{"id":192271,"date":"2008-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008"},"modified":"2014-11-27T03:39:23","modified_gmt":"2014-11-26T22:09:23","slug":"puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Puthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Puthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 154 of 1996()\n\n\n\n1. PUTHENPURAYIL ISMAIL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. KARIMBANAKKAL MEETHAL RAGHAVAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI B PARTHASARATHY.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\n\n Dated :25\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                         PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.\n                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                            A.S.No.154 of 1996\n                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                       Dated: 25th November, 2008\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge’s Court, Quilandy in a suit for money based on an<\/p>\n
agreement marked as Ext.A1. The original appellant was the<\/p>\n
defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff. As averred in the<\/p>\n
plaint, the defendant had received a sum of Rs.60,000\/- from the<\/p>\n
plaintiff agreeing that he will arrange visa for the plaintiff for securing<\/p>\n
employment in gulf country. On 1.4.1993 the parties entered into<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 agreement which was to the effect that the defendant would<\/p>\n
arrange visa within four months from the date of agreement and on<\/p>\n
failure to arrange visa, the amount will be returned with interest. The<\/p>\n
defendant failed to arrange the visa as promised. In spite of demand<\/p>\n
made by the plaintiff, the amount was not refunded. The suit was<\/p>\n
accordingly filed for decree for money for the principal amount<\/p>\n
mentioned in the agreement with interest and costs. The defendant<\/p>\n
through his written statement denied the agreement and the<\/p>\n
transaction between him and the plaintiff. It was contended that he<\/p>\n
had never promised the plaintiff that he will obtain a visa for the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. It was also contended that Ext.A1 is a fabricated document.<\/p>\n
A.S.No.154\/96                      – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
The averments regarding demand and refusal were also denied in the<\/p>\n
written statement. The learned Subordinate Judge on the basis of the<\/p>\n
pleadings formulated the following issues for trial:<\/p>\n
1. Whether the plaintiff had advanced any amount to the defendant<\/p>\n
as alleged?\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether the alleged agreement is genuine?\n<\/p>\n
3. Whether the alleged cause of action is true?\n<\/p>\n
4. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the plaint amount?<\/p>\n
5. What order as to relief and costs?\n<\/p>\n
At trial the evidence on the side of the plaintiff consisted of Ext.A1<\/p>\n
and the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 was the plaintiff himself<\/p>\n
and P.W.2 was the first attesting witness to Ext.A1. On the side of the<\/p>\n
original defendant, absolutely no counter evidence was adduced. The<\/p>\n
learned Subordinate Judge on evaluating the evidence would answer<\/p>\n
all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the<\/p>\n
suit for the plaint claim together with pendente lite and future interest<\/p>\n
at the rate of 12% per annum. During the pendency of the appeal,<\/p>\n
the original appellant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as<\/p>\n
supplemental appellants.\n<\/p>\n
      2. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
A.S.No.154\/96                        – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants and those of Mr.B.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Addressing me strenuously on the basis of the various<\/p>\n
grounds raised in the appeal memo, learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
submitted that the court below erred in holding that it was having<\/p>\n
territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. It was argued that the evidence<\/p>\n
on record was not sufficient to establish the plaint claim and<\/p>\n
accordingly it was argued that the findings of the court below in so far<\/p>\n
as they are contrary to the evidence on record are vitiated. It was<\/p>\n
argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the application of<\/p>\n
Section 67 of the Evidence Act by the court below was unwarranted.<\/p>\n
Section 67 did not have any application to the facts of this case,<\/p>\n
counsel submitted. Learned counsel drew my attention to Section 23<\/p>\n
of the Contract Act and submitted that since apparently Ext.A1<\/p>\n
incorporates a contract between parties to procure a visa in violation<\/p>\n
of the provisions of the Emigration Act, Ext.A1 was a void contract in<\/p>\n
terms of Section 23. No decree could be passed in favour of anybody<\/p>\n
on the basis of a void contract.      Ex turpi causa non oritur actio was<\/p>\n
the maxim, according to the learned counsel. Lastly, learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellants appealed that opportunity be given to the<\/p>\n
A.S.No.154\/96                     – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants for substantiating the contentions by adducing evidence.<\/p>\n
      4. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment on the basis of the reasons stated in the<\/p>\n
judgment itself.\n<\/p>\n
      5. I have considered the submissions addressed at the Bar. I<\/p>\n
have gone through the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
Having appreciated the evidence, I do not find any reason to disagree<\/p>\n
with the learned Subordinate Judge on his findings on the various<\/p>\n
issues. As for the question of jurisdiction, the issue governed by<\/p>\n
Section 20. On the pleadings and on the evidence adduced in this<\/p>\n
case, Ext.A1 was executed within the local limits of the Quilandy<\/p>\n
Court. Section 20 governs and the court did have jurisdiction to try<\/p>\n
the suit. As for the argument based on Section 23, it has to be noted<\/p>\n
that the said argument as rightly noticed by the learned Subordinate<\/p>\n
Judge did not have any foundation in the pleadings. Of course, the<\/p>\n
argument before me was that the question is a pure question of law<\/p>\n
and therefore it should be allowed to be raised even without<\/p>\n
pleadings. I am not prepared to agree that the question which is now<\/p>\n
raised on the basis of Section 23 is a pure question of law. It is a<\/p>\n
mixed question of law and fact and going by the pleadings of the<\/p>\n
A.S.No.154\/96                      – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff and the deposition given by P.Ws.1 and 2, the transaction<\/p>\n
between the parties on the basis of which the suit is instituted was a<\/p>\n
transaction for receiving payment and agreeing to repay subject to<\/p>\n
the happening or non-happening of a particular contingency. The<\/p>\n
non-examination of the 2nd attesting witness to Ext.A1 and the non-<\/p>\n
referal of Ext.A1 to an expert were also highlighted by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants. As for the non-examination of the 2nd<\/p>\n
attesting witness to Ext.A1, it is trite that the law of evidence does<\/p>\n
not require any particular number of witnesses for proving a<\/p>\n
particular relevant fact. It is common knowledge that even in cases<\/p>\n
where documents are required to be attested statutorily by more than<\/p>\n
one witness, examination of one attestor is sufficient. Having gone<\/p>\n
through the testimonies of P.W.2, I am of the view that he has given<\/p>\n
convincing and inspiring evidence. The learned Subordinate Judge has<\/p>\n
also noticed that the plaintiff was all willingness to examine the other<\/p>\n
witness also and had actually brought the other witness to the court<\/p>\n
hall and that the court only did not permit the plaintiff to examine<\/p>\n
that witness. The execution of Ext.A1 stood established by<\/p>\n
testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2. There was no cross-examination of the<\/p>\n
deposition of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the name and signature of the<\/p>\n
A.S.No.154\/96                        – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
original appellant was written by himself under his own handwriting.<\/p>\n
This may be the reason why the learned Subordinate Judge has<\/p>\n
referred to Section 67 of the Evidence Act in her judgment. Whatever<\/p>\n
that be, I am in agreement with all the conclusions of the learned<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge which in my opinion are findings on the evidence<\/p>\n
which is on record. The appeal fails. However, I notice that the<\/p>\n
learned Subordinate Judge has granted pendente lite and future<\/p>\n
interest at the rate of 12% per annum. No particular rate of interest<\/p>\n
is mentioned in Ext.A1. The plaintiff has no case that Ext.A1 has<\/p>\n
arisen out of a commercial transaction. Taking into account all these<\/p>\n
aspects, I am inclined to modify the impugned decree by reducing the<\/p>\n
rate of interest both pendente lite and future to 6% per annum.<\/p>\n
Subject to the above modification, the judgment and decree under<\/p>\n
appeal will stand confirmed. In the circumstances of the case, the<\/p>\n
parties will suffer their costs in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
srd                                    PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Puthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 154 of 1996() 1. PUTHENPURAYIL ISMAIL … Petitioner Vs 1. KARIMBANAKKAL MEETHAL RAGHAVAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.V.ASOKAN For Respondent :SRI B PARTHASARATHY. The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Dated :25\/11\/2008 O R […]<\/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-192271","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPuthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008 - 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\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Puthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-26T22:09:23+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\\\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Puthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-26T22:09:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1276,\"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\\\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Puthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-26T22:09:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Puthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Puthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008 - 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\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Puthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-26T22:09:23+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\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Puthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-26T22:09:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008"},"wordCount":1276,"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\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008","name":"Puthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-26T22:09:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthenpurayil-ismail-vs-karimbanakkal-meethal-raghavan-on-25-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Puthenpurayil Ismail vs Karimbanakkal Meethal Raghavan on 25 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192271","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=192271"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192271\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192271"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192271"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192271"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}