{"id":203165,"date":"2010-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-01T05:15:37","modified_gmt":"2018-03-31T23:45:37","slug":"t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"T.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 72 of 2010()\n\n\n1. T.K.BHASKARAN, AGED 73 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. PARAKKANDY THAHA AGED 50 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.PREMCHAND\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :06\/04\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n      PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n            ------------------------------------------\n                  RCR. No. 72 & 73 of 2010\n           -------------------------------------------\n            Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Under challenge in these revision petitions filed by two<\/p>\n
tenants in possession of two rooms in a larger building<\/p>\n
belonging to the respondent Sri. Thaha is the judgment of<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Appellate Authority remanding          the rent<\/p>\n
control petitions to the Rent Control Court.        Eviction was<\/p>\n
sought on the ground of reconstruction under section 11(4)<\/p>\n
(iv).  The Rent Control Court dismissed the rent control<\/p>\n
petition on various reasons. The Appellate Authority made a<\/p>\n
thorough reappraisal of the evidence and formulated the<\/p>\n
following points as points arising for decision in the appeal.<\/p>\n
      1.  Whether     the   landlord   bonafide    requires  re-
\n         construction of the petition schedule building<\/p>\n
      2. Whether the landlord has satisfied the court that he
\n         has the ability to rebuild the building as proposed by
\n         him?\n<\/p>\n
      3. Whether IA. Nos. 1562\/07, 909\/08 and 1608\/09 are<\/p>\n
 RC R. 72 & 73 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                               – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
\n          allowable?\n<\/p>\n
      4. Whether the order of the Rent Control Court requires
\n          interference?\n<\/p>\n
      5. Whether the landlord is entitled to eviction u\/s. 11
\n          (4)(iv) of the Act?\n<\/p>\n
\nOn the basis of the appreciation of the evidence on record<\/p>\n
the Appellate Authority answered point No.1 in favour of the<\/p>\n
landlord and found that the condition of the building is such<\/p>\n
that the same requires reconstruction. But as regards point<\/p>\n
No.2 whether the landlord has the ability to reconstruct the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority found that the evidence presently<\/p>\n
available falls short of holding that the landlord has proved<\/p>\n
his ability to carry out the reconstruction. The point No.3<\/p>\n
considered was regarding one interlocutory application filed<\/p>\n
by the tenant and two interlocutory applications filed by the<\/p>\n
landlord. The tenant revision petitioner through I.A.1562\/07<\/p>\n
wanted the Appellate Authority to accept the certified copy<\/p>\n
of the order in RCP No. 117 of 2008 passed by the Rent<\/p>\n
 RC R. 72 & 73 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                               – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
\nControl Court during the pendency of the appeal. IA. Nos.<\/p>\n
909\/08 and 1608\/09 were filed by the landlord for the<\/p>\n
reception of certain documents which will prove that the<\/p>\n
landlord has the financial        ability to carry out the<\/p>\n
reconstruction.        The Rent Control Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
dismissed both these three applications. Point Nos. 4 and 5<\/p>\n
were answered by the Appellate Authority by setting aside<\/p>\n
the order of the Rent Control Court and passing an order of<\/p>\n
remand to the Rent Control Court for considering the<\/p>\n
question whether the landlord has the ability to carry out the<\/p>\n
reconstruction.\n<\/p>\n
      2. In these revisions identical grounds challenging the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Appellate Authority have been raised and<\/p>\n
we have heard the submissions of Sri.VRK Kaimal, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.V.Premchand,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondent landlord. Even though<\/p>\n
Mr. Kaimal addressed arguments on all the grounds raised in<\/p>\n
the memorandum of revision he would lastly request that we<\/p>\n
 RC R. 72 & 73 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                 – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
\nenlarge the scope of the order of remand passed by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority making the order an open remand so<\/p>\n
that the Rent Control Court can decide all relevant points<\/p>\n
arising in the case afresh after giving opportunity to both<\/p>\n
sides to adduce whatever further evidence they want to.<\/p>\n
The    above       request  is opposed   by  Mr.    Premchand.<\/p>\n
Petitioners       are  aggrieved   by  the  order    dismissing<\/p>\n
IA.1562\/07.        According to them, the certified copy of the<\/p>\n
order in RCP No. 117\/08 has considerable implication. The<\/p>\n
landlord’s wife who was examined as PW-1 in that RCP<\/p>\n
confessed that she and her husband have no intention<\/p>\n
whatsoever to reconstruct the building in question.         By<\/p>\n
dismissing the IA the Appellate Authority shut out a very<\/p>\n
vital piece of evidence. The submissions of Mr.Kaimal were<\/p>\n
resisted by Mr.Premchand. Mr. Premmchand also however,<\/p>\n
submitted that the landlord is aggrieved by the order of the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority dismissing the two IAs filed by him. We<\/p>\n
have very anxiously considered the rival submissions<\/p>\n
 RC R. 72 & 73 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                               – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
\naddressed at the Bar. We have scanned the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n
      3. We are not inclined to leave all the relevant issues in<\/p>\n
the case      open to be decided afresh by the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Court.      According to us, the finding of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority under point No.1 raised by that authority that the<\/p>\n
building in question requires reconstruction is a correct<\/p>\n
finding based on evidence.       The building, going by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner’s Report is one in which dilapidation has set<\/p>\n
in. The building is situated in a commercially very important<\/p>\n
area of Kannur Muicipal Town. That being so, we are of the<\/p>\n
considered opinion that there is no warrant for interfering<\/p>\n
with the Appellate Authority’s finding under point No.1<\/p>\n
formulated in its judgment.        We do not think that the<\/p>\n
landlord can have any legitimate grievance against the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority’s order dismissing IA Nos. 909\/08 and<\/p>\n
1608\/09.       Even though those IAs by which the landlord<\/p>\n
sought reception of documents which will prove the<\/p>\n
 RC R. 72 & 73 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                                – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
\nlandlord’s ability were dismissed since the question of ability<\/p>\n
has been left open to be decided by the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Court will certainly permit the landlord to<\/p>\n
produce the document which the landlord wanted to produce<\/p>\n
before the Appellate Authority. But it appears to us that<\/p>\n
there are elements of genuineness in the grievance of the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners that IA. No. 1562\/07 has been dismissed<\/p>\n
without giving opportunity to the revision petitioners for<\/p>\n
producing documents before the Rent Control Court.<\/p>\n
      4. We feel that the implications of the order in<\/p>\n
RCP.117\/08 which was sought to be produced by the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners is also an aspect to be considered by the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Court. We are therefore of the view that the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority warrants<\/p>\n
modification to the extent of permitting the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners tenants to produce the certified copy of the order<\/p>\n
in RCP No. 117\/08 also as an additional item of evidence in<\/p>\n
the RCP.       To that extent the scope of the remand order<\/p>\n
 RC R. 72 & 73 of 2010\n<\/p>\n
                              – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
\npassed by the Appellate Authority will stand enlarged. In all<\/p>\n
other respects findings of the Appellate Authority will stand<\/p>\n
confirmed. That is to say that the issues to be decided by<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Court are: (1) the ability of the landlord to<\/p>\n
carry out reconstruction (2) the possibility of the landlord to<\/p>\n
re-induct all the evicted tenants in terms of the third proviso<\/p>\n
to Section 11 (4)(iv) after reconstruction and (3) the<\/p>\n
implications of the order in RCP No.117 of 2008 on the<\/p>\n
landlord’s entitlement to get eviction order under Section 11<\/p>\n
(4)(iv).\n<\/p>\n
      RCRs. Are disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                          PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                          C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
\nksv\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 72 of 2010() 1. T.K.BHASKARAN, AGED 73 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. PARAKKANDY THAHA AGED 50 YEARS, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL For Respondent :SRI.V.PREMCHAND The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE […]<\/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-203165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 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\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-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=\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-31T23:45:37+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-31T23:45:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1099,\"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\\\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010\",\"name\":\"T.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-31T23:45:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 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":"T.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 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\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-31T23:45:37+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-31T23:45:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010"},"wordCount":1099,"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\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010","name":"T.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-31T23:45:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-bhaskaran-vs-parakkandy-thaha-aged-50-years-on-6-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.K.Bhaskaran vs Parakkandy Thaha Aged 50 Years on 6 April, 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\/203165","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=203165"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203165\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}