{"id":194645,"date":"2008-11-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-05-09T08:04:01","modified_gmt":"2016-05-09T02:34:01","slug":"m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"M.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 1137 of 2008()\n\n\n1. M.SANKARANARAYANAN, AGED 62\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. S.A.MOHAMMED NOOR, AGED 70 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. A.RAHMATHULLA, S\/O.K.N.S.ABDUL RAHMAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :27\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                        V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n                    = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                      R.S.A.No.1137 of 2008\n                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n            Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     The defendant in O.S.No.320 of 2006 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Additional Munsiff’s Court-I, Kozhikode is the appellant in this<\/p>\n
second appeal. The said suit instituted by the respondent herein<\/p>\n
was one for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to<\/p>\n
remove all the articles from the plaint schedule bunk and for a<\/p>\n
prohibitory injunction restraining him from entering the said<\/p>\n
bunk thereafter. At the stage of trial the plaintiffs did not press<\/p>\n
for the relief of prohibitory injunction.<\/p>\n
     2. The case of the plaintiffs can be summarised as follows:-<\/p>\n
     The plaint schedule bunk, made of iron sheets and having a<\/p>\n
measurement of 8×8 feet, has been installed at the front portion<\/p>\n
of the ground floor of a commercial building by name ‘City Gate’<\/p>\n
belonging to the plaintiffs. The bunk along with the remaining<\/p>\n
portion of the property also belongs to the plaintiffs.        The<\/p>\n
defendant approached the plaintiffs with a request to grant a<\/p>\n
licence in his favour temporarily for the use of the plaint<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.1137 of 2008
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
schedule bunk. Accordingly, as per Ext.A1 licence agreement<\/p>\n
dated 1.10.2000, the defendant was permitted to use the bunk as<\/p>\n
a licensee for a period of one year. After the expiry of the term<\/p>\n
of one year the defendant again requested the plaintiff to grant<\/p>\n
a fresh licence for a further period of one year. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 licence agreement dated 1.10.2001 was executed<\/p>\n
between the plaintiffs and the defendant fixing a licence fee of<\/p>\n
Rs.1,000\/- per month. The defendant also paid a security deposit<\/p>\n
of Rs.40,000\/-.    At the request of the defendant, he was<\/p>\n
permitted to use one electric bulb in the bunk for which<\/p>\n
connection had been taken from a plug point in the main<\/p>\n
building.   In violation of the agreement, the defendant by<\/p>\n
prevailing upon some of the officials of the KSEB had managed<\/p>\n
to get electricity supply in his name to the bunk. This was in<\/p>\n
violation of the provisions in the licence agreement and without<\/p>\n
the knowledge of the plaintiffs. As per the provisions of the<\/p>\n
agreement of licence if the defendant failed to pay licence fee on<\/p>\n
the due date the plaintiffs are entitled to terminate the licence<\/p>\n
agreement notwithstanding the period stipulated in the licence<\/p>\n
agreement. The defendant had failed to pay the licence fee from<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.1137 of 2008
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
the month of October 2001 onwards.          Accordingly, a lawyer<\/p>\n
notice dated 1.1.2002 was sent to the defendant terminating the<\/p>\n
licence. The suit has been filed thereafter.<\/p>\n
     3. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending inter<\/p>\n
alia as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     This defendant wanted a permanent place to set up a small<\/p>\n
business in sales of snacks, cool drinks, milma milk and fruits.<\/p>\n
Accordingly this defendant approached the plaintiffs who<\/p>\n
entrusted the site to this defendant. Since the intention of this<\/p>\n
defendant was to start a business on a permanent basis, the<\/p>\n
entrustment was treated as a lease. This defendant paid rent of<\/p>\n
Rs.750\/- per month during the first year.        The amount was<\/p>\n
enhanced to Rs.1,000\/- during the second year. The building tax<\/p>\n
was also paid by this defendant. The electric connection to the<\/p>\n
bunk was arranged from the main building by looping. Since it<\/p>\n
was illegal, the KSEB disconnected the line. As it was practically<\/p>\n
impossible for this defendant to carry on his business without<\/p>\n
electricity, he obtained an electric connection with the<\/p>\n
permission of the plaintiffs. It was not in violation of the licence<\/p>\n
agreement between the parties. This defendant has not kept the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.1137 of 2008
\n                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
rent in arrears. When the rent for the month of October was<\/p>\n
tendered the first plaintiff refused to accept the same.<\/p>\n
Consequently, rent for the months of October, November and<\/p>\n
December was remitted by Demand Draft. The plaintiffs refused<\/p>\n
to accept the Demand Draft and returned the same to this<\/p>\n
defendant. There is no violation of any stipulation contained in<\/p>\n
the agreement. The Calicut Corporation had issued a notice<\/p>\n
asking this defendant to remove the bunk stating that it was<\/p>\n
constructed without a licence.      This defendant is willing to<\/p>\n
transfer the electric connection in the name of the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
Acting upon the entrustment, which amounts to lease and which<\/p>\n
was treated as such, intended, desired and understood by the<\/p>\n
parties this defendant had incurred an expenditure of more than<\/p>\n
Rs.1 lakh for furnishing the bunk. Since this defendant is a<\/p>\n
tenant he is entitled to get the protection of the Kerala Building<\/p>\n
(Lease and Rent Control Act , 1965. This suit is therefore not<\/p>\n
maintainable and the same may be dismissed.<\/p>\n
     4. The trial court framed the following issues for trial:-<\/p>\n
           1. Whether the transaction is lease or licence?<\/p>\n
           2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for decree<\/p>\n
     for mandatory injunction as prayed ?\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.1137 of 2008
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
           3.  Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a<\/p>\n
     decree for permanent prohibitory injunction as<\/p>\n
     prayed?\n<\/p>\n
           4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for arrears<\/p>\n
     of licence fee as prayed?\n<\/p>\n
           5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for decree for<\/p>\n
     damages for user and occupation?\n<\/p>\n
           6. Relief and cost?\n<\/p>\n
     Since the relief of prohibitory injunction was not pressed,<\/p>\n
issue No.3 was struck off.\n<\/p>\n
     5. On the side of the plaintiffs Exts.A1 and A6 were marked<\/p>\n
and 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1.        On the side of the<\/p>\n
defendant Ext.B1 to B10 were marked and the defendant was<\/p>\n
examined as DW1.\n<\/p>\n
     6. The learned Munsiff after trial as per judgment and<\/p>\n
decree dated 28.7.06 came to the conclusion that Exts. A 1 to A3<\/p>\n
were agreements of licence and not lease and that in the<\/p>\n
absence of a plea by the defendant in the written statement that<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A3 were camouflage with a view to get over the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Rent Control Act, it was not open to the<\/p>\n
defendant to raise such a contention, that the defendant had<\/p>\n
kept the licence fee in arrears to the tune of Rs.325\/-, that the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.1137 of 2008
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant was liable to pay damages for user and occupation at<\/p>\n
the rate of Rs.1,000\/- per month from 1.2.02 till he vacated the<\/p>\n
premises and that the plaintiffs could adjust the arrears      of<\/p>\n
licence fee and damages from the security deposit of Rs.40,000\/-<\/p>\n
and balance, if any, shall be refunded to the defendant before<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs took possession of the plaint schedule room. The<\/p>\n
plaintiffs were also held entitled to costs.<\/p>\n
      7. On appeal preferred by the defendant as A.S.No.143 of<\/p>\n
2006 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode, the learned Subordinate<\/p>\n
Judge as per the decree and judgment dated 29.7.08 dismissed<\/p>\n
the appeal confirming the decree and judgment passed by the<\/p>\n
trial court. Hence this second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   The following are the substantial questions of law<\/p>\n
formulated in the memorandum of second appeal.<\/p>\n
     A)   Were the courts below justified not considering the<\/p>\n
       question of intention of parties which was a jurisdictional<\/p>\n
       aspect as the very maintainability of the suit was<\/p>\n
       dependant on that?\n<\/p>\n
     B) Were the Courts below justified in relying on the mere<\/p>\n
       nomenclature of the document of entrustment when the<\/p>\n
       conduct of the parties before and after the entrustment<\/p>\n
       clearly proved a case of lease and not a licence.?<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.1137 of 2008
\n                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
    C)   Were the courts below justified in holding that the<\/p>\n
      pleadings were insufficient when it was specifically<\/p>\n
      pleased at paragraphs 2 and 7 of the written statement<\/p>\n
      that the transaction was lease and the intention of the<\/p>\n
      parties was to create a lease?\n<\/p>\n
    D) Whether the Courts below justified in not considering the<\/p>\n
      fact that in any view of the matter the appellant was<\/p>\n
      entitled to the benefit of Section 60(b) of the Easement<\/p>\n
      Act?\n<\/p>\n
    E) Were the courts below justified in not considering the<\/p>\n
      important aspects like exclusive possession of the<\/p>\n
      appellant and the facts that he had obtained electricity<\/p>\n
      connection, paid advance amounting to 3 years’ rent<\/p>\n
      clauses for renewal, increase in rent and the conduct of<\/p>\n
      parties before and after the entrustment?<\/p>\n
    F) Were the courts below justified in not holding that the<\/p>\n
      intention in the instant case was to create a lease and not<\/p>\n
      a licence?\n<\/p>\n
     9. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant-defendant.<\/p>\n
     The learned counsel for the appellant made the following<\/p>\n
submissions before me in support of the appeal:-<\/p>\n
     Eventhough Exts.A1 and A3 were styled as licence dees the<\/p>\n
real intention of the parties was to enter into a transaction of<\/p>\n
lease. There was a transfer of interest in favour of the appellant<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.1137 of 2008
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
who was put in exclusive possession of the bunk in question.<\/p>\n
Infact, the bunk in the present form was constructed by him and<\/p>\n
not by the plaintiffs. The defendant had obtained a separate<\/p>\n
electric connection to the bunk.       The plea in the written<\/p>\n
statement to the effect that the entrustment which amounts to<\/p>\n
lease and which was treated as such, intended, desired and<\/p>\n
understood by the parties is sufficient to make out a case that<\/p>\n
the transaction was a camouflage to get over the provisions of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act. Hence the<\/p>\n
decision of the Apex Court in (AIR 2004 SC 2103) C.M.Beena<\/p>\n
and another v. P.N.Ramachandra Rao applies on all fourts to<\/p>\n
the facts of this case. Since it was the appellant who put up the<\/p>\n
bunk which is of a permanent nature, he is entitled to the<\/p>\n
protection of Section 60(b) of the Easements Act.<\/p>\n
     10.    I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above<\/p>\n
submissions. A perusal of Exts.A1 and A3 documents will clearly<\/p>\n
reveal that they are agreements creating a licence by all<\/p>\n
definitions. The document recites that the licensors are the<\/p>\n
owners in possession of the iron bunk described in the Schedule<\/p>\n
and the licensee (the defendant) is permitted to use the premises<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.1137 of 2008
\n                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
for doing a business in bakery items and the licensee is not to<\/p>\n
use the premises for any other purpose without the written<\/p>\n
consent of the licensor.     It is made explicitly clear that no<\/p>\n
possession has been given to the licensee.       Clause 7 of the<\/p>\n
document makes the position further clear that the licensee is to<\/p>\n
use the premises as a licensee and that the parties have never<\/p>\n
intended the transaction to be a lease or any other mode of<\/p>\n
transfer of interest or of possession of the premises. Apart from<\/p>\n
the nomenclature of the document the terms and conditions<\/p>\n
stipulated thereunder also unequivocally indicate that the<\/p>\n
transaction which the parties had in their contemplation was a<\/p>\n
licence is pure and simple.\n<\/p>\n
     11.   Both the courts below have rightly held that the<\/p>\n
defendant\/appellant did not specifically     plead in the written<\/p>\n
statement that eventhough Ext.A1 is styled as a licence it was a<\/p>\n
camouflage or a subterfuge conceived by the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
circumvent the provisions of the Kerala Building (Lease and<\/p>\n
Rent Control) Act, 1965. Hence reliance placed on the decision<\/p>\n
of the Apex Court in (AIR 2004 SC 2103) C.M.Beena and<\/p>\n
another v. P.N.Ramachandra Rao is of no avail to the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.1137 of 2008
\n                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant . Paragraph 4 of the said decision clearly shows that<\/p>\n
the written statement in that case had specifically pleaded that<\/p>\n
the document was a camouflage for evading the Rent Control<\/p>\n
legislation which was in force.\n<\/p>\n
      12.   Equally misconceived is the contention based on<\/p>\n
Section 60(b) of the Easements Act. First of all, Ext.A1 licence<\/p>\n
itself shows that what is given on licence is the bunk and not the<\/p>\n
site thereof.   The bunk was not put up by the defendant.<\/p>\n
Secondly, no plea was taken in the written statement with regard<\/p>\n
to the protection under Section 60(b) of the Easements Act (See<\/p>\n
Kesavan Nair v. Narayanan Nair<\/a> (1988(2) KLT 1006) and<\/p>\n
Saraswathi v.Bharat Textiles (1992(1)KLT 863). Hence the<\/p>\n
said contention is not available to the appellant. Such being the<\/p>\n
position I do not see any good ground to interfere with the<\/p>\n
concurrent decrees passed by the courts below. No question of<\/p>\n
law, much less any substantial question of law arises for<\/p>\n
consideration in this second appeal. The questions of law<\/p>\n
formulated in the memorandum of appeal also do not arise for<\/p>\n
consideration in this second appeal which is accordingly<\/p>\n
dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.1137 of 2008
\n                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
      The learned counsel for the appellant made a fervent<\/p>\n
request for time. I am inclined to grant six months’ time to the<\/p>\n
appellant. Accordingly the appellant shall remove all his articles<\/p>\n
from the plaint schedule bunk and surrender the vacant<\/p>\n
possession of the same on or before 26.5.2009 on condition that<\/p>\n
he files an affidavit before the Executing Court within two weeks<\/p>\n
from today undertaking to abide by the above condition and also<\/p>\n
undertaking that he shall not induct strangers in the bunk nor<\/p>\n
shall he commit any act of waste thereon and shall pay the<\/p>\n
damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.1,000\/- per<\/p>\n
month without fail.\n<\/p>\n
\nDated this the 27th day of November, 2008.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 1137 of 2008() 1. M.SANKARANARAYANAN, AGED 62 … Petitioner Vs 1. S.A.MOHAMMED NOOR, AGED 70 YEARS, … Respondent 2. A.RAHMATHULLA, S\/O.K.N.S.ABDUL RAHMAN, For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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-194645","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 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\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-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=\"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-09T02:34:01+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-09T02:34:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2160,\"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\\\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008\",\"name\":\"M.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-09T02:34:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 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":"M.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 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\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-09T02:34:01+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-09T02:34:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008"},"wordCount":2160,"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\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008","name":"M.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-09T02:34:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-sankaranarayanan-vs-s-a-mohammed-noor-on-27-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.Sankaranarayanan vs S.A.Mohammed Noor on 27 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\/194645","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=194645"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194645\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}