{"id":198782,"date":"2010-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010"},"modified":"2014-08-22T01:37:27","modified_gmt":"2014-08-21T20:07:27","slug":"shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Shajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP(C).No. 9 of 2010(O)\n\n\n1. SHAJAN,S\/O.JOSEPH,AGED 41,THOTTUPATTU\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. RAJU JOHN,S\/O.JOHN,AGED 41,THOYALIL\n3. JOSHYA.CHEMPARATHY,S\/O.AUGUSTINE,AGED\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. JOSEPH,S\/O.ULAHANNAN,AGED 67,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. PAILY,S\/O.ULAHANNAN,AGED 73,\n\n3. THOMMAN PAILY @RAJU,S\/O.PAILY,AGED 40,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR.K (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :23\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                   THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.\n\n                  ----------------------------------------\n\n                        O.P(C).No.9 of 2010\n\n                   ---------------------------------------\n\n             Dated this 27th day of September, 2010\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Petitioners, pendente lite transferees have filed this<\/p>\n
petition challenging Ext.P8, order by which learned Munsiff has<\/p>\n
directed implementation of the order of mandatory injunction<\/p>\n
passed on I.A.No.488 of 2007 with police assistance. Respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 filed a suit for injunction against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for<\/p>\n
enforcement of his right of way along plaint B schedule way to<\/p>\n
the plaint A schedule belonging to them.                  Along with the<\/p>\n
institution of suit, respondent No.1 filed application for<\/p>\n
temporary injunction and an interim order of injunction was<\/p>\n
passed restraining respondent Nos.2 and 3 from causing<\/p>\n
obstruction to the user of the said pathway. Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner inspected the property and submitted report<\/p>\n
stating about existence of plaint B schedule pathway as pleaded<\/p>\n
by respondent No.1. Later there was some attempt on the part of<\/p>\n
respondent Nos.2 and 3 or somebody else on their behalf to<\/p>\n
interfere with plaint B schedule pathway and thereon, respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 filed I.A.No.488 of 2007 for an order of mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction claiming that his only access to plaint A schedule is<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.9 of 2010
\n                                : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
through plaint B schedule way and obstruction caused to it has<\/p>\n
affected his access to plaint A schedule. Learned Munsiff allowed<\/p>\n
that application. Accordingly, there was an order of mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to restore the<\/p>\n
pathway to its original position. Respondent Nos.2 and 3<\/p>\n
challenged the order of prohibitory and mandatory injunction in<\/p>\n
C.M.A.Nos.39 and 40 of 2007. Learned District Judge confirmed<\/p>\n
the order of prohibitory injunction but directed that claim<\/p>\n
regarding mandatory injunction can be decided along with the<\/p>\n
suit. Respondent No.1 challenged that order in this court in<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.26789 of 2009 and this court by judgment dated<\/p>\n
November 20, 2009 set aside the order of learned District Judge<\/p>\n
and directed learned District Judge to consider C.M.A.No.39 of<\/p>\n
2007 afresh. Learned District Judge considered the appeal and<\/p>\n
confirmed the order passed by learned Munsiff on I.A.No.488 of<\/p>\n
2007 (allowing mandatory injunction). That order became final.<\/p>\n
Thereafter there was delay in learned Munsiff executing the<\/p>\n
order on I.A.No.488 of 2007. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 filed<\/p>\n
I.A.No.138 of 2010 for implementation of the order of mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction on I.A.No.488 of 2007 and since respondent No.1<\/p>\n
thought that the matter is being delayed he approached this<\/p>\n
court with W.P.C.No.2144 of 2010. This court by judgment dated<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.9 of 2010
\n                                : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
May 24, 2010 directed learned Munsiff to enforce the order of<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction on I.A.No.488 of 2007. Since the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner reported that there was some obstruction by 3rd<\/p>\n
parties in executing the order on I.A.No.488 of 2007, learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff has issued Ext.P8, order to enforce the order of<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction with the assistance of police. Petitioners<\/p>\n
who purchased the property from respondent Nos.2 and 3<\/p>\n
pendente lite filed applications for their impleadment in the suit,<\/p>\n
to stay execution of order for restoration of the disputed pathway<\/p>\n
and proposing that a road laid by them in connection with<\/p>\n
development of the property purchased by them could be used by<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 in settlement of his claim. Learned Munsiff has<\/p>\n
allowed    the    application for    impleadment    but  dismissed<\/p>\n
I.A.No.1496 of 2010 for stay of operation of order on I.A.No.488<\/p>\n
of 2007. Hence this writ petition. Learned Senior Advocate<\/p>\n
appearing for petitioners contends that it was only on 07-09-2010<\/p>\n
that petitioners were impleaded in the suit and they purchased<\/p>\n
the property from respondent Nos.2 and 3 unaware of the<\/p>\n
pending litigation or the right sought to be enforced by<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 through plaint B schedule. Learned counsel has<\/p>\n
produced documents to show that petitioners have developed the<\/p>\n
property purchased by them from respondent Nos.2 and 3 and<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.9 of 2010
\n                                 : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
that in settlement of the claim made by respondent No.1, he<\/p>\n
could be permitted to use the road that has been laid by them. It<\/p>\n
is also contended by learned Senior Advocate that if the order of<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction on I.A.No.488 of 2007 is to be enforced, it<\/p>\n
would become necessary to dig up the property at a depth of<\/p>\n
about 15 meters to mark out the pathway and that would involve<\/p>\n
much hardship to the petitioner. In these circumstances learned<\/p>\n
counsel prayed that Ext.P8, order passed by learned Munsiff on<\/p>\n
I.A.No.138 of 2010 ordering police assistance for enforcement of<\/p>\n
the order of mandatory injunction may be set aside and learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff may be directed to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9,<\/p>\n
application where petitioners have made an alternative proposal<\/p>\n
for the benefit of respondent No.1. A further prayer is that learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff may be directed to enforce Section 89 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) for settlement of the<\/p>\n
dispute. It is also prayed that in the meantime further proceedings<\/p>\n
pursuant to Ext.P8, order may be kept in abeyance.<\/p>\n
      2.    Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that<\/p>\n
whatever that transpired at spot was with the knowledge of<\/p>\n
petitioners and that petitioners cannot now wash off their hands<\/p>\n
claiming that they were unaware of pendancy of litigation.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel states that when W.P.(C).No.26789 of 2009 was<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.9 of 2010
\n                                  : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
pending in this court one of the petitioners had even taken part in<\/p>\n
the mediation that took place at the mediation center of this court<\/p>\n
which did not fructify. Petitioners have purchased the property<\/p>\n
from respondent Nos.2 and 3 pendente lite, and hence petitioners<\/p>\n
are not entitled to seek any relief as prayed for.         It is also<\/p>\n
contended that so far as enforcement of the order on I.A.No.488 of<\/p>\n
2007 is concerned, that has become final by the judgment of this<\/p>\n
court in W.P.(C).No.2144 of 2010 directing learned Munsiff to<\/p>\n
enforce the stay order even before going for trial of the suit.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel contends that at this stage there is no scope for<\/p>\n
invoking Section 89 of the Code as requested by learned Senior<\/p>\n
Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    It is not in dispute that it is after the impugned orders<\/p>\n
were passed that petitioners purchased property from respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.2 and 3 through which disputed B schedule way existed. It is<\/p>\n
not disputed that Advocate Commissioner inspected the property<\/p>\n
immediately after institution of the suit and when he visited the<\/p>\n
property a second time consequent to I.A.No.488 of 2007 he could<\/p>\n
not find the said pathway. It follows that in the meantime the<\/p>\n
pathway was interfere with either by respondent Nos.2 and 3 or,<\/p>\n
somebody else on their behalf. It is in these circumstances that<\/p>\n
learned Munsiff allowed I.A.No.488 of 2007 and that order has<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.9 of 2010
\n                                    : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
become final. The further fact which I have to bear in mind is that<\/p>\n
as per report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 has no other means of access to the plaint A schedule except<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule.       Now the question is whether grievance of<\/p>\n
petitioners is required to be redressed in this proceeding.<\/p>\n
      4.      The Supreme Court in Marirudraiah and Ors. Vs. B.<\/p>\n
Sarojamma and Ors. (2009(3) Supreme 309) has stated that<\/p>\n
courts are not supposed to encourage pendente lite transactions<\/p>\n
and regularise their conduct by showing equity in their favour. A<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge of this court in Ananda Pai Vs. Gopala Pai<\/p>\n
(2010(1) ILR Kerala 715) held that pendente lite transferee is<\/p>\n
not entitled to get an order of injunction against the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
that any such procedure is prima facie malafide.          As I stated,<\/p>\n
petitioners purchased the property from respondent Nos.2 and 3<\/p>\n
admittedly after the order of temporary injunction was passed in<\/p>\n
the case. If that be so, petitioners could very well see existence of<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule way the Advocate Commissioner found at the<\/p>\n
time of first inspection.       Respondent No.1 states that one of<\/p>\n
petitioners had taken part in the mediation that took place during<\/p>\n
the pendancy of W.P.(C).No.26789 of 2010 in this court. I find no<\/p>\n
reason why I should reject that assertion of learned counsel. If that<\/p>\n
be so, it is idle for petitioners to contend that they were unaware of<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.9 of 2010
\n                                : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
the pendancy of the suit or order of mandatory injunction whatever<\/p>\n
be the assertion of respondent Nos.2 and 3 may have made in the<\/p>\n
assignment deeds in favour of petitioners that there is no<\/p>\n
encumbrance over the property.       It follows that petitioners are<\/p>\n
bound by the orders passed by the learned Munsiff pertaining to<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Then the next question is whether at this stage the<\/p>\n
alternative way suggested by petitioners has to be accepted and<\/p>\n
further proceedings for enforcement of the order on I.A.No.488 of<\/p>\n
2007    is  to    be  stayed.   This   court   while    disposing of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.26789 of 2010 has referred to the flagrant violation of<\/p>\n
the order of prohibitory injunction indulged by respondent Nos.2<\/p>\n
and 3 or his men whoever they may be.            Paragraph 5 of the<\/p>\n
judgment in W.P.(C).No.26789 of 2010 describes attempts made by<\/p>\n
respondent Nos.2 and 3      or their men to violate the order of<\/p>\n
temporary injunction. When there was delay in enforcement of the<\/p>\n
order of mandatory injunction, this court by judgment in W.P.(C).<\/p>\n
No.2144 of 2010 interfered and directed learned Munsiff to enforce<\/p>\n
the order of injunction without waiting for trial of the suit.<\/p>\n
      6.    A request is made to refer the dispute for arbitration<\/p>\n
under to Section 89 of the Code. Respondent No.1 is not agreeable<\/p>\n
to any such alternative mode of redressal of the dispute.        The<\/p>\n
O.P(C).No.9 of 2010
\n                                    : 8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Supreme Court in V.K.Enterprises Vs. Shiva Steel (2010(3)<\/p>\n
KLT S.N 75 – Case No.82) has stated that unless the parties to<\/p>\n
the litigation assent, question of arbitration did not arise. On the<\/p>\n
face of resentment of respondent No.1 to arbitration, no resort<\/p>\n
could be had to Section 89 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    Then the next question is whether respondent No.1<\/p>\n
should be asked to be satisfied with the alternative way suggested<\/p>\n
by petitioners. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 is not agreeable for that course. He has obtained<\/p>\n
favourable orders in this suit. In such a situation respondent No.1<\/p>\n
could not be compelled to agree for the alternative way suggested<\/p>\n
by the petitioners. In the circumstance the reliefs requested for by<\/p>\n
petitioners cannot be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      This petition fails. It is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
Sbna\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Shajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP(C).No. 9 of 2010(O) 1. SHAJAN,S\/O.JOSEPH,AGED 41,THOTTUPATTU … Petitioner 2. RAJU JOHN,S\/O.JOHN,AGED 41,THOYALIL 3. JOSHYA.CHEMPARATHY,S\/O.AUGUSTINE,AGED Vs 1. JOSEPH,S\/O.ULAHANNAN,AGED 67, … Respondent 2. PAILY,S\/O.ULAHANNAN,AGED 73, 3. THOMMAN PAILY @RAJU,S\/O.PAILY,AGED 40, For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR.K (SR.) For Respondent : No […]<\/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-198782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 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\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-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=\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-21T20:07:27+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-21T20:07:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1713,\"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\\\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Shajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-21T20:07:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 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":"Shajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 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\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-21T20:07:27+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-21T20:07:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010"},"wordCount":1713,"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\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010","name":"Shajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-21T20:07:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shajan-vs-joseph-on-23-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shajan vs Joseph on 23 September, 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\/198782","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=198782"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198782\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}