{"id":185850,"date":"2007-10-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-10-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007"},"modified":"2016-11-02T19:26:54","modified_gmt":"2016-11-02T13:56:54","slug":"t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007","title":{"rendered":"T.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nMACA.No. 1533 of 2007()\n\n\n1. T.HANEEFA, S\/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.P.SUKUMARAN, KEEZHPADATH HOUSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. K.KAUSALYA, W\/O.SUKUMARAN, RESIDING\n\n3. VADAKKE VALAPPIL HAMSA, S\/O.ALI,\n\n4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MAVOOR ROAD,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :16\/10\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n     K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.\n\n            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                 M.A.C.A. NO: 1533 OF 2007\n           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n           Dated this the 16th Day of October, 2009.\n\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Joseph Francis J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant herein was the first respondent in O.P. (M.V.)<\/p>\n
No: 160 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Tirur and the respondents 3 and 4 are the respondents 2 and 3<\/p>\n
respectively in the O.P. The O.P. was filed by the respondents 1 and<\/p>\n
2 herein claiming a sum of Rs.1,75,000\/- as compensation for the<\/p>\n
death of their minor daughter Nikhila.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:<\/p>\n
     On 17.1.1999, the 2nd respondent along with her daughter<\/p>\n
Nikhila was walking towards south through eastern side of Tirur<\/p>\n
B.P. Angadi road.       When they reached at police lane, at about 11<\/p>\n
a.m., a jeep bearing no. KL 10B 8075 came from north side and<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A . NO: 1533 OF 2007
\n                                   :2:<\/span><\/p>\n
  knocked down Nikhila causing grievous injury to her. The injured,<\/p>\n
  as a result of the accident, died at Government Hospital, Tirur. The<\/p>\n
  accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd<\/p>\n
  respondent, who was driving the offending vehicle, at the time of<\/p>\n
  the accident.\n<\/p>\n
        3. The appellant is the registered owner and 4th respondent is<\/p>\n
  the Insurance Company.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The appellant contends that, as a matter of fact, the<\/p>\n
  appellant had sold the vehicle to one Yahutty on 28.8.1998 itself,<\/p>\n
  and, since the appellant was out of India, there was no chance for<\/p>\n
  him to contest the claim. So, the award was passed by the Tribunal<\/p>\n
  on 29.3.2004.      The appellant and the 3rd respondent remained<\/p>\n
  exparte. The learned Tribunal allowed the petition and allowed the<\/p>\n
  petitioners to recover a sum of Rs.1,59,000\/- as compensation with<\/p>\n
  6% interest from 24.3.2001, till the date of realisation and cost of<\/p>\n
  Rs.1,500\/- from the respondents 1 to 3. The Insurance Company<\/p>\n
  was directed to pay the amount awarded. It was further held that the<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A . NO: 1533 OF 2007
\n                                   :3:<\/span><\/p>\n
  Insurance Company is entitled for reimbursement from respondents<\/p>\n
  1 and 2 in the O.P. (M.V).\n<\/p>\n
        5. The appellant filed an application for setting aside the ex<\/p>\n
  parte. The learned Tribunal set aside the ex parte only for the<\/p>\n
  purpose of deciding the dispute between the appellant and the<\/p>\n
  Insurance company. After the ex parte was set aside, the appellant<\/p>\n
  filed a written statement contending that he had sold the jeep to<\/p>\n
  Yahutty and there was no violation of the condition of the policy.<\/p>\n
  The learned Tribunal considered only one point as to whether the<\/p>\n
  Insurance Company was entitled to recover the amount of<\/p>\n
  compensation paid by it from the appellant. Since the mutation was<\/p>\n
  not effected in the registry and the name of the appellant was still in<\/p>\n
  the Registration Certificate, the learned Tribunal held that the<\/p>\n
  Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount of<\/p>\n
  compensation from the appellant also.\n<\/p>\n
        6. Against that award the first respondent filed this appeal.<\/p>\n
        7. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A . NO: 1533 OF 2007
\n                                   :4:<\/span><\/p>\n
   learned counsel for contesting respondents.<\/p>\n
      8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant<\/p>\n
sold the offending jeep as per Ext.B3 agreement and it was not proper<\/p>\n
to hold that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle at the time of<\/p>\n
the accident.\n<\/p>\n
      9. There is no dispute that the accident occurred on 17.1.1999.<\/p>\n
According to the appellant, he had sold the jeep to one Yahootty on<\/p>\n
28.8.98 as per Ext.B3 agreement. As per that agreement, the appellant<\/p>\n
sold the jeep No:KL 10B 8075 to Yahootty, for a consideration of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,92,500\/-. Admittedly, the registration certificate of the jeep was<\/p>\n
not transferred in the name of Yahootty after the jeep was transferred to<\/p>\n
him as per Ext.B3 agreement.        There is also no dispute that the<\/p>\n
appellant continued to be the registered owner of the jeep even after<\/p>\n
Ext.B3 agreement. It is an admitted fact that on the date of accident the<\/p>\n
jeep was insured in the name of the appellant and not in the name of<\/p>\n
Yahootty. There is no evidence to show that any intimation was given<\/p>\n
to the Insurance Company regarding the transfer of the vehicle.<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A . NO: 1533 OF 2007
\n                                    :5:<\/span><\/p>\n
      10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sale of<\/p>\n
the vehicle is governed by the provisions of Sale of Goods Act and the<\/p>\n
transfer of vehicle is complete upon payment of consideration and<\/p>\n
delivery of the vehicle irrespective of the fact that it has been registered<\/p>\n
or not.\n<\/p>\n
      11. The definition of the term owner under Section 2 (19) of the<\/p>\n
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short M.V. Act, 1939) reads as follows:<\/p>\n
                “Owner”     means,     where    the     person   in
\n         possession of a motor vehicle is a minor, the
\n         guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor
\n         vehicle, which is the subject of a hire-purchase
\n         agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle
\n         under that agreement”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12. The definition of owner under section 2 (30) of the M.V.<\/p>\n
Act, 1988 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                “Owner” means a person in whose name a
\n         motor vehicle stands registered, and where such
\n         person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in
\n         relation to a motor vehicle, which is the subject of a
\n         hire-purchase agreement, or an agreement of lease or
\n         an agreement of hypothecation, the person in
\n         possession of the vehicle under that agreement”.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
M.A.C.A . NO: 1533 OF 2007
\n                                   :6:<\/span><\/p>\n
      13. Under the M.V. Act, 1939, registration of the vehicle was not<\/p>\n
the principal consideration for treating a person as the owner of the<\/p>\n
vehicle and hence, in accordance with the principles embodied in sale<\/p>\n
of goods, ownership of the vehicle could have changed from one hand<\/p>\n
to another with the purchase of the vehicle and, if a person, on having<\/p>\n
purchased a vehicle, had acquired possession and control thereof, he or<\/p>\n
she could have been regarded as the owner of the vehicle. Under the<\/p>\n
definition of owner, as given in section 2 (30) of the M.V.A Act, 1988,<\/p>\n
if a registered owner parts with the possession of the vehicle in favour<\/p>\n
of the person, who has purchased the vehicle, the registered owner still<\/p>\n
remains the owner of the vehicle even if he ceases to have control and<\/p>\n
possession to the vehicle.\n<\/p>\n
      14. In the decision reported in P.V. Said Mohammed V. Rema<\/p>\n
and Others<\/a> (1995(2) KLJ 259), it was held that it is clear that under<\/p>\n
the Old Act, ownership of a vehicle rested mainly on the strength of<\/p>\n
possession of the vehicle, but the change in the definition is not<\/p>\n
sufficient to change the tortious liability of the actual owner of the<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A . NO: 1533 OF 2007
\n                                    :7:<\/span><\/p>\n
vehicle. This is because the liability to pay the compensation to victims<\/p>\n
of motor accidents is not creation of the Motor Vehicles Act.<\/p>\n
      15. In the decision reported in Najeeb V. Babu (1994(2) K.L.T.<\/p>\n
S.No.15, Case No:20, it was held that till the transfer of ownership is<\/p>\n
entered in the certificate of registration, one has to take it that the<\/p>\n
person in whose favour such certificate of registration is issued is the<\/p>\n
owner, unless otherwise established by legal evidence. In the present<\/p>\n
case, the alleged purchaser Yahootty is not a party to the proceedings<\/p>\n
and therefore interse, liability between the appellant and Yahootty<\/p>\n
cannot be fixed in this proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
      16.   The decision reported in 2005 ACJ 275 (Kerala) (Ashraf<\/p>\n
V. Fathima),<\/a> was a case in which the registered owner of a motor cycle<\/p>\n
had transferred the vehicle to another person and thereafter, the vehicle<\/p>\n
changed several hands. But, the registration certificate of the vehicle<\/p>\n
was not transferred in the name of the transferee of the vehicle. The<\/p>\n
policy of insurance also continued to be in the name of the registered<\/p>\n
owner of the vehicle. When the transferee of the motor cycle was<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A . NO: 1533 OF 2007
\n                                      :8:<\/span><\/p>\n
riding that vehicle, an accident occurred and a person died. The motor<\/p>\n
cyclist had no licence to drive the vehicle. It was held by this Court<\/p>\n
that the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the<\/p>\n
claimants but it can recover the amount from the insured and not from<\/p>\n
the defacto owner. The court held as follows:<\/p>\n
           “Therefore, despite transfer, the Insurance company is<\/p>\n
           liable to pay compensation to the third party and that<\/p>\n
           benefit can be made available to the third parties and not<\/p>\n
           to the registered owner of the vehicle.        Transferor’s<\/p>\n
           liability to third parties and the public also continues till<\/p>\n
           the obligation is transferred. Section 50 of the Motor<\/p>\n
           Vehicles Act casts mandatory obligation on the owner to<\/p>\n
           change the registration on transfer of vehicle.<\/p>\n
           Registered owner holds out to the public that he is the<\/p>\n
           owner of the vehicle. Third parties may be unaware of<\/p>\n
           transfer unless it is entered in the registration book.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Otherwise plea of bogus transfer will be made to escape<\/p>\n
           from liability to third parties. Here, alleged transfer is<\/p>\n
           not proved before the Tribunal.          Since the person<\/p>\n
           driving the vehicle was not having driving license, as<\/p>\n
           held by the Apex Court the Insurance company is liable<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A . NO: 1533 OF 2007
\n                                    :9:<\/span><\/p>\n
           to pay the amount and then recover it from the insured.<\/p>\n
           Here the insured is still the registered owner as<\/p>\n
           admittedly, appellant, registered owner did not inform<\/p>\n
           the matter of transfer to the insurance company and<\/p>\n
           insurance is not transferred. The insurance company<\/p>\n
           cannot recover it from the defacto owner because there<\/p>\n
           is no contractual agreement between the defacto owner<\/p>\n
           and the insurance company. The insurance company<\/p>\n
           can recover it only from the insured.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     17.    In this case, the appellant continues to be registered owner<\/p>\n
of the offending vehicle.       and as such he is liable to pay the<\/p>\n
compensation, as he is the registered owner of the offending vehicle.<\/p>\n
Also Shri. Yahutty is not a party either in the Tribunal or before this<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
     18. Ext.A1 is th copy of F.I. R. in crime No.23 of 1999 of Tirur<\/p>\n
Police station, which was registered against the second respondent, the<\/p>\n
jeep driver. Ext.A2 is the copy of scene mahazar showing that the<\/p>\n
accident was on the eastern margin of the road. Ext.A3 is the copy of<\/p>\n
A.M.V.I. report which would show that there was no mechanical defect<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A . NO: 1533 OF 2007
\n                                   :10:<\/span><\/p>\n
for the vehicle and there was no damage. Ext.B2 is the copy of charge<\/p>\n
sheet showing that the second respondent was charge sheeted under<\/p>\n
Section 66 read with section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Ext.B2<\/p>\n
further shows that the taxi jeep was used for carrying banana. Ext.B1<\/p>\n
is the copy of the Insurance policy produced by the third respondent.<\/p>\n
      19. Since the vehicle was used as goods vehicle for carrying<\/p>\n
banana, in violation of policy condition, the Insurance Company is<\/p>\n
entitled for reimbursement.\n<\/p>\n
      20. In this case, a five year old girl died in the accident. The<\/p>\n
petitioners are the parents of the girl. The multiplier applicable in the<\/p>\n
case of the child below 15 years is 15 and the annual income of the girl,<\/p>\n
who is not a earning member is taken as Rs.15,000\/-. After deducting<\/p>\n
1\/3, the compensation payable for loss of dependency is arrived at<\/p>\n
Rs.1,50,000\/-. Rs.9,500\/- is awarded by the Claims Tribunal as<\/p>\n
compensation for pain and suffering, loss of estate, love and affection<\/p>\n
and funeral expenses etc. Thus in total the compensation is assessed as<\/p>\n
Rs.1,59,500\/-. On considering the facts and circumstance of the case,<\/p>\n
M.A.C.A . NO: 1533 OF 2007
\n                                :11:<\/span><\/p>\n
we are of the view that the compensation awarded is just and<\/p>\n
reasonable. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the award<\/p>\n
passed by the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
      Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                             M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE
\ndl\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM MACA.No. 1533 of 2007() 1. T.HANEEFA, S\/O.MOHAMMEDKUTTY, … Petitioner Vs 1. K.P.SUKUMARAN, KEEZHPADATH HOUSE, … Respondent 2. K.KAUSALYA, W\/O.SUKUMARAN, RESIDING 3. VADAKKE VALAPPIL HAMSA, S\/O.ALI, 4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MAVOOR ROAD, For Petitioner :SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY For Respondent :SRI.V.GOPIKRISHNA […]<\/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-185850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 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\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-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=\"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-02T13:56:54+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-02T13:56:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1936,\"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\\\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007\",\"name\":\"T.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-02T13:56:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 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":"T.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 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\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-02T13:56:54+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 2007","datePublished":"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-02T13:56:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007"},"wordCount":1936,"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\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007","name":"T.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-10-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-02T13:56:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-haneefa-vs-k-p-sukumaran-on-16-october-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Haneefa vs K.P.Sukumaran on 16 October, 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\/185850","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=185850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}