{"id":177000,"date":"2010-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-14T03:43:19","modified_gmt":"2016-12-13T22:13:19","slug":"s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"S.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
S.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 161 of 2009()\n\n\n1. S.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, S\/O.R.RAVEENDRAN UNNI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SURESHKUMAR, S\/O.PEETHAMBARAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.V.RAJA\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :24\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n      PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n            ------------------------------------------\n                    RCR. No. 161 of 2009\n           -------------------------------------------\n          Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n
     The tenant challenges in this revision the judgment of<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Appellate Authority ordering eviction<\/p>\n
against him on the ground of additional accommodation for<\/p>\n
personal use.     Parties will be referred to as tenant and<\/p>\n
landlord. The landlord sought to evict the tenant on various<\/p>\n
grounds. It is conceded to both sides that the only ground<\/p>\n
which survives for consideration is under section 11(8)<\/p>\n
additional accommodation and hence we are proposed to<\/p>\n
refer to the pleadings to the extent the same pertains to the<\/p>\n
need for additional accommodation.            The case of the<\/p>\n
landlord was that the petition schedule building is portion of<\/p>\n
a larger building belonging to the landlord and that the<\/p>\n
landlord himself is in possession of the adjacent portion<\/p>\n
where he is conducting a business by name Muthodam Mill<\/p>\n
  RCR.161\/09\n<\/p>\n
                              – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
\nStores. The tenant is conducting business in the same line<\/p>\n
under the name Vinayaka Auto Spares in the petition<\/p>\n
schedule building. It is a partnership business that is being<\/p>\n
conducted by the landlord in his portion of the building and<\/p>\n
the landlord is the Managing Partner of that firm. The firm<\/p>\n
intends to deal in water pump also for the purpose of<\/p>\n
expanding their business.      Lakshmi brand motor pumps<\/p>\n
have granted them agency as per Ext.A5         for expanding<\/p>\n
business by conducting agency of       Lakshmi brand water<\/p>\n
pumps and the space presently available with the landlord is<\/p>\n
insufficient and inadequate.    Hence the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building which is adjacent is needed accepting a contention<\/p>\n
in the context of the proviso to sub section 10 of section 11.<\/p>\n
It was stated in th RCP that the tenant has other means of<\/p>\n
income and that if it becomes necessary other premises will<\/p>\n
be available in the locality for conduct of business by the<\/p>\n
tenant.\n<\/p>\n
     2.     The bonafides of the need for additional<\/p>\n
  RCR.161\/09\n<\/p>\n
                                – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
\naccommodation was disputed by the tenant who contended<\/p>\n
that the hardship which would be sustained by an order of<\/p>\n
eviction will far outweigh the advantages the landlord may<\/p>\n
gain by getting the order of eviction. The rent control court<\/p>\n
enquired into the matter.      Evidence at trial consisted of<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A14, Exts.B1 to B3. Commission report Exts.C1<\/p>\n
and C3 and mahazar Exts.C2 and C4, Witnesses Ext.X1 to<\/p>\n
X4 and oral testimony of Pws 1 to 3 and RW1 to 2,       apart<\/p>\n
from the evidence of the Advocate Commissioner CW1 and<\/p>\n
third party witnesses XW1 and 2.          On evaluating the<\/p>\n
evidence the rent control court came to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
the area    already available with the landlord which was an<\/p>\n
area of 7.2 meters x 4.5 meters (roughly 300 sq.ft) is<\/p>\n
sufficient for the landlord to conduct the agency of Lakshmi<\/p>\n
motor pumps. Noticing that the tenant has availed a bank<\/p>\n
loan for the business conducted by the tenant the court<\/p>\n
concluded that if the tenant is evicted it will become<\/p>\n
impossible for the tenant to clear the bank’s dues. On that<\/p>\n
  RCR.161\/09\n<\/p>\n
                              – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
\nreasoning the court found that the hardship to the tenant<\/p>\n
would outweigh the advantage if any the landlord may gain<\/p>\n
and the rent control petition was dismissed.<\/p>\n
     3. The appellate authority under the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment made a thorough reappraisal of the evidence and<\/p>\n
reversed the findings of the Rent    Control Court.    That<\/p>\n
authority found relying on various decisions of this court<\/p>\n
that for establishing the bonafides of a need for additional<\/p>\n
occupation under sub section 8 of section 11 and concluded<\/p>\n
that the need for additional occupation was bonafide. To<\/p>\n
find that the landlord needs additional     accommodation<\/p>\n
commission reports were relied on apart from the testimony<\/p>\n
of Pws.1 to 3. The appellate authority would analyse the<\/p>\n
advantage which would be gained by the landlord for getting<\/p>\n
eviction and the hardship which the tenant may sustain by<\/p>\n
the order of eviction and came to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
advantage to the landlord will outweigh the apparent<\/p>\n
hardship to the tenant.       Thus the appellate authority<\/p>\n
  RCR.161\/09\n<\/p>\n
                              – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
\nreversed the decision of the Rent Control Court and an order<\/p>\n
of eviction was passed under sub section 8 of section 11.<\/p>\n
      4. In this revision under section 20 various grounds<\/p>\n
have been raised assailing the judgment of the appellate<\/p>\n
authority and Sri.V.Chitambaresh, senior counsel for the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner addressed us on the basis of all those<\/p>\n
grounds. Learned senior counsel read over to us the order<\/p>\n
of the rent control court as well as the judgment of the<\/p>\n
appellate authority. Counsel submitted that unlike the order<\/p>\n
of the rent control court which is a reasoned order the<\/p>\n
judgment of the appellate authority contains only excerpts<\/p>\n
from certain judicial precedents and no finding has been<\/p>\n
entered by the appellate authority to the effect that the<\/p>\n
need for additional accommodation is bonafide.    According<\/p>\n
to the learned senior counsel the evidence on record will not<\/p>\n
justify   the  conclusion  that    the need  for  additional<\/p>\n
accommodation is a bonafide one and there was no warrant<\/p>\n
for interference.   All the arguments of the senior counsel<\/p>\n
  RCR.161\/09\n<\/p>\n
                                – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
\ncould be met by Sri.Raja Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondent who supported the judgment of the<\/p>\n
appellate authority on various reasons.            Apart from<\/p>\n
supporting the impugned judgment on the reasons stated in<\/p>\n
the judgment and the various judicial precedents referred to<\/p>\n
therein, Mr.Raja reminded us about the attenuated nature<\/p>\n
of our jurisdiction.      According to him, the nature of<\/p>\n
jurisdiction is revisional and it cannot be stated that there is<\/p>\n
irregularity, illegality or impropriety as       envisaged by<\/p>\n
section 20 in the judgment of the appellate authority.      We<\/p>\n
have considered the rival submissions of the counsel. We<\/p>\n
have scanned the judgment of the rent control appellate<\/p>\n
authority.    We have also considered those items            of<\/p>\n
evidence to which our attention was drawn.<\/p>\n
     5. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent the jurisdiction in which we presently sitting is<\/p>\n
revisional in nature.   Under the statutory scheme the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Appellate Authority is the final court on facts. This<\/p>\n
  RCR.161\/09\n<\/p>\n
                              – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
\ncourt under section 20 is not normally accepted even to<\/p>\n
reappraise the evidence.     Of course in this particular case<\/p>\n
since the findings are divergent there may be justification<\/p>\n
for reappraisal of the evidence and that is why we have<\/p>\n
considered the evidence. We find that the finding of the<\/p>\n
appellate authority is bonafide one is founded on evidence<\/p>\n
which is available on record. PWs.1 and 2 gave convincing<\/p>\n
evidence to the effect that they intend to expand their<\/p>\n
business by conducting agency of Lakshmi brand water<\/p>\n
pumps.      Ext.A5 was the clear evidence in support of their<\/p>\n
claim that they have already secured agency.      Ext.A5 was<\/p>\n
duly proved before the rent control court by examining its<\/p>\n
author. The total area presently under the possession of the<\/p>\n
landlord is only about 300 sq.feet.   We feel that the case<\/p>\n
that for conducting additional business of agency in motor<\/p>\n
pumps, the landlord requires additional space of 250 sq.ft<\/p>\n
is reasonable in all standards.    The bonafide requirement<\/p>\n
whether it is under section 11(3) OR 11(8) only means a<\/p>\n
  RCR.161\/09\n<\/p>\n
                                – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
\nreasonable requirement.        We are of the view that the<\/p>\n
learned appellate authority which is the final court on facts<\/p>\n
under the statutory scheme was justified in concluding that<\/p>\n
the need for additional occupation is bonafide.<\/p>\n
     6. It is trite that the standards of evidence required for<\/p>\n
establishing     bonafides    of     a need    for   additional<\/p>\n
accommodation under subsection(8) of Section 11 are not<\/p>\n
so rigorous as those required for establishing bonafide need<\/p>\n
under subsection (3) of Section 11. We are convinced that<\/p>\n
applying those standards the finding of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority that the landlord needs the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building for additional accommodation for their personal use<\/p>\n
is a bonafide one which is liable to be rejected in terms of<\/p>\n
subsection (10) of Section 11 for want of bonafides.<\/p>\n
However, it is now necessary to examine whether the<\/p>\n
landlord in this case has passed the test of the first proviso<\/p>\n
to subsection (10) of Section 11, i.e., whether the hardship<\/p>\n
which the tenant may sustain will outweigh the advantages<\/p>\n
  RCR.161\/09\n<\/p>\n
                              – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
\nwhich the landlord may get by ordering eviction. We find<\/p>\n
that the Appellate Authority has considered the question of<\/p>\n
comparative advantages and hardships also. The Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority rightly noticed that there is burden on both sides<\/p>\n
to    adduce     evidence     regarding    the    respective<\/p>\n
advantages\/hardships to be gained or sustained by them by<\/p>\n
the order of eviction.       The Appellate Authority has<\/p>\n
reappraised the evidence in the context of the proviso to<\/p>\n
subsection (10) of Section 11 also. The Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
found that the tenant has not produced any documents<\/p>\n
which will show as to what is the income derived by him<\/p>\n
from the business carried on in the premises. The Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority rightly found that the insistence of the tenant to<\/p>\n
continue in this building is on the reason that unless the<\/p>\n
tenant continues business in this building itself he will not<\/p>\n
be able to discharge the debts he has incurred with his<\/p>\n
business. According to the Appellate Authority, the tenant<\/p>\n
having not produced evidence showing as to what is the<\/p>\n
 RCR.161\/09\n<\/p>\n
                               – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
\nincome from the business cannot claim to have proved the<\/p>\n
justification for insistence of    continuing in this building.<\/p>\n
One reason on which the Rent Control Court found that the<\/p>\n
tenant will have to suffer hardship is that the tenant will<\/p>\n
have to shift his business to another building. The Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority rightly found that the shifting of business is the<\/p>\n
inevitable result of any eviction order and that alone cannot<\/p>\n
be a criterion to hold that hardship will be sustained by the<\/p>\n
tenant. The Appellate Authority rightly took the view that<\/p>\n
any hardship which the tenant may suffer due to shifting<\/p>\n
will be alleviated if he is able to secure another building for<\/p>\n
conducting his business.        Noticing that there was no<\/p>\n
evidence adduced by the tenant to show that other buildings<\/p>\n
are not available in the locality, the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
concluded that the hardship which the tenant may suffer<\/p>\n
because of the eviction order will not outweigh the<\/p>\n
advantages to be gained by the landlord. We are of the<\/p>\n
view that the above conclusion of the Appellate Authority is<\/p>\n
  RCR.161\/09\n<\/p>\n
                               – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
\nquite reasonable and does not suffer from illegality,<\/p>\n
irregularity or impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 of Act<\/p>\n
2 of 1965. The result of the above discussion is that the<\/p>\n
RCR will fail and will stand dismissed. However, we feel<\/p>\n
that on the facts and circumstances attending on this case<\/p>\n
there is justification for grating a fairly long period to the<\/p>\n
tenant to vacate the premises. Hence even as we dismiss<\/p>\n
the RCR, we direct the execution court not to order and<\/p>\n
effect delivery of the petition schedule building till 31-03-<\/p>\n
2011 subject to the following conditions:<\/p>\n
     (1) The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit before<\/p>\n
the execution court within two months from today<\/p>\n
undertaking to give peaceful surrender of the petition<\/p>\n
schedule building to the respondent on or before 31-03-<\/p>\n
2011. Through the affidavit it will also be undertaken that<\/p>\n
arrears of rent due in respect of the building will be<\/p>\n
discharged within one month from today and that<\/p>\n
occupational charges at the current rent rate will also be<\/p>\n
  RCR.161\/09\n<\/p>\n
                                – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
\npaid without fail till such time as actual surrender of the<\/p>\n
building is made.        It is made clear that the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner will be entitled for the benefit of time granted only<\/p>\n
if he files the affidavit on time.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                           PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                            C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
\npmn\/ksv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court S.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 161 of 2009() 1. S.R.RADHAKRISHNAN, S\/O.R.RAVEENDRAN UNNI … Petitioner Vs 1. SURESHKUMAR, S\/O.PEETHAMBARAN, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.V.V.RAJA The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM Dated :24\/02\/2010 […]<\/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-177000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 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\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-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=\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-13T22:13:19+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\\\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-13T22:13:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1909,\"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\\\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010\",\"name\":\"S.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-13T22:13:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 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":"S.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 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\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-13T22:13:19+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\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-13T22:13:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010"},"wordCount":1909,"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\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010","name":"S.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-13T22:13:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-radhakrishnan-vs-sureshkumar-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.R.Radhakrishnan vs Sureshkumar on 24 February, 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\/177000","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=177000"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177000\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}