{"id":187456,"date":"2008-03-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008"},"modified":"2017-04-15T02:36:18","modified_gmt":"2017-04-14T21:06:18","slug":"moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP No. 3622 of 2000(F)\n\n\n\n1. MONIYAMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.ROCKEY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :07\/03\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                        P.N.RAVINDRAN,J.\n                   =========================\n                       O.P. NO.3622 OF 2000\n                   =========================\n                 Dated this the 7th day of March 2008\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>     A parcel of land, 1 hectare in extent, situated Sy.No.77\/1 of<\/p>\n<p>KDH Village, was assigned to the petitioner&#8217;s husband &#8211; late<\/p>\n<p>Soman under the provisions of the Kannan Devan Hills<\/p>\n<p>(Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules 1977<\/p>\n<p>(hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Rules&#8217; for short). The petitioner&#8217;s<\/p>\n<p>husband had put up a residential building therein.<\/p>\n<p>     2. The proprietary right over the trees standing in the lands<\/p>\n<p>assigned to the petitioner&#8217;s husband stood vested in the State<\/p>\n<p>Government. Rule-18 of `the `Rules&#8217;, however permitted the<\/p>\n<p>assignee to purchase the trees on payment of the value at the<\/p>\n<p>prevailing seigniorage rates. In terms of Rule-18, the petitioner&#8217;s<\/p>\n<p>husband submitted an application dated 4.10.1995 to the District<\/p>\n<p>Collector for permission to cut and remove the trees standing in<\/p>\n<p>his property. Repeated requests for permission to cut and remove<\/p>\n<p>the trees on payment of seigniorage value did not meet with<\/p>\n<p>success. The petitioner&#8217;s husband thereupon filed O.P.No.19933<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">O.P.3622\/2000              2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>of 1996 in this Court along with four other persons, who had filed<\/p>\n<p>similar applications under the Rules. By Ext.P3 judgment<\/p>\n<p>delivered on 15.1.1997, this Court directed the second<\/p>\n<p>respondent &#8211; the District Collector to consider the applications<\/p>\n<p>filed by the petitioner and others and to pass appropriate orders<\/p>\n<p>thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt<\/p>\n<p>of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner has stated that a<\/p>\n<p>certified copy of Ext.P3 judgment was furnished to the second<\/p>\n<p>respondent on 5.2.1997 and that for not complying with the<\/p>\n<p>directions therein, the petitioner&#8217;s husband had filed CCC No.309<\/p>\n<p>of 1997 in this Court against the third respondent, who was then<\/p>\n<p>holding office   as the District Collector of Idukki District. The<\/p>\n<p>petitioner has further stated that with a view to cover up the<\/p>\n<p>latches and negligence on his part in complying with the<\/p>\n<p>directions in Ext.P3, the third respondent rejected the application<\/p>\n<p>submitted by the petitioner&#8217;s husband as per Ext.P5 proceedings<\/p>\n<p>dated 29.9.1997 and filed Ext.P4 counter affidavit in CCC No.309<\/p>\n<p>of 1997 stating that on local inspection, it was found that the<\/p>\n<p>trees standing in the lands belonging to the petitioner&#8217;s husband<\/p>\n<p>do not pose a threat to the crops or the house erected therein. It<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">O.P.3622\/2000                3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>is submitted that based on Ext.P4, the contempt of court case<\/p>\n<p>was closed. The petitioner has further stated that on 1.7.1998, a<\/p>\n<p>huge tree fell on the top of the house resulting in the death of the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner&#8217;s husband and serious injuries to her. She thereafter<\/p>\n<p>filed Ext.P6 representation dated 15.8.1999 before the Hon&#8217;ble<\/p>\n<p>the Chief Minister seeking payment of damages and also for<\/p>\n<p>taking appropriate action against the third respondent &#8211; the then<\/p>\n<p>District Collector Idukki. The petitioner has, in this Original<\/p>\n<p>Petition filed on 2.2.2000 prayed for the following reliefs:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          i)   call for the records relating to<br \/>\n          Ext.P5;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          ii)   issue a writ of mandamus or any<br \/>\n          other writ, order or direction to the first<br \/>\n          respondent to order an enquiry on the<br \/>\n          circumstances on which Ext.P5 was<br \/>\n          passed by the third respondent and to<br \/>\n          take appropriate action against the<br \/>\n          third respondent;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          iii)  issue a writ of mandamus or any<br \/>\n          other writ, order or direction to the<br \/>\n          respondents     to  give    expert    and<br \/>\n          specialist treatments at the expenses of<br \/>\n          the respondents;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          iv)   issue a writ, order or direction to<br \/>\n          the respondents to give ten lakhs<br \/>\n          rupees to compensate the calamity<br \/>\n          which was occurred due to the laches,<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">O.P.3622\/2000                4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>          negligence, dereliction and irresponsible<br \/>\n          rash act of the third respondent;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>          v)    issue a writ of mandamus or any<br \/>\n          other writ, order or direction to the 2nd<br \/>\n          respondent to take urgent steps to cut<br \/>\n          trees which are standing dangerously to<br \/>\n          the life, property and crops of the<br \/>\n          petitioner;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>      3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first<\/p>\n<p>respondent, wherein it is stated that the petitioner&#8217;s husband had<\/p>\n<p>applied for      cutting and removing 63 trees from the lands<\/p>\n<p>assigned to him stating that they are dangerous to the standing<\/p>\n<p>crops, the house and also to human life. It is also stated in the<\/p>\n<p>counter affidavit that the other petitioners in O.P.No.19933 of<\/p>\n<p>1996 had applied for cutting and removing 181 trees and that<\/p>\n<p>the applications filed by the petitioners in the said Original<\/p>\n<p>Petition related to 244 trees in all. It is further stated in the<\/p>\n<p>counter affidavit that as the cutting and removal of such a large<\/p>\n<p>number of trees would have led to ecological imbalance in the<\/p>\n<p>locality, the District Collector decided to inspect the site and that<\/p>\n<p>on such inspection, it was found that the trees do not pose any<\/p>\n<p>danger to the standing crops or to the residential building or to<\/p>\n<p>human life and that the applications filed by the petitioner and<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">O.P.3622\/2000               5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>others were therefore rejected. The counter affidavit proceeds to<\/p>\n<p>state that when the land was assigned to the petitioner in the<\/p>\n<p>year 1995, he did not have the financial ability to pay the<\/p>\n<p>seigniorage value and that his subsequent conduct in seeking<\/p>\n<p>permission to cut and remove 63 trees discloses that the<\/p>\n<p>application was filed at the instance of timber merchants. It is<\/p>\n<p>further stated in the counter affidavit that in the monsoon of<\/p>\n<p>1998, there was extensive natural calamity in the State of Kerala<\/p>\n<p>and that one tree standing in the lands assigned to the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner&#8217;s husband fell down resulting in the death of Soman<\/p>\n<p>and caused injuries to the petitioner. The         counter affidavit<\/p>\n<p>further proceeds to state that the said incident was a natural<\/p>\n<p>calamity and did not happen due to the negligence or dereliction<\/p>\n<p>of duty on the part of the State or its officers. It is also stated<\/p>\n<p>that financial assistance to the tune of Rs.75,000\/= was<\/p>\n<p>sanctioned and disbursed to the petitioner. The third respondent,<\/p>\n<p>the then District Collector, Idukki has also filed a counter affidavit<\/p>\n<p>denying and disputing the claims and contentions of the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner. The third respondent has       also stated that in the<\/p>\n<p>monsoon of 1998, a large number of persons died in the State of<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">O.P.3622\/2000              6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Kerala, especially in Idukki District and that tree standing in the<\/p>\n<p>lands assigned to the petitioner&#8217;s husband was uprooted in the<\/p>\n<p>heavy rains that lashed Idukki District.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4. I   heard Sri.Augustine Joseph, the       learned counsel<\/p>\n<p>appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.Sandesh Raja, the      learned<\/p>\n<p>Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and<\/p>\n<p>Sri.Johnson P.John, the learned counsel appearing for the third<\/p>\n<p>respondent. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>submitted that it was solely on account of the negligence on the<\/p>\n<p>part of the third respondent, in complying with the directions<\/p>\n<p>issued in Ext.P3 judgment that the tree could not be cut and<\/p>\n<p>removed before it fell down on 1.7.1998. The learned counsel for<\/p>\n<p>the petitioner submitted that Ext.P5 order was passed rejecting<\/p>\n<p>the application filed by the petitioner&#8217;s husband for permission to<\/p>\n<p>cut and remove the dangerous trees standing in the lands<\/p>\n<p>assigned to him solely on account of malice and that the third<\/p>\n<p>respondent was motivated by extraneous considerations in<\/p>\n<p>turning down the request made by the petitioner&#8217;s husband. The<\/p>\n<p>learned counsel for the petitioner      submitted that if the third<\/p>\n<p>respondent had acted expeditiously and         complied with the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">O.P.3622\/2000              7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>directions in Ext.P3 judgment in time and had also granted the<\/p>\n<p>permission sought by the petitioner&#8217;s husband to cut and remove<\/p>\n<p>the dangerous trees, the petitioner&#8217;s husband would not have<\/p>\n<p>succumbed to the injuries sustained by him on 1.7.1989 when<\/p>\n<p>the tree fell down on the house and that the petitioner also would<\/p>\n<p>not have suffered any injuries in the said incident.<\/p>\n<p>      5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n<p>respondents submitted that it was on account of reasons beyond<\/p>\n<p>the control of the respondents that the tree fell on the top of the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner&#8217;s house resulting in the death of the petitioner&#8217;s<\/p>\n<p>husband and causing injuries to the petitioner. The learned<\/p>\n<p>Government Pleader appearing for the respondents further<\/p>\n<p>contended that from the very nature of the request made by the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner&#8217;s husband and the large number of trees involved, it is<\/p>\n<p>evident that the petitioner&#8217;s husband and the other petitioners in<\/p>\n<p>O.P.No.19933 of 1996 had been put forward by               influential<\/p>\n<p>timber merchants.\n<\/p>\n<p>      6. I have considered the rival contentions. It is evident from<\/p>\n<p>the averments made in paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit filed<\/p>\n<p>by the first respondent that there was a very clever attempt on<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">O.P.3622\/2000              8<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the part of the petitioner&#8217;s late husband and other petitioners in<\/p>\n<p>O.P.No.19933 of 1996 to cut and remove a large number of trees<\/p>\n<p>under the pretext that they pose a danger to human life, standing<\/p>\n<p>crops and to their houses. It is seen from the averments in the<\/p>\n<p>counter affidavit that they had jointly applied for cutting and<\/p>\n<p>removing 244 trees. It is not clear whether the tree that fell<\/p>\n<p>down on the top of the petitioner&#8217;s house on 1.7.1998 was one<\/p>\n<p>among the 63 trees in respect of which the petitioner had<\/p>\n<p>submitted an application under Rule 18 of the Rules. Rule 18<\/p>\n<p>does not refer to cutting and removal of dangerous trees. In any<\/p>\n<p>case, it is borne out by the counter affidavit filed by the<\/p>\n<p>respondents that the tree fell in the heavy rains that lashed the<\/p>\n<p>State in the night of 30th June 1998, and that the respondents<\/p>\n<p>cannot be held liable for the mishap that occurred on 1.7.1988. It<\/p>\n<p>is seen from Ext.P2 Newspaper report produced by the petitioner<\/p>\n<p>that in Idukki District alone 300 houses were damaged, 60<\/p>\n<p>houses were completely destroyed and thousands of trees were<\/p>\n<p>uprooted and a     large number of persons met with untimely<\/p>\n<p>death in the heavy rains that lashed the State in June 1998. The<\/p>\n<p>counter affidavit also discloses that a sum of Rs.75,000\/- was<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">O.P.3622\/2000              9<\/span><\/p>\n<p>paid to the petitioner from the State funds by way of financial<\/p>\n<p>assistance. On the materials available in the case, I am not<\/p>\n<p>persuaded to agree with the contention of the learned counsel<\/p>\n<p>for the petitioner that it was on account of the latches and<\/p>\n<p>negligence on the part of the third respondent that the tree fell<\/p>\n<p>on top of the petitioner&#8217;s house on 1.7.1998. In that view of the<\/p>\n<p>matter, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any of the<\/p>\n<p>reliefs prayed for in this Original Petition. The petitioner has not<\/p>\n<p>chosen to challenge Ext.P5 in these proceedings. The petitioner<\/p>\n<p>cannot take advantage of the natural calamity to assail Ext.P5<\/p>\n<p>indirectly   and  collaterally  and    seek    reliefs  against  the<\/p>\n<p>respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In the result, the Original Petition fails and it is dismissed.<\/p>\n<p>No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                            P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>css\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP No. 3622 of 2000(F) 1. MONIYAMMA &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.ROCKEY For Respondent :SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN Dated :07\/03\/2008 O R D E R [&hellip;]<\/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-187456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-14T21:06:18+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\\\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-14T21:06:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1788,\"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\\\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-14T21:06:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-14T21:06:18+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\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-14T21:06:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008"},"wordCount":1788,"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\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008","name":"Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-14T21:06:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/moniyamma-vs-state-of-kerala-on-7-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Moniyamma vs State Of Kerala on 7 March, 2008"}]},{"@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\/187456","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=187456"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187456\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}