{"id":186163,"date":"2010-12-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-23T20:34:26","modified_gmt":"2018-10-23T15:04:26","slug":"k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 368 of 2010()\n\n\n1. K.D.ANTONY, S\/O.KURUTHUKULANGARA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.VENUGOPALAMENON,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :06\/12\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n       PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.\n                   ------------------------\n                  R.C.R.No. 368 OF 2010\n                   ------------------------\n\n        Dated this the 6th  day of December, 2010\n\n\n\n\n                         O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Gopinathan , J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The tenant\/respondent in RCP No.86\/2001 on the file<\/p>\n
of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur has come up in revision<\/p>\n
under Section 20 of the Kerala Lease Buildings (Lease and<\/p>\n
Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)<\/p>\n
assailing the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority in    RCA    No.27\/2004, whereby the eviction<\/p>\n
granted under Section 11 (4)(ii) by the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
was confirmed.    The respondent\/landlord filed the above<\/p>\n
petition seeking an order of eviction under Section 11 (2)<\/p>\n
(b) and 11(4)(ii) of the Act. It is submitted by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that the rent<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010                2<\/span><\/p>\n
arrears were cleared and eviction order under Section 11<\/p>\n
(2)(b) is no more live. That submission is recorded. The<\/p>\n
respondent alleged in his petition that the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
had made damages and alterations whereby the value and<\/p>\n
utility of the petition schedule building were materially and<\/p>\n
permanently reduced.      The revision petitioner denied the<\/p>\n
damages and reduction of utility and value of the petition<\/p>\n
schedule building.    He contended that     because of some<\/p>\n
alterations  and    constructions  made    by   the   revision<\/p>\n
petitioner, the value and utility    of the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building were increased.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The Rent Control Court enquired the rent control<\/p>\n
petition along with RCP No.87\/2010. During the course of<\/p>\n
the enquiry, on the side of the respondent, PWs 1 to 3<\/p>\n
were examined.       On the side of the revision petitioner,<\/p>\n
himself and another witness were examined as RWs1 and 2.<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the respondent.<\/p>\n
On the side of the revision petitioner Exts.B1 to B5 series<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010               3<\/span><\/p>\n
were marked.        On appraisal of the evidence, the rent<\/p>\n
control court   arrived   at a    finding in favour of the<\/p>\n
respondent.   Consequently,    the revision petitioner    was<\/p>\n
directed to put the respondent in possession of the petition<\/p>\n
schedule building under Section 11(4)(ii). The above order<\/p>\n
was confirmed in appeal. Now the revision.<\/p>\n
     3. We heard Sri.K.M.Jamaludheen, learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the revision petitioner and perused          the<\/p>\n
judgment impugned as well as the order of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
     4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly<\/p>\n
conceded that the revision petitioner had made           some<\/p>\n
constructions.   According to him, it only enhanced        the<\/p>\n
value and utility of the petition schedule building and for<\/p>\n
that construction, the revision petitioner is not liable to be<\/p>\n
evicted under Section 11(4)(ii) as no damage was caused to<\/p>\n
the building so as to reduce its value an utility. It was also<\/p>\n
argued that the respondent had acquired citizenship in<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010               4<\/span><\/p>\n
Canada and therefore, he is not entitled to get an order of<\/p>\n
eviction in respect     of the petition schedule building.<\/p>\n
Though it was contended by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner that the respondent had acquired<\/p>\n
citizenship  in Canada, no evidence      was let in  to that<\/p>\n
effect. The learned counsel would argue that it is admitted<\/p>\n
in the witness box that the respondent had been residing in<\/p>\n
Canada for the last 30 years on employment, so it could be<\/p>\n
presumed     that  he   had   acquired    citizenship there.<\/p>\n
Curiously we notice that the revision petitioner had not<\/p>\n
dared to depose that the respondent      has citizenship  in<\/p>\n
Canada. We find no merit in this argument as it is not<\/p>\n
supported by pleadings or evidence. To PW1, there is not<\/p>\n
even a suggestion that        he had acquired       Canadian<\/p>\n
citizenship.   In the above circumstances, we find that the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner had not succeeded to establish that the<\/p>\n
respondent had     Canadian    citizenship.    Going by the<\/p>\n
judgment impugned, we find that the said argument was<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010                5<\/span><\/p>\n
considered by the appellate authority in the light      of the<\/p>\n
decision reported in        Sebastian E.J. and others v.<\/p>\n
Dr.A.M.Mathai (ILR<\/a> 2005 (4) 302). The appellate authority<\/p>\n
had found that the respondent is not at all disqualifed for<\/p>\n
that reason from seeking order of eviction      of the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner.     It is revealed that the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building, which is aged more than 100 years, was obtained<\/p>\n
to the respondent by inheritance. The mere fact that the<\/p>\n
respondent had gone abroad on employment would not dis<\/p>\n
entitle him to hold the title of the property or seeking an<\/p>\n
order of eviction of the tenant who was put in possession of<\/p>\n
the petition schedule building by the predecessor       of the<\/p>\n
respondent.     It is pertinent to note that the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner has no case that the respondent is not entitled to<\/p>\n
receive rent. On the other hand, rent is being paid to the<\/p>\n
respondent. A person who has the right to receive the rent<\/p>\n
has got the right to       evict, of course, subject to the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act. Since the revision petitioner continues<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010               6<\/span><\/p>\n
to pay the rent, in fact, he is estopped from raising a<\/p>\n
contention that the respondent is not entitled to evict the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner. Hence, we reject the contention that the<\/p>\n
respondent is not entitled  to an order of eviction   for the<\/p>\n
reason that he is employed in Canada.\n<\/p>\n
     5. As regards the constructions made by the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner,  the   appellate authority     had    elaborately<\/p>\n
mentioned in para 11 of the judgment impugned.             To<\/p>\n
avoid repetition, we quote    herein paragraph    11 of the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
               “The respondent himself has filed<\/p>\n
         affidavit   in   accordance    with   the<\/p>\n
         averments in the petition. At page 2 of<\/p>\n
         the affidavit, it is alleged by the<\/p>\n
         respondent that the window        on the<\/p>\n
         western side was replaced with an<\/p>\n
         aluminium window. The tenant has put<\/p>\n
         up beam by making holes through the<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010              7<\/span><\/p>\n
         wall.    They extended the building<\/p>\n
         towards the front and the front elevation<\/p>\n
         was constructed without his consent. It<\/p>\n
         is also stated that he had to approach<\/p>\n
         the Munsiff’s Court, Thrissur to obtain<\/p>\n
         injunction against the alteration of the<\/p>\n
         building     by   the   tenant.      The<\/p>\n
         commissioner visited the property and<\/p>\n
         submitted a report. It is also alleged in<\/p>\n
         the affidavit that the tenants in these<\/p>\n
         two shop rooms colluded and made the<\/p>\n
         alterations  and additions without his<\/p>\n
         knowledge and consent.     He has been<\/p>\n
         cross examined as PW1.      According to<\/p>\n
         him, the building was about 100 years<\/p>\n
         old.    According to PW1, the distance<\/p>\n
         between this building and the main road<\/p>\n
         was 10 feet and now it is reduced to one<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010              8<\/span><\/p>\n
         foot because of the front      elevation<\/p>\n
         taken by the tenant. PW1 has deposed<\/p>\n
         that the tenants have made permanent<\/p>\n
         structures by using iron poles and iron<\/p>\n
         rails.    According   to  PW1,    major<\/p>\n
         alterations were done to the building.<\/p>\n
         They put up walls on the eastern side<\/p>\n
         without his consent. There was no wall<\/p>\n
         on the eastern side when it was let out<\/p>\n
         to the tenant. Similarly shutters were<\/p>\n
         put up on the eastern side in respect of<\/p>\n
         the room comprised in RCP No.86\/2001.<\/p>\n
         There was a door on the eastern side.<\/p>\n
         Now the door is shifted to western side.<\/p>\n
         Rails were put up at the place of the<\/p>\n
         door. Similarly, shutter was put up on<\/p>\n
         the eastern side. A new door was put<\/p>\n
         up on the western side. A    leanto was<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010               9<\/span><\/p>\n
         put up by using iron rails and the two<\/p>\n
         poles. PW1 has denied the suggestion<\/p>\n
         that the alterations made          to the<\/p>\n
         existing building have only increased the<\/p>\n
         value.    PW1 has denied that except<\/p>\n
         putting up a leanto on 4 poles, no other<\/p>\n
         construction was done by the tenant. He<\/p>\n
         has   deposed    that  the   ceiling  was<\/p>\n
         removed. ………”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    6. PW2, a retired Superintendent Engineer, also had<\/p>\n
given supporting evidence that because of the construction<\/p>\n
made by the revision petitioner, the elevation of the building<\/p>\n
was changed and the value and utility of the building was<\/p>\n
reduced.     True, that it was put       to PW2      in cross<\/p>\n
examination    that because of the additional construction,<\/p>\n
the value of the building has been increased and he had<\/p>\n
given affirmative answer. But, we notice that the petition<\/p>\n
schedule building had got 10 feet wide road frontage. The<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010                10<\/span><\/p>\n
revision petitioner had made construction leaving only one<\/p>\n
foot from the road there by       parking area was reduced.<\/p>\n
There is total change of the structure.     It is not disputed<\/p>\n
that for making      alterations  or additional constructions<\/p>\n
extending to the parking area, the revision petitioner had<\/p>\n
not obtained any permission from the local authority. The<\/p>\n
result is that the alterations made by the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
would canvas even penal action including demolition.      The<\/p>\n
additions made by the revision petitioner had been reported<\/p>\n
in    Ext.A3 commission report submitted by PW3             in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.840\/2001.       It would also show that the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner had fitted rolling shutters.  Since the wall of the<\/p>\n
building has no capacity to erect the rolling shutters, the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner erected pillars in the building and fitted<\/p>\n
the rolling shutters .     These constructions and additions<\/p>\n
made by the revision petitioner revealed by the evidence<\/p>\n
of PWs1     to 3 and Ext.A3 would show that the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner     had made material alterations and such<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010             11<\/span><\/p>\n
constructions had reduced the value and utility      of the<\/p>\n
petition schedule building. Even elevation of the building<\/p>\n
was changed and the parking area in front of the building<\/p>\n
was reduced.      These alterations were made       without<\/p>\n
sanction from the local authority.    If the local authority<\/p>\n
initiates action, the respondent is liable for penal action<\/p>\n
including demolition of the building.       In the above<\/p>\n
circumstances, overlooking the decisions cited      by the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner before the appellate authority        in<\/p>\n
Shanmugam      v.   Rao  Saheeb    (1988    (1)  KLT   86),<\/p>\n
G.Arunachalam v. Thondarperienambi<\/a> ( A.I.R.1992 SC<\/p>\n
977) ,    Ahammad Kanna v. Muhammed Haneef (1967 KLT<\/p>\n
841), Om Prakash v. Ammar Singh (AIR 1987 SC 617),<\/p>\n
B.Prabodhini v. P.Rajammal and others (1991 (1) KL J 113),<\/p>\n
T.R.Sharma v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1988 SC 2929) and<\/p>\n
Viswanathan v. Porichy (1985 KLT 551) the appellate<\/p>\n
authority had confirmed     eviction.  In its judgment the<\/p>\n
appellate authority had given     reliance  to the decision<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010                12<\/span><\/p>\n
reported in Seethalakshmi Ammal v. Nabeesath Beevi<\/a> (2003<\/p>\n
(1) KLT 391) and Francis v. Davis<\/a> (2005 (3) KLT 815). In<\/p>\n
Francis v. Davis,<\/a> it is held as follows;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                    “The question to be enquired<\/p>\n
             under      Section   11(4)(ii) is  not<\/p>\n
             whether       the value or utility is<\/p>\n
             increased.        Impairment of the<\/p>\n
             value or utility of the building is to<\/p>\n
             be considered in the point of the<\/p>\n
             view      of  the   landlord.    If  a<\/p>\n
             stipulation is made in the lease<\/p>\n
             deed that the tenant shall not make<\/p>\n
             any additional construction or any<\/p>\n
             alteration to the tenanted building,<\/p>\n
             it is binding on the tenant. It is<\/p>\n
             true, a construction or alteration of<\/p>\n
             the building which does not attract<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010               13<\/span><\/p>\n
             the ingredients of Section 11 (4)(ii)<\/p>\n
             would not render the tenant liable<\/p>\n
             to be evicted under the Act, eve if<\/p>\n
             there is violation of the said term in<\/p>\n
             the lease    deed.     At  the same<\/p>\n
             time, in considering whether in the<\/p>\n
             point of view of the landlord the<\/p>\n
             offending acts would destroy or<\/p>\n
             reduce the value or utility of the<\/p>\n
             building. Stipulations in the lease<\/p>\n
             deed are relevant. The prohibition<\/p>\n
             in the lease deed against the<\/p>\n
             tenant making construction        has<\/p>\n
             certainly       relevance        while<\/p>\n
             considering question how the ‘use’<\/p>\n
             of the building by the tenant was”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7. Going by the facts of the case and the ratio of the<\/p>\n
above decision, we find that the above ratio      is squarely<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010                14<\/span><\/p>\n
applicable to the case on hand        and we find     that the<\/p>\n
appellate authority had meticulously           considered the<\/p>\n
evidence on record in the light of the precedents.          The<\/p>\n
eviction granted by the Rent Controller and confirmed in<\/p>\n
the appeal is in tune with the facts and law. There is no<\/p>\n
irregularity, illegality or impropriety committed by the facts<\/p>\n
finding authorities below so as to rectify in revision. The<\/p>\n
revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
     8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner,<\/p>\n
having failed to impress       us      to   interfere with the<\/p>\n
judgment impugned, sought for 10 months time to vacate<\/p>\n
the premises. It is reported that the revision petitioner had<\/p>\n
been running printing press in the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building. There is no case for the revision petitioner that no<\/p>\n
suitable building is available in the locality.       However,<\/p>\n
having taken into account that the revision petitioner had<\/p>\n
been   occupying the petition schedule building for        long<\/p>\n
time, we find that it would be just and proper to grant time<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010                15<\/span><\/p>\n
till 31\/5\/2011 to vacate on the following conditions;<\/p>\n
               i).The revision petitioner shall file<\/p>\n
          an affidavit    within three weeks from<\/p>\n
          today     undertaking to vacate      the<\/p>\n
          premises      on or before 30\/5\/2011<\/p>\n
          without raising any objection.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               ii).  The arrears of rent, if any,<\/p>\n
          shall be discharged within one month<\/p>\n
          from today and shall continue to pay<\/p>\n
          occupational charges at the contract<\/p>\n
          rate of rent. In the event the revision<\/p>\n
          petitioner files an affidavit and honours<\/p>\n
          the undertakings, the Rent Control<\/p>\n
          Court\/Execution Court, as the case may<\/p>\n
          be, shall keep the order of eviction in<\/p>\n
          abeyance till 30\/5\/2011.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               iii). In the event of failure     to<\/p>\n
          comply with any of the conditions, the<\/p>\n
RCR.No.368\/2010              16<\/span><\/p>\n
         respondent is at liberty to execute the<\/p>\n
         order of eviction forthwith.<\/p>\n
    There will be no order as to costs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                               PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE<\/p>\n
                               P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
\ndpk<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 368 of 2010() 1. K.D.ANTONY, S\/O.KURUTHUKULANGARA … Petitioner Vs 1. K.VENUGOPALAMENON, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN Dated :06\/12\/2010 O […]<\/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-186163","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010 - 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\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-23T15:04:26+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\\\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-23T15:04:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2152,\"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\\\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010\",\"name\":\"K.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-23T15:04:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"K.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010 - 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\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-23T15:04:26+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\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-23T15:04:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010"},"wordCount":2152,"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\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010","name":"K.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-23T15:04:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-d-antony-vs-k-venugopalamenon-on-6-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.D.Antony vs K.Venugopalamenon on 6 December, 2010"}]},{"@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\/186163","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=186163"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186163\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186163"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186163"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186163"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}