{"id":196971,"date":"2010-06-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010"},"modified":"2016-07-02T04:08:19","modified_gmt":"2016-07-01T22:38:19","slug":"c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"C.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
C.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 20120 of 2010(O)\n\n\n1. C.MANIKANTAN NAIR,S\/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. M.PRABHAKARAN NAIR,S\/O.LATE MADHAVAN\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ATTUKAL BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE TRUST,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :29\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                   THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n           ====================================\n                    W.P(C) No.20120 of 2010,\n                    W.P(C) No.20205 of 2010\n                               and\n                   W.P(C) No.20206 of 2010\n           ====================================\n             Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010\n\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      These Writ Petitions are in challenge of      common order<\/p>\n
passed by     learned Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram on         I.A.<\/p>\n
Nos.2616, 2617 and 2615 respectively, in O.S.Nos.494 of 2002,<\/p>\n
335 of 2005 and 493 of 2002.         These suits are filed by the<\/p>\n
respondent, described as a Trust for recovery of various amounts<\/p>\n
from the petitioners who were the Secretary and President of the<\/p>\n
said Trust during 1993-99. Allegations in these cases are        of<\/p>\n
mismanagement, misappropriation, falsification of accounts and<\/p>\n
such other matters concerning property of the Trust and in the<\/p>\n
matter of purchase of articles, assignment of contracts and such<\/p>\n
other matters. Petitioners resisted the suit on various grounds. In<\/p>\n
the year 2010 respondent filed the above said applications for<\/p>\n
amendment of the plaints which were resisted by petitioners.<\/p>\n
Petitioners also sought for amendment of their written statement<\/p>\n
to contend that suits are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.<\/p>\n
All the applications were heard by the additional Sub Judge and<\/p>\n
   W.P(C) No.20120, 20205 &<\/p>\n
  20206 of 2010
\n                                  -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
disposed of by a common order as per which               applications<\/p>\n
preferred by      petitioners and     respondent were         allowed.<\/p>\n
Petitioners are aggrieved by the common order to the extent it<\/p>\n
allowed applications preferred by the respondent for amendment<\/p>\n
of plaints. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that what<\/p>\n
is sought to be incorporated by amendment are matters which<\/p>\n
are otherwise barred by limitation in that suits are filed in the year<\/p>\n
2002 and 2005 but the applications for amendment are filed in<\/p>\n
the year 2010.     According to the learned counsel ordinary rule<\/p>\n
that a relief which has already become barred by limitation shall<\/p>\n
not be allowed to be incorporated by way of amendment should<\/p>\n
govern the matter. In the absence of a plea under Section 10 of<\/p>\n
the Limitation Act (for short, “the Act”) the suits cannot be saved<\/p>\n
from the bar of limitation.      Learned counsel has invited my<\/p>\n
attention to Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for<\/p>\n
short, “the Code”) which states that when the suit is instituted<\/p>\n
after expiration of      period prescribed by the law of limitation<\/p>\n
plaint shall state grounds upon which exemption from limitation<\/p>\n
is claimed. According to the learned counsel there is no whisper<\/p>\n
in the plaints as to any exemption from the law of limitation under<\/p>\n
  W.P(C) No.20120, 20205 &<\/p>\n
  20206 of 2010
\n                                  -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Sec.10 of the Act or as required under Order VII Rule 6 of the<\/p>\n
Code which is now sought to be supplemented by amendment<\/p>\n
which prejudiced defence of petitioners. Reliance is placed on<\/p>\n
Revajeetu          Builders         and     Developers          v.\n<\/p>\n
Narayanaswamy and Sons (2009) 10 SCC 84).\n<\/p>\n
      2.    No doubt, under Order VII Rule 6 of the Code     plaint<\/p>\n
should specifically state the grounds of exemption from limitation<\/p>\n
when the suit is preferred beyond the period prescribed for the<\/p>\n
purpose. Section 10 of the Act states that there shall be no<\/p>\n
limitation in a suit against a person in whom property has been<\/p>\n
vested for any purpose.        Learned counsel has a case that<\/p>\n
respondent is not a Trust as envisaged under Sec.10 of the Act<\/p>\n
and further that there is no averment in the plaint that there was<\/p>\n
any vesting for specific purpose.     Now I am concerned with the<\/p>\n
question whether court below was justified       in allowing the<\/p>\n
applications for amendment.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    In the decision relied on    by learned counsel it is<\/p>\n
stated in paragraph 39 after referring to the decisions      which<\/p>\n
state that even claims barred by limitation are not outside the<\/p>\n
purview of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, that the rule is not a<\/p>\n
  W.P(C) No.20120, 20205 &<\/p>\n
  20206 of 2010
\n                                  -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
universal one and under certain circumstances amendment may<\/p>\n
be allowed notwithstanding the law of limitation.        It is stated<\/p>\n
that fact that claim is barred by law of limitation is only one of<\/p>\n
the factors to be taken into account by the court in exercising the<\/p>\n
discretion as to whether      amendment should be allowed or<\/p>\n
refused. In paragraph 63 factors to be taken into consideration<\/p>\n
while deciding the application for amendment are narrated and<\/p>\n
clause (6) states that as a general rule the court decline<\/p>\n
amendment if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be<\/p>\n
barred by limitation on the date of application.<\/p>\n
      4.    In a later decision – State of Maharashtra v.<\/p>\n
M\/s. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd<\/a> (2010 [2]<\/p>\n
Supreme 697) the same principle has been enunciated and it is<\/p>\n
stated that amendment of pleadings is a matter of procedure and<\/p>\n
the grant or refusal thereof is in the discretion of the court which<\/p>\n
as in the case of any other discretion,        has to be exercised<\/p>\n
consistent with the legal principles. It is also stated that there is<\/p>\n
no rule that claim which is barred by limitation cannot be allowed<\/p>\n
to be incorporated by amendment. Reference has been made to<\/p>\n
the decision in Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram<\/a> (1978) 2<\/p>\n
   W.P(C) No.20120, 20205 &<\/p>\n
  20206 of 2010
\n                                  -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
SCR 614 where it is held       that procedural law is intended to<\/p>\n
facilitate and not to obstruct       course of substantive justice.<\/p>\n
Provisions relating to pleading in civil cases are meant to give to<\/p>\n
each side intimation of case of the other so that it may be met to<\/p>\n
enable courts to determine what is really at issue between parties<\/p>\n
and to prevent deviations from the pleadings.          This court in<\/p>\n
Kunheedu v. Marakkar and Others (1989 [1] KLJ 92)<\/p>\n
considered the question whether under Order VI Rule 17 of the<\/p>\n
Code amendment to introduce a new cause of action or a new<\/p>\n
relief even beyond the period of limitation can be allowed. It was<\/p>\n
held that if the plaint contains basic foundation for the relief<\/p>\n
claimed (by way of amendment)           there is nothing wrong in<\/p>\n
allowing   amendment even beyond the period of            limitation.<\/p>\n
Bearing in mind the above principles I shall consider whether<\/p>\n
court below is right in allowing the applications of respondent.<\/p>\n
       5.   I referred to the nature of the allegations made by the<\/p>\n
respondent in the plaints. For e.g., in O.S.No.494 of 2004 it is<\/p>\n
stated that petitioners were office bearers (Secretary and<\/p>\n
Secretary) of the respondent-Trust during 1993-99 and that<\/p>\n
petitioners due to their commissions and omissions caused huge<\/p>\n
   W.P(C) No.20120, 20205 &<\/p>\n
   20206 of 2010
\n                                  -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
loss to the respondent.      There are specific allegations regarding<\/p>\n
misappropriation, misfeasance and conduct of like nature. In<\/p>\n
paragraph 2 of the plaint reference is made to the relationship<\/p>\n
between petitioners and respondent-Trust as they being office<\/p>\n
bearers of the Managing Committee. Paragraph 13 of the plaint<\/p>\n
states about breach of trust on the part of petitioners which was<\/p>\n
realised by the respondent on 22.6.2002.              On the above<\/p>\n
allegations applications for amendment was made to incorporate<\/p>\n
paragraph 29(a) and (b) and also to amend portion of cause of<\/p>\n
action in the plaints.   In paragraph 29(a) what is sought to be<\/p>\n
incorporated by amendment is that petitioners are trustees of the<\/p>\n
respondent as Secretary and President for the period 1993-99 and<\/p>\n
thus were in a fiduciary relationship, that respondent-Trust is an<\/p>\n
express Trust engaged        in religious and charitable activities,<\/p>\n
illegalities and irregularities were committed by the petitioners<\/p>\n
while acting as trustees of the respondent in their capacity as<\/p>\n
Secretary and President and hence the suit is not barred under<\/p>\n
Sec.10 of the Act. Similar grounds are incorporated in paragraph<\/p>\n
29(b). There, it is stated that        commissions and omissions<\/p>\n
resulted in loss to the respondent and that respondent asked<\/p>\n
   W.P(C) No.20120, 20205 &<\/p>\n
 20206 of 2010
\n                                  -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
petitioners to make good the loss on 22.6.2006. In the cause of<\/p>\n
action as originally averred it is stated that it arose from March,<\/p>\n
1997, February, 1998 and February, 1999 when the contracts<\/p>\n
were accepted and continuously thereafter when provisions were<\/p>\n
purchased by the petitioners as above stated causing loss to the<\/p>\n
respondent. The words incorporated by amendment is that cause<\/p>\n
of action arose on 22.6.2006 (also)        when petitioners finally<\/p>\n
refused to make good the loss.         In other suits also similar<\/p>\n
allegations are made in the plaint and the applications of<\/p>\n
amendment.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   It is seen from the averments in the plaint that<\/p>\n
throughout it is the consistent case of respondent that it is a<\/p>\n
Charitable Trust of which petitioners were office bearers,<\/p>\n
Secretary and President and in that capacity their commissions<\/p>\n
and omissions during their term of office, i.e., from 1993 to 1999<\/p>\n
resulted in huge loss to the respondent and that came to the<\/p>\n
knowledge of respondent only on 22.6.2006. What is sought to be<\/p>\n
incorporated by way of amendment is only explicit statements<\/p>\n
which in otherwise stated in the plaint.    It is not as if suits are<\/p>\n
attempted to be brought within the scope of Sec.10 of the Act for<\/p>\n
   W.P(C) No.20120, 20205 &<\/p>\n
  20206 of 2010
\n                                   -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the first time without any averment at all in the plaints. Going by<\/p>\n
the averments in the original plaints what I can understand is that<\/p>\n
there are sufficient foundation already pleaded to state that the<\/p>\n
commissions and omissions of petitioners           resulted in loss to<\/p>\n
the respondent which were done by petitioners in their capacity<\/p>\n
as Secretary and President of the respondent-Trust in which case<\/p>\n
Sec.10 of the Act came into application. What is attempted to be<\/p>\n
achieved by amendment is only a specific averment that in the<\/p>\n
circumstances pleaded in the plaint Sec.10 of the Act came into<\/p>\n
application and the suits are not barred by limitation.       Having<\/p>\n
gone through the materials on record I find that the court below<\/p>\n
has exercised the discretion in accordance with the known<\/p>\n
principles of law and it calls for no interference.<\/p>\n
            Writ Petitions fail and are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
vsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court C.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 20120 of 2010(O) 1. C.MANIKANTAN NAIR,S\/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, … Petitioner 2. M.PRABHAKARAN NAIR,S\/O.LATE MADHAVAN Vs 1. ATTUKAL BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE TRUST, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-196971","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-01T22:38:19+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-01T22:38:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1584,\"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\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010\",\"name\":\"C.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-01T22:38:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-01T22:38:19+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-01T22:38:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010"},"wordCount":1584,"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\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010","name":"C.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-01T22:38:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-manikantan-nair-vs-attukal-bhagavathy-temple-trust-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.Manikantan Nair vs Attukal Bhagavathy Temple Trust on 29 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196971","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=196971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196971\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}