{"id":16248,"date":"2008-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008"},"modified":"2018-11-09T13:41:54","modified_gmt":"2018-11-09T08:11:54","slug":"kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Kaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 714 of 1995(B)\n\n\n\n1. KAITHAKAL CHANDI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. JOHN NEDUMPALLI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :07\/04\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n            ===========================\n              S.A. NO. 714    OF 1995\n            ===========================\n\n       Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    Defendant  in  O.S.114\/1988  on  the  file   of<\/p>\n
Munsiff  Court,   Payyannur   is   the   appellant.<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs  are  the   respondents.     Respondents<\/p>\n
instituted the suit originally for injunction which<\/p>\n
was  subsequently   converted  into   recovery   of<\/p>\n
possession.  Plaint A schedule property consists of<\/p>\n
two items.   First item having an extent of two<\/p>\n
acres and  second item having an extent of 1 acre.<\/p>\n
Both are in R.S.No.90\/1 of Vellora Village.  It is<\/p>\n
admitted case that Chacko was the original owner of<\/p>\n
the property having an extent of 9 acres inclusive<\/p>\n
of plaint A and B schedule property as well as the<\/p>\n
property belonging to appellant. Under Ext.B1 sale<\/p>\n
deed dated 18.9.1962, Chacko assigned the property<\/p>\n
in favour of Kaithakkal Mani  father of appellant.<\/p>\n
It is admitted case that under Ext.A1 sale deed<\/p>\n
dated 9.9.1975, Mani assigned 3 acres of land in<\/p>\n
S.A.714\/1995              2<\/span><\/p>\n
favour of first respondent John his wife second<\/p>\n
respondent    Valsamma and Joseph.  First respondent<\/p>\n
obtained     3\/5 shares,  second respondent his wife<\/p>\n
1\/5 share and Joseph      the remaining 1\/5 share.<\/p>\n
Under Ext.A2 release deed dated 5.5.1976, Joseph<\/p>\n
released     his 1\/5  share    in  favour  of  first<\/p>\n
respondent.     Respondents are claiming right and<\/p>\n
title to plaint A schedule property under Exts.A1<\/p>\n
and A2.      The disputed portion of the plaint    A<\/p>\n
schedule property is plaint B schedule property.<\/p>\n
Plaint B schedule property consists of two items.<\/p>\n
Item No.1 having an extent of 4 = cents and item<\/p>\n
No.2 having an extent of 6 = cents.     Though under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, 3 acres was assigned, the property assigned<\/p>\n
is not a compact block.    It consists of two plots<\/p>\n
one on the east and the other on the west.        In<\/p>\n
between is the property of assignor      Mani.   The<\/p>\n
disputed     item No.1 of plaint B schedule property<\/p>\n
is marked in Ext.C1 plan as plot A1. item No.2 of<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property is marked as plot B1.<\/p>\n
Respondents are claiming title to plot A1 and B1<\/p>\n
S.A.714\/1995                3<\/span><\/p>\n
part of plot X and Y marked in Ext.C1 plan,     on the<\/p>\n
strength of Ext.A1 and A2 title deeds.     Case of the<\/p>\n
appellant is that plot A1 and B1 do not form part<\/p>\n
of    the   property assigned   under  Ext.A1  and it<\/p>\n
actually forms the remaining property retained by<\/p>\n
executant Mani under Ext.A1 and respondents have no<\/p>\n
title to the property.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Learned Munsiff based on the evidence of<\/p>\n
Pws.1 and 2, DW1, Exts.A1 to A9, Exts.B1 to B5, C1<\/p>\n
and C2 found that plot A1 forms part of plot X,<\/p>\n
which is item No.1 of the property covered under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 and therefore respondents have title to the<\/p>\n
disputed plot Ext.A1.      Finding that plot B1 does<\/p>\n
not form part of 1 acre which is item No.2 of<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property      it was found that it<\/p>\n
does not form part of plot Y and respondents have<\/p>\n
no title to plot B1.      Though appellants contended<\/p>\n
before the trial court that        demarcation of the<\/p>\n
property     by the Commissioner in Ext.C1 plan is not<\/p>\n
correct and survey stone      P marked in Ext.C1 plan<\/p>\n
is not correct and it should be at point P1,<\/p>\n
S.A.714\/1995               4<\/span><\/p>\n
learned Munsiff on the evidence found that the<\/p>\n
survey stone could only be at point P as marked by<\/p>\n
the Commissioner in Ext.C1. Based on that report it<\/p>\n
was found that respondents have title to plot A1<\/p>\n
and respondents are    entitled to recover possession<\/p>\n
of    that   property.      Claim  for   recovery  of<\/p>\n
possession of plot B1 was rejected holding that<\/p>\n
respondents    have   no  title  to   that  property.<\/p>\n
Respondents did not challenge the denial of the<\/p>\n
claim for recovery of possession of    plot B1 either<\/p>\n
by filing a regular appeal or by filing a Cross<\/p>\n
Objection in the appeal filed by the defendants.<\/p>\n
Appellant    challenged   the  judgment  before   Sub<\/p>\n
Court,Payyannur    in  A.S.No.3\/1991.    Learned  Sub<\/p>\n
Judge on reappreciation of evidence confirmed the<\/p>\n
findings of learned Munsiff that Commissioner has<\/p>\n
correctly demarcated the property and    survey stone<\/p>\n
must be     at point P and not at point   P1 and item<\/p>\n
No.1 of Ext.A1 sale deed is inclusive of plot A1<\/p>\n
and plot X and respondents have title to the<\/p>\n
disputed plot A1.     The decree granted by the trial<\/p>\n
S.A.714\/1995                5<\/span><\/p>\n
court for recovery of possession of that plot was<\/p>\n
upheld.     It is challenged in the appeal.<\/p>\n
      3.    The appeal was admitted formulating the<\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         1.  Whether in the facts<\/p>\n
         and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
         case findings of courts<\/p>\n
         below     on          the<\/p>\n
         identification of plaint<\/p>\n
         schedule   property   are<\/p>\n
         correct?\n<\/p>\n
         2. Whether in the facts<\/p>\n
         and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
         case    courts below are<\/p>\n
         correct in holding that<\/p>\n
         the  position  of  survey<\/p>\n
         stone is at point P and<\/p>\n
         not at point P1.\n<\/p>\n
         3.  Whether in the facts<\/p>\n
         ad circumstances of the<\/p>\n
         case  courts   below  are<\/p>\n
S.A.714\/1995               6<\/span><\/p>\n
         correct in finding that<\/p>\n
         plot A2 and B2 are not<\/p>\n
         included in the property<\/p>\n
         of  plaintiff  and  those<\/p>\n
         plots  are   included  in<\/p>\n
         river puramboke?\n<\/p>\n
         4. Whether in the facts<\/p>\n
         and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
         case  courts  below  were<\/p>\n
         correct  to  receive  the<\/p>\n
         Commissioner’s  plan  and<\/p>\n
         report C1 and C2, when<\/p>\n
         the Commissioner admitted<\/p>\n
         that  he  has  not  taken<\/p>\n
         measurements   from   all<\/p>\n
         neighbouring       survey<\/p>\n
         stones   to    fix    the<\/p>\n
         position  of  the  survey<\/p>\n
         stone at point P?\n<\/p>\n
         5.  Whether on the facts<\/p>\n
         and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
S.A.714\/1995                7<\/span><\/p>\n
         case   courts  below  were<\/p>\n
         correct   to   find   that<\/p>\n
         plaintiff is entitled to<\/p>\n
         recovery of possession of<\/p>\n
         plot    A1,    when    the<\/p>\n
         property covered by the<\/p>\n
         document      by     which<\/p>\n
         plaintiff    is   claiming<\/p>\n
         right   is  not   properly<\/p>\n
         identified.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     Learned counsel appearing for appellant<\/p>\n
and respondents were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     Appellants have filed an application to<\/p>\n
receive       photo copies of the report and plan<\/p>\n
submitted by the Commissioner in O.S.132\/1991 as<\/p>\n
well as       judgment in that suit and the notice<\/p>\n
issued      by    District  Superintendent  of  Survey<\/p>\n
modifying the resurvey plan prepared      by the Taluk<\/p>\n
Surveyor on 20.10.92.      The documents sought to be<\/p>\n
produced     under  Rule  27  of  Order   41  are  not<\/p>\n
certified copies, but photo copies they      cannot be<\/p>\n
S.A.714\/1995                8<\/span><\/p>\n
received and the petition was not numbered by the<\/p>\n
registry.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The facts are not disputed.    Father of the<\/p>\n
appellant purchased the property under Ext.B1 sale<\/p>\n
deed.     Under Ext.A1, out of the said 9 acres, three<\/p>\n
acres were assigned in favour of appellants and<\/p>\n
Joseph.     Joseph under Ext.A2 released his right  in<\/p>\n
favour of first respondent.          As found by the<\/p>\n
courts below in his written statement appellant<\/p>\n
unambiguously     admitted   that   respondents   have<\/p>\n
obtained title to 3 acres of land in R.S.No.90\/1<\/p>\n
under Ext.A1.     Ext.A1 shows that the said 3 acres<\/p>\n
consist of 2 plots one eastern plot having an<\/p>\n
extent of 1 acre and western plot having an extent<\/p>\n
of 2 acres.     Plot X and Y, as demarcated in Ext.C1<\/p>\n
plan is admittedly the property in the possession<\/p>\n
of respondents under Ext.A1.       Though respondents<\/p>\n
claimed that plot B1 which lies to the west of plot<\/p>\n
Y and to the north of the property admittedly in<\/p>\n
the possession of appellant, is     part of item No.2<\/p>\n
of Ext.A1 sale deed, the claim was rejected by the<\/p>\n
S.A.714\/1995                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
trial court and was not challenged by respondents<\/p>\n
thereafter.      Therefore now the subsisting dispute<\/p>\n
is only with regard to plot A1.\n<\/p>\n
      7. Under Ext.A1 the extent of item No.1 is 2<\/span><\/p>\n
acres.      Plot X as demarcated by the Commissioner is<\/p>\n
having an extent of only 1.80 acres.           Plot A2<\/p>\n
which lies to the north of plot X and to the south<\/p>\n
of the northern river is having an extent of 9 =<\/p>\n
cents.      Even if the case of appellant that plot A2<\/p>\n
also forms part of the property covered under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 is accepted, along with plot X        the total<\/p>\n
extent could only be 1 acre 89 =         cents whereas<\/p>\n
under Ext.A1 the total extent is 2 acres.        Though<\/p>\n
appellant contended that plot A2 forms part of the<\/p>\n
property assigned under A1, as it lies to the south<\/p>\n
of the      northern  river   which is   shown  as  the<\/p>\n
northern boundary on item No.1 of the property<\/p>\n
covered under A1, it is not disputed that           the<\/p>\n
survey boundary line of R.S.No.90\/1 is to the south<\/p>\n
of plot A2.        If that be so, when the property<\/p>\n
assigned under Ext.A1 is only in      R.S.No.90\/1, plot<\/p>\n
S.A.714\/1995               10<\/span><\/p>\n
A2 cannot be part of that property.          What was<\/p>\n
argued      by  the  learned  counsel  appearing   for<\/p>\n
appellant was that the courts below should not have<\/p>\n
relied on Ext.C1 plan and should have found that<\/p>\n
the demarcation of plots in Ext.C1 plan is not<\/p>\n
correct.        It  was  pointed  out   that  as  PW2<\/p>\n
Commissioner deposed that he did not verify the<\/p>\n
position      of the survey stones from the admitted<\/p>\n
remaining survey stones and therefore point P is<\/p>\n
not the place where the survey stone should be, but<\/p>\n
point P1 and if so Ext.C2 report and Ext.C1      plan<\/p>\n
submitted by the Commissioner should not have been<\/p>\n
accepted,     it is seen from the records of the trial<\/p>\n
court that when the Commissioner submitted Ext.C2<\/p>\n
report and C1 plan, only an objection to record was<\/p>\n
filed by the appellant.     There was no prayer either<\/p>\n
to remit the report back to the Commissioner for<\/p>\n
proper identification or to correct any mistake or<\/p>\n
a petition to set aside the report on the basis<\/p>\n
that the property was not properly identified.     On<\/p>\n
going      through the   objections   raised  by   the<\/p>\n
S.A.714\/1995               11<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant     it is clear that the location of survey<\/p>\n
stone “5”which lies to the west of point P and P1<\/p>\n
seen in Ext.C1 was not disputed.    Ext.A9 the survey<\/p>\n
plan shows that the eastern survey stone from plot<\/p>\n
5 is at a distance of 380 links towards the east.<\/p>\n
If P1 is the point where the survey stone should<\/p>\n
be, as canvassed by the       appellant, then Ext.C1<\/p>\n
plan shows that instead of 380 links the distance<\/p>\n
is 381 links.       So also from the eastern survey<\/p>\n
stone as marked by the Commissioner at point Q is<\/p>\n
further east.      Though it was canvassed before the<\/p>\n
courts below that point Q was also not correctly<\/p>\n
fixed,      courts below found that it was correctly<\/p>\n
fixed.      From the point P the eastern survey stone<\/p>\n
should be at a distance of 227 links.         Q is a<\/p>\n
distance of 227 links from point P. If as canvassed<\/p>\n
by appellant the survey stone is     at P1 then  the<\/p>\n
survey stone       Q is not at a distance of 227 from<\/p>\n
point P1     but at a distance of 225 links.  In such<\/p>\n
circumstance,     case of the appellant that   survey<\/p>\n
stone should be at P1 cannot be accepted.      Courts<\/p>\n
S.A.714\/1995            12<\/span><\/p>\n
below on proper appreciation of evidence entered a<\/p>\n
factual finding that    Commissioner has correctly<\/p>\n
located the property in Ext.C1 plan and plot A1<\/p>\n
forms part of item No.1 of Ext.A1 sale deed and<\/p>\n
therefore respondents have title to that property.<\/p>\n
As respondents have title, they are entitled to the<\/p>\n
decree for recovery of possession granted by the<\/p>\n
courts below.    I find no merit in the appeal.<\/p>\n
Appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                               M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                        JUDGE
\ntpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n
   S.A..NO.714 \/1995\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    7TH APRIL,2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 714 of 1995(B) 1. KAITHAKAL CHANDI … Petitioner Vs 1. JOHN NEDUMPALLI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL For Respondent :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :07\/04\/2008 O R D E R […]<\/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-16248","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 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\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-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=\"2008-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-09T08:11:54+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T08:11:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1837,\"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\\\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Kaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-09T08:11:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 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":"Kaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 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\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-09T08:11:54+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T08:11:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008"},"wordCount":1837,"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\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008","name":"Kaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-09T08:11:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kaithakal-chandi-vs-john-nedumpalli-on-7-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kaithakal Chandi vs John Nedumpalli on 7 April, 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\/16248","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=16248"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16248\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16248"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16248"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16248"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}