{"id":179391,"date":"2008-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008"},"modified":"2017-02-28T15:13:54","modified_gmt":"2017-02-28T09:43:54","slug":"narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Narendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Narendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 562 of 2006()\n\n\n1. NARENDRAN NAIR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. DEVAKI AMMA SUBHADRA AMMA,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI ASHOK KUMAR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. KOCHUMANI AMMA JAYALEKSHMI, OF DO.\n\n3. RADHADEVI AMMA, OF DO.\n\n4. KUNJUKRISHNAPILLAI ARAVINDAKUMAR,\n\n4. KUNJUKRISHNAPILLAI ARAVINDAKUMAR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :18\/08\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n               K.P. Balachandran, J.\n            ---------------------------\n               R.S.A.No.562 of 2006\n            ---------------------------\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    Plaintiffs in O.S.No.673\/97 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s Court, Karunagappally are the appellants<\/p>\n
and the respondents are defendants 1 to 4 in the<\/p>\n
said suit.\n<\/p>\n
    2.  Appellants\/plaintiffs  instituted   O.S.No.<\/p>\n
673\/97 aforesaid as against defendants 1 to 5 for<\/p>\n
fixation of boundary of the suit properties and for<\/p>\n
injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory, inter<\/p>\n
alia, on the allegations that the plaintiffs are<\/p>\n
husband and wife; that defendants 1, 2 and 4 are<\/p>\n
brothers and sister and the third defendant is the<\/p>\n
wife of the first defendant; that they obtained<\/p>\n
plaint schedule item No.1 property and the building<\/p>\n
situated therein vide Sale Deed No.2791\/1956; that<\/p>\n
the second plaintiff obtained title and possession<\/p>\n
over plaint schedule item No.2 property as per<\/p>\n
Partition  Deed  No.292\/1985;  that  the  scheduled<\/p>\n
properties are lying as a compact block; that the<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                2<\/span><\/p>\n
properties situated on the southern side of plaint<\/p>\n
schedule item No.1 property and south-eastern side<\/p>\n
of plaint schedule item No.2 property belong to<\/p>\n
defendants 1 to 4; that the properties situated on<\/p>\n
the northern side of plaint schedule item No.1<\/p>\n
property and eastern side of plaint schedule item<\/p>\n
No.2 property belong to the fifth defendant; that<\/p>\n
the scheduled properties and the properties of the<\/p>\n
defendants    originally  belonged   to   Mullassery<\/p>\n
Kaleekal    family  and  plaintiffs  and  defendants<\/p>\n
obtained their respective properties as per the<\/p>\n
partition deed executed by the members of the<\/p>\n
family     and   also  as    per   the   sale  deed<\/p>\n
aforementioned;   that  since   the  plaintiffs  and<\/p>\n
defendants    are close relatives, no boundary or<\/p>\n
fencing    was  put  up,  separating  the  scheduled<\/p>\n
properties and the adjoining properties belonging<\/p>\n
to    the  defendants;  that   the  plaintiffs   are<\/p>\n
permanently residing in Thiruvananthapuram for the<\/p>\n
last so many years and they occasionally come to<\/p>\n
the    scheduled  properties;  that  while  so,   on<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                3<\/span><\/p>\n
9.10.1997,when the plaintiffs visited the scheduled<\/p>\n
properties, they found that some southern portion<\/p>\n
of   the   foundation basement  constructed on  the<\/p>\n
eastern side of plaint schedule item No.1 property<\/p>\n
was demolished and the defendants have trespassed<\/p>\n
into southern portion of plaint schedule item No.1<\/p>\n
and eastern portion of plaint schedule item No.2<\/p>\n
properties and extended their building into plaint<\/p>\n
schedule    item   No.1  property  and   have  also<\/p>\n
constructed a new fencing after removing the survey<\/p>\n
stones; that on enquiry, it was found that the<\/p>\n
first defendant has done the same; that since the<\/p>\n
second defendant is the southern property owner of<\/p>\n
plaint schedule item No.1 property, he is made a<\/p>\n
party to the suit and that though the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
demanded the defendants to measure and fix the<\/p>\n
southern boundary of plaint schedule item No.1<\/p>\n
property and eastern boundary of plaint schedule<\/p>\n
item No.2 property and remove the portion of the<\/p>\n
unauthorisedly constructed building and fencing,<\/p>\n
they were not amenable for the same.      Hence the<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
suit for fixation of southern boundary of plaint<\/p>\n
schedule item No.1 property and eastern boundary of<\/p>\n
plaint schedule item No.2 property and also for a<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction directing the defendants to<\/p>\n
demolish the unauthorisedly constructed building<\/p>\n
portion as also the fencing from the scheduled<\/p>\n
properties and to have vacant possession of the<\/p>\n
said portion and in case the defendants fail to do<\/p>\n
so, they prayed for a decree allowing recovery of<\/p>\n
possession of the same and also for a permanent<\/p>\n
injunction     restraining   the   defendants    from<\/p>\n
trespassing into the plaint schedule properties or<\/p>\n
committing any acts of waste or mischief therein.<\/p>\n
     3.   The fourth defendant remained absent and ex<\/p>\n
parte.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   Defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written<\/p>\n
statement and the third defendant filed a separate<\/p>\n
written    statement  containing   almost  the   same<\/p>\n
contentions raised in the written statement of<\/p>\n
defendants 1 and 2.   The fifth defendant also filed<\/p>\n
a separate written statement.\n<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
     5.   The contentions of defendants 1 and 2 are<\/p>\n
that for fixation of boundary of plaint schedule<\/p>\n
properties,    plaintiffs  have  filed  O.S.No.751\/88<\/p>\n
before the lower appellate court and in that case,<\/p>\n
as   per   the  application  of  the  plaintiffs, an<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner, with the help of the Taluk<\/p>\n
Surveyor, measured the properties and fixed the<\/p>\n
boundaries   and   hence  the  present  suit  is not<\/p>\n
maintainable; that separating the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
properties and the adjoining properties of the<\/p>\n
defendants, there is boundary and fencing of more<\/p>\n
than forty years old, but there is no boundary in<\/p>\n
between    the   building  of   the  plaintiffs   and<\/p>\n
defendants; that about six to seven years back, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs trespassed into the properties of the<\/p>\n
defendants and constructed a granite foundation of<\/p>\n
seven metre length and forty centimetre width; that<\/p>\n
from     the  north-eastern   corner  of   the   said<\/p>\n
foundation, there is fencing towards east; that<\/p>\n
there is also survey stones separating the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule    properties  and  the  properties  of  the<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                6<\/span><\/p>\n
defendants; that the allegation that on 9.10.1997,<\/p>\n
when the plaintiffs came to the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
properties, they found that the eastern boundary of<\/p>\n
the     schedule  properties  was  demolished   and<\/p>\n
defendants    had  trespassed  into  the  scheduled<\/p>\n
properties    and  extended  some  portion of   the<\/p>\n
building     into  the   scheduled  properties   is<\/p>\n
incorrect;    that  the  terraced  portion of   the<\/p>\n
building of the family house of the defendants was<\/p>\n
constructed in the properties of the defendants;<\/p>\n
that the allegation that the plaintiffs demanded<\/p>\n
the    defendants  to  measure  out  and  fix   the<\/p>\n
boundaries     of  the   scheduled  properties   is<\/p>\n
incorrect; that the re-survey in the area has<\/p>\n
become final on 1.5.1997 and so the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
no right to fix the boundaries of the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule properties on the basis of the old survey<\/p>\n
plan; that if the plaintiffs have any objection<\/p>\n
against the re-survey plan, they ought to have<\/p>\n
filed objections to the re-survey authorities; that<\/p>\n
if at all any portion of the building of the<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
defendants    is   abutting   into   the    scheduled<\/p>\n
properties, the right of the plaintiffs to demolish<\/p>\n
the same is barred by limitation and that the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and the<\/p>\n
suit deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   The fifth defendant contended that there is<\/p>\n
a strong and well defined boundary from 1102 M.E.<\/p>\n
onwards, separating the scheduled properties and<\/p>\n
her   property;  that  she  obtained  six   cents  of<\/p>\n
property on the northern side of the scheduled<\/p>\n
properties as per Sale Deed No.1000\/1983; that she<\/p>\n
obtained another six cents of property with one<\/p>\n
cent of excess land as per Sale Deed No.1402\/1992;<\/p>\n
that the said properties are lying in a compact<\/p>\n
block and is comprised in R.S.No.430\/7, having an<\/p>\n
extent of six ares; that she is in possession of<\/p>\n
the said property in continuation of possession by<\/p>\n
her predecessors in interest; that while so, in<\/p>\n
1988, the plaintiffs have filed suit O.S.No.751\/88<\/p>\n
against her husband for fixation of boundary and<\/p>\n
for recovery of possession on the allegation that<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
her     husband   trespassed   into   the   scheduled<\/p>\n
properties and took forcible possession of about<\/p>\n
two cents of property; that a Commissioner had been<\/p>\n
deputed in that case and he fixed the boundaries of<\/p>\n
the properties and also stated that 200 sq.links of<\/p>\n
plaint schedule properties was in possession of her<\/p>\n
husband; that the suit was decreed in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs allowing them to recover 200 sq. links<\/p>\n
of property from her husband; that against the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree, her husband filed A.S.No.73\/94<\/p>\n
before the District Court, Kollam and that was<\/p>\n
dismissed; that the said judgment was assailed in<\/p>\n
S.A.No.13\/98    before  this  Court  and  this  Court<\/p>\n
allowed    the   second appeal  and  set  aside   the<\/p>\n
judgments of the courts below and dismissed the<\/p>\n
suit; that though the plaintiffs have preferred<\/p>\n
S.L.P.No.7020\/99 before the Supreme Court, that was<\/p>\n
also     dismissed;  that  the  plaintiffs,  in   the<\/p>\n
circumstances,    have  no  right  to  institute  the<\/p>\n
present suit against her; that the rights of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs, if any, is lost by adverse possession<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
and limitation and that the plaintiffs have no<\/p>\n
cause     of action   against  her.   On  the   above<\/p>\n
contentions, she prayed for a dismissal of the<\/p>\n
suit.\n<\/p>\n
     7.   The trial court raised necessary issues for<\/p>\n
trial and considering the evidence adduced in the<\/p>\n
case, which consisted of oral evidence of PWs 1 and<\/p>\n
2 and documentary evidence Exhibits A1, A2, B1 to<\/p>\n
B5 and C1 to C4, decreed the suit in part, fixing<\/p>\n
the southern boundary of plaint schedule item No.1<\/p>\n
property as F-G line and eastern boundary of plaint<\/p>\n
schedule item No.2 property as B-F line in Exhibit<\/p>\n
C4 plan and allowing the plaintiffs to put up a<\/p>\n
strong boundary or compound wall through the F-G<\/p>\n
and B-F lines in Exhibit C4 plan and restraining<\/p>\n
the defendants by a decree of permanent prohibitory<\/p>\n
injunction from trespassing into plaint schedule<\/p>\n
properties, shown as FGHC and ABFCDE plots in<\/p>\n
Exhibit C4 plan and from committing any acts of<\/p>\n
waste therein.   The prayer for mandatory injunction<\/p>\n
was dismissed. Being not satisfied with the decree,<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                10<\/span><\/p>\n
partly decreeing the suit, plaintiffs preferred<\/p>\n
A.S.No.90\/03 before the first appellate court and<\/p>\n
the appellate court dismissed the appeal confirming<\/p>\n
the correctness of the judgment and decree passed<\/p>\n
by the trial court. Hence this Regular Second<\/p>\n
Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   It is vehemently contended before me by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellants that though the<\/p>\n
scheduled properties were described in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule    originally  assigning   its  old  survey<\/p>\n
numbers, the plaint was got amended incorporating<\/p>\n
the corresponding re-survey numbers, as re-survey<\/p>\n
was completed in the locality and that consequent<\/p>\n
thereon,    I.A.No.2266\/02  was  filed  seeking   for<\/p>\n
Commissioner being deputed to have the boundaries<\/p>\n
fixed as per re-survey plan, but that was dismissed<\/p>\n
by the trial court and thereafter decree was passed<\/p>\n
in the said suit conducting a trial of the case.<\/p>\n
According to him, the boundary fixed as per the old<\/p>\n
survey plan is not acceptable and the re-survey<\/p>\n
plan, which has become final, ought to have been<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                11<\/span><\/p>\n
made the basis for fixing the boundary of the<\/p>\n
scheduled properties.    The request of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants is to have Exhibits C2<\/p>\n
to C4 set aside and the case remitted back to fix<\/p>\n
the boundary as per the re-survey plan.<\/p>\n
     9.   Plaintiffs moved commission application to<\/p>\n
measure out the properties on the basis of the old<\/p>\n
survey plan. The trial court is seen to have<\/p>\n
observed   that  at  the  time  of  hearing  of  the<\/p>\n
commission    application,   the   learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the plaintiffs conceded that the<\/p>\n
properties need be measured as per the old survey<\/p>\n
plan only.   In Exhibit C2 mahazar, the Commissioner<\/p>\n
has categorically stated that the Taluk Surveyor<\/p>\n
came with old as well as re-survey plans for<\/p>\n
measuring the properties and at that time, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs insisted that the properties need be<\/p>\n
measured on the basis of the old survey plan only.<\/p>\n
It was, subsequently, that the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
included the re-survey number also in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule by amending the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                12<\/span><\/p>\n
     10.    The trial court was of the opinion that<\/p>\n
since     the plaintiffs  have  conceded  that   the<\/p>\n
properties need be measured only as per the old<\/p>\n
survey plan, the plaintiffs cannot now turn round<\/p>\n
and say that Exhibits C2 to C4 are to be set aside<\/p>\n
and a fresh commission issued to measure out the<\/p>\n
properties as per the re-survey plan.     The trial<\/p>\n
court also observed that though an argument was<\/p>\n
advanced even before that court to have a re-survey<\/p>\n
conducted as per the re-survey plan, the first<\/p>\n
plaintiff has admitted, when examined as PW1, that<\/p>\n
he has no objection in fixing the boundaries of the<\/p>\n
scheduled properties as per the plan submitted by<\/p>\n
the Commissioner.   It is also observed by the trial<\/p>\n
court that when the case was taken up for argument,<\/p>\n
the learned counsel appearing for defendants 1 to 3<\/p>\n
also     submitted  that   for  avoiding   prolonged<\/p>\n
litigation, they have no objection in decreeing the<\/p>\n
suit accepting Exhibits C2 to C4 commission report,<\/p>\n
mahazar and plan.    It was in view of the admission<\/p>\n
of PW1 in cross examination that already there<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                13<\/span><\/p>\n
exists a strong boundary, separating the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule properties and the northern property of<\/p>\n
the   fifth   defendant and  there is  no   dispute<\/p>\n
regarding that boundary, that the trial court found<\/p>\n
that there is no necessity to put up a boundary<\/p>\n
separating the plaint schedule properties and the<\/p>\n
northern property of the fifth defendant.   It was<\/p>\n
further observed that O.S.No.751\/88, filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs for fixing the boundary of the scheduled<\/p>\n
properties, separating the northern property of the<\/p>\n
fifth defendant, though was decreed by the trial<\/p>\n
court     and  A.S.No.73\/94  filed  therefrom   was<\/p>\n
dismissed by the first appellate court confirming<\/p>\n
the judgment of the trial court, S.A.No.13\/98 filed<\/p>\n
before    this Court  was  allowed and  the  decree<\/p>\n
granted by the trial court was set aside and the<\/p>\n
special leave petition filed before the Apex Court<\/p>\n
was also dismissed and for those reasons, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are not entitled to fix the boundaries<\/p>\n
separating the plaint schedule properties and the<\/p>\n
northern property of the fifth defendant.  It is to<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06                14<\/span><\/p>\n
substantiate the contention of the fifth defendant<\/p>\n
that Exhibits B1 to B5 documents were produced<\/p>\n
before the trial court.   The trial court found that<\/p>\n
Exhibit B2 plan showed that at the time of filing<\/p>\n
of   Exhibit   B1  suit,  the  plaintiffs  were   in<\/p>\n
possession of only thirty cents of property in Sy.<\/p>\n
No.158\/95 and twenty three cents of property in Sy.<\/p>\n
No.158\/96   and  that   Exhibit  B2  had  not   been<\/p>\n
challenged by the plaintiffs. It is clear from<\/p>\n
Exhibits B3 to B5, copies of judgments, that though<\/p>\n
O.S.No.751\/88 was decreed by the trial court and by<\/p>\n
the first appellate court, that was finally being<\/p>\n
dismissed by this Court and therefore, the suit as<\/p>\n
against the fifth defendant is not maintainable and<\/p>\n
no   relief   can  be  granted  against  the   fifth<\/p>\n
defendant. The appellants accepted the said verdict<\/p>\n
of the trial court and has filed appeal before the<\/p>\n
first appellate court impleading only defendants 1<\/p>\n
to 4, excluding the fifth defendant.\n<\/p>\n
     11.   It is also pointed out by the counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellants that before the trial court, counsel<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06              15<\/span><\/p>\n
for the plaintiffs also submitted that no relief is<\/p>\n
required   as  against the  fifth  defendant.   As<\/p>\n
observed earlier, it was in view of the admission<\/p>\n
of PW1 that it is enough that boundary is fixed<\/p>\n
accepting Exhibit C4 plan and in view of the<\/p>\n
submission of the counsel for defendants 1 to 4<\/p>\n
that they have no objection in decreeing the suit<\/p>\n
accepting Exhibit C4 plan, that the court below<\/p>\n
accepted Exhibit C4 plan and passed a decree in<\/p>\n
terms thereof as against defendants 1 to 4 allowing<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs to put up a boundary separating the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule properties from the properties of<\/p>\n
defendants 1 to 4, fixing the southern boundary of<\/p>\n
plaint schedule item No.1 property as F-G line and<\/p>\n
eastern   boundary  of plaint  schedule  item  No.2<\/p>\n
property as B-F line.  In the circumstances, there<\/p>\n
is no merit in further advancing argument that the<\/p>\n
properties should have been measured and boundary<\/p>\n
fixed on the basis of the re-survey plan, unless it<\/p>\n
be   for   reason of  desire  to  grab  some   more<\/p>\n
properties from the possession of defendants 1 to<\/p>\n
RSA 562\/06               16<\/span><\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
     There is no merit at all in this Regular Second<\/p>\n
Appeal and this Regular Second is dismissed in<\/p>\n
limine, refusing admission.\n<\/p>\n
18th August, 2008        (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
\ntkv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Narendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 562 of 2006() 1. NARENDRAN NAIR, … Petitioner 2. DEVAKI AMMA SUBHADRA AMMA, Vs 1. KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI ASHOK KUMAR, … Respondent 2. KOCHUMANI AMMA JAYALEKSHMI, OF DO. 3. RADHADEVI AMMA, OF DO. […]<\/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-179391","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNarendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008 - 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\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-28T09:43:54+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-28T09:43:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2499,\"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\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Narendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-28T09:43:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Narendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008 - 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\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-28T09:43:54+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-28T09:43:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008"},"wordCount":2499,"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\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008","name":"Narendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-28T09:43:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narendran-nair-vs-kunjukrishna-pillai-ashok-kumar-on-18-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narendran Nair vs Kunjukrishna Pillai Ashok Kumar on 18 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179391","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=179391"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179391\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179391"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179391"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179391"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}