{"id":179891,"date":"2009-03-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009"},"modified":"2015-12-06T04:06:10","modified_gmt":"2015-12-05T22:36:10","slug":"remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Remadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Remadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1585 of 2003()\n\n\n1. REMADEVI, D\/O.MALLAKSHIAMMA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. VIMALA, D\/O.PADMAKSHI, GEETHA VILASOM,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :17\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                    V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n        ----------------------------------------------\n                 CRL.A. No.1585 of 2003\n        ----------------------------------------------\n                Dated, 17th March, 2009.\n\n                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     This is an appeal preferred by the complainant in a<\/p>\n
prosecution for the offence punishable under section 138<\/p>\n
of the Negotiable Instruments Act as she is aggrieved by<\/p>\n
the order of acquittal passed by the trial court acquitting<\/p>\n
the accused under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
     2.   The case of the complainant was that             the<\/p>\n
accused borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000\/- from the<\/p>\n
complainant   and when demanded           the amount back,<\/p>\n
accused issued a cheque for the said amount and the<\/p>\n
cheque when       presented      for encashment, it was<\/p>\n
dishonoured   for   the   reason     “funds      insufficient”.<\/p>\n
Thereafter the complainant caused to send a statutory<\/p>\n
notice stating the       dishonour of the cheque and<\/p>\n
demanding for the payment of the amount covered by<\/p>\n
the dishonoured cheque. As no payment was made, the<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                            -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n
complainant approached the court below by preferring the<\/p>\n
complaint whereupon C.C.No.8\/2000 was instituted. When<\/p>\n
the accused appeared, particulars of the offence were read<\/p>\n
over and explained to her and she pleaded not guilty.<\/p>\n
Thereafter the complainant herself was examined as PW1<\/p>\n
and produced Exts.P1 to P5. The accused herself mounted<\/p>\n
to the box and examined herself as DW1 and one more<\/p>\n
witness was examined from the side of the defence.<\/p>\n
Besides the above     oral evidence, Ext.D1 pass book was<\/p>\n
produced as defence exhibit. The defence set up by the<\/p>\n
accused is to the effect that the complainant was       an<\/p>\n
employ       of the shop run by the accused and when the<\/p>\n
business was stopped, she      paid Rs.3000\/- each to the<\/p>\n
other employees and       though she was willing to pay<\/p>\n
Rs.5000\/- to PW1, she was not amenable for the same. It<\/p>\n
is also her case that   when she    vacated the  premises,<\/p>\n
where the shop was running, the landlord paid her a sum of<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                              -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n
Rs.5,00,000\/- and at the alleged time of availing loan by<\/p>\n
the accused      from the complainant, she was           having<\/p>\n
sufficient fund and there is no necessity for her to borrow<\/p>\n
money from the complainant.         Thus the trial court, based<\/p>\n
upon      the rival pleadings and materials on record,<\/p>\n
formulated 5 issues for its consideration. The first issue<\/p>\n
was, ”whether the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque to the<\/p>\n
complainant in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or<\/p>\n
other liability?”  Though the findings under other points<\/p>\n
are in favour of the complainant, the finding under point<\/p>\n
No.1 was in favour of the accused and the           trial court<\/p>\n
concluded that the complainant failed to establish that<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque was issued           by the accused       to the<\/p>\n
complainant in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.<\/p>\n
Accordingly    the trial court found that the accused is not<\/p>\n
guilty of the    offence    for which she      is charged and<\/p>\n
accordingly, she is acquitted.     It is the above finding and<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                             -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n
order of acquittal challenged in this appeal.<\/p>\n
     3. I have     heard the learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
both the appellants as well as the respondent.<\/p>\n
     4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted<\/p>\n
that the      learned Magistrate overlooked   the evidence<\/p>\n
adduced by the complainant as PW1. It is also argued that<\/p>\n
the trial court, without any     basis, simply believed the<\/p>\n
concocted story of defence.     The learned counsel pointed<\/p>\n
out that the accused miserably failed to issue a stop memo<\/p>\n
to her      bank in case of the cheque was      fraudulently<\/p>\n
obtained by the complainant. The accused has also failed<\/p>\n
to make any complaint before the police or before       any<\/p>\n
other appropriate authority. But without considering these<\/p>\n
aspects, the trial court simply believing the deposition of<\/p>\n
DWs 1 and 2, acquitted the accused. It is also argued that<\/p>\n
the accused failed to send any reply to the notice sent by<\/p>\n
the complainant and such act of the accused is sufficient<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                              -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n
to draw presumption that the accused had admitted the<\/p>\n
transaction.    It is the case of the learned counsel that<\/p>\n
though PW1 has stated that after 10.11.99, she had not<\/p>\n
gone to the shop of the accused, it does not mean that<\/p>\n
there was no liability from the accused to the complainant.<\/p>\n
It is also pointed out that the version given by  DWs 1 and<\/p>\n
2 are conflicting in nature and,      therefore, the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate has committed a         wrong in accepting those<\/p>\n
evidence.     Therefore,  it is argued that   the trial court<\/p>\n
ought to have convicted the accused and therefore this<\/p>\n
Court be interfered with the order of acquittal passed by<\/p>\n
the trial    court and reverse the order of acquittal  to an<\/p>\n
order of conviction and appropriate        sentence may be<\/p>\n
imposed against the respondent\/accused.<\/p>\n
      5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the    respondent submitted that the complainant     has<\/p>\n
miserably failed to establish the transaction, execution and<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                             -:6:-<\/span><\/p>\n
issuance of the cheque and therefore, the complainant is<\/p>\n
not entitled to get the presumption as provided under<\/p>\n
section 139 of the Act. It is further submitted that though<\/p>\n
the complainant has failed to discharge the initial burden,<\/p>\n
so as to avail the presumption under section 139 and the<\/p>\n
same is not available to the complainant in the present<\/p>\n
case, the accused has succeeded in making out a probable<\/p>\n
case and thereby rebutted the presumption. According to<\/p>\n
the learned counsel, the trial court, after considering the<\/p>\n
entire    materials and evidence on record,    came into a<\/p>\n
correct decision and thereby acquitted the accused and<\/p>\n
hence no interference is warranted.\n<\/p>\n
     6.      I have carefully     considered the arguments<\/p>\n
advanced by both the counsels and also perused          the<\/p>\n
materials and evidence on record. The specific allegation<\/p>\n
of the complainant is that the accused borrowed a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.75,000\/-     and   when demanded back, the accused<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                             -:7:-<\/span><\/p>\n
issued a cheque for the said amount showing the date as<\/p>\n
22.11.99. There is no factual averments in the complaint<\/p>\n
as   to when the accused demanded the amount and the<\/p>\n
purpose for availing the loan and also on which date the<\/p>\n
amount was given to the accused. It is also clear from the<\/p>\n
averment that the period of loan is conspicuously absent.<\/p>\n
It is not stated when the amount was demanded back. But<\/p>\n
when PW1 was examined, it is stated that the loan was<\/p>\n
availed on 21.10.99. During her cross examination, she<\/p>\n
had admitted that the accused was running a coffee and<\/p>\n
curry powder shop and     the complainant used to purchase<\/p>\n
coffee powder from there.      According to her, it was on<\/p>\n
10.11.99 as the last date on which she purchased coffee<\/p>\n
powder. It is also stated that after 10.11.99, she had gone<\/p>\n
to the shop of the accused for demanding the money. In<\/p>\n
this juncture, it has to be noted that the specific defence<\/p>\n
set up by the accused is to the effect that the complainant<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                             -:8:-<\/span><\/p>\n
was one of her employees and when the business           was<\/p>\n
stopped, she paid Rs.3000\/- to each of the employees and<\/p>\n
she was willing to pay Rs.5000\/- to the complainant, but<\/p>\n
she was not amenable for such settlement. By producing<\/p>\n
Ext.D1 pass book, the accused substantiated the fact that<\/p>\n
on 29.10.99 she had deposited a sum of Rs.3,50,000\/- with<\/p>\n
Santhosh financiers. So According to DW1, on the date of<\/p>\n
the alleged borrowal of loan, actually there was no financial<\/p>\n
stringency for the accused to borrow such amount and she<\/p>\n
was financially in good condition. It is also proved that she<\/p>\n
had received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000\/- from the landlord for<\/p>\n
vacating the premises prior to 29.10.99. PW1 had also<\/p>\n
admitted that the accused had received         a sum of Rs.5<\/p>\n
lakhs from the landlord.     It was also admitted by PW1<\/p>\n
during the cross examination that :\n<\/p>\n
               curry powder   .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         . SSR Textiles<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                             -:9:-<\/span><\/p>\n
         ,
\n          .        5
\n         . 1999 –                            .\n<\/p>\n
                            ”.\n<\/p>\n
\nSo from the above admission of the complainant it is<\/p>\n
crystal clear that  before the alleged       borrowal of the<\/p>\n
amount from the complainant, the accused had got Rs.5<\/p>\n
lakhs from her landlord for vacating the shop premises and<\/p>\n
if that be so, there was no      financial stringency for the<\/p>\n
accused so as to     avail a sum of R.75,000\/- from the<\/p>\n
complainant.   It is also discernible on a perusal of the<\/p>\n
complaint that the complainant had no specific case as to<\/p>\n
why the accused borrowed the amount and when was the<\/p>\n
amount borrowed, what was the period of loan and what<\/p>\n
was the due date of repayment of the loan etc.       The trial<\/p>\n
court found that   regrading the execution of the cheque,<\/p>\n
there is no consistent version supported by any cogent<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                            -:10:-<\/span><\/p>\n
     7. The accused by examining herself as DW1 and on<\/p>\n
examining another witness as DW2 and on producing<\/p>\n
Ext.D1 pass book, it is established that at the alleged time<\/p>\n
of the borrowal of loan, there was no necessity       for the<\/p>\n
accused to take such      a loan.    The above     factum is<\/p>\n
substantiated through clear and cogent evidence. DW2 is a<\/p>\n
social worker who deposed before the court below about<\/p>\n
the   offer of the accused   for paying Rs.5000\/- to PW1.<\/p>\n
Thus the accused       has succeeded in establishing the<\/p>\n
suggestion for paying compensation to PW1, connected<\/p>\n
with the dispute between herself and the complainant.      In<\/p>\n
the complaint, the complainant has not stated anything<\/p>\n
about the coffee powder business of the accused and the<\/p>\n
purchase of coffee powder by the complainant from the<\/p>\n
said shop. Those facts were admitted by the complainant<\/p>\n
only when she was subjected to severe cross examination.<\/p>\n
It is under the above circumstances, the trial court found<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                              -:11:-<\/span><\/p>\n
that the accused has succeeded in establishing a probable<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
     8. In the decision reported in Krishna Janardhan<\/p>\n
Bhat v. Dattatraya Hegde<\/a> (2008 (1) KLT 425 (SC),<\/p>\n
the Apex      court has   held that     existence  of   legally<\/p>\n
recoverable    debt is not a matter of presumption under<\/p>\n
section 139 and it does not raise a presumption in regard<\/p>\n
to existence of a debt also.    In the present case, even the<\/p>\n
pleadings in the complaint is not sufficient to show that<\/p>\n
there was an existing       debt or liability.   In the same<\/p>\n
decision, the Apex Court has held that “whereas prosecution<\/p>\n
must prove the guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt,<\/p>\n
the standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an<\/p>\n
accused is ‘preponderance of probabilities’.      Inference of<\/p>\n
preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the<\/p>\n
materials brought on records by the parties but also by<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                                  -:12:-<\/span><\/p>\n
reference to the circumstances upon which he relies”. In the<\/p>\n
present case, by examining DW1 and DW2 and producing Ext,D1<\/p>\n
document, the defence has succeeded in establishing a probable<\/p>\n
case. Going by the above evidence of the defence, I am of the view<\/p>\n
that the defence had succeeded in establishing a probable case<\/p>\n
and as rightly held by the trial court, the accused had succeeded in<\/p>\n
rebutting the presumption under section 139 of the N.I.Act.<\/p>\n
       9. On application of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme court in the decision in reported in M\/s. Kumar Exports<\/p>\n
v. M\/s. Sharma Carpets<\/a> ( 2009 (1) Supreme 231), it can be seen<\/p>\n
that the accused had      discharged her burden     of rebutting the<\/p>\n
presumption not only by adducing the defence evidence, but also<\/p>\n
on the basis of the presumption of fact and other circumstances<\/p>\n
which I discussed earlier. Therefore , I find no reason to interfere<\/p>\n
with the finding arrived on by the court below and accordingly, the<\/p>\n
finding so arrived by the court below is confirmed.<\/p>\n
      10. In the decision reported in Bactu Venkateshwarlu and<\/p>\n
Ors, v. Public Prosecutor H.C. of A.P.<\/a> (2009(1) Supreme 67), the<\/p>\n
Apex Court has held that in a case of acquittal, there is a double<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                                 -:13:-<\/span><\/p>\n
presumption in favour of the accused and there mus be substantial<\/p>\n
and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong.<\/p>\n
Unless such finding, the appellate court cannot interfere with the<\/p>\n
order of acquittal in exercise of   its appellate jurisdiction. In the<\/p>\n
light of the above     discussion and the materials and evidence<\/p>\n
referred above, I find no reason to hold that the finding of the trial<\/p>\n
court is wrong and hence there is no scope for interference with the<\/p>\n
order of acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
      In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly,<\/p>\n
the same is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
kvm\/-\n<\/p>\n
CRL.A. 1585\/03
\n                  -:14:-<\/span><\/p>\n
                           V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    No….\n<\/p>\n
                             Judgment\/Order<\/p>\n
                                    Dated:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Remadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1585 of 2003() 1. REMADEVI, D\/O.MALLAKSHIAMMA, … Petitioner Vs 1. VIMALA, D\/O.PADMAKSHI, GEETHA VILASOM, … Respondent 2. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY For Petitioner :SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN Dated […]<\/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-179891","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRemadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 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\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Remadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-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=\"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-05T22:36:10+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\\\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Remadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-05T22:36:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2049,\"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\\\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Remadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-05T22:36:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Remadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 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":"Remadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 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\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Remadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-05T22:36:10+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\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Remadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-05T22:36:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009"},"wordCount":2049,"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\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009","name":"Remadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-05T22:36:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/remadevi-vs-vimala-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Remadevi vs Vimala on 17 March, 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\/179891","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=179891"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179891\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179891"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179891"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179891"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}