{"id":207147,"date":"2010-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-21T08:19:30","modified_gmt":"2017-03-21T02:49:30","slug":"valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Valiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Valiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 40 of 2003()\n\n\n\n1. VALIYAPARAMBIL V.P.GOPALAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. KALLIANI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :03\/08\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n         PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n                    ----------------------------------\n\n                      R.C.R. No.40 of 2003\n\n                   ----------------------------------\n\n               Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010\n\n\n                             O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                            —————-\n<\/p>\n
Abdul Rehim, J.\n<\/p>\n
           Tenant of the petition schedule building, who is the<\/p>\n
1st respondent in RCP.No.68\/99 on the files of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Court, Koyilandy is the revision petitioner. Eviction was sought<\/p>\n
under Section 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(v) of the Kerala Buildings<\/p>\n
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (for short the Act). The Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court disallowed eviction on both grounds. In appeal<\/p>\n
the findings with respect to claim under Section 11(4)(v) was<\/p>\n
reversed and eviction was ordered. Since the landlords have<\/p>\n
failed to cause statutory notice with respect to eviction sought<\/p>\n
under Section 11(2)(b), both court disallowed eviction on that<\/p>\n
grounds, concurrently.       There is no revision filed by the<\/p>\n
landlords in that respect. Hence in this revision we are<\/p>\n
concerned only with the order of eviction passed under Section<\/p>\n
11(4)(v).\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The petition schedule building includes two rooms;<\/p>\n
one in the ground floor and the other in the first floor. The<\/p>\n
tenant was doing business of renting out sound systems under<\/p>\n
RCR.40\/03                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
the name and style “Udaya Sounds” in the ground floor, and was<\/p>\n
running a chit fund called ‘Jupiter Trading Company’ in the first<\/p>\n
floor.  Allegation was that the tenant had stopped both the<\/p>\n
businesses and that he had ceased to occupy the petition<\/p>\n
schedule room for the last ten years, without any reasonable<\/p>\n
cause. The Rent Control Petition was resisted contending that,<\/p>\n
the tenant is doing business in renting out cycles, tables, chairs,<\/p>\n
etc. in the room in the ground floor. The first floor was being<\/p>\n
used as office of the chitty company, and afterwards as office of<\/p>\n
his business in lorry service. At present the first floor is being<\/p>\n
used as godown wherein old tables, broken chairs etc. are kept.<\/p>\n
According to the tenant both the buildings are being occupied<\/p>\n
and the allegation of cessation was emphatically denied.<\/p>\n
      3.   Evidence in this case consisted of oral testimony of<\/p>\n
PW1 (the third petitioner in the RCP ) and PW2 Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner through whom Ext.C1 report was marked, on the<\/p>\n
side of the landlords. From the side of the tenants RWs 1 to 5<\/p>\n
were examined and Exts.B1 to B10 were marked.                  On<\/p>\n
appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Court found that the landlords have not succeeded in proving<\/p>\n
that the tenant had ceased to occupy the schedule building since<\/p>\n
the last more than six months.         Hence the petition was<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
RCR.40\/03                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
     4.    In an appeal filed by the landlords, the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority reversed the findings on the basis of a re-appreciation<\/p>\n
of the evidence on record. The Appellate Authority had heavily<\/p>\n
relied on Ext.C1 commission report and on the oral testimony of<\/p>\n
PW2, the Advocate Commissioner.          The commissioner had<\/p>\n
reported that the room was seen closed and a heap of rubbish<\/p>\n
was noticed on the veranda. It is reported that the veranda was<\/p>\n
seen covered with soil and dust and there was dust collected on<\/p>\n
the keyhole and in between the wooden planks of the door. It is<\/p>\n
further reported that the rafters and tiles of the roof of the<\/p>\n
veranda were found to be dirty with cob-webs.         Further, in<\/p>\n
Ext.C1 report it is stated that the neighbouring shop owners had<\/p>\n
informed that the scheduled rooms are remaining closed since<\/p>\n
the last five years. The commissioner had also noted that six<\/p>\n
cycles were seen parked on the veranda of the room in the<\/p>\n
ground floor.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    From the side of the tenant there is evidence adduced<\/p>\n
to prove that on the date of inspection he was not keeping well<\/p>\n
and was undergoing treatment. Ext.B1 medical certificate was<\/p>\n
proved through examination of PW2 Doctor, who is none other<\/p>\n
than the Assistant Professor of the Medical College Hospital,<\/p>\n
Calicut. Exts.B2 and B3 are the medical prescriptions. In order<\/p>\n
to prove the aspect of physical occupation and conduct of<\/p>\n
RCR.40\/03                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
business, the tenant had produced Ext.B4 series Books of<\/p>\n
Accounts relating to hiring of cycles, Ext.B5 series receipts<\/p>\n
evidencing payment of vehicle tax to the Panchayat for the year<\/p>\n
1984-85, Ext.B6 series cash books relating to the business of<\/p>\n
hiring of furniture and utensils etc: But the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
without any appreciation of the documentary or oral evidence<\/p>\n
from the side of the tenant, observed that there is no evidence to<\/p>\n
show that the room is being opened and kept neat and tidy, to<\/p>\n
indicate the day to day occupation. It is also found that oral<\/p>\n
testimony of RW3 and RW4, neighbouring shop owners,<\/p>\n
regarding occupation of the scheduled rooms and conduct of<\/p>\n
business by the tenant therefrom cannot be relied on, as they<\/p>\n
are interested versions. It is further found that even assuming<\/p>\n
that the tenant is doing hiring of cycles by engaging employees,<\/p>\n
such business is being carried out only from the veranda of the<\/p>\n
schedule room in the ground floor and that the premises is not<\/p>\n
being actually occupied by the tenant. On the basis of findings<\/p>\n
as stated above, the Appellate Authority concluded that the<\/p>\n
tenant had ceased to occupy the building and ordered eviction<\/p>\n
under Section 11(4)(v).\n<\/p>\n
      6.   Sri. C.Jayachandran, learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner   addressed   vehement     arguments     assailing the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment of the Appellate Authority.              It was<\/p>\n
RCR.40\/03                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
contended that discharge of the initial burden of proof on the<\/p>\n
side of the landlords brought in through the commission report<\/p>\n
was successfully rebutted by the tenant by offering proper<\/p>\n
explanations for the shop being remained closed on the date of<\/p>\n
commission inspection. It is contended that there is absolutely<\/p>\n
no reason to disbelieve RW2 Doctor and the documents Exts.B1<\/p>\n
to B3.   It is argued that, once the tenant was successful in<\/p>\n
rebutting the prima facie evidence regarding cessation of<\/p>\n
occupation, found on the date of the commission inspection, it is<\/p>\n
the further burden of the landlords to supplement additional<\/p>\n
evidence worthy enough to prove that there was continued<\/p>\n
cessation of occupation. But the landlords have totally failed in<\/p>\n
adducing any convincing evidence in this regard. It is argued<\/p>\n
that with respect to a commercial building the crucial evidence<\/p>\n
is regarding conduct of business. From Exts.B4 to B7 it is clear<\/p>\n
and evident that there was actual conduct of the business in the<\/p>\n
premises. According to the learned counsel there is total non-<\/p>\n
appreciation of the evidence in the correct perspective by the<\/p>\n
learned Appellate Authority.    It is also contended, that the<\/p>\n
learned Appellate Authority went highly erred while observing<\/p>\n
that even for hiring of cycles from the veranda by engaging<\/p>\n
employees, the schedule room is not required and is not<\/p>\n
occupied.\n<\/p>\n
RCR.40\/03                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
     7.   Per contra, Sri.C.P.Mohammed Nias, learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the landlords argued that evidence from the side of the<\/p>\n
tenant is not at all trustworthy and there are a lot of<\/p>\n
discrepancies in the documentary evidence.        On a proper<\/p>\n
appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence it can be<\/p>\n
revealed that the contentions of the tenant regarding actual<\/p>\n
occupation and conduct of the business in the schedule<\/p>\n
premises, is totally false.   Learned counsel made an attempt<\/p>\n
before this court to elaborate on the discrepancies and<\/p>\n
contradictions in the documentary evidence, Exts.B1 to B7. He<\/p>\n
also emphasised on the oral testimonies of PW2, the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner. According to the learned counsel, if the entire<\/p>\n
evidence adduced before the Rent Control Court is re-<\/p>\n
appreciated in a proper manner, inference of continued<\/p>\n
cessation of occupation by the tenant can easily be arrived.<\/p>\n
Hence the eviction ordered under Section 11(4)(v) is to be<\/p>\n
sustained by this court, is the contention.\n<\/p>\n
     8.   In the statutory scheme the Appellate Authority is the<\/p>\n
final fact finding court.     In our attenuated jurisdiction of<\/p>\n
revisional power under Section 20 of the Act, we are not<\/p>\n
supposed to venture upon a total re-appreciation of the evidence<\/p>\n
on record. On an anxious consideration of the order of the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court as well as judgment of the Appellate Authority we<\/p>\n
RCR.40\/03                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
are convinced that there is no proper re-appraisal from the side<\/p>\n
of the Appellate Authority with respect to the entire evidence<\/p>\n
adduced from the side of the tenants. There is absolutely no<\/p>\n
discussions in the judgment of the Appellate Authority touching<\/p>\n
the documentary evidence adduced from the side of the tenant.<\/p>\n
The heavy reliance placed on the evidence based on the<\/p>\n
commission report need be weighed on comparison with the<\/p>\n
worthiness of the contra evidence adduced by the tenant<\/p>\n
through Exts.B1 to B7 and also the oral testimonies of RW2 to<\/p>\n
RW5. We notice there is lack of any such comparison of the<\/p>\n
evidence. The conclusions arrived at by the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
are not based on a proper appreciation of the contradictory<\/p>\n
evidences adduced from both sides.        Hence we re of the<\/p>\n
considered opinion that the matter need fresh consideration and<\/p>\n
disposal at the hands of the Appellate Authority.<\/p>\n
     9.    Mr.Nias submitted that in case of relegating the<\/p>\n
matter back to the Appellate Authority, the landlords may be<\/p>\n
given chance to adduce further documentary evidence, if found<\/p>\n
necessary, to prove actual cessation of occupation.     We are<\/p>\n
inclined to grant such relief.\n<\/p>\n
     10. We take note of the fact that the rate of monthly rent<\/p>\n
being paid with respect to the schedule premises is ridiculously<\/p>\n
low, when compared with the prevailing rate of rent in the<\/p>\n
RCR.40\/03                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
locality. It is admitted by both sides that the current rate of rent<\/p>\n
was fixed long back.      Therefore we are inclined to make a<\/p>\n
tentative re-fixation of the monthly rent as Rs.400\/-, with effect<\/p>\n
from 1.9.2010 onwards. It is made clear that the re-fixation of<\/p>\n
rent is made on a purely provisional basis and either parties are<\/p>\n
at liberty to approach the Rent Control Court for fixation of fair<\/p>\n
rent under Section 5 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Appellate Authority is hereby set aside. The<\/p>\n
matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh<\/p>\n
consideration and disposal. It is open to the landlords to adduce<\/p>\n
further documentary evidence if found necessary, to prove the<\/p>\n
cessation of occupation. Needless to say that the tenant should<\/p>\n
be given opportunity to rebut such evidence, if any adduced. The<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority shall dispose of the matter as early as<\/p>\n
possible.     The parties are directed to appear before the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority on 2.9.2010. Registry will transfer all the<\/p>\n
records forthwith.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                                 C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
okb<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Valiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 40 of 2003() 1. VALIYAPARAMBIL V.P.GOPALAN … Petitioner Vs 1. KALLIANI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNAN For Respondent :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM Dated :03\/08\/2010 O […]<\/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-207147","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nValiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 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\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Valiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-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=\"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-21T02:49:30+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\\\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Valiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-21T02:49:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1737,\"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\\\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Valiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-21T02:49:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Valiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 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":"Valiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 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\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Valiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-21T02:49:30+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\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Valiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-21T02:49:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010"},"wordCount":1737,"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\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010","name":"Valiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-21T02:49:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valiyaparambil-v-p-gopalan-vs-kalliani-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Valiyaparambil V.P.Gopalan vs Kalliani on 3 August, 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\/207147","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=207147"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207147\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}