{"id":18407,"date":"2007-01-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007"},"modified":"2017-11-25T07:57:09","modified_gmt":"2017-11-25T02:27:09","slug":"madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Madai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Madai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP No. 2682 of 2002()\n\n\n1. MADAI THIRUVARKAT KAVU DEVASWOM,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. CHAMAPARAMBIL RADHA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.VIDHYA. A.C\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :17\/01\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J.\n\n\n\n                C.R.P No.2682\/02 & 1607\/03\n\n\n\n       Dated this the 17th day of January, 2007\n\n\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
     Petitioner   Devaswom   is   the   decree   holder.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent is the judgment debtor.     The decree in<\/p>\n
O.S.125\/80  is    for  recovery  of  possession.    Decree<\/p>\n
holder     has     to   pay   the   value   of   improvements,   to<\/p>\n
be   determined   at   the   time   of   execution.   Petitioner<\/p>\n
filed   E.P.40\/89   for   execution   of   the   decree.     A<\/p>\n
Commission   was   appointed.   Commissioner   originally<\/p>\n
fixed        value   of   improvements   at   Rs.73,754.14.\n<\/p>\n
Executing   court   directed   petitioner   to   deposit   the<\/p>\n
same.     It   was   challenged   before   this   court   by<\/p>\n
decree holder in C.R.P.1348\/90.  As per order dated<\/p>\n
10.10.90,   this   court   set   aside   the   order   of   the<\/p>\n
executing   court   and   directed   executing   court   to<\/p>\n
determine   the   question   afresh   after   permitting   the<\/p>\n
parties   to   adduce   further           evidence.        Before<\/p>\n
C.R.P.1348\/90   was   disposed,   executing   court   had<\/p>\n
closed   E.P.40\/89   for   the   failure   of   decree   holder<\/p>\n
CRP 2682\/02 & 1607\/03           2<\/span><\/p>\n
to   deposit   the   amount   as   directed   earlier.     After<\/p>\n
the   dismissal   of   C.R.P.1348\/90   decree   holder   filed<\/p>\n
E.P.37\/97.          Along   with   the   execution   petition,<\/p>\n
decree holder deposited Rs.81,906\/- being the value<\/p>\n
of   improvements   directed   to   be   deposited   in<\/p>\n
E.P.40\/89   with   interest   till   then.     On   20.2.98<\/p>\n
executing   court   fixed   the   value   of   improvements   at<\/p>\n
Rs.57,844.92.     Decree   holder   and   judgment   debtor<\/p>\n
challenged   that   order   before   this   court   in<\/p>\n
C.R.P.1352\/98 and C.R.P.1235\/98.  This court as per<\/p>\n
common order dated 26.11.98, set aside the order of<\/p>\n
executing  court  and  directed  the  court  to  depute  a<\/p>\n
Commission   to   assess   the   value   of   improvements   as<\/p>\n
per   the   Compensation   for   Tenants   Improvements<\/p>\n
Act,1958.     Advocate   Santhosh   was   appointed   as   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner.   He   submitted   Ext.C3   report.   It   was<\/p>\n
remitted   and   Commissioner   submitted   Ext.C4   report<\/p>\n
whereunder   value   was   fixed   at   Rs.2,14,040\/-.\n<\/p>\n
Report   was   again   remitted   back   to   Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
Commissioner   submitted   another     report   fixing   the<\/p>\n
value of improvements at Rs.1,76,577\/-.  Petitioner<\/p>\n
CRP 2682\/02 & 1607\/03                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
filed   E.A.19\/01   to   call   for   the   assistance   of   PWD<\/p>\n
Engineer   to   estimate   the   value   of   the     building.\n<\/p>\n
It was dismissed.  Petitioner challenged that order<\/p>\n
in   C.R.P.1047\/01.     It   was   dismissed   in   limine.\n<\/p>\n
There was an observation in the order of this court<\/p>\n
that         respondent           is         entitled                to         value         of<\/p>\n
improvements   effected   only   upto   the   date   of   the<\/p>\n
decree.  Judgment debtor filed R.P.566\/02 which was<\/p>\n
allowed   by   this   court   as   per   the   order   dated<\/p>\n
19.12.02.   This   court   as   per   order   held   that<\/p>\n
judgment           debtor         is         entitled                to         value         of<\/p>\n
improvements   effected   even   after   the   decree   as<\/p>\n
provided   under   the   appellate   decree.   Before   the<\/p>\n
executing   court   the   Executive   Officer   of   Devaswom<\/p>\n
was   examined   as   PW1   and   Commissioner   as   PW2.     On<\/p>\n
the   side   of   judgment   debtor,   judgment   debtor   was<\/p>\n
examined   as   RW1.                 Executing   court   thereafter<\/p>\n
accepting   Ext.C4   report   directed   decree   holder   to<\/p>\n
deposit            Rs.1,76,577\/-                  being         the             value         of<\/p>\n
improvements   as   assessed   in   Ext.C4   report.     The<\/p>\n
prayer   of   decree   holder   to   reject   Exts.C3   and   C4<\/p>\n
CRP 2682\/02 & 1607\/03                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
reports   filed   by   Commissioner   was   disallowed   as<\/p>\n
per  order  dated  19.3.03  and    accepting  Exts.C3  and<\/p>\n
C4   the   decree   holder   was   directed   to   deposit   the<\/p>\n
amount   on   26.5.03.         Petitioner   did   not   deposit<\/p>\n
that amount and consequently execution petition was<\/p>\n
dismissed. It is challenged in C.R.P.1607\/03.  When<\/p>\n
E.P.37\/97          was         pending              decree         holder         filed<\/p>\n
E.A.211\/02 an application for temporary injunction.\n<\/p>\n
It   was   dismissed   by   the   executing   court     as   per<\/p>\n
order   dated   12.11.02.     Challenging   the   said   order<\/p>\n
C.R.P.2682\/02 was filed.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for   petitioner<\/p>\n
and respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     The   argument   of   learned   counsel   appearing<\/p>\n
for   petitioner   was   that   executing   court   did   not<\/p>\n
properly   appreciate   Exts.C3     and   Ext.C4   reports<\/p>\n
and without affording  opportunity to challenge the<\/p>\n
order,   accepting   Exts.C3   and   C4   petitioner   was<\/p>\n
directed   to   deposit   the   amount   and   on   the   failure<\/p>\n
to   deposit   the   amount,   execution   petition   was<\/p>\n
dismissed   and   petitioner   could   not   prefer   a<\/p>\n
CRP 2682\/02 & 1607\/03             5<\/span><\/p>\n
revision   challenging   the   order   accepting   Exts.C3<\/p>\n
and   C4   as   certified   copy   of   the   order     was   not<\/p>\n
furnished     to   petitioner.       It   was   argued   that<\/p>\n
value of improvements fixed by the  executing court<\/p>\n
relying on Exts.C3 and C4 is illegal and cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted.     It   was   also   argued   that     the   value   of<\/p>\n
improvements   for   the   coconut   trees,   if   calculated<\/p>\n
in   accordance   with   the   guidelines   provided   under<\/p>\n
Compensation for  Tenants Improvements Act,1958, it<\/p>\n
would        only   be        Rs.9500\/-   and        Commissioner<\/p>\n
estimated   the   value   at   Rs.27,000\/-   and   therefore<\/p>\n
value   of   improvements   is   excessive.   It   was   further<\/p>\n
argued   that   judgment   debtor   is   not   entitled   to<\/p>\n
claim   any   value   of   improvements   effected   after   the<\/p>\n
date   of   decree   of   the   trial   court   and   as   per<\/p>\n
Exts.C3   and   C4   Commissioner   has   valued   all   the<\/p>\n
improvements   effected   by   petitioner   even   after   the<\/p>\n
date   of   decree   and   therefore   petitioner   is   not<\/p>\n
liable   to   deposit   value   of   the   same.   It   was   also<\/p>\n
argued   that   Commissioner   has   not   properly   valued<\/p>\n
the value of buildings and therefore the   order is<\/p>\n
CRP 2682\/02 & 1607\/03                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
to   be   set   aside.   Reliance   was   placed   on   the<\/p>\n
decision  of  this  Court  in  Raman  Ittiyathi  v.  Pappy<\/p>\n
Bhaskaran   AIR<\/a>   1990  Kerala   112)  and  it   was   argued<\/p>\n
that   defendant   is   not   entitled   to   claim   value   of<\/p>\n
improvements effected after the date of decree.\n<\/p>\n
       4.   Learned   counsel   appearing   for   respondent<\/p>\n
argued   that in view of the order of this court in<\/p>\n
R.P.566\/02,   which   is   binding   on   the   decree   holder,<\/p>\n
petitioner   is   not   entitled   to   contend   that<\/p>\n
respondent   is   not   entitled   to   the   value   of<\/p>\n
improvements effected  after the date of decree. It<\/p>\n
was         pointed         out         that,         that         question         was<\/p>\n
specifically considered by this court in R.P.566\/02<\/p>\n
and   held   that   respondent   is   entitled   to   the   value<\/p>\n
of   improvements   effected   even   after   the   date   of<\/p>\n
decree   and   being   a   party   to   the   proceedings,<\/p>\n
petitioner  is  not  entitled  to  ignore  that  order  or<\/p>\n
to   avoid   that   order   and   as       long   as   that   order<\/p>\n
stands,   it   is   binding   on   the   petitioner   and<\/p>\n
therefore   order   of   the   executing   court   cannot   be<\/p>\n
CRP 2682\/02 & 1607\/03            7<\/span><\/p>\n
interfered  on that ground. It was also argued that<\/p>\n
Commissioner has correctly valued the  improvements<\/p>\n
and   there   is   no   reason   to   interfere   with   the<\/p>\n
estimate   of   the   value   of   improvements   at   this<\/p>\n
belated stage.\n<\/p>\n
      5.  Though ordinarily a judgment debtor against<\/p>\n
whom a decree for recovery of possession is granted<\/p>\n
is   not   entitled   to   claim   value   of   improvements<\/p>\n
effected   after   the   date   of   decree,   in   view   of   the<\/p>\n
specific   order   of   this   court   dated   19.12.02   in<\/p>\n
R.P.566\/02   whereunder   the   very   question   was<\/p>\n
considered   and   held   against   petitioner,   petitioner<\/p>\n
is   not   entitled   to   contend   that   respondent   is   not<\/p>\n
entitled   to   value   of   improvements   effected   after<\/p>\n
the date of decree.  Eventhough there was a finding<\/p>\n
in   the   order   in   C.R.P.1047\/01   which   was   dismissed<\/p>\n
in   limine   without   hearing   respondent,   that   decree<\/p>\n
holder   is   not   liable   to   pay   the   value   of<\/p>\n
improvements   effected     after   the   date   of   decree,<\/p>\n
judgment   debtor   filed   R.P.566\/02   to   review   that<\/p>\n
order   contending   that   as   per   the   appellate   court<\/p>\n
CRP 2682\/02 & 1607\/03                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
decree   as   well   as   by   the   conduct   of   the   parties<\/p>\n
judgment          debtor            is         entitled                to         value         of<\/p>\n
improvements   effected   even   after   the   date   of<\/p>\n
decree.     This   court   considered   the   contention   and<\/p>\n
held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
            “9.  It is also clear from the<\/p>\n
            conduct   of   the   parties   that<\/p>\n
            they   have   accepted   the   decree<\/p>\n
            passed   by   the   lower   appellate<\/p>\n
            court   as   it   is   and   that   fact<\/p>\n
            is   evident   from   the   order<\/p>\n
            passed            by         this            court         in<\/p>\n
            C.R.P.1348\/90   dated   10.10.90<\/p>\n
            preferred   by   the   respondent<\/p>\n
            against   the   order   passed   by<\/p>\n
            the   executing   court   directing<\/p>\n
            the   respondent   to   deposit   the<\/p>\n
            value of improvements as found<\/p>\n
            by   the   Commissioner   in   Ext.C1<\/p>\n
            report.  No contention is seen<\/p>\n
            raised   by   the   respondent   in<\/p>\n
CRP 2682\/02 & 1607\/03                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
           the   C.R.P   that   the   review<\/p>\n
           petitioner   is   entitled   to<\/p>\n
           value   of   improvements   only<\/p>\n
           upto the date of decree passed<\/p>\n
           in   the   suit   and   she   is   not<\/p>\n
           entitled                   to              value               of<\/p>\n
           improvements   effected   after<\/p>\n
           the   date   of   the   decree.     The<\/p>\n
           contention raised in the C.R.P<\/p>\n
           was   against   the   correctness<\/p>\n
           and acceptability of the value<\/p>\n
           of   improvements   estimated   by<\/p>\n
           the   Commissioner   in   Ext.C1<\/p>\n
           report without considering the<\/p>\n
           objections                  filed                by           the<\/p>\n
           respondent   to   Ext.C1   before<\/p>\n
           the executing court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             xx   xx                  xx    xx              xx     xx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            12.   The   observation   made   by<\/p>\n
            the         lower          court                 in          the<\/p>\n
            impugned   order   to   the   effect<\/p>\n
CRP 2682\/02 & 1607\/03              10<\/span><\/p>\n
            that   the   argument   that   the<\/p>\n
            respondent   is   not   entitled<\/p>\n
            for   value   of   improvements<\/p>\n
            effected   after   the   date   of<\/p>\n
            decree   cannot   be   accepted<\/p>\n
            since   the   decree   shows   that<\/p>\n
            the   respondent   is   entitled<\/p>\n
            for   value   of   improvements<\/p>\n
            assessed   on   the   date   of<\/p>\n
            delivery   is   to   be   understood<\/p>\n
            subject   to   and   in   consonance<\/p>\n
            with   the   findings   of   the<\/p>\n
            appellate          court          regarding<\/p>\n
            entitlement   of   the   review<\/p>\n
            petitioner         herein              to         the<\/p>\n
            value   of   improvements   claimed<\/p>\n
            in the suit.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In   view   of   the   said   order   which   is   binding   on   the<\/p>\n
petitioner,   petitioner   is   not   entitled   to   contend<\/p>\n
that   respondent   is   not   entitled   to   the     value   of<\/p>\n
improvements effected after the date of decree.\n<\/p>\n
CRP 2682\/02 & 1607\/03                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
      6.     Then   the   question   is   whether   value   of<\/p>\n
improvements   assessed   by   Commissioner   and   accepted<\/p>\n
by   the   executing   court   warrants   any   modification.\n<\/p>\n
Learned   counsel   appearing   for   petitioner   rightly<\/p>\n
pointed out that while fixing value of improvements<\/p>\n
for   the   coconut   trees,   Commissioner   has   not<\/p>\n
deducted   1\/4th  towards   droppings   and   1\/4th  towards<\/p>\n
cultivation           expenses               as         provided         under         the<\/p>\n
Compensation               for         Tenants               Improvements         Act.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore   to   that   extent,                                estimate   made   by<\/p>\n
Commissioner   warrants   modification.     If   the   value<\/p>\n
of   improvements   of   coconut   trees   is   refixed   after<\/p>\n
deducting   1\/4th           for   droppings   and   1\/4th                    towards<\/p>\n
cultivation   expenses,     the   value   of   improvements<\/p>\n
would   comes   only   Rs.9500\/-.   Therefore   instead   of<\/p>\n
Rs.27,000\/-   as   awarded   by   executing   court,   decree<\/p>\n
holder is liable to deposit only Rs.9500\/- in that<\/p>\n
head.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   Though it was vehemently argued that value<\/p>\n
of   improvements   for   the   building   is   excessive,   on<\/p>\n
going   through   the   report,   I   find   that   no<\/p>\n
CRP 2682\/02 & 1607\/03                        12<\/span><\/p>\n
modification   is   warranted.                       Decree   holder   is<\/p>\n
therefore   liable   to   deposit   Rs.1,76,577\/-   less<\/p>\n
Rs.16,500\/-the                excess         compensation         fixed         for<\/p>\n
coconut   trees.     The   decree   holder   is   directed   to<\/p>\n
deposit   the   said   amount,   less   the   amount   already<\/p>\n
deposited   within   two   months   from   today.     On   such<\/p>\n
deposit, executing court is directed to deliver the<\/p>\n
property.   C.R.P.   1607\/02   allowed   to   that   extent.\n<\/p>\n
Till petitioner deposits the value of improvements,<\/p>\n
judgment debtor is entitled to be in possession of<\/p>\n
the property or deal with the property and in such<\/p>\n
circumstances, there is no illegality in the order<\/p>\n
passed   by   executing   court   dismissing   E.A.211\/02<\/p>\n
warranting   interference.   C.R.P.   No.2682\/02   is<\/p>\n
therefore dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   M.Sasidharan Nambiar<\/p>\n
                                                                  Judge<\/p>\n
tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
 ———————\n<\/p>\n
    CRL.R.P.NO. \/97<\/p>\n
 ———————\n<\/p>\n
         ORDER<\/p>\n
       MARCH,2006<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Madai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP No. 2682 of 2002() 1. MADAI THIRUVARKAT KAVU DEVASWOM, … Petitioner Vs 1. CHAMAPARAMBIL RADHA, … Respondent For Petitioner :SMT.VIDHYA. A.C For Respondent :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR 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-18407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMadai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007 - 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\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-25T02:27:09+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-25T02:27:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1737,\"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\\\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Madai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-25T02:27:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Madai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007 - 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\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-25T02:27:09+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-25T02:27:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007"},"wordCount":1737,"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\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007","name":"Madai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-25T02:27:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madai-thiruvarkat-kavu-devaswom-vs-chamaparambil-radha-on-17-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madai Thiruvarkat Kavu Devaswom vs Chamaparambil Radha on 17 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/18407","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=18407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}