{"id":193566,"date":"2007-06-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007"},"modified":"2017-10-27T08:43:23","modified_gmt":"2017-10-27T03:13:23","slug":"paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Paramu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Paramu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 242 of 1992(D)\n\n\n\n1. PARAMU\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. KALLYANI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.MPR.NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.BHASKARA MENON\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :18\/06\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                    M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n                 ===========================\n\n                   S.A.  NO.242    OF 1992\n\n                 ===========================\n\n\n\n           Dated this the 18th day of June, 2007\n\n\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     First  defendant in  O.S.354\/1983  on  the file  of<\/p>\n
Munsiff   Court,   Irinjalakuda   is   the   appellant.     On<\/p>\n
the death of the first appellant, respondents 5 and<\/p>\n
7,   who   were     the   original   defendants   2   and   5   were<\/p>\n
transposed   as   additional   appellants.     On   the   death<\/p>\n
of   second   respondent,   respondents   4   to   14   were<\/p>\n
impleaded   as   the   legal   heirs.     Plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property   is   27   =   cents   in   survey   No.469\/2   of<\/p>\n
Kalloor         Thekkummury         Village.         It         admittedly<\/p>\n
originally   belonged   to   Govindan.     First   respondent<\/p>\n
is   the   wife   and   second   respondent   her   brother   and<\/p>\n
third respondent, the son of another brother of the<\/p>\n
first   respondent.     Respondents   claim   title   to   the<\/p>\n
plaint   schedule   property   under   Ext.A1   settlement<\/p>\n
deed   executed   by   Govindan   in   their   favour   on<\/p>\n
26.8.1970.  They contended that respondents have no<\/p>\n
manner   of   right   over   the   plaint   schedule   property<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                            2<\/span><\/p>\n
but         taking         advantage         of         the         absence         of<\/p>\n
respondents,  defendants trespassed into the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   and   forcibly   put   a   hut   therein<\/p>\n
and they have no right to do so and therefore they<\/p>\n
are   entitled   to   get   a   decree   for   recovery   of<\/p>\n
possession   with   mesne   profits.     The   defendants   in<\/p>\n
the   written                statement   admitted   the   title   of<\/p>\n
Govindan but contended that under Ext.A1 settlement<\/p>\n
deed   plaintiffs   did   not   derive   any   right   or   title<\/p>\n
to the property. It was contended that Govindan had<\/p>\n
entered   into   an   oral   agreement   for   sale   with   the<\/p>\n
first   defendant   and   after   receiving   Rs.1000\/-   as<\/p>\n
part of the sale consideration, Ext.B1 the original<\/p>\n
title   deed   of   the   plaint   schedule   property   was<\/p>\n
handed   over   to   the   first   defendant   and   put   him   in<\/p>\n
possession of the property and eversince 1969 first<\/p>\n
defendant   has   been   in   possession   of   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property. It was further contended that as<\/p>\n
per   the   agreement   for   sale,     sale   price   was   fixed<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
at   Rs.56\/-   per   cent   and   it   was   agreed   that   after<\/p>\n
measuring   the   property   and   paying   the   balance   sale<\/p>\n
consideration   the   sale   deed   will   be   executed   and<\/p>\n
defendants   are   in   possession   of   the   property   under<\/p>\n
the   agreement   for   sale     and     plaintiffs   are   not<\/p>\n
entitled to the decree sought for.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Learned Munsiff framed the necessary issues.\n<\/p>\n
On  the  side  of  the  plaintiffs,  third  plaintiff  was<\/p>\n
examined   as   PW1   and     Advocate   Commissioner   who<\/p>\n
submitted   Ext.C1   report   was   examined   as   PW2.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 registration copy of the settlement deed was<\/p>\n
also marked.   On the side of the defendants, first<\/p>\n
defendant   was   examined   as   DW1   and   three   witnesses<\/p>\n
who were the alleged mediator and person  allegedly<\/p>\n
present at the time of oral agreement for sale were<\/p>\n
examined.  Ext.B1 was also marked.  Learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
on the evidence found that plaintiffs have no valid<\/p>\n
explanation   as   to   how     first   defendant   came   into<\/p>\n
custody of Ext.B1 if not under   the oral agreement<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
for sale set up by him.  Learned Munsiff also found<\/p>\n
that   evidence   of   Dws.   2   to   4   probabilise   the   case<\/p>\n
of   oral   agreement   for   sale   spoken   to   by   DW1.     It<\/p>\n
was   then     held   that   Ext.A1   settlement   deed   was<\/p>\n
executed   thereafter   fraudulently   by   Govindan   and<\/p>\n
plaintiffs did not derive any title to the property<\/p>\n
and   therefore   the   plaintiffs   are   not   entitled   to<\/p>\n
the   decree   for   recovery   of   possession   sought   for.\n<\/p>\n
The   suit   was   dismissed.     Plaintiffs   challenged   the<\/p>\n
decree and judgment before Sub Court, Irinajalakuda<\/p>\n
in         A.S.29\/1986.                     Learned         Sub         Judge         on<\/p>\n
reappreciation   of   evidence   found   that   Ext.A1<\/p>\n
settlement deed establish  title of the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
Learned   Sub   Judge   on   reappreciation   of   evidence<\/p>\n
found that the oral agreement for sale pleaded  and<\/p>\n
sought   to   be             proved   are   different   and   the<\/p>\n
defendants   cannot   resist   the   claim   for   recovery   of<\/p>\n
possession   under                Section   53A   of   Transfer   of<\/p>\n
Property   Act   also.                  A   decree   for   recovery   of<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
possession   as   sought   for   was   granted.           It   is<\/p>\n
challenged in the Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The  Second  Appeal  was admitted  formulating<\/p>\n
the following substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
      1)     Are   not   the   plaintiffs   in   a   suit   for<\/p>\n
recovery   of   possession   bound   to   produce   the<\/p>\n
original   of   the   title   deed   on   the   basis   of   which<\/p>\n
they claim title to the property?\n<\/p>\n
      2)  Are the plaintiffs in a suit based on<\/p>\n
title   entitled   to   the   relief   for   recovery   of<\/p>\n
possession   on   the   basis   that     plaintiffs   have   a<\/p>\n
better title than that of the defendants?\n<\/p>\n
      3)  Is not the possession of the original title<\/p>\n
deed   with   the   defendants   conclusive   evidence   of<\/p>\n
possession on the strength of title?\n<\/p>\n
      4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants<\/p>\n
and respondents were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      5.          The   argument   of   the   learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing   for   the   appellants   was   that   the   first<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
appellate   court   did   not   properly   appreciate   the<\/p>\n
evidence   and   the   fact   that   there   is   no   valid<\/p>\n
explanation   for   the   plaintiffs   as   to   how   the<\/p>\n
defendants   came   into   custody   of   Ext.B1   otherwise<\/p>\n
than   by   the   agreement   for   sale   set   up   by   them   was<\/p>\n
not   appreciated.     It   was   argued   that     evidence   of<\/p>\n
Dws.2   to   4   who   were   present   at   the   time   of   the<\/p>\n
oral   agreement                  by   the   first   defendant   with<\/p>\n
Govindan,   establish   that     defendants   were   put   in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property   after   receiving   part   of<\/p>\n
the   sale   consideration   of   Rs.1000\/-   and   thereafter<\/p>\n
Govindan   is   not   entitled   to   execute   Ext.A1<\/p>\n
settlement   deed   in   favour   of   the   plaintiffs   and<\/p>\n
eventhough                it         was         fraudulently         executed,<\/p>\n
plaintiffs   did   not   derive   any   title   to   the<\/p>\n
property.  It  was  vehemently  argued  by  the    learned<\/p>\n
counsel   appearing   for   the   appellants   that   the<\/p>\n
evidence   on   record   establish   that   defendants   have<\/p>\n
been   in   possession   of   the   property   from   1969<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
onwards   and   in   such   circumstances,   a   decree   should<\/p>\n
not have been granted by the first appellate court.\n<\/p>\n
      6. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting<\/p>\n
respondent   argued   that   the   first   appellate   court<\/p>\n
has   appreciated   the   evidence   in   the   proper<\/p>\n
perspective   and   an   oral   agreement   for   sale     as<\/p>\n
alleged     in   the   plaint   is   different   from   the   oral<\/p>\n
agreement   sought   to   be   proved   by   the   evidence   of<\/p>\n
Dws.1   to   4   and   there   is   no   evidence   to   establish<\/p>\n
oral   agreement   for   sale.     It   was   also   argued   that<\/p>\n
Ext.A1   settlement   deed   executed   by   Govindan<\/p>\n
establish   the   title   of     appellants   and   as   the<\/p>\n
defendants   are   only   claiming   that   there   is   an<\/p>\n
agreement   for   sale   which   was   not   established,<\/p>\n
plaintiffs   are   entitled   to   the   decree   for   recovery<\/p>\n
of   possession   granted   by   the   first   appellate   court<\/p>\n
and   no substantial question of law in fact arises<\/p>\n
in   the   appeal   and   the   Second   Appeal   is   only   to   be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
      7.   It   is   admitted   case   that     plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property   originally   belonged   to   Govindan.   It   was<\/p>\n
specifically   contended   in   the   plaint   that   Govindan<\/p>\n
executed   Ext.A1   settlement   deed   whereunder   he<\/p>\n
transferred   his   rights   in   favour   of   his   wife,   the<\/p>\n
first   plaintiff   and   second   plaintiff   her   brother<\/p>\n
and third plaintiff their   nephew     and plaintiffs<\/p>\n
have   thus   title   to   the   plaint   schedule   property.\n<\/p>\n
There   was   no   specific   denial   of     execution   of<\/p>\n
Ext.A1   settlement   deed.            Even        when   DW1   was<\/p>\n
examined,   there   was   no   case   that   Govindan   did   not<\/p>\n
execute Ext.A1 settlement deed.  On the other hand,<\/p>\n
what was contended was that Ext.A1 was fraudulently<\/p>\n
executed   by   Govindan,   after   he   entered   into   an<\/p>\n
alleged   agreement   for   sale   with   the   first<\/p>\n
defendant.     Even   if   Govindan   had   entered   into   an<\/p>\n
agreement   for   sale,   that   will   not   vitiate   Ext.A1<\/p>\n
settlement   deed   so   long   as   no   sale   deed   was<\/p>\n
executed   in   favour   of   first   defendant.     Though   it<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
was   vehemently   argued   by   learned   counsel   appearing<\/p>\n
for   the   appellants   that   the   non-production   of<\/p>\n
original   of   Ext.A1   is   fatal,   in   the   facts   and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, I do not find that  non-\n<\/p>\n
production of the original of Ext.A1 is relevant or<\/p>\n
material.            As         the         plaint         schedule         property<\/p>\n
admittedly   belonged   to   Govindan   and   Govindan<\/p>\n
executed   Ext.A1   settlement   deed   in   favour   of   his<\/p>\n
wife   and   brother-in-law   and   their   nephew           and<\/p>\n
execution   of   the   settlement   deed   was   not   disputed<\/p>\n
in   the   written   statement,       non-production   of   the<\/p>\n
original   of   Ext.A1   is   not   at   all   material.     As<\/p>\n
rightly   found   by                     first   appellate   court,   the<\/p>\n
production   of   Ext.A1   and   the   oral   evidence<\/p>\n
establish  that  the  title  of  Govindan  in  the  plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   was   transferred   in   favour   of   the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs under Ext.A1.  Therefore plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
title to the plaint schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   When   the   plaintiffs   have   title   to   the<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
property,   the   only   question   is   whether   the<\/p>\n
defendants   have   got   better   title   to   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   propety.     The   only   defence   raised   in   the<\/p>\n
written   statement   was   that   there   was   an   oral<\/p>\n
agreement   for   sale   by   Govindan   in   favour   of   the<\/p>\n
first   defendant   and   pursuant   to   the   oral   agreement<\/p>\n
for   sale   after   receiving   part   of   the   sale<\/p>\n
consideration   of   Rs.1000\/-,   Ext.B1   title   deed   was<\/p>\n
handed   over   to   the   first   defendant   and   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   was   also   put   in   the     possession<\/p>\n
of  the  first  defendant  and  thus  the  plaintiffs  are<\/p>\n
not   entitled   to   the   recovery   of   possession   sought<\/p>\n
for.   Even if there was   an agreement for sale, so<\/p>\n
long   as   no   sale   deed   is   executed,   the   title<\/p>\n
continues   with   Govindan     subject   to   the   right   if<\/p>\n
any,   of   the   first   defendant   under   the   oral<\/p>\n
agreement   for   sale.     When   the   agreement   for   sale<\/p>\n
did  not  materialise  and  no  sale  deed  was  executed,<\/p>\n
and   Ext.A1   the   title   was   transferred   in   favour   of<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiffs   and            on   the   strength   of   the   title<\/p>\n
recovery   of   possession   is   sought   for,     defendants<\/p>\n
can     only   resist   the   claim   either     basing   on<\/p>\n
Section   53A   of   Transfer   of   Property   Act   if   it   is<\/p>\n
available   or   by   adverse   possession   and   limitation<\/p>\n
if such a plea is raised and sustainable.  Both the<\/p>\n
pleas are absent in the written statement.\n<\/p>\n
      9.The          crucial         question         then         is         whether<\/p>\n
defendants   have   established   the   oral   agreement   for<\/p>\n
sale.        The   pleading   with   regard   to   the   oral<\/p>\n
agreement   for   sale   was   that   on   25.2.1969   Govindan<\/p>\n
agreed  to  sell  the  plaint  schedule  property  to  the<\/p>\n
first   defendant   fixing   the   value   at   Rs.56\/-   per<\/p>\n
cent   and   Rs.1000\/-   was   received   towards   the   sale<\/p>\n
consideration   and   Govindan   promised   to   execute   the<\/p>\n
sale deed in the name of the first defendant or his<\/p>\n
son   second   defendant   after   receiving   the   balance<\/p>\n
consideration     and   Ext.B1   the   original   title   deed<\/p>\n
was   handed   over   and   put   the   first   defendant   in<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of the property.  There was no case that<\/p>\n
at   the   time   of   oral   agreement   for   sale,   first<\/p>\n
plaintiff   Kalliani   was   present   or   that     she   was<\/p>\n
also   a   party   to   the   agreement   for   sale   as   deposed<\/p>\n
by   DW1.   The   only   case   pleaded   in   the   written<\/p>\n
statement   about   the     oral   agreement   for   sale   was<\/p>\n
that   Velayudhan,   son   of   Chathan   had   intervened.\n<\/p>\n
When   evidence   was   let   in   the   oral   agreement   for<\/p>\n
sale   spoken   to   by   DW1   is   different.     According   to<\/p>\n
DW1,   it   was   Govindan   and   his   wife   the   first<\/p>\n
plaintiff,  who  agreed  to  sell  the  property  and  put<\/p>\n
first defendant in possession of the property.  The<\/p>\n
case   of   an   oral   agreement   wherein   the   first<\/p>\n
plaintiff   was   also   a   party   was   not       the   oral<\/p>\n
agreement   set   up   in   the   written   statement.\n<\/p>\n
Eventhough   it   was   pleaded   in   the   written   statement<\/p>\n
that DW2 Velayudhan was the mediator, when examined<\/p>\n
as DW1   case of the first defendant was that apart<\/p>\n
from   Velayudhan,   Parameswaran     and   Kochappu   were<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
also intervened who   were examined as Dws.3 and 4.\n<\/p>\n
The   first   appellate   court   appreciated   the   evidence<\/p>\n
of   Dws.2   to   4   in   the   light   of   the   case   set   up   in<\/p>\n
the   written   statement   and   rightly   disbelieved   the<\/p>\n
case   of   oral   evidence.               The   appreciation   of<\/p>\n
evidence   which   was   proper   cannot   be   interfered   in<\/p>\n
exercise  of  the  powers  of  this  court  under  section<\/p>\n
100   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure.     Even   if   the<\/p>\n
evidence   of   Dws.   1   to   4   are   reappreciated,   the<\/p>\n
finding  on  the  question  of  oral  agreement  for  sale<\/p>\n
cannot be different from what was arrived at by the<\/p>\n
first   appellate   court.       First   appellate   court<\/p>\n
rightly  found  that  there  was  no  agreement  for  sale<\/p>\n
as claimed by the appellants. The trump-card of the<\/p>\n
appellants   was   that   the   custody   of   Ext.B1,   the<\/p>\n
original   title   deed.     True,     plaintiffs   did   not<\/p>\n
explain   how         defendants   came   into   custody   of<\/p>\n
Ext.B1.   But by the production of Ext.B1 alone, we<\/p>\n
cannot come to a conclusion that there was an oral<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
agreement   for   sale   as   claimed   by   the   defendants.\n<\/p>\n
If that be so, the plaintiffs are entitled to get a<\/p>\n
decree   for   recovery   of   possession   on   the   strength<\/p>\n
of tile, unless the defendants are protected by any<\/p>\n
statute   or   adverse   possession.     There   was   no   plea<\/p>\n
of   adverse   possession.   As   there   is   no   written<\/p>\n
agreement,   even   according   to   the   defendants,   they<\/p>\n
cannot   claim   protection   under   section   53A   of<\/p>\n
Transfer   of   Property   Act.     In   such   circumstance,<\/p>\n
first   appellate   court   rightly   granted   a   decree   for<\/p>\n
recovery of possession.\n<\/p>\n
      10.            When         the         plaint         schedule         property<\/p>\n
admittedly   originally   belonged   to   Govindan   and<\/p>\n
Govindan   had   executed   Ext.A1   settlement   deed   in<\/p>\n
favour   of   the   plaintiffs   and     execution   of   Ext.A1<\/p>\n
settlement deed was not disputed, the fact that the<\/p>\n
original   of   Ext.A1   was   not   produced   will   not<\/p>\n
disentitle   the   plaintiffs   to   get   a   decree   for<\/p>\n
recovery   of   possession   on   the   strength   of   title.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.242\/1992                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
When   plaintiffs   have   established   their   title   and<\/p>\n
defendants   have   no   right   to   continue   in   possession<\/p>\n
of   the   property,     plaintiffs   are   entitled   to   the<\/p>\n
decree   sought   for.     The   custody   of   Ext.B1   the<\/p>\n
anterior   title   deed   by   itself   will   not   establish<\/p>\n
any   right   on   the   defendants   to   continue   in<\/p>\n
possession  of  the  property  and  it  will  not  prevent<\/p>\n
the   plaintiffs   from   getting   a   decree   for   recovery<\/p>\n
of   possession   on   the   strength   of   title.          The<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law are answered thus.  As<\/p>\n
there   is   no   merit   in   the   Second   Appeal,   it   is<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                       M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR<\/p>\n
                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
     S.A..NO.242 \/92<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     18TH JUNE,2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Paramu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 242 of 1992(D) 1. PARAMU … Petitioner Vs 1. KALLYANI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.MPR.NAIR For Respondent :SRI.V.BHASKARA MENON The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :18\/06\/2007 O R D E R M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== […]<\/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-193566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nParamu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 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\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paramu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-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=\"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-27T03:13:23+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paramu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-27T03:13:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2250,\"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\\\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Paramu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-27T03:13:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paramu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 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":"Paramu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 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\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paramu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-27T03:13:23+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paramu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-27T03:13:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007"},"wordCount":2250,"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\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007","name":"Paramu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-27T03:13:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paramu-vs-kallyani-on-18-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paramu vs Kallyani on 18 June, 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\/193566","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=193566"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/193566\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=193566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=193566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=193566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}