{"id":164944,"date":"2009-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-01-29T17:40:38","modified_gmt":"2015-01-29T12:10:38","slug":"francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Francis vs Roy on 26 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Francis vs Roy on 26 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nFAO.No. 144 of 2009()\n\n\n1. FRANCIS, S\/O.CHEMMUNDA SIMON,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ROY, S\/O.KONIKKARA JOHN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. LISSY, W\/O.LATE CHEMMANDA PAULSON,\n\n3. MERVIN PAULSON, S\/O.LATE PAULSON,\n\n4. JEEVAN, S\/O.LATE PAULSON,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :26\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                           K. M. JOSEPH &\n                  M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                      F.A.O. No. 144 of 2009\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n          Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Joseph Francis, J.\n<\/p>\n
      This appeal is filed by the petitioner\/2nd judgment debtor,<\/p>\n
Francis, in E.A.No. 1250 of 2008 in E.P. No.412 of 2005 in<\/p>\n
O.S.No. 327 of 1998 on the file of the IInd Additional Sub<\/p>\n
Court, Trichur. The first respondent herein is the decree holder<\/p>\n
and respondents 2 to 4 are other judgment debtors in that E.P.<\/p>\n
      2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows. The<\/p>\n
first respondent       filed the above suit for realisation of<\/p>\n
money alleged to be due from Sri. Varghese, who is one of<\/p>\n
the brothers of the appellant. Paulson is the other brother,<\/p>\n
upon whose demise, respondents 2 to 4 were brought on the<\/p>\n
party array as his legal representatives. It is the allegation of<\/p>\n
F.A.O. No. 144 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
the plaintiff \/1st respondent that Varghese had incurred debts on<\/p>\n
account of credit given by the plaintiff\/1st respondent during the<\/p>\n
years 1993 to 1996. Varghese died in the year 1998. Subsequent<\/p>\n
to his death, the plaintiff\/1st respondent filed the above suit.<\/p>\n
      3. Though it is accepted that there was no privity of contract<\/p>\n
between the plaintiff and the defendants, the claim for realisation<\/p>\n
of money from the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 was based on<\/p>\n
the premise that the interest of late Varghese devolved on the<\/p>\n
appellant and respondents 2 to 4.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The Sub Court, Thrissur found that Varghese owed money<\/p>\n
to the plaintiff. The decree specifically provided that the plaintiff\/<\/p>\n
1st respondent can execute the decree against defendants therein<\/p>\n
only to the extent of any assets of deceased Varghese passing on to<\/p>\n
the defendants. An issue was raised in the said suit by the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent that Varghese was a legatee under the Will executed by<\/p>\n
Simon (the father of the appellant, late Varghese and late Paulson).<\/p>\n
F.A.O. No. 144 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
The trial court in its judgment held that Varghese was not a legatee<\/p>\n
under the Will and hence had no interest in the properties taken in<\/p>\n
by the said Will.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the court below, the first<\/p>\n
respondent preferred a revision petition, C.R.P. 501\/2005, before<\/p>\n
this Court   and this Court, without issuance of notice to the<\/p>\n
appellant herein, modified the judgment dated 25.2.2003 of the Sub<\/p>\n
Court, Thrissur. While modifying the judgment, this Hon’ble Court<\/p>\n
held that Varghese was a legatee under the Will of Simon.<\/p>\n
      6. As the Order in C.R.P. 501 of 2005 was passed behind<\/p>\n
the back of the appellant, he obviously was not aware about the<\/p>\n
interference made by this Court in the Revision Petition. As per<\/p>\n
the decree of the Sub Court, Thrissur in O.S. 327 of 1998, the<\/p>\n
appellant, having not inherited any property upon the death of his<\/p>\n
brother Sri. Varghese, was not a party against whom execution<\/p>\n
proceedings could be taken for realization of money due from the<\/p>\n
F.A.O. No. 144 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
assets of late Varghese. The appellant therefore did not foresee<\/p>\n
any execution proceedings being taken out against him. But in the<\/p>\n
year 2008, the appellant received notice in an application filed by<\/p>\n
the 1st respondent.    The said application was filed by the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent with a prayer for taking delivery of the property, which<\/p>\n
belonged to the appellant and his brother late Paulson. The said<\/p>\n
property, which originally belonged to the father of the appellant,<\/p>\n
devolved upon the appellant and his brother, late Paulson, by virtue<\/p>\n
of the above said Will. According to the judgment of the trial<\/p>\n
court, it was clearly held that late Varghese had no interest in the<\/p>\n
properties taken in by the Will. But the 1st respondent proceeded<\/p>\n
against the very same property.\n<\/p>\n
      7. Upon receipt of notice on the application for delivery, the<\/p>\n
appellant made enquiries regarding the proceedings in EP<\/p>\n
412\/2005. The appellant then understood that he was set ex parte<\/p>\n
on the execution side on 5.6.2006. The appellant therefore filed<\/p>\n
F.A.O. No. 144 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
two applications dated 13.11.2008, viz., E.A.1250 of 2008, to set<\/p>\n
aside the order setting him ex parte and E.A. 1247 of 2008 to<\/p>\n
condone the delay in filing the said petition.<\/p>\n
      8. In support of the said two applications, the appellant was<\/p>\n
examined as PW1.       Accordingly evidence was let in to show<\/p>\n
sufficient cause that the appellant had no notice of execution, that<\/p>\n
the appellant was paralised for about 2 years from 2005, that there<\/p>\n
was collusion between the respondents to defeat the appellant and<\/p>\n
that the delay occurred not on account of any wilful or intentional<\/p>\n
act of the appellant.    There was no contra evidence from the<\/p>\n
opposite side. The court below dismissed the applications by the<\/p>\n
impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   The 1st respondent brought to sale about 7 cents of<\/p>\n
property, which is situated near ‘Saraj Round’ and the said property<\/p>\n
was purchased for an amount of about Rs.7 lakhs. The said<\/p>\n
property, it was found by the trial court, does not belong to late<\/p>\n
F.A.O. No. 144 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
Varghese. One half of the share belongs to the appellant and the<\/p>\n
other half belongs to another brother late Paulson, whose legal<\/p>\n
representatives are respondents 2 to 4 herein. The court below has<\/p>\n
not considered the applications looking into the merits of the case<\/p>\n
and the application to condone the delay and to set aside the order<\/p>\n
setting the appellant exparte were dismissed.    Aggrieved by the<\/p>\n
order of the court below, this appeal is filed invoking the provision<\/p>\n
of Order XLIII Rule 1(ia) of the Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n
      10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
      11.    The learned counsel for the appellant       invited our<\/p>\n
attention to the decision of the Apex Court reported in         Desh<\/p>\n
Bandhu Gupta v. N.L. Anand & Rajinder Singh<\/a> ((1994) 1<\/p>\n
SCC 131), in which it was held that service of notice to judgment<\/p>\n
debtor under Order 21 Rule 66(2) and 54(1-A) is mandatory and<\/p>\n
that sale without notice is a nullity. In the decision reported in<\/p>\n
F.A.O. No. 144 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
Krishna Pillai v. Velayudha Kurup<\/a> (1943 TLR 400 (FB) it was<\/p>\n
held that service of notice under Order 21 Rule 22 C.P.C. is<\/p>\n
mandatory and that execution proceedings held without such notice<\/p>\n
will be void. In the decision reported in  Rajagopala Aiyar v.<\/p>\n
Ramanujachariyar & anr. (AIR 1924 Madras 431) it was held<\/p>\n
that, while an application for execution falling under Order 21<\/p>\n
Rule 22 to which clause (2) of that Rule is not applied, a sale in<\/p>\n
execution is held without issuing notice provided for in clause (1)<\/p>\n
the sale is absolutely void and not merely voidable as against the<\/p>\n
person, to whom notice should have been but was not issued.<\/p>\n
      12.   The learned counsel for the appellant invited our<\/p>\n
attention to the decision in Khoobehand Jain & anr. v. Kashi<\/p>\n
Prasad & ors. (AIR 1986 M.P. 66), in which it was held:<\/p>\n
             “The decree holders filed an application for<\/p>\n
       execution of a decree.   Executing Court ordered to<\/p>\n
       issue a warrant of attachment of movable property on<\/p>\n
F.A.O. No. 144 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
      furnishing a list of movable property. Since decree<\/p>\n
      holders failed to submit the list,      no warrant of<\/p>\n
      attachment was issued. The Court adjourned the case<\/p>\n
      awaiting the execution of warrant. On adjourned date,<\/p>\n
      neither the decree holders nor their counsel appeared in<\/p>\n
      the Court when the case was called out. The execution<\/p>\n
      application was therefore, dismissed in default of<\/p>\n
      appearance of decree holders.          Decree holders<\/p>\n
      submitted an application u\/O. 21 R.106 for restoration<\/p>\n
      of execution case and gave reason of their illness for<\/p>\n
      their absence. They also submitted another application<\/p>\n
      u\/s. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning delay in<\/p>\n
      making restoration application. Dismissal of the said<\/p>\n
      application was challenged.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Held, that the date on which the execution<\/p>\n
      application was dismissed for default of appearance of<\/p>\n
      the decree holders, was not a date fixed for ‘hearing’<\/p>\n
      within the meaning of R.105. It was a date awaiting<\/p>\n
      report as to execution of the warrant which was<\/p>\n
      supposed to be issued on submission of a list of<\/p>\n
      movable property by the decree holders within three<\/p>\n
F.A.O. No. 144 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
      days of the earlier order. Consequently, the dismissal<\/p>\n
      of execution application was not under R.105(2) of<\/p>\n
      O.21 and therefore, the provisions of R.106 are not<\/p>\n
      attracted. The dismissal of the execution application in<\/p>\n
      default of appearance is referable to inherent powers of<\/p>\n
      the Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Held further that, since the dismissal of the<\/p>\n
      execution application was under inherent powers, the<\/p>\n
      application for its restoration will be by invoking the<\/p>\n
      inherent powers of the Court and in that event, no time<\/p>\n
      limit is prescribed for invoking the inherent powers of<\/p>\n
      the Court.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      13. Admittedly, the appellant is the second judgment debtor<\/p>\n
in the money decree in O.S.No. 327 of 1998 on the file of the Sub<\/p>\n
Court, Trichur. The first respondent\/decree holder filed E.P. No.<\/p>\n
412 of 2005 before the IInd Additional Sub Court, Trichur for<\/p>\n
execution of that decree. The petition schedule property, having<\/p>\n
F.A.O. No. 144 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
an extent of 7 cents, was sold in court auction on 14.6.2007 and<\/p>\n
the sale was confirmed on 16.8.2007. E.A. 1250 of 2008 to set<\/p>\n
aside the ex parte order and E.A. 1247 of 2008 to condone the<\/p>\n
delay in filing that petition were filed by the second judgment<\/p>\n
debtor on 13.11.2008.\n<\/p>\n
      14. On perusing the lower court records, it is seen that E.P.<\/p>\n
412 of 2005 was filed by the decree holder for realisation of an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.12,85,378\/- and Rule 22 notice was ordered on<\/p>\n
23.8.2005 and that notice was served on the second judgment<\/p>\n
debtor, Francis, and he was set ex parte on 22.2.2006.         On<\/p>\n
22.2.2006, Rule 66 notice was ordered and it was served on him<\/p>\n
and he was set ex parte on 5.6.2006. Another Rule 66 notice was<\/p>\n
was again ordered on 26.9.2006 and that notice was personally<\/p>\n
served on the second judgment debtor, Francis, and he was set ex<\/p>\n
parte on 8.11.2006. The decree holder filed E.A.No.1331 of 2006<\/p>\n
to attach the petition schedule property on 15.7.2006 in E.P.No.<\/p>\n
F.A.O. No. 144 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
412 of 2005 and     notice was personally served on the second<\/p>\n
judgment debtor on 18.8.2006.     Therefore, it cannot be said that<\/p>\n
the second judgment debtor had not served with notice under<\/p>\n
Order 21 Rule 22 or Rule 66 or 54(1-A) of C.P.C.<\/p>\n
     15. Order 21 Rule 106 provides that an application to set<\/p>\n
aside the ex parte order in execution shall be made within 30 days<\/p>\n
from the date of the order and in the case of of an ex parte order<\/p>\n
the notice was not duly served within 30 days from the date when<\/p>\n
the applicant had knowledge of the order.\n<\/p>\n
     16. In the present case, notice under Rule 22, Rule 66 and 51<\/p>\n
(1-A) were duly served on the appellant\/second judgment debtor in<\/p>\n
appropriate time and he was set ex parte.        Section 5 of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act makes it clear that that section is not applicable to<\/p>\n
an application under any of the provisions in Order 21 C.P.C.<\/p>\n
Therefore the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte<\/p>\n
F.A.O. No. 144 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
order cannot be condoned. Therefore, the learned Sub Judge is<\/p>\n
justified in dismissing both the petitions.<\/p>\n
       17. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to<\/p>\n
cost.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                           (K. M. JOSEPH)
\n                                               Judge<\/p>\n
                                       (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
\n                                                 Judge<\/p>\n
tm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Francis vs Roy on 26 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM FAO.No. 144 of 2009() 1. FRANCIS, S\/O.CHEMMUNDA SIMON, … Petitioner Vs 1. ROY, S\/O.KONIKKARA JOHN, … Respondent 2. LISSY, W\/O.LATE CHEMMANDA PAULSON, 3. MERVIN PAULSON, S\/O.LATE PAULSON, 4. JEEVAN, S\/O.LATE PAULSON, For Petitioner :SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.) For Respondent […]<\/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-164944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFrancis vs Roy on 26 November, 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\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Francis vs Roy on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-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=\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-29T12:10:38+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Francis vs Roy on 26 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-29T12:10:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1835,\"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\\\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Francis vs Roy on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-29T12:10:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Francis vs Roy on 26 November, 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":"Francis vs Roy on 26 November, 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\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Francis vs Roy on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-29T12:10:38+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Francis vs Roy on 26 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-29T12:10:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009"},"wordCount":1835,"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\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009","name":"Francis vs Roy on 26 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-29T12:10:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-roy-on-26-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Francis vs Roy on 26 November, 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\/164944","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=164944"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164944\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}