{"id":179300,"date":"2009-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009"},"modified":"2014-11-06T10:41:04","modified_gmt":"2014-11-06T05:11:04","slug":"m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"M. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRFA.No. 110 of 2007()\n\n\n1. M. SUDHAKARAN, S\/O.URAPPARAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MANGATT PRABHAKARAN, S\/O.CHOYI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. T.C. PADMANABHAN, S\/O.GOPALANKUTTY NAIR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :09\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                        K. M. JOSEPH &\n               M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.\n            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                    R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007\n            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n          Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Joseph Francis, J.\n<\/p>\n
      This appeal is filed by the petitioner in I.A. No.525 of<\/p>\n
2004 in I.A.No. 525 of 2002 in O.S.No. 49 of 2002 on the<\/p>\n
file of the Sub Court, Quilandy. Respondents 1 to 3 herein<\/p>\n
are respondents 1 to 3 in that petition, which was filed under<\/p>\n
Order 38 Rule 8 and Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The case of the appellant\/petitioner in brief is         as<\/p>\n
follows. The petition schedule property, along with other<\/p>\n
items, originally belonged to one Gopalankutty Nair and<\/p>\n
others, who partitioned the property as per final decree in<\/p>\n
O.S.No. 341 of 1968 of the Munsiff Court-II, Kozhikode.<\/p>\n
The above said Gopalankutty Nair took delivery as per<\/p>\n
E.P.No.163 of 1971 and was in exclusive possession of the<\/p>\n
R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
property. On his death, the rights devolved on his legal heirs.<\/p>\n
The second respondent is his son, who had 1\/6 share in the<\/p>\n
property.\n<\/p>\n
     3.    The appellant purchased his share as per assignment<\/p>\n
deed No.743\/02 dt. 23.3.2002. Subsequently, the appellant came<\/p>\n
to know that the property has been attached in I.A.No. 525 of 2004<\/p>\n
on the allegation that the third respondent had mortgaged 41.5<\/p>\n
cents of property in favour of the first respondent for a loan of<\/p>\n
Rs.4 Lakhs on 12.2.2001 and that the defendants executed a<\/p>\n
promissory note in favour of the first respondent\/plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
appellant apprehends that the respondents have colluded together<\/p>\n
for defrauding him after the second respondent sold the property in<\/p>\n
his favour for valuable consideration.     The promissory note is<\/p>\n
created for the purpose of defeating his rights. The appellant is a<\/p>\n
bonafide purchaser for consideration and he was not aware of any<\/p>\n
transaction involving the second respondent\/first defendant prior<\/p>\n
R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
to the purchase till he came to know of the attachment from the<\/p>\n
Sub Court, Kozhikode.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The petition schedule property was attached in another<\/p>\n
case filed as O.S.No. 218 of 2002 before the             Sub Court,<\/p>\n
Kozhikode.     The appellant was not aware of the attachment and<\/p>\n
he knew about the attachment only when it was effected in the<\/p>\n
above proceedings. The allegation that the property described in<\/p>\n
the schedule to plaint is insufficient for discharging the plaint<\/p>\n
claim is incorrect. Even assuming that the value of the property is<\/p>\n
not sufficient, the petitioner and his properties are not liable as he<\/p>\n
is a bonafide purchaser for value. So, the petitioner prayed for an<\/p>\n
order removing the attachment over the petition schedule property<\/p>\n
with costs of the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The first respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit, filed<\/p>\n
counter statement denying the averments in the petition.           He<\/p>\n
submitted that the petitioner had purchased right over the first<\/p>\n
R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant\/2nd respondent as per registered document No. 743\/ 02.<\/p>\n
The 2nd respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from the<\/p>\n
first respondent on 20.2.2004. The said aspect has been admitted<\/p>\n
by the defendants in the suit. But in order to defeat the rights of<\/p>\n
the respondent, the 2nd respondent colluding with the petitioner,<\/p>\n
created a document and got registered. The said document is a<\/p>\n
sham one, as per which no consideration was passed. It has not<\/p>\n
been acted upon. The possession of the property has never been<\/p>\n
handed over to the claimant. Before and after the said assignment<\/p>\n
deed, it is the 2nd respondent who is in possession of the property<\/p>\n
and he and his family are residing in the house situated therein.<\/p>\n
       6. The claim petitioner has filed the claim petition before<\/p>\n
the Sub Court, Kozhikode in O.S. 218\/02. It was on 7.1.2003 the<\/p>\n
suit in question was decreed and the averment in the petition that it<\/p>\n
was only on 19.10.2003, the petitioner came to know of the<\/p>\n
attachment is incorrect. The petition is liable to dismissed because<\/p>\n
R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
of the above said delay. It is only for protracting the proceedings<\/p>\n
before the court, the 2nd respondent colluding with the claimant<\/p>\n
has filed the claim petition.\n<\/p>\n
      7. In the Sub Court, for the purpose of enquiry PWs. 1 to 3<\/p>\n
and RW1 were examined and Exts.A1 to A13 and B1 were<\/p>\n
marked.     The learned Sub Judge, on considering the matter,<\/p>\n
dismissed that petition on finding that the claimant failed to<\/p>\n
establish his right over the petition schedule property. Against<\/p>\n
that order the petitioner filed this appeal.<\/p>\n
      8. Heard the learned counsel for the       appellant and the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the first respondent.<\/p>\n
      9. 1\/6th share of the first defendant in O.S.No. 49 of 2002<\/p>\n
on the file of the Sub Court, Quilandy over the petition schedule<\/p>\n
property was attached as per order in I.A.No. 525 of 2002<\/p>\n
dt.9.8.2002.   Ext.A1 is the copy of the Sale Deed No.743\/02<\/p>\n
dt.23.3.2002 executed by the first defendant in favour of the claim<\/p>\n
R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioner in respect of the 1\/6th right of the first defendant over<\/p>\n
that property. Therefore, it is clear that on the date of Ext.A1 Sale<\/p>\n
Deed there was no attachment of the petition schedule property as<\/p>\n
per order in I.A.No. 525 of 2002 in O.S.No. 49 of 2002.<\/p>\n
      10. O.S.No. 49 of 2002         was filed by the plaintiff for<\/p>\n
realisation of Rs.4 lakhs from defendants 1 and 2 on the basis of a<\/p>\n
promissory note executed by defendants 1 and 2 and the property<\/p>\n
having an extent of 41.5 cents belonging to the second defendant<\/p>\n
was mortgaged to the plaintiff. According to the claim petitioner,<\/p>\n
he purchased 1\/6th share of the first defendant over the petition<\/p>\n
schedule property as per Ext.A1 sale deed dt. 23.3.2002 as a<\/p>\n
bonafide purchaser. PW1 deposed that he purchased 1\/6th share<\/p>\n
of the first defendant over the petition schedule property for a sale<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs.40,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
      11. The learned counsel for the appellant invited our attention<\/p>\n
to the decision of the Apex Court reported in Hamda Ammal v.<\/p>\n
R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
Avadiappa Pathar and ors. ((1991) 1 SCC 715), in which it was<\/p>\n
held:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           Rule 5 of Order 38 CPC would not apply where<\/p>\n
     the sale deed has already been executed by the<\/p>\n
     defendant in favour of a third person. A transaction of<\/p>\n
     sale having already taken place even prior to the<\/p>\n
     institution of a suit cannot be said to have been made<\/p>\n
     with the intention to obstruct or delay the execution of<\/p>\n
     any decree. Rule 10 of Order 38 also makes it clear that<\/p>\n
     attachment before judgment shall not affect the rights,<\/p>\n
     existing prior to the attachment, of persons not parties<\/p>\n
     to the suit.     It would, however, a different case<\/p>\n
     altogether if a creditor wants to assail a pre-attachment<\/p>\n
     transfer by sale under Section 53 of the Transfer of<\/p>\n
     Property Act, 1882. Such suit would be decided on<\/p>\n
     totally different considerations in accordance with the<\/p>\n
     provisions of Section 53 of the Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
           Neither in Section 64 CPC nor in the form<\/p>\n
     prescribed for attachment there is any prohibition for<\/p>\n
     submitting the sale deed for registration which has<\/p>\n
     already been executed prior to an attachment. In view<\/p>\n
     of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act after the<\/p>\n
     execution of the sale deed with consideration all the<\/p>\n
     ingredients of sale are fulfilled except that in case of<\/p>\n
     tangible immovable property of the value of Rs. 100<\/p>\n
     and upwards it can be made only by registered<\/p>\n
     instrument. Section 47 of the Registration Act makes it<\/p>\n
     clear that after the registration it will relate back to the<\/p>\n
     date of execution of the sale deed.            The act of<\/p>\n
     registration is to be performed by the registering<\/p>\n
     authority. Thus the vendee gets rights which will be<\/p>\n
     related back on registration from the date of the<\/p>\n
     execution of the sale deed and such rights are protected<\/p>\n
     under Order 38 Rule 10 CPC             read together with<\/p>\n
     Section 47 of the Registration Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           When the property belonged to the defendant-<\/p>\n
     judgment debtors (vendors) and the sale deed had<\/p>\n
     already been executed by them prior to the attachment<\/p>\n
R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
     before judgment and only its registration remains, then<\/p>\n
     neither the attachment before judgment nor a<\/p>\n
     subsequent attachment or court sale of the property<\/p>\n
     would confer any title by preventing the relation back.<\/p>\n
     The fact that the document of sale had not been<\/p>\n
     registered until after the attachment makes no<\/p>\n
     difference.  Even an unregistered document can be<\/p>\n
     received as evidence for purposes mentioned in the<\/p>\n
     proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act. The<\/p>\n
     contention that till registration, the execution of the sale<\/p>\n
     deed does not confer any rights whatsoever on the<\/p>\n
     vendee cannot be accepted.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
    12. In the decision reported in          Ithakku Abraham      v.<\/p>\n
Kesavan Damodaran (1987 (1) KLT 704), it was held:<\/p>\n
          “A plea based on S.53 of the T.P. Act can be<\/p>\n
    raised by way of defence, and if raised as a defence,<\/p>\n
    there is no need to defend the suit in a representative<\/p>\n
    capacity on behalf of all the creditors of the judgment<\/p>\n
R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
    debtor. Rs.58 as amended by the C.P.C. Amendment<\/p>\n
    Act 104\/1976 expressly provided that all question<\/p>\n
    ( including questions relating to right, title and interest<\/p>\n
    in the property attached) arising between the parties to a<\/p>\n
    proceeding or their representatives under the rule and<\/p>\n
    relevant to the adjudication of the claim or objection<\/p>\n
    shall be determined by the court dealing with the claim<\/p>\n
    or objection and not by a separate suit. An order made<\/p>\n
    under sub-rule (3) shall have the same force and be<\/p>\n
    subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise<\/p>\n
    as it were a decree. Since the claim is to be adjudicated<\/p>\n
    on all questions relating to right, title and interest in the<\/p>\n
    property attached, the claimant is in the position of a<\/p>\n
    plaintiff and the decree-holder who opposes the claim is<\/p>\n
    in the position of a defendant in a suit where the<\/p>\n
    question relating to the right, title or interest in the<\/p>\n
    property attached is to be determined.          The decree<\/p>\n
    holder is therefore entitled to defend        the claim on<\/p>\n
    grounds available to him under S.53 of the T.P. Act and<\/p>\n
    such a defence need not be in a representative capacity,<\/p>\n
    on behalf of all the creditors of the judgment debtor.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
      13. On perusing the lower court records in I.A. 525 of 2002<\/p>\n
in O.S. No. 49 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Quilandy it is<\/p>\n
seen that the first defendant is having an extent of 7.63 cents in<\/p>\n
Re-survey No.8\/2 in Nileswaram Village apart from the petition<\/p>\n
schedule property. When this fact was brought to the notice of the<\/p>\n
counsel for both sides, the counsel for the first respondent<\/p>\n
submitted that, that property was sold by the first defendant after<\/p>\n
attachment in O.S.No. 49 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court,<\/p>\n
Quilandy and thereafter that property has undergone several<\/p>\n
assignments and as such that property is not available for sale in<\/p>\n
execution of the decree.\n<\/p>\n
      14. Under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act the<\/p>\n
burden is on the plaintiff, who alleged fraud to prove the same and<\/p>\n
mere suspicion is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 sale deed is a fraudulent one in order to defeat the claim of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
      15. On going through the order under challenge it is seen<\/p>\n
that the lower court relied on Ext.B1 copy of the order in I.A.No.<\/p>\n
2083 of 2002 in O.S.No. 218 of 2002 on the file of the III<\/p>\n
Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode along with other evidence to<\/p>\n
arrive at a conclusion that Ext.A1 is a sham transaction. But we<\/p>\n
have set aside Ext.B1 order as per judgment in R.F.A. 333 of 2003<\/p>\n
and remanded the matter to the lower court for fresh consideration.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant<\/p>\n
came to know about the attachment in the present case when he<\/p>\n
got Ext.B1 certified copy of the order and that the appellant filed<\/p>\n
the claim petition without much delay.\n<\/p>\n
      16. On considering the evidence on record, we are of the<\/p>\n
view that the evidence is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion<\/p>\n
that Ext.A1 is a bonafide sale or it is a fraudulent one. Therefore,<\/p>\n
we are of the view that in the interests of justice both sides should<\/p>\n
be given sufficient opportunity to adduce further evidence to<\/p>\n
R.F.A.No. 110 of 2007<\/p>\n
                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
substantiate their respective contentions and for that purpose the<\/p>\n
case has to be remanded back to the lower court for further<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n
      17.    Accordingly this appeal is allowed.     The order in<\/p>\n
I.A.No. 525 of 2004 in I.A. 525 of 2002 in O.S.No. 49 of 2002 on<\/p>\n
the file of the Sub Court, Quilandy is set aside and that petition is<\/p>\n
remanded back to that court for fresh disposal in accordance with<\/p>\n
law after giving sufficient opportunity to both sides to adduce<\/p>\n
further evidence. The parties are directed to appear before that<\/p>\n
Court on 15.1.2010.      The parties are directed to suffer their<\/p>\n
respective cost in this appeal.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                        (K. M. JOSEPH)\n                                                Judge\n\n\n\n                                   (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)\ntm                                             Judge\n\nR.F.A.No. 110 of 2007\n\n                         14<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RFA.No. 110 of 2007() 1. M. SUDHAKARAN, S\/O.URAPPARAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. MANGATT PRABHAKARAN, S\/O.CHOYI, … Respondent 2. T.C. PADMANABHAN, S\/O.GOPALANKUTTY NAIR, For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO For Respondent :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH […]<\/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-179300","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-06T05:11:04+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\\\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-06T05:11:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2133,\"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\\\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009\",\"name\":\"M. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-06T05:11:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-06T05:11:04+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\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-06T05:11:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009"},"wordCount":2133,"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\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009","name":"M. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-06T05:11:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sudhakaran-vs-mangatt-prabhakaran-on-9-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Sudhakaran vs Mangatt Prabhakaran on 9 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179300","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=179300"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179300\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179300"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179300"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179300"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}