly supports the existence of the way<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.                6<\/span><\/p>\n
and its use was also established by evidence. The courts<\/p>\n
below were not justified in coming to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
way was a newly laid one and that the defendants have no<\/p>\n
manner of right to use any portion of the plaintiff’s property<\/p>\n
as a way. According to learned counsel, the findings are<\/p>\n
clearly unsustainable both on facts and in law.<\/p>\n
            8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent<\/p>\n
on the other hand submits that the courts below were fully<\/p>\n
justified in decreeing the suit. Even though the defendants<\/p>\n
claim right of way through the property of the plaintiff, they<\/p>\n
were unable to establish the same. It is clearly found that<\/p>\n
the way now seen through the property of the plaintiff was a<\/p>\n
newly laid one and there was no justification for the<\/p>\n
misdeeds of the defendants. Learned counsel also pointed<\/p>\n
out that both the courts below have considered whether the<\/p>\n
defendants are entitled to use any portion of the property<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff as a way on the basis of either easement by<\/p>\n
necessity or easement by prescription, and came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the defendants are not entitled to any such<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
right. Accordingly, it is contended that no grounds are made<\/p>\n
out to interfere with the judgments and decrees of the<\/p>\n
courts below.\n<\/p>\n
            9. The dispute in this case relates to a pathway.<\/p>\n
Ext.C2, which is a comprehensive sketch shows the lie of the<\/p>\n
properties. There is a road lying on the eastern side of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s property running north-south. The plaintiff would<\/p>\n
say that there is no way through his property.          But the<\/p>\n
defendants would say that there does exist a road starting<\/p>\n
from the main road on the eastern side and running towards<\/p>\n
west ending with the property of the second defendant.<\/p>\n
There was a pathway, which runs to the property of the<\/p>\n
fourth defendant also.     It is significant to notice that the<\/p>\n
defendants claim the right to use the way on the ground of<\/p>\n
easement by necessity and on the ground of prescriptive<\/p>\n
right of easement.\n<\/p>\n
            10. It is the case of the plaintiff that no way ever<\/p>\n
existed through his property and the way now noticed by<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.                8<\/span><\/p>\n
the Commissioner is a newly laid one.         The commission<\/p>\n
report do indicate that the way was recently laid.<\/p>\n
            11. One has to notice that the plaintiff purchased<\/p>\n
the property as per       Ext.A1 dated 2.5.1980 from one<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman, who is none other than the predecessor in<\/p>\n
interest of the defendants. It has come out in evidence that<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman and his family thereafter was residing on the<\/p>\n
western side of the plaint schedule property and they had<\/p>\n
means of access to that property other than through the<\/p>\n
property sold to the plaintiff. Therefore at that point of time<\/p>\n
it could not be said that Kunhiraman had any necessity to<\/p>\n
use any portion of the property transferred to the plaintiff by<\/p>\n
way of easement by necessity for the reason that<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman had other means of access.\n<\/p>\n
            12. There are two commission reports, namely,<\/p>\n
Exts.C1 and C2. Both the reports show that the way claimed<\/p>\n
by the defendants is a recently laid one and the report gives<\/p>\n
reasons for reaching such a conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
            13.  Considerable reliance was placed by the<\/p>\n
defendants on Ext.B1 document, which is a partition deed of<\/p>\n
the year 1993. One of the signatories to the document is<\/p>\n
the wife of the plaintiff.   Relying on a recital in the said<\/p>\n
document, it is contended that there was a way running<\/p>\n
through the property of the plaintiff. In the said document,<\/p>\n
it is mentioned that the portion of the property, that is<\/p>\n
brought for partition is left in common to be in continuation<\/p>\n
of the already existing way.\n<\/p>\n
            14. Both the courts below have noticed that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not a party to Ext.B1 and therefore he is not<\/p>\n
bound by the recitals therein. Apart from the above fact,<\/p>\n
another aspect may also be noticed.        Ext.A1 shows that<\/p>\n
there was a partition in the family of the defendants and the<\/p>\n
executants were given their due shares.        The document<\/p>\n
shows that three of the sharers have got direct access to the<\/p>\n
way on various sides of the properties allotted to them.<\/p>\n
Some of those persons are the defendants herein.        It is<\/p>\n
therefore very clear that at the time of entering into Ext.B1<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.                10<\/span><\/p>\n
document the sharers had access to their property through<\/p>\n
other means. It is also significant to note that Kunhiraman<\/p>\n
while transferring the property to the plaintiff as per Ext.A1<\/p>\n
document did not reserve any right to himself to use any<\/p>\n
portion of the property sold as a pathway. There is absolute<\/p>\n
want of evidence to show that simultaneously with the sale,<\/p>\n
it became necessary that Kunhiraman needed to have<\/p>\n
access through the property sold to the plaintiff as there are<\/p>\n
no other access.      In fact the evidence shows that the<\/p>\n
balance property retained by Kunhiraman had direct access<\/p>\n
from the northern side.\n<\/p>\n
            15. It is extremely doubtful whether there is a<\/p>\n
way as alleged by the defendants running through the<\/p>\n
property of the plaintiff. Even assuming that there is a way,<\/p>\n
the question that arises for consideration is whether the<\/p>\n
defendants have any manner of right to use the same. As<\/p>\n
already noticed, Kunhiraman, after selling the property to<\/p>\n
the first plaintiff has retained the balance property. That<\/p>\n
property, even according to the defendants, had an access<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
from the northern side.       It was that property, that was<\/p>\n
partitioned in the year 1993. If at all any way is provided in<\/p>\n
the 1993 partition deed, it is to run through the property of<\/p>\n
the     sharers, who have been given shares under the<\/p>\n
document. If as a matter of fact by the partition of the year<\/p>\n
1993, if anyone of the sharers have any property without<\/p>\n
access, there is no obligation on the part of the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
provide a pathway. What is significant is that at the time<\/p>\n
when Ext.A1 document was executed in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, there was no absolute necessity to use any portion<\/p>\n
of the property sold as a way to gain access to the outside<\/p>\n
world. Therefore the claim based on easement by necessity<\/p>\n
has necessarily to fail.\n<\/p>\n
            16. It will be useful to refer the evidence of D.W.1<\/p>\n
in this regard.      It is admitted by him that when the<\/p>\n
properties were divided in 1993, the property that was<\/p>\n
partitioned had access to the outside world through other<\/p>\n
means. The defendants have no case that at that time there<\/p>\n
was any necessity to use any portion of the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.              12<\/span><\/p>\n
property as a way.      D.W.1 would say that he had no<\/p>\n
knowledge whether his father had made any claim for<\/p>\n
easement by necessity over any portion of the property<\/p>\n
owned and possessed by the plaintiff. D.W.1 would say that<\/p>\n
he came to know about the suit when the commissioner<\/p>\n
comes to visit the place. One cannot overlook the criticism<\/p>\n
levelled against the commissioner for being a member of the<\/p>\n
office from which there was appearance for one of the<\/p>\n
defendants. The criticism is without any basis whatsoever.<\/p>\n
            17. Coming back to the evidence of D.W.1, he has<\/p>\n
stated that Kunhiraman, his predecessor in interest, who had<\/p>\n
sold the property to the plaintiff as per Ext.A1 document,<\/p>\n
had not retained any portion of that property for any<\/p>\n
purpose. There is nothing to indicate that at the time of sale<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman had asserted any way through the property of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff by way of necessity.      If that be so, the<\/p>\n
defendants cannot also claim the same.\n<\/p>\n
            18. What now remains to be considered is the<\/p>\n
claim regarding prescriptive right of easement.       At the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.                13<\/span><\/p>\n
outset itself, one may notice that the commission reports<\/p>\n
indicate that the pathway was recently laid. The records<\/p>\n
indicate that even after an interim order was issued by the<\/p>\n
trial court, the defendants continued their misdeeds. They<\/p>\n
alleged to have widened the pathway.\n<\/p>\n
            19. The partition among the defendants was of<\/p>\n
the year 1993. Since it is not shown that the predecessor in<\/p>\n
interest of the defendants had ever used any portion of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s property as a pathway, the use of the portion of<\/p>\n
the property of the plaintiff as a pathway can arise only after<\/p>\n
the partition Ext.B1 of the year 1993. If that be so, the<\/p>\n
defendants have not been using the disputed way for the<\/p>\n
statutory period.\n<\/p>\n
            20. It could thus be seen that the defendants can<\/p>\n
claim to use any portion of the property of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
neither by way of easement by necessity nor as easement<\/p>\n
by prescription. The findings of the courts below to that<\/p>\n
effect are fully justified.   No grounds are made out to<\/p>\n
R.S.A.151\/2010.                14<\/span><\/p>\n
interfere with the judgments and decrees of the courts<\/p>\n
below.\n<\/p>\n
            This appeal is without merits and it is accordingly<\/p>\n
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                           P. BHAVADASAN,
\n                                               JUDGE<\/p>\n
sb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 151 of 2010(B) 1. K.P.SUBHAKARAN, S\/O.K.K.KUNHIRAMAN, … Petitioner 2. V.P.CHANDRAN, S\/O.V.P.APPA, AGED 51 3. K.P.GANGADHARAN, S\/O.K.KUNHIRAMAN, 4. K.P.SHANMUGHAN, S\/O.K.KUNHIRAMAN, Vs 1. CHALIL SREEDHARAN, S\/O.KUNHIRAMAN, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN For Respondent :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE(CAVEATOR) 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-162303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010 - 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\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-23T02:39:32+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-23T02:39:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2384,\"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\\\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010\",\"name\":\"K.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-23T02:39:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"K.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010 - 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\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-23T02:39:32+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-23T02:39:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010"},"wordCount":2384,"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\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010","name":"K.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-23T02:39:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-subhakaran-vs-chalil-sreedharan-on-10-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.P.Subhakaran vs Chalil Sreedharan on 10 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/162303","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=162303"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162303\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}