{"id":17300,"date":"2010-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-02-24T23:08:54","modified_gmt":"2018-02-24T17:38:54","slug":"murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Murikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Murikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 207 of 1998()\n\n\n\n1. MURIKANCHERI DEVAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. C.O.PARUKUTTYIAMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.T.ANTONY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :24\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                  -----------------------------------\n                       A.S.No.207 of 1998 - B\n                   ---------------------------------\n              Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The plaintiff in O.S.No.78 of 1994 on the file of the Sub<\/p>\n
Court, Payyannur, is the appellant.       Suit is filed for return of<\/p>\n
money paid as advance amount. The court below dismissed the<\/p>\n
suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff has preferred<\/p>\n
the appeal. Parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
defendant as arrayed in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    The plaintiff and defendant are close relatives. The<\/p>\n
defendant had executed a sale agreement on 23.3.1991 in favour<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff whereby the defendant agreed to sell the property<\/p>\n
comprised in R.S.No.15\/2 of Kolacheri amsom Perumcheri desom<\/p>\n
owned and possessed by her. Ext.A2 is the agreement. The<\/p>\n
consideration fixed is Rs.875\/- per cent. The total extent agreed<\/p>\n
to be sold is 72 cents. On the date of Ext.A2 agreement the<\/p>\n
plaintiff paid advance amount of Rs.12,000\/- to the defendant.<\/p>\n
The parties agreed that the sale deed will be registered within six<\/p>\n
months from the date of agreement on payment of balance sale<\/p>\n
consideration. It is the case of the plaintiff that he approached<\/p>\n
the defendant on several occasions to get the sale deed<\/p>\n
A.S.No.207 of 1998 – B<\/p>\n
                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
registered, but, the defendant was avoiding the performance of<\/p>\n
the contract by some reason or other. Therefore the plaintiff<\/p>\n
intimated the defendant that he is not insisting for the specific<\/p>\n
performance of the agreement for sale if the advance amount<\/p>\n
with interest thereon is repaid to him.          Subsequently, the<\/p>\n
defendant alienated the property in favour of a third person and<\/p>\n
it is alleged that the said act of the defendant caused damages,<\/p>\n
hardship and financial loss to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
filed the present suit seeking to realise the advance amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.12,000\/- with interest and Rs.10,000\/- as damages for the<\/p>\n
hardship and loss caused by the defendant to the plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
suit was filed for realisation of Rs.26,160\/-.<\/p>\n
      3.    In the written statement the defendant denied the<\/p>\n
averments in the plaint.      The execution of Ext.A2 agreement,<\/p>\n
receipt of Rs.12,000\/- as advance and contents of Ext.A2 are<\/p>\n
admitted.    The defendant contended that the plaintiff has not<\/p>\n
taken any steps to get the sale deed executed; he failed to<\/p>\n
perform his part of contract even after the expiry of the period<\/p>\n
specified in the agreement; the defendant was always ready and<\/p>\n
willing to perform her part of contract and ready to execute the<\/p>\n
sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is also contended that the<\/p>\n
A.S.No.207 of 1998 – B<\/p>\n
                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff informed the defendant that he is prepared to purchase<\/p>\n
the property only at the rate of Rs.500\/- per cent and that since<\/p>\n
the plaintiff failed to perform his part of contract, the defendant<\/p>\n
is compelled to assign the property to a third person for a lesser<\/p>\n
consideration and therefore she sustained Rs.25,000\/- as loss.<\/p>\n
     4.     The plaintiff is working in a Gulf country. At the time<\/p>\n
of execution of the agreement and during the subsequent periods<\/p>\n
as well, the plaintiff was in abroad. His wife is the power of<\/p>\n
attorney holder.      She was examined as PW1.         One of the<\/p>\n
witnesses to Ext.A2 agreement was examined as PW2.<\/p>\n
Defendant was examined as DW1. The plaintiff produced Exts.A1<\/p>\n
to A6 and on the side of the defendant Exts.B1 & B2 are marked.<\/p>\n
     5.     The trial court after appreciating the oral and<\/p>\n
documentary evidence held that the plaintiff has committed<\/p>\n
breach of contract, and therefore he is not entitled to get back<\/p>\n
the advance amount and damages claimed in the suit.<\/p>\n
     6.     Ext.A2 is the agreement dated 23.3.1991 admittedly,<\/p>\n
executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.          The<\/p>\n
defendant agreed to sell 72 cents of land at the rate of Rs.875\/-<\/p>\n
per cent.     On the date of Ext.A2 agreement, the defendant<\/p>\n
received Rs.12,000\/- from the plaintiff as advance amount. It is<\/p>\n
A.S.No.207 of 1998 – B<\/p>\n
                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
stipulated in Ext.A2 agreement that the balance purchase price<\/p>\n
will be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed within six<\/p>\n
months.    The plaintiff’s wife was examined on behalf of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. She testified before the court that her husband was<\/p>\n
ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract and for that<\/p>\n
he send money to her for making payments within the time fixed<\/p>\n
by the parties.       But, the execution of the sale deed was<\/p>\n
postponed originally by the defendant stating that a partition<\/p>\n
suit, namely, O.S.No.41 of 1991, between his family members is<\/p>\n
pending before the 1st Additional Sub Court, Thalassery and that,<\/p>\n
sale deed can be executed only after disposal of the said suit.<\/p>\n
She also testified that at the time when she went along with PW2<\/p>\n
she carried the balance sale consideration for making payment to<\/p>\n
the defendant. She testified that at that time her husband was in<\/p>\n
Gulf country and he had sent money for making payment. She<\/p>\n
testified that the defendant was not willing to execute the sale<\/p>\n
deed during that period.     She further testified that she made<\/p>\n
enquiries regarding the pendency of the suit in the Thalassery<\/p>\n
Sub Court and she came to know that civil suit O.S.No.41 of<\/p>\n
1991 for partition was pending at that time. After the disposal of<\/p>\n
the suit also she approached the defendant. At that time the<\/p>\n
A.S.No.207 of 1998 – B<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant replied that she is not prepared to execute the sale<\/p>\n
deed unless the plaintiff pay Rs.1,500\/- per cent. Ext.A6 is the<\/p>\n
certified copy of the final decree in O.S.No.41 of 1991. PW1<\/p>\n
deposed that on enquiry, it was found that the defendant had<\/p>\n
sold the property to a third person on 30.7.1993. Admittedly,<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 is the copy of the letter sent by the plaintiff to the<\/p>\n
defendant on 19.11.1992. In Ext.B1 letter the plaintiff informed<\/p>\n
the defendant that he has no objection in selling the property to<\/p>\n
any third person provided the defendant shall pay the advance<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.12,000\/- with interest plus Rs.10,000\/- towards<\/p>\n
loss caused to him due to non-performance on her part of the<\/p>\n
contract. In Ext.B1 letter it is stated that during the period of<\/p>\n
contract he had mobilized the balance sale consideration by<\/p>\n
availing Rs.14,000\/- dirhams as loan from a bank in Gulf and that<\/p>\n
he was compelled to pay 1400 dirham towards interest to the<\/p>\n
bank. It is also stated in Ext.B1 letter that the defendant and her<\/p>\n
husband had cheated him by not executing the sale deed in his<\/p>\n
favour and further stated that he do not propose to lodge any<\/p>\n
compliant against the defendant. The wordings in Ext.B1 letter<\/p>\n
shows that the plaintiff was convinced that the defendant is not<\/p>\n
ready and willing to execute the sale deed at any point of time<\/p>\n
A.S.No.207 of 1998 – B<\/p>\n
                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
either within the agreement period or thereafter and that he was<\/p>\n
fully convinced about his idea to sell the property to a third<\/p>\n
person.     Therefore, he informed the defendant that she may<\/p>\n
alienate the property to any third person for which he has no<\/p>\n
objection, provided that he shall return the advance amount and<\/p>\n
shall also compensate the loss amount caused to him.          The<\/p>\n
defendant also did not dispute the contents of the letter. But the<\/p>\n
counsel contended that the contents of the letter shows that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not ready and willing to purchase the property and in<\/p>\n
fact he demanded the advance amount. I cannot agree with the<\/p>\n
submissions made by the learned counsel for the defendant. In<\/p>\n
fact the testimony of PW1 read with Ext.B1 letter show that the<\/p>\n
defendant was not willing at any point of time to execute the sale<\/p>\n
deed.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    PW2 is one of the witnesses to Ext.A2 agreement. He<\/p>\n
is a relative of both parties. He deposed before the court that he<\/p>\n
went to the defendant’s house twice during the agreement period<\/p>\n
and demanded the defendant to execute the sale deed. When<\/p>\n
the defendant was examined as DW1, she also admitted that<\/p>\n
PW2 had occasion to visit her house twice as stated by PW2. The<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs 1 & 2 read with the attendant circumstances<\/p>\n
A.S.No.207 of 1998 – B<\/p>\n
                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
proved that the plaintiff was ready and willing to purchase the<\/p>\n
property during the period of contract and offered to wait till the<\/p>\n
disposal of the partition suit as demanded by the defendant.<\/p>\n
PW1 also testified before the court that after disposal of the civil<\/p>\n
suit she again approached the defendant for execution of the sale<\/p>\n
deed. But, at that point of time also, the defendant was not<\/p>\n
prepared to execute the sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   In Ext.B1 letter the plaintiff informed the defendant<\/p>\n
that due to the conduct of the defendant he suffered heavy loss,<\/p>\n
but, he is limiting his demand to the paid interest for the loan<\/p>\n
amount he had availed from the bank.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   I have examined the contentions raised by the parties<\/p>\n
in the light of the evidence discussed above. According to the<\/p>\n
defendant she sold the property to a third person at the rate of<\/p>\n
Rs.500\/- per cent. Rs.500\/- is the amount shown in Ext.B2 sale<\/p>\n
deed. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that it is the<\/p>\n
usual practice in the State that the parties never disclose the<\/p>\n
actual amount received in the document for the purpose of<\/p>\n
making reduced payment of stamp duty. In various cases the<\/p>\n
Apex Court has even taken note of the practice followed by the<\/p>\n
people. I am unable to accept the contention that the defendant<\/p>\n
A.S.No.207 of 1998 – B<\/p>\n
                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
had suffered loss. Moreover in the written statement she had<\/p>\n
stated that she suffered Rs.25,000\/- because of the failure of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff to execute the sale deed within time. If she suffered loss<\/p>\n
to that extent, there is no reason why she had not preferred a<\/p>\n
counter claim in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     10. The evidence tendered by the plaintiff’s witnesses,<\/p>\n
documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff, preponderance of<\/p>\n
probabilities and attendant circumstances shows that the<\/p>\n
defendant had acted in bad faith and refused to execute the sale<\/p>\n
deed though the plaintiff had demanded execution of sale deed<\/p>\n
on more than one occasion. Moreover the dispute is between two<\/p>\n
near relatives and the plaintiff was in a Gulf country throughout<\/p>\n
the period. The facts and circumstances show that he was ever<\/p>\n
ready and willing to purchase the property after paying the<\/p>\n
balance     sale   consideration.      Learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
respondent\/defendant cited the decision reported in Janki<\/p>\n
Vashdeo v. Indus Ind Bank<\/a> (2005 (2) KLT 265 SC) and<\/p>\n
submitted that PW1 who is the power of attorney holder of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not competent to testify the contentions of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
in court and therefore her evidence cannot be relied upon. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel also relied on the decision reported in 1999 SAR<\/p>\n
A.S.No.207 of 1998 – B<\/p>\n
                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
(civil) 431 and contended that since the plaintiff did not enter the<\/p>\n
witness box or presented himself for examination, the court shall<\/p>\n
draw an adverse presumption against him invoking Section 114<\/p>\n
of the Evidence Act. I do not think that the decisions cited by the<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent apply to the facts of the case. In this<\/p>\n
case, the plaintiff was in Gulf country even at the time of<\/p>\n
execution of Ext.A2 agreement and subsequent periods.<\/p>\n
Transaction was made through his wife and PW2 who is a close<\/p>\n
relative. Since the plaintiff was out of the country his wife is the<\/p>\n
competent witness to dispose for and on behalf of him.<\/p>\n
Moreover through out the proceedings it is the wife who was<\/p>\n
engaged in the dealings with the defendant. She also acted as<\/p>\n
power of attorney holder. In such circumstances, the contentions<\/p>\n
raised by the learned counsel is without substance. The reasons<\/p>\n
stated by the trial court for non-suiting the plaintiff cannot stand<\/p>\n
for the reasons I have stated in the preceding paragraphs. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no<\/p>\n
evidence in support of the claim for damages except the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
interested testimony.      Relying on the decision reported in<\/p>\n
F.A.C.T Engineering Works v. Kerala Industries<\/a> (2001 (3)<\/p>\n
KLT 250) the counsel submitted that no oral evidence has been<\/p>\n
A.S.No.207 of 1998 – B<\/p>\n
                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
adduced to show that the plaintiff suffered damages and there is<\/p>\n
no evidence to show the actual loss suffered by the plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances I have discussed above will lead to the<\/p>\n
irresistible conclusion that the plaintiff suffered loss.       The<\/p>\n
contents of Ext.B1 letter also support the case of the plaintiff. in<\/p>\n
such circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to a reasonable<\/p>\n
amount as damages. The amount of loss suffered at a moderate<\/p>\n
estimate is fixed as Rs.5,000\/-. In such circumstances the claim<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff for the return of advance amount plus reasonable<\/p>\n
amount towards loss is sustainable in all respects.<\/p>\n
      In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the court<\/p>\n
below are set aside.         The plaintiff is allowed to realise<\/p>\n
Rs.21,160\/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the<\/p>\n
date of suit till the date of decree and future interest at the rate<\/p>\n
of 6% from the date of decree till realisation. Appeal is allowed<\/p>\n
with costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                     JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Murikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 207 of 1998() 1. MURIKANCHERI DEVAN … Petitioner Vs 1. C.O.PARUKUTTYIAMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.T.ANTONY For Respondent :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :24\/03\/2010 O R D E R HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ———————————– A.S.No.207 […]<\/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-17300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMurikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 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\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Murikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-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=\"2010-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-24T17:38:54+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Murikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-24T17:38:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2234,\"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\\\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Murikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-24T17:38:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Murikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 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":"Murikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 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\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Murikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-24T17:38:54+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Murikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-24T17:38:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010"},"wordCount":2234,"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\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010","name":"Murikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-24T17:38:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/murikancheri-devan-vs-c-o-parukuttyiamma-on-24-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Murikancheri Devan vs C.O.Parukuttyiamma on 24 March, 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\/17300","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=17300"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17300\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}