{"id":16761,"date":"2008-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008"},"modified":"2016-02-15T19:22:10","modified_gmt":"2016-02-15T13:52:10","slug":"francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Francis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Francis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 133 of 2008()\n\n\n1. FRANCIS, AGED 46,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STEPHEN, AGED 50,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :FRANCIS, PARTY-IN-PERSON\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.SANTHOSH  (PODUVAL)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :17\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                                   P.R.Raman &\n                        T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.\n                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                             R.C.R. No. 133 of 2008\n                      - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                  Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008.\n\n                                     O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Ramachandran Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n
      The tenant in a rent control proceedings, R.C.P.NO.89\/2001 is the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner herein. The Rent Control Court ordered eviction under<\/p>\n
Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act (for short<\/p>\n
‘the Act’). The appellate authority as per the impugned judgment, granted<\/p>\n
eviction under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act.<\/p>\n
      2. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent as<\/p>\n
well as bonafide need for his own occupation for conducting furniture<\/p>\n
business. It was pleaded that the tenant took the petition schedule room on<\/p>\n
lease after executing a rent chit on 1.10.1996.                    He was conducting a<\/p>\n
furniture shop in the petition schedule room. The rent is in arrears from<\/p>\n
1.7.1997 onwards. These, in a nutshell, are the contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
landlord in the petition for eviction.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The tenant mainly contended that he has not executed any rent<\/p>\n
chit; there was no landlord-tenant relationship and that he had never taken<\/p>\n
RCR 133\/2008                         -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
the petition schedule room on lease for conducting furniture business. He<\/p>\n
denied the allegation that he had been conducting a furniture shop in the<\/p>\n
petition schedule room.     The tenant further contended that the landlord<\/p>\n
agreed to construct a building in his property for giving it on lease to him<\/p>\n
and towards the expenses for construction, he received an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,25,000\/- from the tenant. Stating the above contentions, an agreement<\/p>\n
was executed on 1.10.1996 which is not at all a rent chit. There was total<\/p>\n
failure on the part of the landlord in complying with the conditions of the<\/p>\n
agreement. He never completed the building and did not give it to the<\/p>\n
tenant. The tenant had to file O.S.No.148\/1998 and a further criminal<\/p>\n
complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court under Sections<\/p>\n
417 and 420 I.P.C. against the landlord for his failure to comply with the<\/p>\n
conditions of the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The Rent Control Court raised a specific point whether there is any<\/p>\n
landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The landlord examined<\/p>\n
P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exts.A1 to A14 documents in evidence. The<\/p>\n
petitioner herein was examined as R.W.1 and produced Exts.B1 to B6 on<\/p>\n
his side. Exts.X1 to X3 were marked through other witnesses.<\/p>\n
      5. The Rent Control Court, after analysing the oral and documentary<\/p>\n
evidence, found that there is landlord-tenant relationship between the<\/p>\n
parties. As regards the ground under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, it was<\/p>\n
found that the exact date from which the rent is in arrears is not evident.<\/p>\n
RCR 133\/2008                           -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
Hence, that point was decided against the landlord. The Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
also found in favour of the landlord on the ground raised under Section 11<\/p>\n
(3) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       6. The petitioner appeared in person and reiterated his contentions<\/p>\n
before us. The respondent appeared on caveat and we heard Shri Santhosh<\/p>\n
P. Poduval, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner contended<\/p>\n
that both the authorities below acted perversely in treating the agreement<\/p>\n
dated 1.10.1996 as an evidence for the rental arrangement between the<\/p>\n
parties and further creating a landlord-tenant relationship between them. It<\/p>\n
is pointed out that at any rate, the same can be treated only as an agreement<\/p>\n
and thus, the controversy,       if at all, has to go outside the jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Court, since he was not at all a tenant covered by the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act.     It is pointed out that he never conducted any<\/p>\n
furniture business in the petition schedule room and he had no liability<\/p>\n
towards arrears of rent also.     It was contended that the landlord failed in<\/p>\n
completing the construction as agreed. It is pointed out that the findings<\/p>\n
rendered by both the authorities on this aspect is without reference to the<\/p>\n
evidence available before them and thus it warrants interference at the hands<\/p>\n
of this court.\n<\/p>\n
       7. The    Rent Control Court, on an analysis of the oral and<\/p>\n
documentary evidence, found that even though Ext.A1 is not a rent chit, it is<\/p>\n
evident from the same that the landlord agreed to give a room on lease to<\/p>\n
RCR 133\/2008                         -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
the tenant for a monthly rent of Rs.1,500\/-. The reasoning adopted by that<\/p>\n
court shows the following: The main dispute raised by the tenant is that the<\/p>\n
construction work was not completed within the stipulated time provided in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1. It is also alleged that there were violations of Building Rules and<\/p>\n
this led to the room being not numbered or electrified. Ext.A2 is the copy<\/p>\n
of the plaint in O.S.No.148\/1998 filed by the petitioner herein against the<\/p>\n
landlord. The landlord relied upon Exts.A4 and A5 tax receipts, Ext.A6<\/p>\n
letter and Ext.A7 ownership certificate issued by the Secretary, Cherpu<\/p>\n
Grama Panchayat to show that the schedule room was              numbered as<\/p>\n
III\/191A.    Exts.A8 and A9 are the building tax receipts.         All these<\/p>\n
cumulatively show that the construction was over during 1997 itself. In<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 the petitioner had admitted that the work relating to the building was<\/p>\n
completed in the middle of April 1997 and that the petitioner had stocked<\/p>\n
furniture in the petition schedule room.    Therefore, it is clear that the<\/p>\n
respondent is the owner of the room and the petitioner herein has been<\/p>\n
inducted as tenant by which a landlord-tenant relationship has been<\/p>\n
established.\n<\/p>\n
       8. The appellate authority, after a detailed analysis of the evidence<\/p>\n
adduced, agreed with the findings rendered by the Rent Control Court on<\/p>\n
this aspect. We find that the view taken by the Rent Control Court and the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority on this aspect is a plausible one. At any rate, it is a<\/p>\n
finding of fact which does not warrant interference in exercise of the<\/p>\n
RCR 133\/2008                           -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
revisional jurisdiction of this court.\n<\/p>\n
       9. Regarding the liability to pay the rent, the Appellate Authority was<\/p>\n
of the view that rent is in arrears from 1.7.1997. This finding was rendered<\/p>\n
based on two aspects. It was found that the petitioner admitted that he is in<\/p>\n
occupation of the building for storing his furniture, from the date of<\/p>\n
completion of its construction. It was completed in the middle of April<\/p>\n
1997. Secondly, the landlord clearly admitted that he received rent upto<\/p>\n
June 1997. It is on this basis the Appellate Authority found that there is<\/p>\n
default on the part of the petitioner to pay the rent from 1.7.1997. Even<\/p>\n
though the petitioner attacked the said finding, we are of the view that the<\/p>\n
said finding also does not call for any interference. The view taken cannot<\/p>\n
be said to be a perverse one on the admitted facts and evidence of the case.<\/p>\n
       10. As far as the bonafide need urged by the landlord is concerned,<\/p>\n
both the authorities concurrently found that the landlord has been successful<\/p>\n
in proving the bonafide need alleged. The requirement is for conducting a<\/p>\n
furniture shop. Presently, he is not having any room in his possession for<\/p>\n
conducting a furniture shop, whereas he has put up a shed on the southern<\/p>\n
portion of his house for the conduct of his business. The said place was<\/p>\n
found to be inconvenient. As far as this aspect is concerned, the petitioner<\/p>\n
has no case that the case pleaded by the landlord is a ruse to evict him.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, the landlord is having only a shed to conduct the business and<\/p>\n
in that circumstances, it cannot be said that the need projected is a mere<\/p>\n
RCR 133\/2008                          -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
desire and is not a bonafide one. Both the authorities have analysed the<\/p>\n
evidence, according to us, correctly. Therefore, the finding as far as the<\/p>\n
bonafide need is concerned, does not call for any interference. As regards<\/p>\n
the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act, the tenant is<\/p>\n
not entitled for its protection. He had not been successful in proving the<\/p>\n
elements necessary to show that he is mainly depending upon the income<\/p>\n
that is derived from the business in the petition schedule room and that there<\/p>\n
are no suitable buildings available in the locality for his purpose.<\/p>\n
       The orders passed by the authorities below are therefore upheld. The<\/p>\n
revision petition is dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            ( P.R.Raman, Judge.)<\/p>\n
                                     (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)<\/p>\n
kav\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Francis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 133 of 2008() 1. FRANCIS, AGED 46, … Petitioner Vs 1. STEPHEN, AGED 50, … Respondent For Petitioner :FRANCIS, PARTY-IN-PERSON For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Dated […]<\/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-16761","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nFrancis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Francis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-15T13:52:10+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=\"7 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-stephen-on-17-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Francis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-15T13:52:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1371,\"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-stephen-on-17-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Francis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-15T13:52:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Francis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Francis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Francis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-15T13:52:10+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Francis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-15T13:52:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008"},"wordCount":1371,"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-stephen-on-17-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008","name":"Francis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-15T13:52:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/francis-vs-stephen-on-17-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Francis vs Stephen on 17 June, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16761","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=16761"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16761\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16761"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}