{"id":188530,"date":"2010-12-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010"},"modified":"2014-04-06T06:15:32","modified_gmt":"2014-04-06T00:45:32","slug":"chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Chandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 December, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 170 of 2010()\n\n\n1.  CHANDANAVEETTIL SHANTHA,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.V.SHANTHA KUMARI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.NAGARESH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN\n\n Dated :20\/12\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                 PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &\n                N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.\n                ----------------------------------\n                  R.C.R. No.170 of 2010\n                  ------------------------------\n       Dated this the 20th day of December 2010\n\n\n                          O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     Under challenge in this revision filed by the<\/p>\n
respondent in a rent control proceeding (the alleged tenant)<\/p>\n
is the decision of the statutory authorities repelling the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner’s case that she is having ‘kudikidappu’<\/p>\n
right over the petition schedule building.<\/p>\n
     2.   The Rent Control Court found that the petitioner<\/p>\n
is not a ‘kudikidappukari’ mainly on the basis of a report<\/p>\n
submitted by a commissioner on the basis of a local<\/p>\n
inspection that the petition schedule building is not an<\/p>\n
independent building but is a part of two room line building.<\/p>\n
The Advocate Commissioner reported that though as<\/p>\n
matters exist now there is only one room (petition schedule<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.170 of 2010<\/p>\n
                             -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
building), on excavation of the adjacent soil it was revealed<\/p>\n
that in the beginning there were two rooms and that one of<\/p>\n
them was removed.       Ext.A1 rent kaychit which is not<\/p>\n
denied also strongly supported the Commissioner’s report<\/p>\n
that to begin with there were two rooms and only one room<\/p>\n
is entrusted with the revision petitioner.<\/p>\n
      3.   Even though Sri.K.Babu, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner would draw our attention to Ext.C1<\/p>\n
Commissioner’s report and submit that what has been<\/p>\n
reported by the Commissioner is that on removing the soil<\/p>\n
of the lands adjacent to the petition schedule building he<\/p>\n
saw basement (Kuzhiyatta) made out of layers of lacerated<\/p>\n
stones on all sides. According to Mr.Babu if the petition<\/p>\n
schedule building was originally part of two room building<\/p>\n
and one room was subsequently removed as alleged by the<\/p>\n
landlord kuzhiyatta on basement would be visible only on<\/p>\n
three sides and not on all four sides.       Mr.Babu would<\/p>\n
further argue relying on the judgment of Full Bench of this<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.170 of 2010<\/p>\n
                             -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Court in Mary Yohannan v. Sreekumaran Nair<\/a> [1991(2)<\/p>\n
KLT 751 (F.B)] that, even it is assumed that at the time<\/p>\n
when the petitioner was originally inducted into the<\/p>\n
building it was a part of two room building, then also when<\/p>\n
the other room is removed and the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building became an independent structure, the petitioner<\/p>\n
acquired the status of ‘kudikidappukari’ and became<\/p>\n
entitled to purchase ‘kudikidappu’. There is no cut off date<\/p>\n
for creation of ‘kudikidappu’ so submitted by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   The submissions of Mr.Babu were strongly<\/p>\n
opposed by Mr.V.Ramkumar Nambiar.               He drew our<\/p>\n
attention to the statutory provisions as well as to the<\/p>\n
pleadings of the revision petitioner, and submitted that the<\/p>\n
definite case of the revision petitioner is that the building in<\/p>\n
question was all along an independent building which the<\/p>\n
petitioner’s mother was permitted to occupy. His case has<\/p>\n
to fall to the ground in view of Ext.C1 Commission Report<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.170 of 2010<\/p>\n
                              -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
and Ext.A1 rent chit which is not disputed.<\/p>\n
      5.    Mr.Babu also argued that the Rent Controller was<\/p>\n
not justified in permitting adduction of evidence against the<\/p>\n
finding of the Land Tribunal.           Question whether the<\/p>\n
petitioner is a ‘kudikidappukari’ or not is outside the<\/p>\n
jurisdictional competence of the Rent Control Court.<\/p>\n
      6.    We have very anxiously considered the rival<\/p>\n
submissions with the reference to the statutory provisions<\/p>\n
as well as the relevant judicial precedents governing the<\/p>\n
issue.    It is trite by the judgment of the Full Bench in<\/p>\n
Muhammed v. Imbichibi [1974 KLT 738 (F.B)] that a<\/p>\n
person in occupation of part of a building cannot be<\/p>\n
‘kudikidappukaran’ as part of a building will not qualify as a<\/p>\n
hut    for   the    purpose  of      Section 2(25).     Ext.C1<\/p>\n
Commissioner’s Report is the main piece of evidence which<\/p>\n
is relied on by the statutory authorities to support their view<\/p>\n
that the petition schedule building is originally part of a<\/p>\n
larger building. The argument of Sri.K.Babu that Ext.C1<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.170 of 2010<\/p>\n
                             -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
report being a report submitted before the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Court pursuant to a commission order issued by that court<\/p>\n
cannot have probative value as it is the Land Tribunal alone<\/p>\n
which has got power to decide the issue of ‘kudikidappu’<\/p>\n
does not appeal to us, at all. The Land Tribunal came to<\/p>\n
have of seizin of the matter pursuant to an order of<\/p>\n
reference passed by the Rent Control Court under Section<\/p>\n
125(3) of the KLR Act only.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   Though under the scheme of Kerala Land Reforms<\/p>\n
Act, it is the Land Tribunal which has got the power to find<\/p>\n
one way or other regarding ‘kudikidappu’ and similar rights<\/p>\n
and such finding by the Land Tribunal will be binding on the<\/p>\n
referring, it cannot be lost sight of that the proceedings<\/p>\n
before the Rent Control Court is the main proceedings with<\/p>\n
reference to which the essential dispute between the<\/p>\n
parties whether or not an order of eviction is liable to be<\/p>\n
passed has to be decided.           This Court has held in<\/p>\n
Kunhammed Koya v. Nallalam Saw Mills<\/a> [2010 (4) KLT<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.170 of 2010<\/p>\n
                            -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
79] (authored by one among us PCK(J)] that a referring<\/p>\n
court has got power to permit the parties to adduce<\/p>\n
evidence on the issue referred to the Land Tribunal, even<\/p>\n
after the Land Tribunal has entered its findings as the court<\/p>\n
of appeal on the finding of the Land Tribunal is the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Appellate Authority. It is very clear from our mind<\/p>\n
that Ext.C1 report obtained by the Rent Control Court was a<\/p>\n
valuable piece of evidence more so in this case where<\/p>\n
Ext.C1 was to in evidence before the Land Tribunal also. A<\/p>\n
careful reading of the penultimate paragraph of Ext.C1<\/p>\n
would show that what the Commissioner has reported was<\/p>\n
only that basement made out of layers of lacerated stones<\/p>\n
was seen on all the sides where basement was visible. The<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner reported pursuant to a specific<\/p>\n
representation made by the landlord that there was a room<\/p>\n
on the northern side of the petition schedule building. As<\/p>\n
rightly argued by the learned counsel for the landlord<\/p>\n
execution of Ext.A1 is not specifically denied.      What is<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.170 of 2010<\/p>\n
                             -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
contended is that even prior to Ext.A1 the petitioner’s<\/p>\n
mother had been put in possession of the building. Ext.A1<\/p>\n
clearly shows that at the time of Ext.A1 the building was<\/p>\n
only one room in a larger building with two rooms.<\/p>\n
Mr.K.Babu’s argument based on the judgment of Full Bench<\/p>\n
in Mary Yohannan v. Sreekumaran Nair<\/a> also will not come<\/p>\n
to his client’s rescue. Ext.A1 rent deed of 1967 shows that,<\/p>\n
in 1967 the building in question was part of a two room<\/p>\n
building.    The definite case of the petitioner is that her<\/p>\n
mother was permitted to occupy the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building namely the building covered by Ext.A1. The case is<\/p>\n
that from the very beginning it was an independent<\/p>\n
building, a case which cannot be accepted at all. On going<\/p>\n
through the pleadings we do not find any claim that the<\/p>\n
petitioner acquired the status of a ‘kudikidappukari’ at any<\/p>\n
point of time later on the time of original induction. In the<\/p>\n
absence of such pleadings, the case based on the Full Bench<\/p>\n
decision in Mary Yohannan v. Sreekumaran Nair<\/a> cannot be<\/p>\n
R.C.R. No.170 of 2010<\/p>\n
                             -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
countenanced.\n<\/p>\n
           According to us there is no illegality, irregularity<\/p>\n
or impropriety on the finding concurrently entered by the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Appellate Authority and Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
accepting the finding of the Land Tribunal that the<\/p>\n
petitioner is not a ‘kudikidappukari’.<\/p>\n
           RCR will fail and stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
\n                                                     JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                                    N.K.BALAKRISHNAN,
\n                                                     JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Jvt<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Chandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 December, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 170 of 2010() 1. CHANDANAVEETTIL SHANTHA, … Petitioner Vs 1. P.V.SHANTHA KUMARI, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.NAGARESH For Respondent :SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN Dated :20\/12\/2010 […]<\/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-188530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 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\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-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=\"2010-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-06T00:45:32+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-06T00:45:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1285,\"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\\\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Chandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-06T00:45:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 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":"Chandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 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\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-06T00:45:32+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-06T00:45:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010"},"wordCount":1285,"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\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010","name":"Chandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-06T00:45:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandanaveettil-shantha-vs-p-v-shantha-kumari-on-20-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandanaveettil Shantha vs P.V.Shantha Kumari on 20 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\/188530","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=188530"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188530\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}