{"id":172367,"date":"2009-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-21T09:59:21","modified_gmt":"2019-03-21T04:29:21","slug":"kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 465 of 2000(E)\n\n\n\n1. KUTTY THANKAMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. NEELAKANTAN APPUKUTTAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.SIVARAJ\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :19\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                            --------------------------------------\n                                 S.A.No.465 of 2000\n                            --------------------------------------\n                    Dated this the 19th day of February, 2009.\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
          Parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendant for convenience. The<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law raised for a decision are –<\/p>\n
       (i)     Whether the existence of clear cut and demarcated pathway is<\/p>\n
necessary for acquisition of easement by prescription under Section 15 of the<\/p>\n
Easements Act (for short, “the Act”),<\/p>\n
       (ii)    Whether plaintiffs’ user for over 20 years and existence of pathway<\/p>\n
for ingress and egress are sufficient for prescription of the right under Section<\/p>\n
15 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (iii)   Whether it is necessary to demarcate and identify the property<\/p>\n
owned by the same person to acquire a right of easement by way of necessity<\/p>\n
under Section 13(b) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.      Plaint A schedule takes in three items.             Facts which are not in<\/p>\n
dispute are that plaint A schedule item No.1 belonging to plaintiff No.1          as per<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, assignment deed No.1324 of 1977 dated 16.5.1977. Item Nos.2 and 3<\/p>\n
of the plaint A schedule belong to plaintiff Nos.2 and 3.                 A house was<\/p>\n
constructed in item No.1 of the plaint A schedule (obviously after its acquisition<\/p>\n
SA No.465\/2000<\/p>\n
                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
as per Ext.A1. Plaint B schedule is the property belonging to the defendant as<\/p>\n
per Ext.B1. That property is situated on the western side of plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property. There is a panchayat road on the western side of the plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule. Plaintiffs alleged and claimed that they have been residing in the old<\/p>\n
house in plaint A schedule item Nos. 2 and 3 since the last 75 years, thereafter<\/p>\n
using the funds of the husband of plaintiff No.1 a house was constructed in item<\/p>\n
No.1 of the plaint A schedule after its acquisition as per Ext.A1 and that, since<\/p>\n
the last 75 years plaintiffs have been using a pathway having length of 100 feet<\/p>\n
and width of four feet which originated from the house in the plaint A schedule,<\/p>\n
went along northern side of plaint B schedule towards west and reached the<\/p>\n
Panchayat road on the further west.       Plaintiffs claimed that they have been<\/p>\n
using that pathway without obstruction as of right during the said period of 75<\/p>\n
years. They have no other means to access the plaint A schedule.           Since<\/p>\n
plaint A and B schedules originally belonged to the same person and since they<\/p>\n
have no other means of access to the plaint A schedule, they also have a right<\/p>\n
of easement by way of necessity.          Defendant denied the claim of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs regarding the existence of plaint C schedule and its alleged user as<\/p>\n
claimed by the plaintiffs. He claimed that plaint B schedule was originally a<\/p>\n
paddy field and after he purchased it as per Ext.B1, he reclaimed it and started<\/p>\n
betel leaves cultivation.    Plaintiffs are under the impression    that plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule takes     in  puramboke land      and that caused the filing of the suit.<\/p>\n
SA No.465\/2000<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
Defendant claimed that plaintiffs have other means of access to the plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule. In the court below, an advocate commissioner (CW1) inspected the<\/p>\n
properties originally on 24.1.1993 and submitted Ext.C1 report.        Advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner reported that he could see a pathway through the middle of the<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule items lying east-west towards it north western corner     and,<\/p>\n
indications of a vague pathway through the northern side of the plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule. Advocate commissioner noticed that recently mud was deposited at<\/p>\n
that portion. Advocate commissioner further noticed a pond towards the north-<\/p>\n
western corner of the plaint A schedule and north-eastern corner of the plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule which even at the time of inspection on 24.1.1993 was filled with water.<\/p>\n
Advocate commissioner reported that he was not able to find any other means of<\/p>\n
access    to the    plaint A schedule.    Same advocate commissioner again<\/p>\n
inspected the properties on 7.4.1994 and submitted Ext.C2, report where, there<\/p>\n
is reference to two alternate ways – one towards south from plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
along the property of one Mohanan and another towards east from plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule going across the thodu along the slab and then along the property of<\/p>\n
one Pavithran. Advocate commissioner reported that the way towards          east<\/p>\n
had oldness of about one year and        along the property of Pavithran, about<\/p>\n
five years.   Plaintiff No.1\/appellant gave evidence as PW1 and testified to her<\/p>\n
case.   PW2 claimed to be a native of that locality supported the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
Defendant gave contra evidence as DW1. Learned Munsiff found in favour of<\/p>\n
SA No.465\/2000<\/p>\n
                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
existence of the disputed pathway and granted relief on the finding that plaintiffs<\/p>\n
have prescribed a right of easement by prescription .       Defendant carried the<\/p>\n
matter in appeal.      First appellate court found that existence of the disputed<\/p>\n
pathway or its use for the statutory period are not proved by the plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
hence, plaintiffs are not entitled to get declaration of easement by way of<\/p>\n
prescription. Plaintiffs were non-sued.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.      It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that in and<\/p>\n
every case, existence of a well found pathway may not be necessary to grant a<\/p>\n
declaration regarding the easement by way of prescription and in this case,<\/p>\n
there is sufficient evidence to show that the existing pathway was obliterated by<\/p>\n
the defendant by depositing mud recently over that portion of the pathway. It is<\/p>\n
contended by the learned counsel that existence of alternative pathway having<\/p>\n
not proved, first appellate court ought to have concurred with the finding of the<\/p>\n
trial court that the plaintiffs were using the disputed pathway for the statutory<\/p>\n
period.   It is also contended that at any rate, plaintiffs are entitled to get a<\/p>\n
pathway as an easement by way of necessity under Section 13(b) of the Act.<\/p>\n
       4.      To claim relief on the strength of easement by way of prescription,<\/p>\n
it must be shown that the person claiming it has been using a defined pathway<\/p>\n
for the statutory period of 20 years as of right, peaceably, continuously, openly<\/p>\n
and without obstruction. In this case it is true that PWs 1 and 2 gave evidence<\/p>\n
SA No.465\/2000<\/p>\n
                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
in support of the existence of the pathway and its user for the statutory period.<\/p>\n
CW1 also stated about the existence of the disputed pathway as reported in<\/p>\n
Ext.C1. True, he found the existence of the pathway through plaint A and B<\/p>\n
schedule properties and indications of a pathway through the B schedule with<\/p>\n
mud recently deposited at that place.       Ext.A1, which is the only document of<\/p>\n
title produced by the plaintiffs is in respect of the plaint A schedule item No.1<\/p>\n
belonging to plaintiff No.1 and that is of the year 1977. Even as admitted by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs, a house was constructed in that property only after 1977 whereas the<\/p>\n
suit is filed in the year 1993. The contention is that there was a thatched house<\/p>\n
in item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint A schedule where the plaintiffs were residing<\/p>\n
with family. Learned counsel invited my attention to Ext.C1 where it is stated<\/p>\n
that there was a thatched shed in plaint schedule item Nos.2 and 3 where the<\/p>\n
advocate commissioner found a burning lamp. Plaintiffs who claimed that they<\/p>\n
were residing in the thatched shed in item Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
even prior to 1977 did not produce the title deeds in respect of item Nos.2 and 3<\/p>\n
in any of the courts below nor in this Court. The non-production of the title deeds<\/p>\n
in respect item Nos.2 and 3 to prove that there was a house, be it a thatched<\/p>\n
shed, even prior to 1977 is material. When the plaintiffs could have produced<\/p>\n
those title deeds or other documentary evidences to prove their residence in<\/p>\n
item Nos.2 and 3 at any time prior to 1977, they attempted to prove the same<\/p>\n
through the       oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2.     PW1 has naturally spoken in<\/p>\n
SA No.465\/2000<\/p>\n
                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
support of her case. She stated about residence in item Nos.2 and 3 of the<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule for 75 years, but PW2 stated about residence for 50 years.<\/p>\n
Suffice to say, there is no acceptable evidence to show that plaintiffs were<\/p>\n
residing in plaint A schedule prior to 1977 so as to prescribe a right of easement<\/p>\n
under Section 15 of the Act by user for a period of 20 years before the institution<\/p>\n
of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
       5.     The existence of      a pathway is also not satisfactorily proved.<\/p>\n
According to the defendant, plaint B schedule was a paddy field and              he<\/p>\n
reclaimed it after its acquisition. True, in Ext.B1, the nature of plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
is stated as `tharanilam and nilamvirivu’.        That description proved that B<\/p>\n
schedule was not a `purayidom’ as Ext.A1 describes the plaint A schedule items.<\/p>\n
The description in Ext.B1 corroborated the version of DW1 that it was a paddy<\/p>\n
field. It has been consistently held by this Court that user of paddy field will not<\/p>\n
confer any right by way of easement of prescription since in this country it is<\/p>\n
usual for people to walk along unclosed paddy filed but that cannot be treated<\/p>\n
as a user as of right.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     The advocate commissioner has also noticed a pond towards the<\/p>\n
north-western portion of plaint A schedule and north-eastern portion of plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule.   According to the defendant, during the rainy season the pond is<\/p>\n
flooded with water and it overflows into the surrounding places and hence no<\/p>\n
one could walk along that place during that season. That also corroborated the<\/p>\n
SA No.465\/2000<\/p>\n
                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
version of the defendant that there was no such way in existence and plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule was a paddy field.\n<\/p>\n
        7.    It is pertinent to note that though the advocate commissioner<\/p>\n
referred to the existence of a pathway, he has not reported its length or width<\/p>\n
as against the claim of the plaintiffs that the pathway has a length of 100 feet<\/p>\n
and width of four feet. With such a vague description, no relief of declaration<\/p>\n
can be granted.\n<\/p>\n
        8.    So far as the claim of easement by way of necessity is concerned,<\/p>\n
though the plaintiffs pleaded that plaint A and B schedules originally belonged<\/p>\n
to the same person, that was denied by the defendant in the written statement.<\/p>\n
No evidence is produced by the plaintiffs to prove that plaint A and B schedules<\/p>\n
originally belonged to the same person and by transfer, plaintiffs and defendant<\/p>\n
came into the ownership and possession of the respective tenements. When<\/p>\n
plaintiff No.1 was questioned about that, she was not able to give any<\/p>\n
satisfactory evidence regarding the ownership of the two tenements with the<\/p>\n
same person before the plaintiffs and defendant got title and possession.<\/p>\n
        9.    When a plea of right of easement by way of prescription is raised,<\/p>\n
it is not necessary to go into the question of alternative ways and so far as the<\/p>\n
claim of easement by way of necessity is concerned, in the absence of any<\/p>\n
evidence regarding ownership of the two tenements with the same person at<\/p>\n
some earlier point of time, question whether there is any other means of access<\/p>\n
SA No.465\/2000<\/p>\n
                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
to the plaintiffs does not assume importance. At the same time, I also note that<\/p>\n
the advocate commissioner has referred to some alternative ways. According to<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for plaintiffs those alternative ways were created after the<\/p>\n
advocate commissioner inspected the properties on 24.1.1993. It is difficult to<\/p>\n
think that for the purpose of this case, defendant was able to create those ways<\/p>\n
even along the properties of others. I am not inclined to accept that contention.<\/p>\n
       10.     First appellate court has considered the entire evidence and non-<\/p>\n
suited the plaintiffs. There is no reason to interfere with that finding of fact.<\/p>\n
               Appeal fails. It is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective<\/p>\n
cost.\n<\/p>\n
               C.M.P.No.1320 of 2000 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                          Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n
SA No.465\/2000<\/p>\n
                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
                     Thomas P.Joseph, J.\n<\/p>\n
                     S.A.No.465 of 2000<\/p>\n
                     JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                     19th February, 2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 465 of 2000(E) 1. KUTTY THANKAMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. NEELAKANTAN APPUKUTTAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN For Respondent :SRI.P.SIVARAJ The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :19\/02\/2009 O R D E […]<\/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-172367","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-21T04:29:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T04:29:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1948,\"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\\\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Kutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T04:29:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-21T04:29:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T04:29:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009"},"wordCount":1948,"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\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009","name":"Kutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T04:29:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kutty-thankamma-vs-neelakantan-appukuttan-on-19-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kutty Thankamma vs Neelakantan Appukuttan on 19 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172367","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=172367"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172367\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172367"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172367"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}