{"id":163517,"date":"2009-07-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-10T02:39:09","modified_gmt":"2019-03-09T21:09:09","slug":"narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Narikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Narikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 710 of 1997(E)\n\n\n\n1. NARIKUTTY PRASANNA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. T.P.PADMINI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :15\/07\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                 M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.\n                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                    A.S.No. 710 of 1997\n                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n              Dated this the ...th day of July, 2009\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      This appeal is filed by plaintiffs 1 and 2 in O.S.No. 231<\/p>\n
of 1993 on the file of the Sub Court, Tellicherry.              The<\/p>\n
appellants\/plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiffs exclusively on<\/p>\n
the strength of a Will dated 25.11.86 executed by late Gouri<\/p>\n
and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants<\/p>\n
from taking any portion of the property from the possession of<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs by the final decree proceedings in O.S.68 of 89 of<\/p>\n
Sub Court Thalassery and for other reliefs.<\/p>\n
      2. The plaintiffs averred that the plaint schedule property<\/p>\n
originally belonged to one Lakshmi and her children Sumitha,<\/p>\n
Sarada, Gouri, Bharathi and Jayapalan. As per partition deed<\/p>\n
No. 1727\/20, the properties were partitioned between them and<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property was got by late Gouri as item No.5 in<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 710 of 1997<\/p>\n
                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
the said deed. The said Gouri died on 2.1.1987. Her mother<\/p>\n
and husband pre-deceased her and she had no children.<\/p>\n
Therefore, her sisters and the only brother Jayapalan were the<\/p>\n
legal heirs of deceased Gouri. The plaintiffs are the wife and<\/p>\n
child of     Jayapalan, the only brother of the said Gouri.<\/p>\n
Jayapalan died in 1986 and the plaintiffs are his legal heirs.<\/p>\n
The defendants herein are the sisters and children of deceased<\/p>\n
sisters of the said Gouri.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Although deceased Gouri had executed a Will dated<\/p>\n
25.11.86 bequeathing the plaint schedule property in favour of<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs, who were residing along with deceased Gouri.<\/p>\n
After the death of her husband, Gouri came down to her native<\/p>\n
place at Kannur and constructed a house in the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property and settled down there. She was residing along with<\/p>\n
her brother, deceased Jayapalan, and the plaintiffs, his wife and<\/p>\n
child, even after the death of Jayapalan.      Deceased Gouri<\/p>\n
persuaded them to stay with her and they continued to stay in<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 710 of 1997<\/p>\n
                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
the said house and they were looking after deceased Gouri<\/p>\n
with utmost affection and care. Until the death of said Gouri,<\/p>\n
she was in a sound and disposing state of mind and she was<\/p>\n
competent to execute the will. She died on account of heart<\/p>\n
attack. However the plaintiffs did not know of the execution of<\/p>\n
the Will.\n<\/p>\n
      4. A suit for partition of the plaint schedule property was<\/p>\n
filed by Sarada and Bharathy, who are sisters of deceased<\/p>\n
Gouri, claiming partition and separate allotment of their share.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs were also made parties in the said suit as they<\/p>\n
were also legal representatives of deceased Gouri. Since the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs were not aware of the will,       they could not put<\/p>\n
forward any claim as per the Will. They only claimed a share in<\/p>\n
the property as legal representatives of deceased Gouri.<\/p>\n
Subsequently a preliminary decree was passed in O.S.<\/p>\n
No.68\/89. As per the preliminary decree, the plaintiffs were<\/p>\n
held to be entitled to 25\/192 shares.\n<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 710 of 1997<\/p>\n
                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
      5. However, the plaintiffs came to know of the Will only<\/p>\n
on 19.2.1993. There was a steel shelf in the house with a<\/p>\n
locker inside. The sarees of Gouri were kept in the locker in<\/p>\n
that shelf. While the plaintiffs were cleaning the shelf, the<\/p>\n
sarees of the deceased were taken out and from among the<\/p>\n
sarees in the locker, the Will left by Gouri was got. Although<\/p>\n
the Will is not registered,     it is properly attested by two<\/p>\n
attesting witnesses. The plaintiffs enquired with the attesting<\/p>\n
witnesses and they also testified to the execution of the Will by<\/p>\n
deceased Gouri. The deceased Gouri was very affectionate<\/p>\n
towards the plaintiff, since they are the wife and child of her<\/p>\n
only brother, who stayed with her and looked after her.<\/p>\n
      6. As per the Will, the entire plaint schedule property is<\/p>\n
bequeathed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants, who are<\/p>\n
sisters and children of the deceased, have absolutely no right<\/p>\n
to the property. Since the plaintiffs were not aware of the Will,<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs could not produce the Will for claiming exclusive<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 710 of 1997<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
right on the basis of the Will.         It is accordingly that the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration that the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property belonged exclusively to them on the basis of the Will<\/p>\n
and they also prayed for injunction.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   In the Sub Court PWs. 1 to 3            and DW1 were<\/p>\n
examined. Exts.A1 to A5, B1 to B3 and X1 and X2 were<\/p>\n
marked. The learned Sub Judge, on considering the evidence,<\/p>\n
found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the genuineness of<\/p>\n
Ext.A5 Will and the suit was dismissed with compensatory<\/p>\n
cost of Rs.2,000\/-       Against that judgment and decree the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
      9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that<\/p>\n
the learned Sub Judge ought to have found that the evidence of<\/p>\n
the second plaintiff and also the attesting witnesses to the Will<\/p>\n
clearly prove the execution of the Will by deceased Gouri.<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 710 of 1997<\/p>\n
                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted<\/p>\n
that the learned Sub Judge is perfectly justified in finding that<\/p>\n
Ext.A5 Will is not genuine.\n<\/p>\n
      10. The main dispute is with regard to the genuineness<\/p>\n
of Ext.A5 unregistered Will dated 25.11.196 alleged to have<\/p>\n
been executed by deceased Gouri in respect of the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs.      There is no<\/p>\n
dispute that the plaint schedule property was allotted to the<\/p>\n
share of Gouri as Item No.5 as per Partition Deed No.1727 of<\/p>\n
1970 executed by Gouri and others. Jayapalan is the brother of<\/p>\n
deceased Gouri. The first plaintiff is the wife and second<\/p>\n
plaintiff is the son of Jayapalan. Jayapalan died in 1986 and<\/p>\n
Gouri died on 2.1.1987 due to heart attack.<\/p>\n
      11. Ext.B1 is the letter dt.13.2.1974 sent by deceased<\/p>\n
Gouri to Central Bank of India, Kannur branch.            Ext.B1<\/p>\n
contains the admitted signature of Gouri. Ext.B2 is the cheque<\/p>\n
dt.17.11.1986 drawn by deceased Gouri in favour of C.M.<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 710 of 1997<\/p>\n
                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
Bharathan. It also contained the admitted signature of Gouri.<\/p>\n
Ext.B3 is another cheque dt.8.12.1986 issued by deceased<\/p>\n
Gouri, which also contained the admitted signature of Gouri.<\/p>\n
Ext.A5 Will and Exts.B1 and B3 were fowarded to the<\/p>\n
handwriting expert for opinion. The relevant portion regarding<\/p>\n
the expert opinion is contained in the judgment of the learned<\/p>\n
Sub Judge, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
       Ext.A1 partition deed dated 16-11-70 is produced.<\/p>\n
       The name of Gouri is also seen in Ext.A1<\/p>\n
       document.     This Ext.A2 was produced by the<\/p>\n
       plaintiffs in order to substantiate their case that<\/p>\n
       there was a partition as alleged in the plaint.<\/p>\n
       Ext.A1(a) is the last page of Ext.A1 which was<\/p>\n
       subsequently produced and marked as Ext.A1(a).<\/p>\n
       It is a portion of the schedule attached to Ext.A1.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Ext.A2 is the certified copy of decree on the file of<\/p>\n
       this court in O.S. 68\/89 dated 12-8-91. It is a<\/p>\n
       preliminary decree for partition.     This Ext.A2<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 710 of 1997<\/p>\n
                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
      indicates that there was partition suit pending<\/p>\n
      before this court. A preliminary decree was passes<\/p>\n
      as alleged in the plaint. Further, the proceedings<\/p>\n
      are initiated for passing a final decree. Ext.A3 is<\/p>\n
      the income tax clearance certificate produced by<\/p>\n
      the plaintiffs in order to indicate that Gouri was an<\/p>\n
      income tax prayer.      Ext.A4 is a copy of letter<\/p>\n
      alleged to have issued by deceased Gouri<\/p>\n
      addressed     to    the    Commissioner,      Kannur<\/p>\n
      Municipality. This Ext.A4 is a request to the<\/p>\n
      Commissioner not to increase the tax in respect of<\/p>\n
      the property. Ext.A5 is the alleged Will produced<\/p>\n
      by the plaintiffs in order to show that the entire<\/p>\n
      property covered by Ext.A5 were bequeathed in<\/p>\n
      favour of the plaintiffs. It is an unregistered Will<\/p>\n
      dated 25-11-86 alleged to have executed by late<\/p>\n
      Gouri with attestation of two attesting witnesses.<\/p>\n
      This Ext.A5 is seriously disputed by the<\/p>\n
      defendants on the ground that it is a concocted and<\/p>\n
      forged document. They dispute its genuineness.<\/p>\n
      So, this Ext.A5 was sent for opinion of the expert.<\/p>\n
      That Expert opinion was received and marked as<\/p>\n
      Ext.X1. It is dated 27-12-95 wherein the expert<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 710 of 1997<\/p>\n
                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
      stated the documents in this case have been<\/p>\n
      carefully and thoroughly examined. The person<\/p>\n
      who wrote the red enclosed signatures stamped<\/p>\n
      and marked A1 to A5 did not write the red<\/p>\n
      enclosed signature similarly stamped and marked<\/p>\n
      Q1 to Q2. The admitted signatures of the deceased<\/p>\n
      Gouri were sent to the expert for his opinion. So,<\/p>\n
      this Ext.X1 report indicates that the alleged Will<\/p>\n
      Ext.A5 does not bear the signature of deceased<\/p>\n
      Gouri as contended by the plaintiff. Ext.X2 is an<\/p>\n
      opinion of the Expert which was called for at the<\/p>\n
      request of the defence counsel.        The defence<\/p>\n
      counsel filed a petition to serve interrogatories on<\/p>\n
      the Expert so as to enlighten to process by which<\/p>\n
      the conclusions were reached by the Expert. In<\/p>\n
      that answer to the interrogatories, the Expert<\/p>\n
      submitted   that  he    carefully   and   throughly<\/p>\n
      examined the original documents of the case in all<\/p>\n
      aspects of handwriting, identification and detection<\/p>\n
      of forgery with the scientific aids available in the<\/p>\n
      Govt.   of   India    Laboratory    at  Hyderabad.\n<\/p>\n
      According to him the person who wrote the red<\/p>\n
      enclosed signature stamped and marked A1 to A5<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 710 of 1997<\/p>\n
                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
      did not write the red enclosed signatures similarly<\/p>\n
      stamped and marked Q1 and Q2, based on the<\/p>\n
      following considerations:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Inter-se comparison of the standard signature<\/p>\n
      marked A1 to A5 reveals that these signatures are<\/p>\n
      written with freedom and speed consistent with the<\/p>\n
      Skill of the writer, show uniform and smooth line<\/p>\n
      quality, carelessness and abandon. These features<\/p>\n
      being accompaniment of natural writing indicate<\/p>\n
      an automatic and almost unconscious act on the<\/p>\n
      part of the writer. On the other hand, the disputed<\/p>\n
      signatures marked Q1 and Q2 show consciousness<\/p>\n
      on the part of the writer as indicated by hesitation<\/p>\n
      at places, defective line quality, drawn and<\/p>\n
      laboured in their execution which are inherent<\/p>\n
      signs of imitation. The disputed signatures Q1 and<\/p>\n
      Q2 strictly adhere to a fixed model and show less<\/p>\n
      variation among themselves when compared with<\/p>\n
      standard signature A1 to A5.         The disputed<\/p>\n
      signatures Q1 and Q2 almost tally on super-<\/p>\n
      imposition indicating that these signatures have<\/p>\n
      been produced by imitation.\n<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 710 of 1997<\/p>\n
                             11<\/span><\/p>\n
            In addition, they also show fundamental<\/p>\n
      divergences in individual writing habits. Manner<\/p>\n
      of execution of letter “N” with rotundity of its<\/p>\n
      shoulder as observed vide A5 is found different in<\/p>\n
      disputed signatures Q1 and Q2 – the letter “N” is<\/p>\n
      written resulting    angularity at its apex in the<\/p>\n
      disputes signatures; location and direction of finish<\/p>\n
      in execution of letter “O” is different vide Q1, Q2<\/p>\n
      and A1 to A5; manner of execution of letter “U”<\/p>\n
      with angularity of loops as observed in standard<\/p>\n
      signatures A1 to A5 is found different in disputed<\/p>\n
      signatures Q1 and Q2, shape of curved part of “P”<\/p>\n
      is also found different vide Q1, Q2 and A5.<\/p>\n
            The collective consideration of the presence<\/p>\n
      of various inherent signs of imitation in the<\/p>\n
      questioned    signatures   and   the   characteristic<\/p>\n
      differences in the individual writing habits<\/p>\n
      between the questioned and standard signatures are<\/p>\n
      significant and sufficient and are not due to natural<\/p>\n
      variation or intended disguise but due to their<\/p>\n
      different authorship”.\n<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 710 of 1997<\/p>\n
                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
      12. The second plaintiff, who was examined as PW1,<\/p>\n
has no direct knowledge with regard to the execution of Ext.A5<\/p>\n
Will. PW2 is alleged to have been an attesting witness to<\/p>\n
Ext.A5 Will. PW2 deposed that the contents of Ext.A5 Will<\/p>\n
was read over by the Scribe in the presence of Gouri and the<\/p>\n
attesting witnesses. PW2 deposed that he signed Ext.A5 Will<\/p>\n
first and thereafter the second attesting witness signed it. He<\/p>\n
further deposed that Gouri and the second attesting witness<\/p>\n
saw him signing Ext.A5 and he saw Gouri and the second<\/p>\n
attesting witness signing Ext.A5. PW2 deposed that Gouri<\/p>\n
died two months after the execution of Ext.A5 Will due to<\/p>\n
heart attack. In Ext.A5 the name of the Scribe, who prepared<\/p>\n
that document, is not mentioned. In cross examination PW2<\/p>\n
admitted that he did not say anything about the Will even to<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs after the death of Gouri till 1993.<\/p>\n
      13. PW3 deposed that he saw Gouri signing Ext.A5 Will.<\/p>\n
He also deposed that he did not reveal about the execution of<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 710 of 1997<\/p>\n
                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
the Will till 1993. The version of Pws. 2 and 3 that they did<\/p>\n
not disclose anything about the Will to the plaintiffs or to<\/p>\n
anybody else even after the death of Gouri appears to be not<\/p>\n
probable if Ext.A5 Will was actually executed by Gouri.<\/p>\n
      14. On appreciating the testimony of Pws. 1 to 3 in the<\/p>\n
light of the expert opinion, I am of the view that the learned<\/p>\n
Sub Judge is perfectly justified in finding that Ext.A5 is not a<\/p>\n
genuine Will executed by Gouri.         Considering the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of the lower court. Therefore, this appeal<\/p>\n
is liable to be dismissed, as it is without any merit.<\/p>\n
      15. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. The judgment<\/p>\n
and decree dismissing O.S.No. 231 of 1993 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Sub Court, Tellicherry are confirmed. The parties are directed<\/p>\n
to suffer their respective cost in this appeal.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                  (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)\ntm                                            Judge\n\nA.S.No. 710 of 1997\n\n                     14<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Narikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 710 of 1997(E) 1. NARIKUTTY PRASANNA … Petitioner Vs 1. T.P.PADMINI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL For Respondent :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS Dated :15\/07\/2009 O R D E R M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, […]<\/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-163517","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNarikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-09T21:09:09+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-09T21:09:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2250,\"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\\\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Narikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-09T21:09:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Narikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-09T21:09:09+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-09T21:09:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009"},"wordCount":2250,"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\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009","name":"Narikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-09T21:09:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narikutty-prasanna-vs-t-p-padmini-on-15-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narikutty Prasanna vs T.P.Padmini on 15 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163517","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=163517"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/163517\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=163517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=163517"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=163517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}