{"id":16592,"date":"2009-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009"},"modified":"2016-10-06T06:27:46","modified_gmt":"2016-10-06T00:57:46","slug":"vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 398 of 2008()\n\n\n1. VASAPPAN, S\/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 59,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SARADA, W\/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 65,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MOHANAN, S\/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 55,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. PANKIAMMA, W\/O.KARUNAPPAN, AGED 56,\n\n3. CHINNAMMA KURIYAN, W\/O.KURIAN,\n\n4. MOHANAN, MAZHUVANCHERIL PUTHUPARAMBIL,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.S.MANILAL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :19\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n                * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n                       R.S.A. NO. 398 of 2008\n               * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n                         Dated:        19-01-2009\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>     Defendants 1 and 3 in O.S. No. 318 of 1998 on the file of the<br \/>\nMunsiff&#8217;s Court, Changanassery are the appellants in this Second<br \/>\nAppeal. The said suit instituted by the first respondent herein by<br \/>\nname Mohanan was one for declaration of title over plaint schedule<br \/>\nitem No.1 and for fixation of boundary and also for a perpetual<br \/>\ninjunction consequential to the main reliefs.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.    Both the courts have granted a decree as prayed for.<br \/>\nHence, this Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>     3.    The following are the questions of law formulated in the<br \/>\nmemorandum of Second Appeal:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>      i)    Whether the finding of the Courts below to the effect that a Gift of<br \/>\n      immovable property can be accepted by the sister of the mother of the<br \/>\n      minor plaintiff while the natural guardian father is alive ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      ii)   Is the Gift in question in this case (Ext.A1) is void due to its<br \/>\n      acceptance by a de facto guardian other than the natural guardian of a<br \/>\n      Hindu minor due to the interdict of Section 11 of Hindu Minority and<br \/>\n      Guardianship Act ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      iv) Whether Section 6 and 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">R.S.A. NO. 398 of 2008                 -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>       overrides any other provisions of law in the matter of guardianship of<br \/>\n       Hindu minors and in which event, the acceptance of a Gift as contemplated<br \/>\n       by Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act contemplating acceptance of<br \/>\n       gift to which, the former provisions be read into for the purpose of<br \/>\n       considering the legality or otherwise of the Gift ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>      4.    The learned counsel appearing for the appellants re-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>iterated the contentions of the appellants. The following are the<br \/>\nfacts which have been concurrently found by the courts below:-\n<\/p>\n<p>      15 cents of land belonged one Sumathi who is no more.<br \/>\nSumathi had an elder brother by name Vijayan who is also no more.<br \/>\nDefendants 1 and 2 are             respectively the younger brother and<br \/>\nyounger sister of Sumathi who had only one son , the plaintiff.<br \/>\nDuring her lifetime, Sumathi executed a registered gift deed dated<br \/>\n14-10-1961. Plaint schedule item No. 1 admeasuring 3.750 cents<br \/>\nwas gifted by Sumathi to           her son the plaintiff who was then a<br \/>\nminor, described as the &#8216;D&#8217; schedule property under Ext.A1. Plaint<br \/>\nschedule item No. 2 again admeasuring 3.750 cents was gifted by<br \/>\nSumathi as the &#8216;C&#8217; schedule to Ext.A1 to her younger sister the 2nd<br \/>\ndefendant. Plaint schedule item No. 3 admeasuring 3.750 cents was<br \/>\ngifted by Sumathi as the B schedule to Ext.A1 to her younger<br \/>\nbrother the first defendant.           Plaint schedule item No. 4 again<br \/>\nadmeasuring 3.750 cents            was gifted       by Sumathi to her elder<br \/>\nbrother Vijayan as the A schedule under Ext.A1. Subsequently the<br \/>\n2nd defendant sold plaint schedule item No. 2 corresponding to &#8220;C&#8221;<br \/>\nSchedule    under Ext.A1 gift deed to her               elder brother the first<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">R.S.A. NO. 398 of 2008          -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>defendant as per Ext.A3 sale deed dated 2-11-1982. Thereafter, as<br \/>\nper Ext.A4 sale deed dated 23-5-1994 the first defendant sold<br \/>\nplaint schedule item No. 2 corresponding to the C schedule          in<br \/>\nExt.A1 gift deed to the 3rd defendant who is a stranger.      But the<br \/>\nproperty which was put in possession of the 3rd defendant under<br \/>\nExt.A4 sale deed was not plaint schedule item No. 2 but the plaint<br \/>\nschedule item No. 1 corresponding to the D schedule to Ext.A1 gift<br \/>\ndeed. It was with regard to this property that the plaintiff filed the<br \/>\nsuit in the year 1998 seeking declaration    of title,  recovery of<br \/>\npossession, fixation of boundary and for consequential injunction.<br \/>\nThe suit was resisted by the appellants   contending inter alia that<br \/>\nthe 2nd defendant who was the maternal aunt of the plaintiff and to<br \/>\nwhom plaint schedule item No. 2 was gifted under Ext.A1 gift deed<br \/>\nas the plaint C schedule thereto had also accepted the gift of<br \/>\nplaint schedule item No. 1     (D schedule of Ext. A1) . gifted by<br \/>\nSumathi to her minor son the plaintiff and that the rights of the<br \/>\nplaintiff over the plaint schedule item No. 1 were lost by adverse<br \/>\npossession and limitation. The said contention has been repelled<br \/>\nby both the courts. Even according to the first defendant as per<br \/>\nExt.A3 sale deed he     only purchased the &#8220;C&#8221;   schedule property<br \/>\nunder Ext.A1 gift deed which corresponds to plaint schedule item<br \/>\nNo. 2 from the 2nd defendant to whom the said property was gifted<br \/>\nunder Ext.A1.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.    Thus after Ext.A3 sale deed the first defendant could<br \/>\nhave possessed only     B and C schedule properties under Ext.A1<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">R.S.A. NO. 398 of 2008             -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>corresponding to plaint schedule item nos. 3 and 2 respectively.<br \/>\nThereafter the first defendant claims to have sold the C schedule<br \/>\nproperty (plaiant schedule item No. 2) to the 3rd defendant as per<br \/>\nExt.A4 sale deed dated 23-4-1994.        Neither the second defendant<br \/>\nnor the first defendant had any case that the 2nd defendant      who<br \/>\npurportedly accepted the gift of the plaint schedule item No. 1 on<br \/>\nbehalf of the plaintiff  had transferred her possession of the same<br \/>\nto the first defendant. The first defendant also had no case that as<br \/>\nper Ext.A4 sale deed, the property sold was not the &#8216;C&#8217; schedule<br \/>\nunder Ext.A1 corresponding to the plaint schedule item No. 2 but<br \/>\nwas the plaint schedule       item     No. 1 corresponding to the D<br \/>\nschedule property under Ext.A1 which was gifted to the plaintiff.<br \/>\nUnder these circumstances, the contention of the appellants that<br \/>\nthey had perfected     their title over plaint schedule item No. 1 by<br \/>\nadverse possession and limitation was rightly repelled by the courts<br \/>\nbelow . No doubt, even though under Ext.A4 sale deed dated 23-<br \/>\n5-1994 the property which the first defendant sold to the 3rd<br \/>\ndefendant was the plaint schedule item No. 2 corresponding to the<br \/>\n&#8220;C&#8221; schedule to Ext.A1 the property which was actually put in<br \/>\npossession of the 3rd defendant was the plaint schedule item No. 1<br \/>\ncorresponding to D schedule to Ext.A1 gift deed. Thus, D3 got<br \/>\npossession of plaint schedule item No. 1 only in the year 1994. Of<br \/>\ncourse, the defendants        had a case that the plaintiff was in<br \/>\npossession of &#8216;C&#8217; schedule property under Ext.A1 corresponding to<br \/>\nplaint schedule item No. 2 . But then, admittedly, the 3rd defendant<br \/>\nhas instituted O.S. 198 of 2000 for recovery of possession of the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">R.S.A. NO. 398 of 2008                -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>plaint &#8220;C&#8221; schedule property against the plaintiff. Moreover, in the<br \/>\npresent suit, we are not concerned about the plaint schedule item<br \/>\nNo. 2 corresponding to the C schedule property under Ext.A1 gift<br \/>\ndeed. The finding that the plaintiff has title over the plaint schedule<br \/>\nitem No. 1 corresponding to the D schedule to Ext. A1 gift deed has<br \/>\nbeen rightly recorded by the courts below. Similarly, the finding<br \/>\nthat the title of the plaintiff over plaint schedule item No. 1 is not<br \/>\nlost by adverse possession and limitation also does not warrant<br \/>\ninterference , particularly, in the light of the recent decision of the<br \/>\nApex Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/663164\/\">P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Others v. Revamma<br \/>\nand Others<\/a> &#8211; 2007 (6) SCC 59 . No question of law, much less, any<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law arises for consideration in this Second<br \/>\nAppeal. The questions of law formulated in the memorandum of<br \/>\nappeal also do not arise for consideration in this Second Appeal<br \/>\nwhich is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Dated this the 19th day of January 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                             Sd\/- V. RAMKUMAR,<br \/>\n                                                     (JUDGE)<\/p>\n<p>                                 \/true copy\/<\/p>\n<p>ani.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 398 of 2008() 1. VASAPPAN, S\/O.NARAYANAN, AGED 59, &#8230; Petitioner 2. SARADA, W\/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 65, Vs 1. MOHANAN, S\/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 55, &#8230; Respondent 2. PANKIAMMA, W\/O.KARUNAPPAN, AGED 56, 3. CHINNAMMA KURIYAN, W\/O.KURIAN, 4. MOHANAN, MAZHUVANCHERIL PUTHUPARAMBIL, [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16592","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 2009 - 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\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-06T00:57:46+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-06T00:57:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1222,\"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\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-06T00:57:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 2009 - 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\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-06T00:57:46+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-06T00:57:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009"},"wordCount":1222,"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\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009","name":"Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-06T00:57:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vasappan-vs-mohanan-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vasappan vs Mohanan on 19 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/16592","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=16592"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16592\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}