{"id":190897,"date":"2007-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007"},"modified":"2018-02-13T03:25:11","modified_gmt":"2018-02-12T21:55:11","slug":"govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Govindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Govindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 624 of 1994()\n\n\n\n1. GOVINDH PILLAI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER(SR)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :26\/11\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n                    ...........................................\n                     S.A.No. 624             OF       1994\n                    ............................................\n      DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2007\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Plaintiffs 4 to 8 in O.S.75 of 1980 on the file of Munsiff<\/p>\n
Court, Kottarakkara are the appellants. Defendants 1 to 7 and<\/p>\n
legal heirs of 8th defendant are the respondents. Suit was filed<\/p>\n
for declaration of leasehold right over 25 cents in Survey<\/p>\n
No.124\/26A of Kottarakkara Village. It was contended that first<\/p>\n
plaintiff obtained the said property as per registered lease deed<\/p>\n
361 of 1125 M.E and second defendant obtained 17 cents of land<\/p>\n
on the north-western portion of the said property and he sold<\/p>\n
that property to 3rd defendant and the predecessor in interest of<\/p>\n
defendants 4 to 7 and the second defendant sold the right in<\/p>\n
favour of third defendant and Renganatha Reddiar, the<\/p>\n
predecessor in interest of defendants 4 to 7 and that right was<\/p>\n
purchased by 8th defendant and defendants 9 to 13 are his<\/p>\n
successors in interest. It was contended that second defendant<\/p>\n
filed an application for measuring the property purchased by him<\/p>\n
and the Taluk Surveyor prepared a plan showing portion of the<\/p>\n
property of the plaintiff as part of the land purchased by second<\/p>\n
defendant and plaintiff filed an appeal against the demarcation<\/p>\n
SA 624\/1994                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
of properties by the Surveyor which was decided against. Suit<\/p>\n
was instituted seeking declaration of the leasehold right and to<\/p>\n
set aside the orders in the appeal filed against that order and the<\/p>\n
order in the revision. First plaintiff died during the pendency of<\/p>\n
the suit and appellants were impleaded as his legal heirs.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff had contended that no notice was served on him and<\/p>\n
O.S.299 of 1966 was earlier filed and he was a party in that suit<\/p>\n
and a plan was prepared by the Commissioner in that suit, the<\/p>\n
dispute in the present suit was not an issue in the other suit and<\/p>\n
therefore plaintiff is entitled to the decree sought for. Suit was<\/p>\n
resisted by defendants contending that suit is barred by<\/p>\n
resjudicata in view of the decision in O.S.299 of 1966. It was<\/p>\n
also contended that the survey conducted was in confirmity with<\/p>\n
the approved survey plan and plaintiffs are not entitled to<\/p>\n
challenge the same. It was also contended that the entire 95<\/p>\n
cents in that survey Number was located and a plan was<\/p>\n
prepared in O.S.299 of 1976 and that plan was accepted by the<\/p>\n
court and Ext.B10 judgment was passed and it is binding on the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and therefore the suit is only to be dismissed. It was<\/p>\n
also contended that the suit is barred by resjudicata in view of<\/p>\n
Ext.B2 judgment in O.S.192 of 1975 filed by same plaintiff.<\/p>\n
     2.    Learned Munsiff, on the evidence of PW1, Dws 1 to 3<\/p>\n
and Exts.A1 to A12, B1 to B10, C1 to C3 and Ext.X1 and X2,<\/p>\n
SA 624\/1994                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
dismissed the suit holding that suit is barred by resjudicata in<\/p>\n
view of Ext.B10 and B2 judgments the decision in O.S.299 of<\/p>\n
1966 and O.S.192 of 1975. Plaintiff challenged the judgment<\/p>\n
before Sub Court, Kottarakkara in A.S.434 of 1983. Learned<\/p>\n
Sub Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, confirmed the findings<\/p>\n
of learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in<\/p>\n
the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     3.    The second appeal was admitted formulating the<\/p>\n
following the substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
1) Whether courts below properly applied the principles of<\/p>\n
resjudicata.\n<\/p>\n
2)Whether an issue between the parties arrayed on the same<\/p>\n
side would operate as resjudicata, between co-defendants.<\/p>\n
3)Whether findings of courts below that judgment in O.S.299 of<\/p>\n
1966 and O.S.192 of 1975 would operate as resjudicata is<\/p>\n
sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
     4. Learned counsel appearing for appellants and learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for respondents were heard.<\/p>\n
     5. The original plaintiff instituted the suit for a declaration<\/p>\n
of title in respect of 30 cents, which was subsequently reduced<\/p>\n
to 25 cents, in Survey No.124\/26 of Kottarakkara Village<\/p>\n
claiming that it is the property obtained under registered lease<\/p>\n
deed 361\/1125 M.E. It was the case of plaintiff that second<\/p>\n
SA 624\/1994                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant obtained 17 cents of the property which lies to the<\/p>\n
north-west of that property which was subsequently purchased<\/p>\n
by 3rd defendant and Renganatha Reddiar and thereafter by 8th<\/p>\n
defendant and the survey plan prepared at the instance of<\/p>\n
second defendant is not correct and plaintiff is entitled to a<\/p>\n
declaration of his leasehold right and to set aside Ext.A1 decision<\/p>\n
of the Supreintendent of Survey Land Records in the appeal filed<\/p>\n
by plaintiff and Ext.A2, the decision of the Secretary of the<\/p>\n
Revenue challenging Ext.A1 order and Ext.A6, the decision of<\/p>\n
the District Collector.    Registered Lease deed 361\/1125 M.E,<\/p>\n
under which plaintiff claimed title to the property, was not<\/p>\n
produced. It is admitted case that O.S.299\/1996 was filed by<\/p>\n
Aliyamma Alikutty before Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara and<\/p>\n
plaintiff in the present suit was the 4th defendant in that suit.<\/p>\n
Second defendant was the third defendant. It is also admitted<\/p>\n
case that 95 cents in Survey No.124\/26 originally belonged to<\/p>\n
Sankara Pillai Govinda Pillai who alienated the property under<\/p>\n
different documents to the parties to that suit. Plaintiff who was<\/p>\n
the 4th defendant in that suit was claiming 30 cents in that suit.<\/p>\n
That suit was filed for declaration of title and possession and for<\/p>\n
fixation of boundary of plaintiff Aliyamma Alikutty who claimed<\/p>\n
title to a portion of 95 cents under Sankara Pillai Govinda Pillai.<\/p>\n
Ext.B10 judgment shows that a Commissioner was appointed and<\/p>\n
SA 624\/1994                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
the Commissioner demarcated the properties belonging to the<\/p>\n
parties including the 4th defendant in that suit. Ext.B1 is the<\/p>\n
decree. Ext.B1 and B10 establish that the property obtained by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff in this suit was specifically demarcated in the plan<\/p>\n
as the property obtained under the lease deed claimed by<\/p>\n
plaintiff in this case. Learned Munsiff and learned Sub Judge<\/p>\n
found that in view of the fixation of the boundaries of the<\/p>\n
property of the plaintiff under Ext.B10 judgment and B1 decree,<\/p>\n
they are binding on the plaintiff. The argument of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for appellant is that as the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
second defendant were respectively defendants 4 and 3 in that<\/p>\n
suit, Ext.B10 judgment will not operate as resjudicata as against<\/p>\n
co-defendants and therefore finding of courts below is not<\/p>\n
sustainable.    I cannot agree with the submission.            Though<\/p>\n
property of the plaintiff, 4th defendant in that suit, was not<\/p>\n
specifically scheduled in the plaint, that suit was not only for<\/p>\n
declaration of title of the plaintiff therein, but also for fixation of<\/p>\n
boundaries. The boundaries could be fixed only by fixing the<\/p>\n
boundaries claimed by defendants in that suit, including plaintiff<\/p>\n
herein.    Therefore when the boundaries of the properties<\/p>\n
scheduled in the plaint was demarcated, the demarcation<\/p>\n
depends upon the correctness of the demarcation of the property<\/p>\n
of 4th defendant therein also. Any deviation from that plan with<\/p>\n
SA 624\/1994                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
regard to the property of 4th defendant would automatically<\/p>\n
amount to varying the boundaries of the plaintiff in that case. In<\/p>\n
such circumstances, as rightly found by courts below, fixation of<\/p>\n
the boundary in Ext.B10 judgment including fixation of boundary<\/p>\n
of the property of 4th defendant the plaintiff herein will be<\/p>\n
binding.     As that judgment has become final, plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
entitled to seek modification of the said boundary by filing a<\/p>\n
separate suit.     Moreover, subsequent to Ext.B10 judgment<\/p>\n
plaintiff filed O.S.192 of 1975, a suit for injunction in respect of<\/p>\n
this property. As per Ext.B2 judgment, that suit was dismissed<\/p>\n
following Ext.B10 judgment in O.S.299 of 1966. That judgment<\/p>\n
has also become final. Ext.B2 judgment is definitely binding on<\/p>\n
the plaintiff. Therefore courts below rightly found that suit is<\/p>\n
barred in view of Ext.B2 and B10 judgments. Appellants are<\/p>\n
therefore not entitled to the decree sought for in the suit.<\/p>\n
      Appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/-\n<\/p>\n
SA 624\/1994    7\n\n                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J\n\n\n\n\n                  S.A.624 OF 1994\n\n\n\n\n                  JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n\n                  26.11.2007\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Govindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 624 of 1994() 1. GOVINDH PILLAI … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER(SR) For Respondent :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.) The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :26\/11\/2007 […]<\/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-190897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGovindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Govindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-12T21:55:11+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\\\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Govindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-12T21:55:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1284,\"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\\\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Govindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-12T21:55:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Govindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Govindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Govindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-12T21:55:11+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\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Govindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-12T21:55:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007"},"wordCount":1284,"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\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007","name":"Govindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-12T21:55:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/govindh-pillai-vs-state-of-kerala-on-26-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Govindh Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 26 November, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190897","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=190897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}