{"id":184375,"date":"2009-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009"},"modified":"2015-03-04T07:15:43","modified_gmt":"2015-03-04T01:45:43","slug":"m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"M.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 420 of 1995()\n\n\n\n1. M.T.V.KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. MANDEERAKATH ALEEMA UMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.SOHAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :10\/11\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                        THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n\n               -----------------------------------------------------\n                           S.A.No. 420 of 1995\n               -----------------------------------------------------\n            Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009.\n\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The Second Appeal arises from judgment of learned Sub<\/p>\n
Judge, Payyannur in A.S.120\/1990 arising from judgment and<\/p>\n
decree of learned Munsiff, Taliparamba in O.S.No.61\/1989.<\/p>\n
Appellant sued the respondents for decree for prohibitory<\/p>\n
injunction against taking usufructs from the suit property claiming<\/p>\n
that he is the owner in possession thereof as per Ext.A2,<\/p>\n
assignment deed dated 12.12.1986 executed by respondent No.1.<\/p>\n
It is also contended by the appellant that pursuant to a rental<\/p>\n
arrangement, respondent No.1 was permitted to reside in the<\/p>\n
house in the suit property, he paid the rent @ Rs.30\/- per month<\/p>\n
till 12.5.1988 and on demanding payment of the subsequent rent,<\/p>\n
respondents threatened him demanding reconveyance of the<\/p>\n
property for a consideration of Rs.2,000\/-. Being apprehensive<\/p>\n
about the conduct of            respondents, appellant filed the suit<\/p>\n
claiming relief as above stated.             Respondents contended that<\/p>\n
there was no sale in favour of the appellant and instead Ext.A2<\/p>\n
was executed as a security for the loan of Rs.2,000\/- taken by<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 from the appellant. Respondents claimed that<\/p>\n
they are in possession of the suit property and that there was no<\/p>\n
rental arrangement as regards the house in the suit property.<\/p>\n
Learned Munsiff found that Ext.A2 was only a security for<\/p>\n
repayment of the loan, appellant has no possession of the suit<\/p>\n
property and at any rate, he has come with unclean hands and is<\/p>\n
not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
the suit was dismissed. Appellant took up the matter in appeal.<\/p>\n
Learned Sub Judge found from the evidence that appellant has<\/p>\n
possession of the suit property other than the house situated<\/p>\n
thereon but, agreed with the learned Munsiff that since appellant<\/p>\n
has not come with clean hands, he is not entitled to the injunction<\/p>\n
as prayed for. Hence, the Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The following substantial question of law is framed for a<\/p>\n
decision.\n<\/p>\n
     1) When the court finds that total possession vested with the<\/p>\n
appellant, is it proper and legal to deny relief of injunction on a<\/p>\n
subjective theory of clean hands which lead the parties to take<\/p>\n
law into their own hands.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   It is contended by learned counsel for appellant that<\/p>\n
having regard to the nature of possession appellant has over the<\/p>\n
suit property, the courts below went wrong in denying relief of<\/p>\n
injunction.\n<\/p>\n
      4. Counsel for respondents would contend that respondents<\/p>\n
are in possession of the suit property and hence appellant is not<\/p>\n
entitled to the injunction prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
      5. This being a suit for injunction based on possession, it is<\/p>\n
contended by the learned counsel for appellant that no enquiry<\/p>\n
into title is required. Ext.A2 is the assignment deed admittedly<\/p>\n
executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the appellant. It states<\/p>\n
that the suit property was assigned to the appellant for a<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs.2,000\/- and possession was transferred to the<\/p>\n
appellant.     Ext.A1 is the prior document produced by the<\/p>\n
appellant. Ext.A3 is the Pattam deed dated 5.3.1984 executed by<\/p>\n
one K.J.Chacko, in favour of the appellant. Appellant has also<\/p>\n
produced other documents to support his case of possession.<\/p>\n
Ext.A10 series are receipts for payment of revenue by the<\/p>\n
appellant for the suit property. Appellant gave evidence as PW1<\/p>\n
and testified to his case. On the other hand, respondent No.2<\/p>\n
gave evidence as DW1 and proved Exts.B1 to B4 series. Ext.B1 is<\/p>\n
the lawyer notice dated 16.12.1988 issued to respondent No.1 on<\/p>\n
behalf of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   In Ext.B1, there is a demand for repayment of the loan<\/p>\n
taken by respondent No.1 from the appellant.         There is also<\/p>\n
reference to Ext.A2 being executed as security for the said loan<\/p>\n
transaction.   It is based on Ext.B1 which is admitted by the<\/p>\n
appellant that trial court found the appellant has no possession of<\/p>\n
the suit property and that Ext.A2 is executed only as security for<\/p>\n
due repayment of the loan. In Ext.B1, the amount of loan stated<\/p>\n
is Rs.20,000\/- but in Ext.A2, the assignment deed consideration<\/p>\n
stated is only Rs.2,000\/-. According to PW1, a sum of Rs.18,000\/-<\/p>\n
had already been paid to respondent No.1 and hence, in Ext.A2<\/p>\n
the sale consideration was stated as Rs.2,000\/-. That explanation<\/p>\n
was not accepted by the learned Munsiff.        However, it is not<\/p>\n
necessary to decide in this proceeding what exactly is the amount<\/p>\n
which respondent No.1 had taken by way of loan from the<\/p>\n
appellant. Question is whether the appellant is entitled to the<\/p>\n
injunction as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
     7. It is true that the trial court found that appellant has no<\/p>\n
possession of the suit property. That was on the finding that<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 is only a security for the loan transaction. First Appellate<\/p>\n
Court observed that even for the purpose of securing repayment<\/p>\n
of the loan, there could be a document like Ext.A2 transferring<\/p>\n
possession of the property to the appellant. In that view and on<\/p>\n
the evidence on record that finding regarding possession of the<\/p>\n
said property was entered in favour of appellant.<\/p>\n
      8. It is true that respondents have produced Exts.B3 series<\/p>\n
and B4 series for payment of revenue for the suit property and<\/p>\n
tax for the building. Of them, Ext.B3(a) and B4(a) are for the year<\/p>\n
1987 but, it is seen Ext.A10(c) that revenue has been paid by the<\/p>\n
appellant also. Ext.A4 is the petition preferred by the appellant<\/p>\n
before Tahsildar concerned requesting to receive land revenue<\/p>\n
from him. Based on the evidence on record, First Appellate Court<\/p>\n
found that appellant has possession of the suit property except<\/p>\n
the house in question. That is a finding on fact entered by First<\/p>\n
Appellate Court on the evidence on record. So far as that finding<\/p>\n
is not shown to be perverse or, not supported by          evidence<\/p>\n
interference in Second Appeal is not warranted.<\/p>\n
      9. Then the question is whether appellant is entitled to the<\/p>\n
relief of injunction. The courts below found that on the facts of<\/p>\n
the case he is not entitled to the discretionary relief. Appellant<\/p>\n
came with the case that he is the absolute owner in possession of<\/p>\n
the property which the courts below have not upheld in the light<\/p>\n
of Ext.B1. In other words, it is suppressing the loan transaction<\/p>\n
and Ext.B1 that appellant claiming to be the absolute owner of<\/p>\n
the suit property sought relief of injunction which being an<\/p>\n
equitable relief was within the power of the courts below to refuse<\/p>\n
since appellant had not come with equity while seeking equity.<\/p>\n
     10. Having heard counsel on both sides and going through<\/p>\n
the evidence on record, I do not find reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n
discretion exercised by the courts below against grant of<\/p>\n
injunction in favour of the appellant. The substantial question of<\/p>\n
law framed is answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
     Second Appeal fails. It is dismissed without any order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                      Thomas P.Joseph, Judge
\ncms<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 420 of 1995() 1. M.T.V.KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR … Petitioner Vs 1. MANDEERAKATH ALEEMA UMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.V.SOHAN For Respondent :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :10\/11\/2009 O R D […]<\/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-184375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-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=\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-04T01:45:43+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-04T01:45:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1172,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009\",\"name\":\"M.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-04T01:45:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-04T01:45:43+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-04T01:45:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009"},"wordCount":1172,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009","name":"M.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-04T01:45:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-t-v-kunhikannan-nambiar-vs-mandeerakath-aleema-umma-on-10-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.T.V.Kunhikannan Nambiar vs Mandeerakath Aleema Umma on 10 November, 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\/184375","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=184375"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184375\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184375"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184375"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}