{"id":188056,"date":"2009-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-17T21:21:08","modified_gmt":"2019-03-17T15:51:08","slug":"lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Lisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Lisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 934 of 2003()\n\n\n1. LISIAMMA JOSEPH, W\/O. JOSEPH,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. THRESIAMMA D\/O. JOSEPH, DO. DO.\n3. MATHEW, S\/O. JOSEPH, DO. DO.\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M.S.JOSEPH @ M.S.JOSE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. CHACKO CHACKO, THEKKEVEETTIL\n\n3. CHINNAMMA SEBASTIAN\n\n4. M.S.ABRAHAM, MALIYEPURACKAL, BANK COLONY\n\n5. LISSY VARGHESE, D\/O. AVIRA DEVASIA,\n\n6. AMMINI VARKEY D\/O. AVIRA DEVASIA,\n\n7. DR.ELAMMA RAJU D\/O. AVIRA DEVASIA,\n\n8. SUMI SEBASTIAN D\/O. AVIRA DEVASIA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :15\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                          THOMAS P JOSEPH, J\n                    ----------------------------------------\n                          R.S.A.No.934 of 2003\n                     ---------------------------------------\n                  Dated this 15th day of October 2009\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The substantial question of law framed for a decision in the<\/p>\n
second appeal is whether after finding that the suit property belonged<\/p>\n
to the appellants first appellate court was legally correct in holding<\/p>\n
that their title is lost by adverse possession and law of limitation<\/p>\n
reversing the well reasoned judgment of the trial court?.<\/p>\n
      2.    Plaintiffs are before me challenging the verdict of first<\/p>\n
appellate court reversing judgment and decree of the trial court which<\/p>\n
allowed recovery of possession of the suit property on the strength of<\/p>\n
title. Plaintiffs\/appellants claimed that a total extent of 5.54 acres of<\/p>\n
nilam belonged to Thressiamma, wife of Mathew as per sale deed<\/p>\n
No.3044\/1119 M.E and after the death of Thressiamma, her legal heirs<\/p>\n
including Marathinal Joseph, husband of appellant No.1 and father of<\/p>\n
appellant Nos.2 and 3 executed Ext.A1, settlement deed No.898 of<\/p>\n
1962 as per which E schedule therein was allotted to the share of the<\/p>\n
said Joseph and others. There was an oral partition between Joseph<\/p>\n
and others and accordingly the suit property which is 1.50 acres of<\/p>\n
nilam in survey No.218\/1\/1 was allotted to the said Joseph.           He<\/p>\n
mortgaged that property to Ouseph Mathan for the sum of Rs.1500\/- as<\/p>\n
per agreement dated 29-07-1962. Though there was an understanding<\/p>\n
that a deed of mortgage will be executed subsequently, that did not<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.934 of 2003                2<\/span><\/p>\n
happen. Suit property was given in the possession of the mortgagee,<\/p>\n
Ouseph Mathan.      Respondent No.2 was a party to the agreement.<\/p>\n
Later, Ouseph Mathan sub mortgaged the property to Avirah Devassia<\/p>\n
(deceased defendant No.1).      On the death of Joseph, suit property<\/p>\n
devolved on the appellants.      They wanted the mortgage over the<\/p>\n
property to be redeemed from Avirah Devassia.          Defendant No.1<\/p>\n
(Avirah Devassia) contended that he has 6.80 acres and virivu of<\/p>\n
nilam, the total extent being 9 and odd acres in survey No.217\/3<\/p>\n
situated within specific boundaries on all sides towards western side of<\/p>\n
the 5.50 acres in survey No.218\/1\/1 including the suit property under<\/p>\n
an oral lease from 1120 M.E onwards and while so, its jenm right was<\/p>\n
purchased by him as per document No.1139 of 1960 dated 04-08-<\/p>\n
1960. It is incorrect to say that the property was sub mortgaged to<\/p>\n
him. It is not correct to say that there was mortgage of any portion of<\/p>\n
the property comprised in survey No.217\/3 in favour of Ouseph<\/p>\n
Mathan.    Appellants or their predecessors have no right, title or<\/p>\n
interest in the 6.80 acres and virivu in survey No.217\/3. If at all it is<\/p>\n
found that appellants have any right over the property it is lost by<\/p>\n
adverse possession of deceased defendant No.1 from 1120M.E on 04-<\/p>\n
08-1960 and by the law of limitation. After the death of defendant<\/p>\n
No.1, respondent No.1 (supplemental defendant No.8) who is one of his<\/p>\n
legal heirs filed written statement taking up similar contentions.<\/p>\n
Learned Munsiff framed issues regarding the title claimed by the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.934 of 2003                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants over the suit property and whether title is lost by adverse<\/p>\n
possession and limitation. Answering issues in favour of the appellants,<\/p>\n
they were given a decree for recovery of possession of the suit<\/p>\n
property.    Respondent No.1 took up the matter in appeal. Learned<\/p>\n
District Judge concurred with learned Munsiff on the finding regarding<\/p>\n
title of appellants but found in favour of respondent No.1 on the plea of<\/p>\n
adverse possession and limitation. Accordingly the suit was dismissed.<\/p>\n
Hence the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       3.    Learned counsel for appellants contended that finding of<\/p>\n
first appellate court regarding adverse possession is misconceived,<\/p>\n
incorrect and unsustainable in that there is no plea or evidence that<\/p>\n
deceased defendant No.1 or his legal heirs held the suit property with<\/p>\n
hostile title against the appellants and their predecessor.     Learned<\/p>\n
counsel contended that to extinguish title under section 27 of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act, mere length of possession is not sufficient if it is not<\/p>\n
accompanied by necessary hostile title to the true owner which<\/p>\n
according to the learned counsel is conspicuously absent in this case.<\/p>\n
Reliance is placed on the decisions in Sunny Vs. Amaruddin (2004<\/p>\n
(1) KLT SN83 page 63), M. Durai Vs. Muthu and Others (2007 (3)<\/p>\n
SCC 114), Annakili Vs. A Vedanayagam and Others (2007 (14)<\/p>\n
SCC 308), Ramzan Vs. Gafooran (2008 (2) KLT SN 68) and Hemaji<\/p>\n
Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan (2008 (4) KLT<\/p>\n
357 (SC)).    Per contra it is argued by learned senior Advocate for<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.934 of 2003                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent No.1 that evidence on record justified finding of first<\/p>\n
appellate court. Even evidence of appellants would show that from<\/p>\n
1980 onwards atleast, they have been demanding possession of the<\/p>\n
suit property which was negatived by the predecessor in interest of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1.        According to the learned senior Advocate<\/p>\n
requirements to extinguish title under section 27 of the Limitation Act<\/p>\n
are brought out in this case and placed reliance on the decision of the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy and Ors Vs.<\/p>\n
Revamma and Ors (AIR 2007 SC 1753).\n<\/p>\n
      5.    So far as title of appellants is concerned, it is contended by<\/p>\n
learned senior Advocate for respondent No.1 that concurrent finding<\/p>\n
entered by courts below is not correct. Ext.A1 is the settlement deed<\/p>\n
executed between Joseph and other legal representatives of<\/p>\n
Thressiamma, the original owner of 5.54 acres including the suit<\/p>\n
property. Respondent No.1 has not produced any document to prove<\/p>\n
title claimed by him. It is true that when the suit is based on title<\/p>\n
weakness of the case of respondents is no assistance to the appellant<\/p>\n
who should win or loose on the strength or weakness of their case.<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner inspected the properties with the assistance of<\/p>\n
Taluk Surveyor who measured the properties with reference to Ext.A1<\/p>\n
and the survey plan. Exts.C1 to C3 are the mahazar, report and plan<\/p>\n
prepared by the advocate commissioner.          On measurement of the<\/p>\n
property it was found that the disputed property, 1.40 acres falls in<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.934 of 2003                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
survey No.218\/1\/1 while the property over which respondent No.1<\/p>\n
claimed title and possession is in survey No.217\/3 and is situated on its<\/p>\n
north. Commissioner has identified plot ABCDEF as the suit property.<\/p>\n
Nothing is brought out to discard Exts.C1 to C3. There is also no contra<\/p>\n
evidence. Courts below relying Ext.A1 and Exts.C1 to C3 found that<\/p>\n
appellants have title over the property which I find no reason to<\/p>\n
interfere being a finding of fact based on evidence.<\/p>\n
      6.     Before going into the issue regarding adverse possession I<\/p>\n
shall refer to the decision relied on by learned counsel on either side.<\/p>\n
In Sunny Vs. Amaruddin (2004 (1) KLT SN No. 83) it was held,<\/p>\n
         “One of the important ingredients to claim adverse<\/p>\n
         possession is that the person who claims adverse<\/p>\n
         possession must have set up hostile title to the true<\/p>\n
         owner. A person, merely pleads that he is in possession<\/p>\n
         of the land by a derivative title from a person who had<\/p>\n
         no right over the property, cannot claim adverse<\/p>\n
         possession, unless he pleads that he was holding the<\/p>\n
         property adverse to the real owner and proves the same<\/p>\n
         in evidence. He should also show that the possession<\/p>\n
         animus to the real owner is with the knowledge of the<\/p>\n
         owner.”\n<\/p>\n
In M. Durai Vs. Muthu and Others (2007 (3) SCC 114) it is held that<\/p>\n
when a plea of adverse possession is raised burden is on the person<\/p>\n
who claims so to prove that title is lost by adverse possession.<\/p>\n
Reference has been made to the decision in Vasantiben Prahladji<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.934 of 2003                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
Nayak Vs. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak (2004 (3) SCC 376) where it<\/p>\n
was held,<\/p>\n
         “‘Animus possidendi’ is one of the ingredients of adverse<\/p>\n
         possession. Unless the person possessing the land has<\/p>\n
         a requisite animus the period for prescription does not<\/p>\n
         commence.      As in the instant case, the appellant<\/p>\n
         categorically states that his possession is not adverse as<\/p>\n
         that of true owner, the logical corollary is that he did not<\/p>\n
         have the requisite animus”\n<\/p>\n
Reference was also made to the decision in T. Anjanappa Vs.<\/p>\n
Somalingappa (2006 (7) SCC 570) where it was held,<\/p>\n
        “Adverse possession is that form of possession or<\/p>\n
        occupancy of land which is inconsistent with the title of<\/p>\n
        the rightful owner and tends to extinguish that person’s<\/p>\n
        title. Possession is not held to be adverse if it can be<\/p>\n
        referred to a lawful title. The person setting up adverse<\/p>\n
        possession may have been holding under the rightful<\/p>\n
        owner’s title e.g. Trustees, guardians, bailiffs or agents.”<\/p>\n
In Annakili Vs. A Vedanayagam and Others (2007 (14) SCC 308),<\/p>\n
reference was made to P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy Vs. Revamma<\/p>\n
(2007 (6) SCC 59) where it was held,<\/p>\n
        “Therefore it will have to be kept in mind the courts<\/p>\n
        around the world are taking an unkind view towards<\/p>\n
        statutes of limitation overriding property rights”<\/p>\n
The Allahabad High Court in Ramzan Vs. Gafooran (2008 (2) KLT SN<\/p>\n
68 (C.No.82) stated,<\/span><\/p>\n
                “Where the defendants were not sure as to who<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.934 of 2003                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
        was the true owner and question of their being in hostile<\/p>\n
        possession, then the question of denying title of true<\/p>\n
        owner does not arise. At the most, the defendants had<\/p>\n
        claimed and which was found to be correct by the trial<\/p>\n
        court that they had been in possession of the disputed<\/p>\n
        property since the inception of the sale deeds in their<\/p>\n
        favour.    They came in possession, according to their<\/p>\n
        showing, as owner of the property in question. It follows<\/p>\n
        that they exercised their right over the disputed<\/p>\n
        property as owner and exercise of such right, by no<\/p>\n
        stretch of imagination, it can be said that they claimed<\/p>\n
        their title adverse to the true owner.            Thus the<\/p>\n
        possession of the contesting defendants was not of the<\/p>\n
        variety and degree which was required for adverse<\/p>\n
        possession to materialise”\n<\/p>\n
In Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan (2008<\/p>\n
(4) KLT 357 (SC)) the Supreme Court held that adverse possession<\/p>\n
must start with a wrongful disposition of rightful owner and must be<\/p>\n
actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory<\/p>\n
period.   Reference was made to Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs.<\/p>\n
Government of India and Others (2004 (10) SCC 779) where it was<\/p>\n
held,<\/p>\n
         “In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be<\/p>\n
         in possession of a property so long as there is no<\/p>\n
         intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for<\/p>\n
         a long time won’t affect his title. But the position will be<\/p>\n
         altered when another person takes possession of the<\/p>\n
         property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.934 of 2003                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
         is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in<\/p>\n
         denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled<\/p>\n
         principle that a party claiming adverse possession must<\/p>\n
         prove that his possession is “necvi, nec clam, nec<\/p>\n
         precario”, that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The<\/p>\n
         possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity<\/p>\n
         and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to<\/p>\n
         the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition<\/p>\n
         of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive,<\/p>\n
         hostile and continued over the statutory period.”<\/p>\n
The decision relied on by learned senior Advocate for respondent No.1<\/p>\n
(P. T. Munichikkanna Reddy Vs. Revamma (AIR 2007 (SC) 1753))<\/p>\n
states,<\/p>\n
         “…. the plaintiffs submit that in any event the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
         have perfected their title by adverse possession as the<\/p>\n
         plaintiffs have been in open, continuous uninterrupted<\/p>\n
         and hostile possession of the plaint schedule land,<\/p>\n
         adversely to the interest of any other person including<\/p>\n
         the defendant for the past over 50 years exercising<\/p>\n
         absolute rights of ownership in respect of the plaint<\/p>\n
         schedule land……. ”\n<\/p>\n
In para 5, it is observed,<\/p>\n
                “Adverse possession in one sense is based on the<\/p>\n
         theory or presumption that the owner has abandoned<\/p>\n
         the    property    to  the  adverse   possessor    on    the<\/p>\n
         acquiescence of the owner to the hostile acts and claims<\/p>\n
         of the person in possession.        It follows that sound<\/p>\n
         qualities of a typical adverse possession lie in it being<\/p>\n
         open, continuous and hostile.”\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.934 of 2003                   9<\/span><\/p>\n
In para 9 the nature of enquiry required to assess a claim of adverse<\/p>\n
possession is summarized thus,<\/p>\n
         “..    1.   Application of limitation provision thereby<\/p>\n
         jurisprudentially “willful neglect” element on part of the<\/p>\n
         owner established. Successful application in this regard<\/p>\n
         distances the title of the land from the paper owner.<\/p>\n
                2.   Specific positive intention to dispossess on<\/p>\n
         the part of the adverse possessor effectively shifts the<\/p>\n
         title already distanced from the paper owner, to the<\/p>\n
         adverse possessor. Right thereby accrues in favour of<\/p>\n
         adverse possessor as intent to dispossess is an express<\/p>\n
         statement of urgency and intention in the upkeep of the<\/p>\n
         property.”\n<\/p>\n
The argument advanced by learned Senior Advocate for respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 is that even the evidence of appellants would show that right<\/p>\n
from 1980 onwards they have been demanding possession of the suit<\/p>\n
property but that was not complied either by respondent No.1 or his<\/p>\n
predecessor in interest (deceased defendant No.1) and hence, atleast<\/p>\n
from 1980 onwards respondent No.1 and his predecessor in interest<\/p>\n
are in possession of the suit property asserting hostile title against<\/p>\n
appellants and hence, the suit filed in the year 1992 is barred by<\/p>\n
limitation.   Learned Senior Advocate referred me to the evidence of<\/p>\n
PW1 who is said to have mediated the alleged mortgage in favour of<\/p>\n
Ouseph Mathan and the sub mortgage to deceased defendant No.1,<\/p>\n
predecessor in interest of respondent No.1. It is also the submission of<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.934 of 2003              10<\/span><\/p>\n
learned Senior Advocate that this court has to bear in mind that the<\/p>\n
courts below have found against the plea of mortgage.<\/p>\n
      7.    I have gone through the evidence of PW1, he claimed to<\/p>\n
have mediated the alleged mortgage by Joseph, predecessor in<\/p>\n
interest of appellants in favour of Ouseph Mathan for the sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.1500\/-.   An agreement was also executed in which PW1 was a<\/p>\n
witness. There was an understanding that a deed of mortgage will be<\/p>\n
executed. Later he heard that the deed of mortgage was executed.<\/p>\n
When the Ouseph Mathan was in need of money, he sub mortgaged<\/p>\n
the property to deceased defendant No.1, predecessor in interest of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1.      According to PW1, during 1980 appellants<\/p>\n
demanded deceased defendant No.1 to redeem the mortgage on<\/p>\n
receiving the mortgage. In the meantime, deceased defendant No.1<\/p>\n
started ploughing of the nilam (‘   ‘) which according to the<\/p>\n
learned senior Advocate was in derogation of the alleged mortgage.<\/p>\n
      8.    Case of appellants as spoken by PW1 is that the possession<\/p>\n
of the suit properties was given to Ouseph Mathan and he has been<\/p>\n
cultivating the same.   It is further case that Ouseph Mathan sub<\/p>\n
mortgaged the property to deceased defendant No.1. The demand for<\/p>\n
possession in the year 1980 was in the above circumstances,<\/p>\n
appellants being under the impression that there was a mortgage in<\/p>\n
favour of Ouseph Mathan and sub mortgage in favour of deceased<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.934 of 2003              11<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant No.1. Therefore, I am unable to understand the said demand<\/p>\n
made by the appellants as a demand for possession from a person who<\/p>\n
was asserting hostile title to them. That, the courts below did not<\/p>\n
uphold the plea of mortgage in the absence of evidence does not mean<\/p>\n
that at the time appellants made the demand in the year 1980 they<\/p>\n
were under the impression that the person in possession was asserting<\/p>\n
hostile title against them.\n<\/p>\n
       8.    The decisions I have referred above would show that to<\/p>\n
extinguish title of the true owner and to confer title on the person in<\/p>\n
possession under section 27 of the Limitation Act on a plea of adverse<\/p>\n
possession and limitation apart from showing possession for the<\/p>\n
prescribed period, it is also to be shown that he was holding the<\/p>\n
property adversely to the interest of the real owner, asserting hostile<\/p>\n
title to his knowledge. On the other had if the person in possession<\/p>\n
continued to be so on the strength of the document of title relied by<\/p>\n
him, question of his being in adverse possession of the property as<\/p>\n
against the true owner does not arise. The contention raised in para 4<\/p>\n
of the written statement is that deceased defendant No.1 is got 6.80<\/p>\n
acres and virivu (the total extent being 9 and odd acres) in survey<\/p>\n
No.217\/3 as per oral lease of the year 1120 followed by the<\/p>\n
assignment of jenm rights on 04-08-1960 and thus, himself, and<\/p>\n
thereafter respondent No.1 has been and is in possession and<\/p>\n
enjoyment of the suit property. It is also contended that in the suit<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.934 of 2003                12<\/span><\/p>\n
property appellants or their predecessor had no right, title and interest.<\/p>\n
Specific contention raised by respondent No.1 and his predecessor is<\/p>\n
that the 5.54 acres which belonged to Thressiamma, a part of which is<\/p>\n
the suit property lie towards the southern side of property held by<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 as above stated. Deceased defendant No.1 and<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 have no claim of title or possession of any land in<\/p>\n
survey No.218\/1\/1.      This is asserted by respondent No.1 in his<\/p>\n
evidence as DW1. He stated that he is entitled to possession of only<\/p>\n
the property comprised in survey No.217\/3 and that he has no claim or<\/p>\n
objection regarding any property in survey No.218\/1\/1. He went to the<\/p>\n
extent of saying that he has no objection in allowing recovery of<\/p>\n
possession of the land comprised in survey No.218\/1\/1.       According to<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 (DW1), he is in possession of property on the strength<\/p>\n
of title and not holding any portion of the disputed property. That<\/p>\n
contention of respondent No.1 cannot be understood as meaning that<\/p>\n
he is holding the suit property adverse to the title of the appellants.<\/p>\n
Contention raised by respondent No.1 and his predecessor in interest<\/p>\n
and evidence let in by respondent No.1 do not satisfy the requirements<\/p>\n
laid down by Supreme Court in the decisions referred above to<\/p>\n
extinguish title of appellants and to confer title on respondent No.1 and<\/p>\n
his predecessor in interest by adverse possession and the law of<\/p>\n
limitation. First appellate court held that respondent No.1 is in adverse<\/p>\n
possession of the property and it is adverse to the whole world<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.934 of 2003                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
including the appellants which in the light of the decisions I have<\/p>\n
referred above and the evidence on record cannot stand. On going<\/p>\n
through the judgment of first appellate court, I find that it is not in<\/p>\n
accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court that<\/p>\n
the first appellate court found that respondent No.1 and his<\/p>\n
predecessor in interest perfected title by adverse possession and<\/p>\n
limitation thereby extinguishing the title of the appellants. That finding<\/p>\n
cannot be sustained. Respondent No.1 was not able to prove that he<\/p>\n
acquired title over the suit property by adverse possession. As such<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of the first appellate court cannot sustained and<\/p>\n
it is liable to be set aside in restoration of the judgment and decree of<\/p>\n
the trial court. The substantial question of law framed is answered<\/p>\n
accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
        Resultantly the second appeal succeed. Judgment and decree of<\/p>\n
the first appellate court are set aside and that of the trial court are<\/p>\n
restored. Parties will suffer their respective costs in this appeal.<\/p>\n
                                                 THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE
\nSbna\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Lisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 934 of 2003() 1. LISIAMMA JOSEPH, W\/O. JOSEPH, … Petitioner 2. THRESIAMMA D\/O. JOSEPH, DO. DO. 3. MATHEW, S\/O. JOSEPH, DO. DO. Vs 1. M.S.JOSEPH @ M.S.JOSE, … Respondent 2. CHACKO CHACKO, THEKKEVEETTIL […]<\/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-188056","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-17T15:51:08+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-17T15:51:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3164,\"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\\\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Lisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-17T15:51:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Lisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-17T15:51:08+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-17T15:51:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009"},"wordCount":3164,"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\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009","name":"Lisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-17T15:51:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lisiamma-joseph-vs-m-s-joseph-m-s-jose-on-15-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lisiamma Joseph vs M.S.Joseph @ M.S.Jose on 15 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188056","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=188056"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188056\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188056"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188056"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188056"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}