{"id":165668,"date":"1995-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1995-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995"},"modified":"2016-01-10T10:00:16","modified_gmt":"2016-01-10T04:30:16","slug":"padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995","title":{"rendered":"Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R.M. Sahai, B.L. Hansaria<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5259 of 1995\n\nPETITIONER:\nPADMAVATHY AMMA\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAMMUNNI PANICKER AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/05\/1995\n\nBENCH:\nR.M. SAHAI &amp; B.L. HANSARIA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>1995 (3) SCR 1056<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n<p>HANSARIA, J. This appeal by special leave requires determination of the<br \/>\nquestion as to whether the gift of the suit property by Padmanabha in<br \/>\nfavour of his sister was to the Tavazhi of the sister or was for the<br \/>\nbenefit of the sister alone. The parties being governed by Marumakkathayam<br \/>\nLaw, to answer the question, we shall have to refer to that law and<br \/>\nascertain the intention of the donor as reflected in the gift (which was<br \/>\nbrought on record in the trial court as Ext. A-l); and then decide whether<br \/>\nthe gift to Kochukuni has to anure to her benefit alone or to her Tavazhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  Respondent No. 1 filed the suit at hand claiming one-third share in the<br \/>\ngifted property as a son of Kochukunhi, who had another son and a daughter.<br \/>\nThe trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the High Court held that the<br \/>\nplaintiff was entitled to one-sixth share and remanded the case to the<br \/>\ntrial court for fresh disposal after answering all the other issues in the<br \/>\nsuit. Feeling aggrieved, the daughter of Kochukunhi has filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Let the broad terms of the gift deed be first noted. The perusal of the<br \/>\nsame shows that the properties were gifted out of love and affection to the<br \/>\nsister and her descendants in the female line. The deed further says that<br \/>\nthe property shall devolve in no other way. Then it recites that if there<br \/>\nbe need to encumber the property, the document shall be signed by the major<br \/>\nfemale members. It, however, further says that after the life time of the<br \/>\ndonor and donee, all the major male members should join the document to<br \/>\nencumber the property otherwise it would not be valid.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Relying on the aforesaid terms of the gift deed, it is contended by Shri<br \/>\nViswanath Iyer, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the appellant that the daughter<br \/>\nof Kochukunhi alone had right and title in the property after the death of<br \/>\nthe donee. The High Court, however, did not accept this case of the<br \/>\ndefendant- appellant, because, according to it, the gift being to the<br \/>\nsister, a female, has to be presumed, in the absence of the contrary<br \/>\nintention, to be a gift to be held by the donee as tenancy-in-common. It<br \/>\nwas further opined by the High Court that notwithstanding the exclusion of<br \/>\nmale members, the plaintiff was entitled to claim a share as a member of<br \/>\nTavazhi, and there cannot be any Tavazhi excluding the male members. As<br \/>\nKochukunni&#8217;s daughter was alive at the time of gift, the High Court opined<br \/>\nthat Kochukunhi was entitled to half of the gifted properties; and she<br \/>\nhaving one daughter and two sons, the plaintiff became entitled to one-<br \/>\nthird of the half, that is, one-sixth of the whole. It is because of this<br \/>\nthat the plaintiffs claim to one- sixth share was accepted and not one-<br \/>\nthird as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Shri Viswanath Iyer has contended that under Marumakkathayam Law it is<br \/>\nthe daughter alone who was entitled to whole of the property of Kochukunhi.<br \/>\nShri Poti appearing for the first respondent, however, submits that where a<br \/>\ngift is to a relation like wife, she holds the same on behalf of her<br \/>\nchildren also, if there be any. To put it differently, the presumption<br \/>\nwould be that the donee takes on behalf of the Tavazhi, of which the son is<br \/>\nundoubtedly a member.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.  Being concerned with parties governed by Marumakkathayam Law, we may<br \/>\nfirst state that in this system of law succession to property is traced<br \/>\nthrough females, though the expression Marumakkathayam strictly means<br \/>\ninheritance by sister&#8217;s children. It is because of this that a man&#8217;s heirs<br \/>\nare not his sons and daughters, but his sisters and their children-the<br \/>\nmother forming the stock of descent and inheritance being traced through<br \/>\nmother to daughter, daughter&#8217;s daughter and so on. It may then be stated<br \/>\nthat a Marummakathayam family is known a Tarawad and consists of a group of<br \/>\npersons, males and females, all tracing descent from a common ancestress.<br \/>\nAn ordinary Tarawad consists of the mother, her children, male and female,<br \/>\nthe children of such females and their descendants in the female line, how-<br \/>\nlow-soever, living under the control and direction of the Karnavan, who is<br \/>\nthe eldest male member. (See pages 1 and 2 of M.P. Jospen&#8217;s book &#8216;The<br \/>\nPrinciples of Marumakkathayam Law.)<\/p>\n<p>7.  The Tarawad is thus atypical matriachal family, with all its incidents,<br \/>\nwhich are well settled, as would appear from what was stated by a<br \/>\nConstitution Bench of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1431786\/\">U.K. Kochuni v. State of Madras,<\/a> [1960]<br \/>\n3 SCR 887. Subba Rao, J., as he then was, speaking for the majority dealt<br \/>\nwith this aspect at pages 928 and 929 of the judgment. After pointing out<br \/>\nthat Marumakkathayam family consists of all the descendants of the female<br \/>\nline of one common ancestor (sic ancestress) and is called a Tarawad, it<br \/>\nwas stated that the incidents of the Tarawad are so well-settled that is<br \/>\nnot necessary to consider the case law, but it would be enough if some<br \/>\nrelevant passages from the book &#8216;Malabar and Aliyasantana Law&#8217; by Sundara<br \/>\nAiyar are cited; and it was so done. It is not necessary to quote the<br \/>\npassages. Suffice to say that according to learned author, the joint family<br \/>\nin a Marumakkathayam Tarawad consists of a mother and her male and female<br \/>\nchildren, and the children of those female children, and so on. The rights<br \/>\nof the junior male members have thereafter been enumerated by stating<br \/>\nultimately that everyone is a proprietor and has equal rights.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.  The gift at hand being to female, let it be seen as to how such a gift<br \/>\nhas been treated by the concerned High Courts of the country. In M.P.<br \/>\nKunhamina v. M.P. Kunhambi, ILR 32 Madras 315, the Court was called upon to<br \/>\nconstruct a gift which was by a husband to his wife and three daughters,<br \/>\nexcluding the male members. The fight, however, was between the daughters<br \/>\nand it was held, on construction of the document, that descendants of one<br \/>\ndaughter were not excluded from inheriting the gifted property because of<br \/>\nthe death of their ancestor before her sisters. In the present case, we are<br \/>\nnot concerned with such a situation; nonetheless, the decision is relevant<br \/>\nas it states that there cannot be total disinheritance of some of the<br \/>\ndonees. In KM. Kutty v. N.P. Ayissa, ILR 51 Madras 574, the gift was by a<br \/>\nhusband to his wife and children. The wife, however, had some children by<br \/>\nformer husband. The Bench opined that in such a situation the donee did not<br \/>\ntake the property as Tarawad property. What is important for our purpose is<br \/>\nthat this decision refers to Kunnacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee,lLR 16<br \/>\nMadras 241, which was founded on some principles laid down by the Privy<br \/>\nCouncil, one of which is to the effect that when a Marumakkathayam man&#8217;s<br \/>\nproperty is given to his wife and children, without any expression of<br \/>\nintention how they were to enjoy it, they must be held to have taken it<br \/>\nwith incidents of property held by a Tarawad. As to what is meant by a<br \/>\nTarawad was explained in A.K. Haji v. I.P.Bi, [1958] KLT 815, stating that<br \/>\nTarawad means in law a Marumakkathayam family holding property as a joint-<br \/>\nfamily with all the incidents of a joint-family under Marumakkathayam Law.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.  It would also be useful to see as to how this aspect has been explained<br \/>\nin standard treatise. It has been stated as below in Mayne&#8217;s Hindu Law at<br \/>\npages 1188 and 1189 of 12th Edition:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;In the matter of gifts, the question has often arisen whether a gift is<br \/>\nmade to tavazhi as such or whether the donees take as tenants-in-common.<br \/>\nThe ordinary presumption is that when properties are given by way of gift<br \/>\nto a woman and her children or her children alone following the<br \/>\nMarumakkathayam or Allayasantana Law, the property is taken by the donees<br \/>\nwith the incidents of tarwad property. Only some of the members of a<br \/>\ntavazhi cannot hold the property with the incidents of tarwad property;<br \/>\nhence when a gift is made to them, they will take it as tenants-in-common<br \/>\nunless there are circumstances to justify the inference that they took it<br \/>\non behalf of the entire tavazhi. when property is given to the mother<br \/>\nalone, when there are children, the presumption that she takes it on behalf<br \/>\nof the tavazhi is rebutted.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The author has then referred to section 48 of the Marumakkathayam Act which<br \/>\napplied to transactions after 1st August, 1933, which laid down that when a<br \/>\nperson gives property to his wife alone, such property shall, unless a<br \/>\ncontrary intention appears, be taken as Tavazhi property by the wife. Under<br \/>\nsection 22 of the Travancore Nair Act of 1100 M.Y. (Malayalami Year), to<br \/>\nwhich reference has been made by the High Court, a gift has to be held by<br \/>\nthe donees as tenancy in common.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  In K.S. Variar&#8217;s &#8216;Marumakkathayam and Allied Systems of Law in the<br \/>\nKerala State&#8217;, it has been stated at page 91 of the 1st edition (1969) that<br \/>\nthe presumption in the Travancore State is that a gift in favour of mother<br \/>\nalone is for the tavazhi. Similar view has been expressed by M.P. Joseph in<br \/>\nhis above-mentioned book at page 295 of the revised edition (1926) by<br \/>\nstating that even though a gift is made in the sole name of the mother, all<br \/>\nthe children take the properties as Makkathayam.\n<\/p>\n<p>11. All the above do not leave any doubt in our mind that under the gift in<br \/>\nquestion, even if the same be construed to have been only for the benefit<br \/>\nof Kochukunhi, all her three children had equal interest in the property.<br \/>\nThe High Court was, therefore, right in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff<br \/>\nto one-sixth share of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>12. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal<br \/>\ndismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995 Bench: R.M. Sahai, B.L. Hansaria CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5259 of 1995 PETITIONER: PADMAVATHY AMMA RESPONDENT: AMMUNNI PANICKER AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/05\/1995 BENCH: R.M. SAHAI &amp; B.L. HANSARIA JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 1995 (3) SCR 1056 The Judgment of the [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165668","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1995-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-10T04:30:16+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\\\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995\",\"datePublished\":\"1995-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-10T04:30:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995\"},\"wordCount\":1692,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995\",\"name\":\"Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1995-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-10T04:30:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995\"}]},{\"@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":"Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1995-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-10T04:30:16+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\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995","datePublished":"1995-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-10T04:30:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995"},"wordCount":1692,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995","name":"Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1995-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-10T04:30:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathy-amma-vs-ammunni-panicker-and-anr-on-2-may-1995#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Padmavathy Amma vs Ammunni Panicker And Anr on 2 May, 1995"}]},{"@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\/165668","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=165668"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165668\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165668"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165668"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165668"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}