{"id":167939,"date":"2010-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010"},"modified":"2018-01-31T07:01:01","modified_gmt":"2018-01-31T01:31:01","slug":"mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 834 of 1998(C)\n\n\n\n1. MANI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. JOSE @ KUNJU KUNJU\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOY GEORGE\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\n\n Dated :19\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.\n                --------------------------\n                     A.S.NO.834 OF 1998 &\n                          CROSS APPEAL\n                --------------------------\n               DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
A.S.No.834\/98<\/p>\n
            When the appeal was called, neither the appellants nor<\/p>\n
their counsel are present. Name of the appellants called. Absent.<\/p>\n
Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for default.<\/p>\n
Cross Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   This   cross    appeal    was    filed   by  the    lst<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff challenging the quantum of compensation<\/p>\n
granted by the court below. The short facts of the case are as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
      The defendants at about 4 p.m. on 25\/12\/1990 attacked the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, his younger brother Joshi and their employee by name<\/p>\n
Baby with iron rods and wooden planks. Joshi succumbed to<\/p>\n
injuries on the way to the hospital. Plaintiff sustained serious<\/p>\n
                                -2-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.834\/98 & Cross Appeal<\/p>\n
injuries leading to physical disability. Police registered a case<\/p>\n
against the defendants. Plaintiff was taken to Medical College<\/p>\n
Hospital, Kottayam on the very same day. He was admitted there<\/p>\n
and discharged on 21\/1\/91 after 26 days’ treatment as an in-<\/p>\n
patient. According to the plaintiff, he continued treatment after<\/p>\n
discharging from the hospital. As a result of the injury the<\/p>\n
plaintiff lost his left eye. He is using artificial eye at present.<\/p>\n
According to him, there was four fractures on his body and he<\/p>\n
sustained nine serious injuries as a result of the incident. It is also<\/p>\n
averred that he is disabled from doing any work as a result of the<\/p>\n
criminal acts of the defendants. It is the plaintiff’s case that the<\/p>\n
defendants are jointly and severally liable for the damages caused<\/p>\n
to the him. Plaintiff claimed damages under different heads.<\/p>\n
      3. The defendants in their written statement denied the<\/p>\n
averments in the plaint. It is averred that they have not assaulted<\/p>\n
the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is not entitled to realise any<\/p>\n
amount towards damages from them. On the side of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
                                -3-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.834\/98 & Cross Appeal<\/p>\n
PWs. 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked.<\/p>\n
The defendants examined DW1. No documentary evidence was<\/p>\n
adduced.     The trial court framed issues      and examined the<\/p>\n
contentions of the respective parties. The trial court, after<\/p>\n
appreciating the oral and documentary evidence including Ext.A1<\/p>\n
accident-cum-wound certificate, Ext.A2 copy of the patient ticket<\/p>\n
from the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, Ext.A3 case sheet<\/p>\n
and Exts.A4 and A5 documents, concluded that the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
sustained serious injuries at about 4 p.m. on 25\/12\/1990. The<\/p>\n
trial court also considered the question as to whether the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has sustained injuries on the basis of the incident as alleged in the<\/p>\n
plaint.    The trial court held that the evidence adduced<\/p>\n
brings to light that the defendant 1 to 3             have caused<\/p>\n
injuries on the body of the plaintiff. The court below<\/p>\n
also concluded that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
is not sufficient to prove the involvement of defendants 4<\/p>\n
and 5. The trial court on evidence held that grevious injury<\/p>\n
                                  -4-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.834\/98 & Cross Appeal<\/p>\n
was inflicted by the lst defendant with wooden plank and as a<\/p>\n
result of this the plaintiff lost his left eye.<\/p>\n
      4. The further question considered by the court below is the<\/p>\n
quantum of damages. The cross appeal is filed challenging the<\/p>\n
quantum of damages awarded by the court below. According to<\/p>\n
the cross appellant, the compensation awarded by the court below<\/p>\n
under various heads is little, too inadequate and unfair. It is also<\/p>\n
argued that considering the gravity of pain and suffering for<\/p>\n
which the plaintiff had undergone treatment as an in-patient and<\/p>\n
the nature of injuries sustained by the plaintiff and for many<\/p>\n
other reasons alleged and proved, the plaintiff is entitled to<\/p>\n
realise the amount as claimed in the plaint. According to the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the cross appellant, the plaint claim is very<\/p>\n
reasonable and not excessive and therefore, on the amount<\/p>\n
claimed in the plaint and interest should have been decreed by the<\/p>\n
court below. I have examined the heads under which the damage<\/p>\n
was assessed. This is a case where on the date of incident<\/p>\n
                                -5-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.834\/98 & Cross Appeal<\/p>\n
plaintiff has sustained grevious injuries and as a result of the<\/p>\n
injuries inflicted he was hospitalised as in-patient for 26 days. It<\/p>\n
has also come out in evidence that plaintiff’s brother succumbed<\/p>\n
to injuries on the way to hospital. Plaintiff was admitted in the<\/p>\n
Medical College Hospital on the date of incident and undergone<\/p>\n
a major surgery. He had suffered four fractures and other major<\/p>\n
injuries. As a result of the injuries inflicted on the plaintiff he<\/p>\n
became a disabled man. It is also submitted that the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
deprived of amenities of life being a permanently disabled man,<\/p>\n
that he was looking after the affairs of the family and due to his<\/p>\n
present physical condition, he is not in a position to look after the<\/p>\n
family affairs or to take care of his family. In this context, this<\/p>\n
Court is called upon to examine the quantum of damages<\/p>\n
awarded by the court below.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs.10,000\/- towards the<\/p>\n
expenses incurred by him for treatment. The court below only<\/p>\n
awarded a sum of Rs.3,000\/-. It is a fact that he was under<\/p>\n
                                 -6-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.834\/98 & Cross Appeal<\/p>\n
treatment as an in-patient for 26 days and that he continued<\/p>\n
treatment after he was discharged from the hospital.           He was<\/p>\n
treated in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. It has come<\/p>\n
out in evidence that the plaintiff has to conduct a scanning before<\/p>\n
surgery and that he had undergone a major surgery. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
also gave evidence stating that he had to purchase medicines<\/p>\n
from outside. During the pendency of the suit also for permanent<\/p>\n
disablement, the plaintiff was undergoing treatment spending<\/p>\n
money. As a result of the grevious injuries sustained by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff he lost his left eye and he has fitted with an artificial eye.<\/p>\n
Considering all these facts, I do not think that the claim of<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/- is in any way unreasonable. So, the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
entitled to Rs.7,000\/- towards additional compensation under this<\/p>\n
head. Towards transportation charges his claim of Rs.1,000\/-<\/p>\n
was not accepted and only Rs.500\/- was awarded by the court<\/p>\n
below. It is an undisputed fact that he was taken to the Medical<\/p>\n
College Hospital in a car. I think that Rs.1,000\/- claimed is<\/p>\n
                              -7-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.834\/98 & Cross Appeal<\/p>\n
reasonable and therefore, the claim of Rs.1,000\/- should have<\/p>\n
been awarded. I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.500\/-<\/p>\n
towards additional compensation for transportation charges.<\/p>\n
       6. The next head under which the plaintiff claimed<\/p>\n
compensation is by-stander expenses. The court below declined<\/p>\n
to grant any amount towards by-stander expenses stating that his<\/p>\n
wife and near relatives were the by-standers in the hospital. I do<\/p>\n
not think that simply because his wife and near relatives attended<\/p>\n
the patient in the hospital, the plaintiff is not entitled to any<\/p>\n
amount towards compensation under this head. Even if wife and<\/p>\n
near relatives attended the plaintiff in the hospital, the claim<\/p>\n
under the head ‘by-standard expenses’ cannot be said to be<\/p>\n
unreasonable. The plaintiff spent nearly a month in the hospital.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.1,500\/- towards by<\/p>\n
standar expenses.\n<\/p>\n
     7. The next claim of the plaintiff is compensation for pain<\/p>\n
and suffering. The plaintiff was admitted in the hospital on<\/p>\n
                                -8-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.834\/98 & Cross Appeal<\/p>\n
25\/12\/1990 and was discharged on 21\/1\/91. He had undergone<\/p>\n
serious surgery. His left eye ball was removed. He is at present<\/p>\n
using an artificial eye ball. The inference to be taken in the<\/p>\n
circumstance is that the plaintiff suffered severe pain for the<\/p>\n
period of injury and during the period of treatment. The claim<\/p>\n
under this head was Rs.25,000\/- and the court below awarded<\/p>\n
only Rs.5,000\/- as compensation for pain and sufferings.<\/p>\n
Considering the serious injuries sustained by the plaintiff, the<\/p>\n
surgery he had undergone, removal of his left eye ball and other<\/p>\n
sufferings caused due to the infliction of other injuries, this Court<\/p>\n
is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to Rs.15,000\/- towards<\/p>\n
additional compensation under this head.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Under the disability head the claim was Rs.30,000\/-. The<\/p>\n
plaintiff was aged 42 years at the time of incident. I have already<\/p>\n
stated about the injuries sustained by the plaintiff and the<\/p>\n
permanent disability caused to him as result of the incident. The<\/p>\n
court below awarded Rs.28,800\/- towards compensation for<\/p>\n
                                -9-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.834\/98 & Cross Appeal<\/p>\n
permanent disability. The amount was worked out taking the<\/p>\n
monthly income at Rs.600\/-.           Compensation was assessed<\/p>\n
applying capitalised method adopting the multiplier of 10. I<\/p>\n
think the amount claimed by the plaintiff under this head is too<\/p>\n
inadequate, considering his permanent disability. Though the<\/p>\n
plaintiff  claimed Rs.30,000\/-        the  court   below   awarded<\/p>\n
Rs.28,800\/- as compensation            under this head. In the<\/p>\n
circumstances, Rs.1,200\/- more is granted to the plaintiff and the<\/p>\n
total compensation awarded under this head is Rs.30,000\/-.<\/p>\n
       9. For loss of amenities of life and shortened expectation of<\/p>\n
life, the court below awarded Rs.4,000\/-. I am of the view that<\/p>\n
the award of Rs.4,000\/- under the head is inadequate.<\/p>\n
Considering the facts and circumstances discussed above,<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- should have been granted as against the claim of<\/p>\n
Rs.25,000\/-. So, I fix a total sum of Rs.15,000\/- towards loss of<\/p>\n
amenities of life and shortened expectation of life. Plaintiff is<\/p>\n
therefore entitled to Rs.11,000\/- as additional amount.<\/p>\n
                              -10-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.834\/98 & Cross Appeal<\/p>\n
     In the result, the decree and judgment passed by the court<\/p>\n
below is modified. The plaintiff is allowed to realise a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.36,200\/- as additional compensation with interest at the same<\/p>\n
rate granted by the court below.\n<\/p>\n
     The cross appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs.<\/p>\n
                                            HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                  JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
kcv.\n<\/p>\n
                            -11-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.834\/98 & Cross Appeal<\/p>\n
                               HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.\n<\/p>\n
                            ————————–\n<\/p>\n
                             A.S.NO.834 OF 1998 &
\n                                 CROSS APPEAL.\n<\/p>\n
                            ————————–\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                 19TH JANUARY, 2010<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 834 of 1998(C) 1. MANI … Petitioner Vs 1. JOSE @ KUNJU KUNJU … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.JOY GEORGE For Respondent : No Appearance Dated :19\/01\/2010 O R D E R HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ————————– […]<\/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-167939","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010 - 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\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-31T01:31:01+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\\\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-31T01:31:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1660,\"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\\\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Mani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-31T01:31:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Mani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010 - 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\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-31T01:31:01+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\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-31T01:31:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010"},"wordCount":1660,"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\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010","name":"Mani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-31T01:31:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mani-vs-jose-kunju-kunju-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mani vs Jose @ Kunju Kunju on 19 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/167939","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=167939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167939\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}