{"id":202242,"date":"2007-06-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007"},"modified":"2016-11-28T16:40:56","modified_gmt":"2016-11-28T11:10:56","slug":"kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Kandankutty vs Chellan on 14 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kandankutty vs Chellan on 14 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 649 of 1992(B)\n\n\n\n1. KANDANKUTTY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. CHELLAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.VELAYUDHAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :14\/06\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n                ===========================\n\n                   S.A. NO.649    OF 1992\n\n                ===========================\n\n\n\n         Dated this the  14th day of June, 2007\n\n\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Plaintiff in O.S.23\/1973 on the file of Munsiff<\/p>\n
Court,   Palakkad   is   the   appellant.     Defendants   are<\/p>\n
the   respondents.         The   case   had   an   unfortunate<\/p>\n
checkered   history.     The   suit   was   filed   seeking   a<\/p>\n
decree  for  recovery  of  possession  of  a  small  strip<\/p>\n
of land lying in two survey numbers alleged to have<\/p>\n
been   trespassed   by   the   defendants   more   than   two<\/p>\n
decades   back.     The   trial   court   decreed   the   suit.\n<\/p>\n
Defendants   filed   an   appeal.     The   first   appellate<\/p>\n
Court   as   per   the   original   judgment   disagreed   with<\/p>\n
the   finding   of   the   trial   court   on   the   correctness<\/p>\n
of   Ext.C1   plan   prepared   by   the   Commissioner<\/p>\n
demarcating the properties.  Holding that there are<\/p>\n
“conscious interliniations and additions in Exts.A1<\/p>\n
and     A4   title     deeds   relied   on     by   the   plaintiff,<\/p>\n
the decree granted by the trial court was set aside<\/p>\n
and   the   suit   was   dismissed.     Plaintiffs   challenged<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
the   said   decree   and   judgment   before   this   Court   in<\/p>\n
S.A.18\/1980.     This   Court   found   that     case   of   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   that   his   property   is   lying   in   survey<\/p>\n
No.3354\/1B   and   3355\/2   was   not   disputed   by   the<\/p>\n
defendants.     It   was   also   found   contention   in   the<\/p>\n
written   statement   was   only   that   defendants   have<\/p>\n
constructed the disputed building three feet to the<\/p>\n
south   of   the   dividing   line   demarcating   the   survey<\/p>\n
numbers   and   the   real   dispute   is   where   exactly   the<\/p>\n
survey   boundary   line   of   the   respective   survey<\/p>\n
numbers lies and not whether plaintiff has title to<\/p>\n
the   property   comprised   in   R.S.No.3354\/1B   and<\/p>\n
3355\/2.   This court held that in the nature of the<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the parties,  first appellate<\/p>\n
Court   should   not   have   gone   into   the   question   of<\/p>\n
title   based   on   Exts.A1   and   A4   and   instead   should<\/p>\n
have   found   whether   the   properties   are   correctly<\/p>\n
demaracted   in   Ext.C1   plan.     This   court   also   found<\/p>\n
that   the   first   appellate   Court   had   interfered   with<\/p>\n
the  findings  of  the  trial  court  on  the  correctness<\/p>\n
of   Ext.C1   plan   without   any   sort   of   discussion   and<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
did not advert to  any   reasons for coming to that<\/p>\n
conclusion.       Therefore   the   judgment   of   the   first<\/p>\n
Appellate Court was set aside and  first appeal was<\/p>\n
remanded with  on the following directions.\n<\/p>\n
         “That   court   should   consider<\/p>\n
         whether   the   measurements   in<\/p>\n
         Ext.C1 plan are correct and if<\/p>\n
         so,          whether            the                   disputed<\/p>\n
         portions   fall   within   the   two<\/p>\n
         survey   numbers   claimed   by   the<\/p>\n
         plaintiff.    If   the   finding   on<\/p>\n
         the   aforesaid     point   is   in<\/p>\n
         favour   of   the   plaintiff,   the<\/p>\n
         court             below         has               next         to<\/p>\n
         consider                   the                        evidence<\/p>\n
         regarding   the   plea   of   adverse<\/p>\n
         possession   and   arrive   at   a<\/p>\n
         decision   as   to   whether   the<\/p>\n
         rights   of   the   plaintiff   has<\/p>\n
         been              lost            by                   adverse<\/p>\n
         possession.”(underline<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
         supplied)<\/p>\n
Therefore   what   was   directed   by   this   court     was   to<\/p>\n
firstly   consider   whether   the   properties   are<\/p>\n
correctly   demarcated   in   Ext.C1   plan   and   Ext.C1<\/p>\n
plan   is   correct.       This   court   also   made   it   clear<\/p>\n
that   on   such   correct   demarcation,   if   the   disputed<\/p>\n
property   falls   in     survey   No.3354\/1B   and   3355\/2,<\/p>\n
first   appellate   Court   need   not   further   probe<\/p>\n
further     the   question   whether   plaintiff   has   title<\/p>\n
to that property   as   defendants did not claim any<\/p>\n
right over the properties in those survey numbers,<\/p>\n
and   so   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   the   decree   unless<\/p>\n
his     title   is   barred   by   adverse   possession   and<\/p>\n
limitation.     After   remand,     first   appellate   Court<\/p>\n
again   found   that   Ext.C1   plan   cannot   be   relied   on<\/p>\n
and   held   that   plaintiff   is   not   entitled   to   the<\/p>\n
decree.     That   judgment   was   challenged     by   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   in   S.A.543\/1986.            This   Court   again<\/p>\n
remanded   the   first   appeal   holding   that   the   first<\/p>\n
Appellate Court did not comply with the directions<\/p>\n
in   the   order   of   remand.          Learned   Sub   Judge<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
thereafter   heard   the   appeal   once   again   and   as   per<\/p>\n
judgment   dated   31.1.1992   allowed   the   appeal   and<\/p>\n
dismissed   the   suit.     The   Second   Appeal   is   filed<\/p>\n
challenging the said judgment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2.   Second Appeal was admitted formulating the<\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law.<\/p>\n
           1.   The finding on title in<\/p>\n
           S.A.No.18\/1980   being   that<\/p>\n
           the   plaintiff   has   title   to<\/p>\n
           the         entire                 property                      in<\/p>\n
           R.S.No.3354\/1B   and   3355\/2<\/p>\n
           and          the                   remand                        in<\/p>\n
           S.A.543\/1986   was   with   the<\/p>\n
           specific                 direction                               to<\/p>\n
           decide   the   question   whether<\/p>\n
           the   disputed   portion   falls<\/p>\n
           within            the                   two               survey<\/p>\n
           numbers   mentioned   in   the<\/p>\n
           plaint schedule is not   the<\/p>\n
           function               of                the               lower<\/p>\n
           appellate  court   limited to<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
           find            out              whether                          the<\/p>\n
           disputed   area   falls   within<\/p>\n
           the   survey   numbers   claimed<\/p>\n
           by   the   plaintiff                                          and<\/p>\n
           whether                         the                         first<\/p>\n
           appellate                         court                            is<\/p>\n
           justified                        in                   further<\/p>\n
           embarking   upon   the   question<\/p>\n
           of         the             title                 of               the<\/p>\n
           plaintiff   to   the   disputed<\/p>\n
           plot.\n<\/p>\n
           2.     In   view   of   the   orders<\/p>\n
           of remand in S.A.Nos. 18 of<\/p>\n
           1980            and             543              of              1986<\/p>\n
           confining   the   jurisdiction<\/p>\n
           of   the   first                         appellate<\/p>\n
           court           to              two         questions<\/p>\n
           namely   whether   the   disputed<\/p>\n
           land   is   in   the   two   survey<\/p>\n
           numbers               claimed                     by              the<\/p>\n
           plaintiff   and   whether   the<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
           suit   is   barred   by   adverse<\/p>\n
           possession   and   limitation,<\/p>\n
           is   the   first        appellate<\/p>\n
           court  correct in   exceeding<\/p>\n
           the   scope   of     remand   and<\/p>\n
           refusing  to enter a finding<\/p>\n
           on   the   question   of   adverse<\/p>\n
           possession and limitation.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   The   argument   of     learned   counsel   appearing<\/p>\n
for the appellant was that as per the first remand<\/p>\n
order,   the   title   of   the   appellant   to   the   property<\/p>\n
comprised   in   survey   No.3354\/1B   and   3355\/2   was<\/p>\n
upheld   and   the   first   appellate   Court   was   not<\/p>\n
competent to go into that question further.  It was<\/p>\n
further argued that as per the second remand order,<\/p>\n
that   was   reiterated   and   the   correctness   of   Ext.C1<\/p>\n
plan   was   also     confirmed   and   therefore     first<\/p>\n
Appellate   Court   is   not   entitled   to   go   into   those<\/p>\n
questions     and   as   per   Ext.C1   plan,   the   disputed<\/p>\n
portion   falls   within   survey   No.3354\/1A   and   3355\/2,<\/p>\n
and   so     learned   Sub   Judge   should   have   considered<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
the claim for adverse possession and as it was not<\/p>\n
done,   the   judgment   is   bad   for   non   compliance   of<\/p>\n
the directions of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
      4.          Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the<\/p>\n
respondents   argued   that   this   court   did   not   uphold<\/p>\n
the   correctness   of   Ext.C1   plan   and   instead   first<\/p>\n
appellate   court   was   specifically   directed   to<\/p>\n
consider   whether   the   properties   are   correctly<\/p>\n
demarcated   in   Ext.C1   plan   and   only   if   it   is   found<\/p>\n
that   Ext.C1   plan   is   prepared   after   proper<\/p>\n
demarcation, and the disputed property falls within<\/p>\n
the   survey   numbers   claimed   by   the   plaintiff,   a<\/p>\n
decree   could   be   granted   and   that   too   only   if   the<\/p>\n
plea on adverse possession is negatived and   first<\/p>\n
appellate   Court   did   not   find   the   correctness   of<\/p>\n
Ext.C1   plan   and   therefore   a   decree   as   sought   for<\/p>\n
cannot be granted.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   On   going   through   the   orders   of   remand<\/p>\n
passed          by         this         Court         in         S.A.18\/1980         and<\/p>\n
S.A.543\/1986,   I   cannot   agree   with   the   argument   of<\/p>\n
the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
that   the   entire   dispute   between   the   parties   on<\/p>\n
title and correctness of Ext.C1 plan were settled.\n<\/p>\n
If   the   argument   of   the   learned   counsel   appearing<\/p>\n
for   the   appellant   is   to   be   accepted,   and<\/p>\n
correctness   of   Ext.C1   plan   was   confirmed     by   this<\/p>\n
court and  title of the appellant to the properties<\/p>\n
comprised in survey Nos.3354\/1B and 3355\/2 was also<\/p>\n
confirmed,the             only              question         left<\/p>\n
to   be   decided   is   whether   the   disputed   portion<\/p>\n
marked   in   Ext.C1   plan   falls   within   the   survey<\/p>\n
Nos.3354\/1B   and   3355\/2   and   the   adverse   possession.\n<\/p>\n
A   reading   of   the   judgment   of   this   court   in<\/p>\n
S.A.18\/1980 establish that this court did not affix<\/p>\n
its   seal   of   approval   on   the   correctness   of   Ext.C1<\/p>\n
plan. On the other hand, the court found that first<\/p>\n
appellate   court   without   giving   any   reason   and<\/p>\n
without   discussing   the   correctness   of   measurements<\/p>\n
did   not   accept   Ext.C1   and   first   appellate   court<\/p>\n
should not have skipped over that subject. What was<\/p>\n
found   by   this   court   was   that   the   dispute     between<\/p>\n
the   parties   was   actually   whether   the   disputed<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
portion   of   the   property   falls   within                                    R.S.\n<\/p>\n
No.3354\/1B   and   R.S.No.   3355\/2   belonging   to   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   or   in   the   property   belonging   to   the<\/p>\n
respondents and respondent did not claim any right<\/p>\n
in   the   property   in   R.S.No.3354\/1   and   3355\/2.     The<\/p>\n
admitted   case   was   that   the   demarcating   boundary<\/p>\n
between   the     properties   claimed   by   the   plaintiff<\/p>\n
and   defendants   is   the   survey   boundary   line.     This<\/p>\n
court   found   that   though   trial   court   upheld   the<\/p>\n
correctness          of         the         plan         prepared         by         the<\/p>\n
Commissioner   giving   reasons   and   granted   a   decree<\/p>\n
based   on   Ext.C1   plan,   first   Appellate   Court   found<\/p>\n
otherwise   but   without   giving   reasons.     Therefore<\/p>\n
this court held that   first Appellate Court should<\/p>\n
consider   whether   Ext.C1   plan   was   drawn   up   by   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner correctly.   It was then held   that if<\/p>\n
the   plan   is   found   to   be   drawn   correctly   with   the<\/p>\n
correct measurement and the disputed property falls<\/p>\n
within R.S. Nos.3354\/1B and R.S.No. 3355\/2 and  the<\/p>\n
defendants   failed   to     establish   that   they   have<\/p>\n
perfected   their   title   by   adverse   possession,<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff   is   entitled   to   the   decree.     This   court<\/p>\n
did   not   hold     first   appellate   Court   need   only   to<\/p>\n
look   into   Ext.C1   plan   and   find   out   whether   the<\/p>\n
disputed   portion   as   marked   therein   falls   in   R.S.\n<\/p>\n
Nos.3354\/1B          and         R.S.No.3355\/2         as         demarcated<\/p>\n
therein.     If   that   was   the   case,   this   court   could<\/p>\n
have   decided   that   issue     by     looking   at   Ext.C1<\/p>\n
plan. Instead this court wanted the correctness of<\/p>\n
Ext.C1   plan   to   be   ascertained   by   the   first<\/p>\n
appellate   court     before   deciding   that   aspect,   and<\/p>\n
for   that   purpose   the   first   appeal   was   remanded.\n<\/p>\n
When the matter was considered in the second remand<\/p>\n
order,   this   court   held   that   first   appellate   Court<\/p>\n
should not have gone into the question of title and<\/p>\n
should have complied with the directions passed by<\/p>\n
this   court.       Though   there   is   a   statement   in   the<\/p>\n
second remand order that in the first remand order<\/p>\n
this   court     “in   a   way   the   plan   prepared   by   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner was approved by this Court.”  what was<\/p>\n
held was that the said plan was approved   with the<\/p>\n
directions   provided   in   the   first   remand   order.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
Therefore   the   second   remand   order   cannot   be   held<\/p>\n
as   a   confirmation   of   correctness   of   Ext.C1   plan.\n<\/p>\n
In   the   second   remand   order,   this   court   did   not<\/p>\n
consider the correctness of Ext.C1 plan at all.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   Unfortunately   even   after   the   second   remand<\/p>\n
order     first   appellate   Court   did   not   consider<\/p>\n
whether   Ext.C1   plan   was   correctly   drawn   by   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner and whether it could be relied on.  In<\/p>\n
such   circumstances,   there   is   no   other   alternative<\/p>\n
but   to   set   aside   the   judgment   passed   by   the   first<\/p>\n
appellate   Court   once   again   and   remand   the   matter.\n<\/p>\n
The   question   then     is   whether   a     remand   is   to   be<\/p>\n
made   to   the   first   appellate   Court   or   to   the   trial<\/p>\n
court as canvassed by the respondents.   The orders<\/p>\n
of   remand   passed   by   this   Court   earlier   direct   the<\/p>\n
first   Appellate   Court   to   consider   the   question   of<\/p>\n
correctness of Ext.C1 plan.  That is binding on the<\/p>\n
respondents.     They   are     now   not     entitled   to<\/p>\n
contend   that   the   case   is   to   be   remanded   to   the<\/p>\n
trial   court.     When   the   first   appellate   Court   did<\/p>\n
not comply with the directions of this Court and a<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                              13<\/span><\/p>\n
remand is warranted, it could  be remanded only  to<\/p>\n
the first appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
       7. The appeal is allowed.   The judgment of the<\/p>\n
Sub   Court,   Palakkad   in   A.S.14\/1976   is   set   aside.\n<\/p>\n
A.S.14\/1976   is   restored   and   remanded.The   first<\/p>\n
appellate Court is   directed to dispose the appeal<\/p>\n
afresh in the light of the directions given by this<\/p>\n
Court   in   S.A.18\/1980   and   as   clarified   in   the<\/p>\n
judgment.     It   is   made   clear   that     first   appellate<\/p>\n
Court is to consider whether the demarcation of the<\/p>\n
properties   in   Ext.C1   plan   is   correct   or   not.     If<\/p>\n
the     Court   finds   that   the   demarcation   in   Ext.C1<\/p>\n
plan   is   not   correct,     court   has   to   set   aside   the<\/p>\n
report and remit the matter back to the trial court<\/p>\n
for         preparing         a         fresh         plan         after         proper<\/p>\n
demarcation.     On   the   other   hand,   if   the     Court<\/p>\n
finds that the property is correctly demarcated in<\/p>\n
Ext.C1   plan   and   the   disputed   property   falls   in<\/p>\n
survey,   R.S.   Nos.3354\/1B   and   3355\/2,court   need   not<\/p>\n
consider     whether     plaintiff   has   title   to   that<\/p>\n
property and instead find that plaintiff has title.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1992                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
Then   it   is   to   be   considered   whether   respondents<\/p>\n
have   perfected   their   title   by   adverse   possession.\n<\/p>\n
If   it   is   found   against   the   respondents,   plaintiff<\/p>\n
is   to   be   granted   the     decree.     It   is   also   made<\/p>\n
clear   that     if     first   appellate   Court   finds   that<\/p>\n
question   of   correctness   in   Ext.C1   plan   cannot   be<\/p>\n
decided   without   further   evidence,   first   appellate<\/p>\n
Court   can   be   granted   permission   to   the   parties   to<\/p>\n
adduce evidence to that limited purpose.   If it is<\/p>\n
found   that   the   disputed   property   does   not   fall   in<\/p>\n
R.S.3354\/1B or 3355\/2 or even if falls respondents<\/p>\n
have   perfected   their   title   by   adverse   possession<\/p>\n
the suit shall be dismissed.   Parties are directed<\/p>\n
to   appear   before   the   Sub     Court,   Palakkad     on<\/p>\n
18.7.07.     Send   back   the   records   to   Sub   Court,<\/p>\n
Palakkad forthwith.\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
     W.P.(C).NO. \/06<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kandankutty vs Chellan on 14 June, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 649 of 1992(B) 1. KANDANKUTTY … Petitioner Vs 1. CHELLAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS For Respondent :SRI.P.VELAYUDHAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :14\/06\/2007 O R D E R M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== S.A. […]<\/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-202242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKandankutty vs Chellan on 14 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\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kandankutty vs Chellan on 14 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-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=\"2007-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-28T11:10:56+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\\\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kandankutty vs Chellan on 14 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-28T11:10:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2135,\"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\\\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Kandankutty vs Chellan on 14 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-28T11:10:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kandankutty vs Chellan on 14 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":"Kandankutty vs Chellan on 14 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\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kandankutty vs Chellan on 14 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-28T11:10:56+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\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kandankutty vs Chellan on 14 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-28T11:10:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007"},"wordCount":2135,"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\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007","name":"Kandankutty vs Chellan on 14 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-28T11:10:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandankutty-vs-chellan-on-14-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kandankutty vs Chellan on 14 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\/202242","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=202242"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202242\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}