{"id":172920,"date":"2007-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007"},"modified":"2018-08-09T03:15:41","modified_gmt":"2018-08-08T21:45:41","slug":"shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 662 of 1994()\n\n\n\n1. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. DRUIPADI AMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :14\/08\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n            ===========================\n              S.A. NO. 662    OF 1994\n            ===========================\n\n     Dated this the 14th day of August, 2007\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    Plaintiffs 1 and 3 in O.S.284\/1986 on the file<\/p>\n
of Munsiff Court, Kasaragod are the appellants.<\/p>\n
Defendants 2, 4,5 are respondents 1 to 3 and<\/p>\n
plaintiffs 2 and 4 are the respondents 4 and 5.<\/p>\n
The  first defendant died and respondents 2 and 3<\/p>\n
were impleaded as his legal heirs in the suit<\/p>\n
itself.   Third defendant also died during the<\/p>\n
pendancy of the suit.     First defendant was the<\/p>\n
father and plaintiffs and third defendant are his<\/p>\n
children.  Second  defendant   is  his wife.   The<\/p>\n
properties belonging    to the joint family were<\/p>\n
divided under Ext.A1 partition deed dated 8.6.1984<\/p>\n
whereunder   plaint A schedule properties     were<\/p>\n
allotted to the share of defendants 1 and 3 and<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule properties to the shares of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs.   Under Ext.A1 partition deed it was<\/p>\n
provided that all mamool pathways shall be used by<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
all the sharers without any obstruction by the<\/p>\n
other sharers to whom the properties are allotted,<\/p>\n
as was being done till then.        A plan was also<\/p>\n
appended   to    Ext.A1  partition   deed where  all<\/p>\n
mamool pathways till then used by the sharers    were<\/p>\n
marked.    Plaintiffs contended that mamool pathway<\/p>\n
which was being used and provided under Ext.A1<\/p>\n
partition deed, proceeds from survey No.834\/4    the<\/p>\n
residential plot    of the plaintiffs   and proceeds<\/p>\n
towards the north upto plot R.S.863\/3 as marked in<\/p>\n
the plan appended to Ext.A1 partition deed and that<\/p>\n
pathway    passes through   R.S.No.835\/1, 835\/4  and<\/p>\n
defendants have no right to cause any obstruction<\/p>\n
to the way. Contending that pathway was obstructed,<\/p>\n
plaintiffs sought a decree for declaration of their<\/p>\n
right of way     as granted to   under Ext.A1 and a<\/p>\n
consequential    permanent  prohibitory   injunction.<\/p>\n
Defendants in the written statement admitted Ext.A1<\/p>\n
partition deed as well as the plan       appended to<\/p>\n
Ext.A1.    But it was contended that certain recitals<\/p>\n
in Ext.A1 regarding the pathways are not clear and<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
correct and the marking of pathways in the plan are<\/p>\n
not fully correct.    According to them, and there is<\/p>\n
no    pathway  passing  through  R.S.No.835\/4  and  a<\/p>\n
pathway through      that survey number was wrongly<\/p>\n
marked and plaintiffs have no right of way through<\/p>\n
that property and therefore they are not entitled<\/p>\n
to the    decree for declartion or injunction.<\/p>\n
      2. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of Pws.1 and<\/p>\n
2, DW1, Exts.A1 and A2 and Exts.C1 and C2 rejected<\/p>\n
the case of defendants and found that the pathway<\/p>\n
provided under Ext.A1 is the one as marked in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1. The case of the defendants that       pathway<\/p>\n
was     mistakenly marked in Ext.A1 was not accepted,<\/p>\n
and a decree for declaration and      injunction were<\/p>\n
granted.      Defendants 2,4 and 5 challenged the<\/p>\n
decree and judgment before Sub Court, Kasaragod in<\/p>\n
A.S.54\/1991.     Learned Sub Judge on reappreciation<\/p>\n
of evidence found that Section 91 and 92 of Indian<\/p>\n
Evidence Act will not prevent        defendants from<\/p>\n
proving    that  mistake  was    crept  in  the  plan<\/p>\n
appended to     Ext.A1 and relying on Ext.C1 report<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94                4<\/span><\/p>\n
and C2 plan found that pathways as marked in the<\/p>\n
plan appended to Ext.A1 partition deed are not<\/p>\n
correct and pathway as marked did not exist      and<\/p>\n
the pathway in existence is the one   marked by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner in Ext.C2 plan. Holding that there was<\/p>\n
no pathway through R.S.835\/4 it was held that<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are not entitled to the decree for<\/p>\n
declaration or injunction granted by the trial<\/p>\n
court.     The appeal was allowed and the decree<\/p>\n
granted by the trial court was set aside and the<\/p>\n
suit was dismissed.  Plaintiffs are challenging the<\/p>\n
said decree.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The appeal was admitted formulating the<\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law.<\/p>\n
      1.  Has not the first appellate court erred in<\/p>\n
its construction of the terms of Ext.A1 partition<\/p>\n
deed.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   When a deed of partition inter parties<\/p>\n
refers to the existence and user of pathways and<\/p>\n
provides for future use of those pathways by the<\/p>\n
parties, can the parties dispute the existence and<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
user alleging it to be a mistake.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   Is not the finding of the first appellate<\/p>\n
court     opposed  to  the  right  of    easement  as<\/p>\n
provided under section 13 of the Easements Act.<\/p>\n
      4.    Learned counsel appearing for appellants<\/p>\n
and respondents were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   Under Ext.A1 partition deed   joint family<\/p>\n
properties were divided by the father and his<\/p>\n
children.    Along with the third defendant, the son,<\/p>\n
first     defendant,   father  was   allotted  plaint<\/p>\n
schedule     properties.      Plaintiffs  the   other<\/p>\n
children     were   allotted     plaint  B   schedule<\/p>\n
properties.     The dispute in the suit is  only with<\/p>\n
regard to the right of way provided under Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 provides a right to use all existing mamool<\/p>\n
pathways to the sharers inspite of the division of<\/p>\n
the properties thereunder.      The relevant recitals<\/p>\n
in    Ext.A1 (as translated in English, the document<\/p>\n
being English) reads:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Mamool pathways shall be used by all the<\/p>\n
        sharers  without any obstruction as is being<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
         used hitherto.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore the right to use the mamool pathways,<\/p>\n
which were being used till then,    and protected is<\/p>\n
preserved    under  Ext.A1  making  it  unambiguously<\/p>\n
clear that all the sharers are entitled to use the<\/p>\n
mamool pathways    without any obstruction from other<\/p>\n
sharer. But in the body of Ext.A1, the mamool<\/p>\n
pathways were not described including the direction<\/p>\n
of the pathways or the details of the properties<\/p>\n
through which the pathways run.    But a plan showing<\/p>\n
the plots allotted was appended to Ext.A1.      Hence<\/p>\n
the plan so appended shall        treated as part of<\/p>\n
the partition deed. That plan shows the existing<\/p>\n
mamool pathways. The pathways are marked therein.<\/p>\n
As per the said plan, one of the pathways leads<\/p>\n
from plot R.S.No.834\/4 and proceeds towards the<\/p>\n
north east through plot R.S.No.833\/8 then enters<\/p>\n
northern     plot R.S.No.835\/9   and  then   proceeds<\/p>\n
through    R.S.No.835\/1  and  proceeds  towards  east<\/p>\n
through R.S.No.835\/2 and through R.S. No.835\/4 and<\/p>\n
reaches R.S.No.836\/3.    Plaintiffs are claiming that<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
they have     a right to use the said pathway as a<\/p>\n
right of      easement by grant, as provided under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1.     Defendants are not disputing the right of<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs to use the pathway provided under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1.     The only contention was that the pathway<\/p>\n
is not passing through R.S.835\/4 and there is no<\/p>\n
pathway     as claimed by the palintiffs.   The trial<\/p>\n
court     on the  evidence  found  that  the  pathway<\/p>\n
provided    under   Ext.A1  is  as  claimed  by   the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and      granted a decree declaring that<\/p>\n
right.     The first appellate court set aside that<\/p>\n
finding relying on Exts.C1 report and Ext.C2 plan<\/p>\n
which show that the pathway which is being used by<\/p>\n
the parties     not as shown in the plan appended to<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, but a pathway which starts from the western<\/p>\n
plot R.C.834\/4 where the plaintiffs resides and<\/p>\n
proceeds      through      R.S.833\/8,   R.S.No.833\/9,<\/p>\n
R.S.No.833\/10, R.S.No.833\/11 and thereafter enters<\/p>\n
R.S.835\/2 and proceeds towards the north through<\/p>\n
R.S.835\/3 and reaches R.S.No.836\/3.     As per Ext.C1<\/p>\n
report and C2 plan the disputed pathway does not<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94                8<\/span><\/p>\n
proceeds    through  R.S.No.835\/1  or  R.S.No.835\/4.<\/p>\n
Learned    Sub  Judge on   that  basis    held  that<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are not entitled to     a declaration of<\/p>\n
the right of way through R.S.834\/4.\n<\/p>\n
      6.  Advocate Sri.Gowri  Shankar  Rai,  learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for appellants vehemently argued<\/p>\n
that when mamool pathways preserved    under Ext.A1<\/p>\n
are marked in the plan appended to Ext.A1, which is<\/p>\n
to be treated as part of the partition deed,<\/p>\n
defendants    are  not  entitled  to  lead  evidence<\/p>\n
against the provisions in Ext.A1, in view of the<\/p>\n
mandate under sections        91 and 92 of Indian<\/p>\n
Evidence    Act.    Learned  counsel  appearing  for<\/p>\n
respondents argued that the bar provided under<\/p>\n
sections    92 of Indian Evidence Act is only with<\/p>\n
regard to    varying or adding or contradictory the<\/p>\n
terms of a document and not with regard to the<\/p>\n
modifying the terms of a document and it does not<\/p>\n
prevent a party from proving that the facts stated<\/p>\n
including marking of the pathways      in the plan<\/p>\n
appended to Ext.A1 was       mistakenly shown    and<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
first     appellate  court  rightly  appreciated   the<\/p>\n
evidence and found that the pathways marked in the<\/p>\n
plan     appended  to  Ext.A1  are  not  correct   but<\/p>\n
mistakenly shown    and  pathway does not run through<\/p>\n
R.S.No.835\/4. It was argued that         there is no<\/p>\n
reason to interfere with the decree granted by the<\/p>\n
first appellate court.     Reliance was placed on the<\/p>\n
decisions of this court in Kunhammed kutty v.<\/p>\n
Avokker & Others(1984 KLT 716) and Apex Court in<\/p>\n
Krishnabai Bhritar Ganpatrao Deshmukh v. Appasheb<\/p>\n
Tuljaramarao Nimbalkar<\/a> (1979) 4 SCC 60).<\/p>\n
      7.   When the plaintiffs specifically pleaded in<\/p>\n
the plaint that the pathway as     marked in the plan<\/p>\n
appended    to   Ext.A1,  is  the  pathway  which   is<\/p>\n
provided under Ext.A1 in the written statement<\/p>\n
while admitting that right what was pleaded    by the<\/p>\n
defendants     was that certain recitals made in the<\/p>\n
partition deed regarding the pathways are not clear<\/p>\n
or correct and         similarly the marking of the<\/p>\n
pathways in the plan      appended to the    partition<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94                10<\/span><\/p>\n
deed are not fully correct.      It was also pleaded<\/p>\n
that there is no pathway    passing through R.S.834\/4<\/p>\n
of Bayar village.       As rightly pointed out by<\/p>\n
Advocate   Sri.  Gowri   Shankar  Rai,  there is  no<\/p>\n
specific    plea  in the written statement that the<\/p>\n
mamool     pathway preserved  under Ext.A1 is the one<\/p>\n
running     through R.S.835\/2 and proceeds towards<\/p>\n
north through R.S.835\/3. Instead the only pleading<\/p>\n
was that there was a mistake in showing the pathway<\/p>\n
and     the  pathway   does  not   proceeds   through<\/p>\n
R.S.835\/4.      When  Ext.A1  provides  that   mamool<\/p>\n
pathways are existing in the properties dividied<\/p>\n
thereunder and a right to use the mamool pathway as<\/p>\n
used till then was also provided and in the plan<\/p>\n
appended    the   mamool  pathway   are  marked   and<\/p>\n
plaintiffs claim a right to use that mamool pathway<\/p>\n
as marked in the plan, defendants while projecting<\/p>\n
a case of mistaken identity of the pathway marked<\/p>\n
in the plan should have pleaded what was the<\/p>\n
direction,   identity   and  details  of  the  mamool<\/p>\n
pathway.   It was not pleaded.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94               11<\/span><\/p>\n
      8.   First appellate court relied on Exts.C1<\/p>\n
report and Ext.C2 plan to hold that the pathway<\/p>\n
provided    under  Ext.A1  does   not  run   through<\/p>\n
R.S.No.835\/4.    Unfortunately the first appellate<\/p>\n
court omitted to take note of the fact that the<\/p>\n
defendants are also disputing the way as marked in<\/p>\n
the plan appended to Ext.A1 which      runs through<\/p>\n
R.S.835\/1. Before the Commissioner it was contended<\/p>\n
that the pathway runs from R.S.No.833\/9 through<\/p>\n
R.S.No.833\/10 and thereafter   through R.S.No.833\/11<\/p>\n
and enters R.S.No.835\/2.      The plan appended to<\/p>\n
Ext.A1    shows    the  pathway  running     through<\/p>\n
R.S.No.833\/8,     R.S.No.833\/9,        R.S.No.835\/1,<\/p>\n
R.S.835\/2 and thereafter   R.S.No.835\/4 and  reaches<\/p>\n
R.S.No.836\/3. Defendants have no case        in the<\/p>\n
written statement that there is no pathway as<\/p>\n
marked in Ext.A1, which runs along R.S.No.835\/1.<\/p>\n
Instead      the mistake  alleged  in  the   written<\/p>\n
statement is only about    R.S.No.835\/4. That cannot<\/p>\n
be the case, if Exts.C1 and C2 report and plan are<\/p>\n
to be relied on.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94                 12<\/span><\/p>\n
      9.   When Ext.A1 provides for  preservation of<\/p>\n
existing mamool pathways with specific provision<\/p>\n
that        sharers are not entitled to cause any<\/p>\n
obstruction     to the  usage of the mamool pathways<\/p>\n
and the pathways are marked in the plan appended to<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 partition deed, it cannot be said that<\/p>\n
varying or contradicting or changing     the pathway<\/p>\n
from the one demarcated in the plan appended to<\/p>\n
Ext.A1     is  not  permitted  under section  92  of<\/p>\n
Evidence Act       as canvassed by learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for respondents. Section 92 of Evidence<\/p>\n
Act mandates that no evidence of an oral agreement<\/p>\n
or statement shall be admitted for the purpose of<\/p>\n
contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting<\/p>\n
from the terms of the document.      Changing of the<\/p>\n
pathway as marked in Ext.A1 would amount to varying<\/p>\n
and     contradicting the   terms  of Ext.A1.    The<\/p>\n
principles laid by the Apex Court in Krishnabai<\/p>\n
Bhritar Ganpatrao Deshmukh’s case (supra) is not<\/p>\n
applicable on the facts of this case.    If the case<\/p>\n
of the defendants was that there was a mistake in<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94               13<\/span><\/p>\n
marking the pathway in the plan appended to Ext.A1,<\/p>\n
they should have pleaded    as to what exactly was<\/p>\n
the existing mamool pathway     at the time of the<\/p>\n
partition deed.   Without  pleading that fact, they<\/p>\n
are not entitled to contend    that   a mistake was<\/p>\n
committed while marking the plan        appended to<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 partition deed.    As rightly pointed out by<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for appellants, if the<\/p>\n
right of    way which is preserved under Ext.A1 is<\/p>\n
not as marked in the plan appended to Ext.A1    and<\/p>\n
the pathway runs through R.S.835\/3 as claimed by<\/p>\n
the defendants, it would have been specifically<\/p>\n
marked in R.S.No.833\/3, as it    admittedly did not<\/p>\n
belong to the joint family at the time when Ext.A1<\/p>\n
partition   deed  was  entered  into, though   after<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, plaintiffs   purchased the said paddy field<\/p>\n
also.     It is therefore absolutely clear from the<\/p>\n
evidence that the mamool pathway preserved under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 is the pathway as demarcated in the plan<\/p>\n
appended    to Ext.A1.    The  defendants  are  not<\/p>\n
entitled to plead or prove that   pathways preserved<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94                 14<\/span><\/p>\n
thereunder is another pathway and not the one as<\/p>\n
marked in the plan appended to Ext.A1.    If that be<\/p>\n
so, first appellate court was not justified in<\/p>\n
interfering with the finding of the trial court<\/p>\n
that the pathway provided under Ext.A1 is the one<\/p>\n
marked in Ext.A1 and claimed by the plaintiffs in<\/p>\n
the suit.     When a right of way is provided  under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1,      defendants are not entitled to contend<\/p>\n
that     plaintiffs are  not  entitled  to  use that<\/p>\n
pathway, for the reason that the pathway was not<\/p>\n
being used by the plaintiffs. Exts.C1 report      and<\/p>\n
C2 plan, at best would show     that for some period<\/p>\n
the pathway      provided under Ext.A1 was not used.<\/p>\n
But that will not enable      defendants to deny the<\/p>\n
right     granted  to the  plaintiffs  under  Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the decree for<\/p>\n
declaration and      injunction granted by the trial<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
      Second appeal is allowed.      The decree and<\/p>\n
judgment passed by the Sub Court, Kasaragod in<\/p>\n
A.S.54\/1991 are      set aside. The decree passed by<\/p>\n
S.A.662\/94               15<\/span><\/p>\n
Munsiff    Court, Kasaragod in O.S.284\/1986     is<\/p>\n
restored. No cost.\n<\/p>\n
                              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                      JUDGE
\ntpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n
     S.A. 537 \/1994\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
   17TH AUGUST,2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 662 of 1994() 1. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT … Petitioner Vs 1. DRUIPADI AMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI For Respondent :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :14\/08\/2007 O R D […]<\/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-172920","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007 - 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\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-08T21:45:41+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-08T21:45:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2426,\"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\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-08T21:45:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007 - 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\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-08T21:45:41+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-08T21:45:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007"},"wordCount":2426,"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\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007","name":"Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-08T21:45:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shankaranarayana-bhat-vs-druipadi-amma-on-14-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shankaranarayana Bhat vs Druipadi Amma on 14 August, 2007"}]},{"@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\/172920","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=172920"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172920\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172920"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}