{"id":207357,"date":"2007-03-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007"},"modified":"2014-03-14T18:24:06","modified_gmt":"2014-03-14T12:54:06","slug":"poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Poulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Poulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 82 of 1993()\n\n\n\n1. POULOSE GEORGE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI M.C.CHERIAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :08\/03\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n               ===========================\n\n                  S.A.  NO.82    OF 1993\n\n               ===========================\n\n\n\n         Dated this the 7th day of March 2007\n\n\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Plaintiffs in O.S.193\/82 on the file of Munsiff<\/p>\n
Court, Muvattupuzha are the appellants. Respondents<\/p>\n
are   the   defendants.          Suit   was   filed   for   a<\/p>\n
declaration   that   the   order   in   C.R.P.826\/75   dated<\/p>\n
5.2.1976   is   not     binding   on   the   plaintiffs   or   the<\/p>\n
plaint   schedule   property   and   for   a   permanent<\/p>\n
prohibitory   injunction   restraining   defendants   from<\/p>\n
interfering   with   the   peaceful   possession   and<\/p>\n
enjoyment   of   the     plaint   schedule   property   and<\/p>\n
alternatively   for   recovery   of   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
property in case it is found that defendants are in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property.          Taluk   Land   Board<\/p>\n
initiated   proceedings   under   section   85   (8)     of<\/p>\n
Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act   against   fourth   defendant<\/p>\n
finding   that   he   is   in   possession   of   excess   land<\/p>\n
than the ceiling area.   A notice was issued to the<\/p>\n
appellants  also    in  that  ceiling  case.    Appellants<\/p>\n
S.A.82\/93                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
appeared   and   contended   that              plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property   was   purchased   by   first   appellant   and   his<\/p>\n
brother   Krishna   Iyer   on   25.2.1115(M.E.)                 and<\/p>\n
22.6.1115   (M.E.)     and   on   2.7.1120   the   said   four<\/p>\n
acres   were   partitioned   between   the   first   appellant<\/p>\n
and   his   brother   and     plaint   schedule   property   was<\/p>\n
allotted   to   him   and   since   then   it   has   been   in   his<\/p>\n
possession   and   enjoyment   and   therefore   fourth<\/p>\n
defendant   had   no   right   over   the   property   and   it<\/p>\n
cannot   be   included   within   the   ceiling   area   of   the<\/p>\n
fourth   defendant   and   hence   it   is   to   be   excluded.\n<\/p>\n
The   fourth   defendant     filed   a   statement   opting   to<\/p>\n
surrender   the   plaint   schedule     properties.     Taluk<\/p>\n
Land   Board   directed   to   surrender   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
excess   area.   The   properties   directed   to   be<\/p>\n
surrendered   were   not   the   properties              opted   by<\/p>\n
fourth   defendant.     The   order   of   the   Taluk   Land<\/p>\n
Board   was   challenged   before   this   court   in   C.R.P.\n<\/p>\n
No.826\/75.  In the said C.R.P. fourth defendant did<\/p>\n
not implead  appellants.  Appellants were also  not<\/p>\n
heard   by   this   court   when   C.R.P.   826\/75   was<\/p>\n
S.A.82\/93                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
disposed.     This   court   as   per   order   dated   5.2.1976<\/p>\n
in   that   C.R.P.   held   that   Taluk   Land   Board   should<\/p>\n
not   have   disregarded   the   option   filed   by   the<\/p>\n
declarant   fourth   defendant   and   therefore   directed<\/p>\n
Taluk   Land   Board   to   accept   the   option   tendered   by<\/p>\n
the   declarant.     The   grievance   of   appellants   was<\/p>\n
that   their     objections   raised   before     Taluk   Land<\/p>\n
Board   were   not   considered   by   this   court     while<\/p>\n
directing   to   accept   the   option   made   by   fourth<\/p>\n
defendant   and   directed   to   take   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property accepting  the option made<\/p>\n
by   fourth   respondent.   According   to   appellants,   the<\/p>\n
order     is   not   binding   on   them   and   is   invalid.\n<\/p>\n
Realising   that   this   court   has   passed   the     order<\/p>\n
against   the   properties   of   appellants,   without<\/p>\n
hearing   them   appellants   filed   R.P.   8\/78   to   review<\/p>\n
the   order   in     C.R.P.826\/75.     Under   Ext.A6   order,<\/p>\n
this   court   dismissed   the   review   petition   leaving<\/p>\n
appellants     to   seek   appropriate   remedy.     It   is<\/p>\n
thereafter  appellants instituted O.S.193\/82 before<\/p>\n
Munsiff   Court,   Moovattupuzha.     Respondents   4   to   12<\/p>\n
S.A.82\/93                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
are   the   persons   to   whom   the   properties   were<\/p>\n
allegedly   distributed     by   the   State.       Fourth<\/p>\n
defendant filed a written statement contending that<\/p>\n
the   decision   of   the     Taluk   Land   Board   as   modified<\/p>\n
by   this   court   in   C.R.P.826\/75   is   valid   and<\/p>\n
appellants  have  no  right  to  challenge  the  same  and<\/p>\n
they   are   not   entitled   to   the   decree   sought   for.\n<\/p>\n
Defendants 6 to 10 and 12 filed a written statement<\/p>\n
contending   that   they   did   not   know   the   rights   of<\/p>\n
appellants   and   the   plaint   schedule   property   is   the<\/p>\n
excess   land   declared   by   the   Taluk   Land   Board   and<\/p>\n
after   verifying   the   application   filed   by   those<\/p>\n
defendants   properties   were   given   to   them   and   they<\/p>\n
have taken possession of the property and deposited<\/p>\n
the   purchase   price   fixed   by   the   Government   and<\/p>\n
appellants   are   not   entitled   to   the   decree   sought<\/p>\n
for.     Learned   Munsiff   framed   the   necessary   issues.\n<\/p>\n
On   the   evidence   of   PW1   and   Dws   1   to   3   and   Exts.A1<\/p>\n
to   A7,   B1   to   B7,   X1   to   X3   learned   Munsiff   found<\/p>\n
that   the   order   in   C.R.P.826\/75   was   fraudulently<\/p>\n
obtained   by   fourth   defendant.     But   holding   that<\/p>\n
S.A.82\/93                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
under   section   85(8)   of   Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act<\/p>\n
appellants have an alternative remedy, the suit was<\/p>\n
dismissed.   Challenging   the   dismissal   of   the   suit<\/p>\n
plaintiffs   filed   A.S.154\/84   before   Additional<\/p>\n
District   Court,   Ernakulam.            When        appeal   was<\/p>\n
pending,   appellants   in   view   of   the   finding   of<\/p>\n
learned   Munsiff   that   they   have   a   remedy   under<\/p>\n
section   85(8)   of   Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act,<\/p>\n
approached   the   Taluk   Land   Board   to   consider   their<\/p>\n
claim.         Under   Ext.A9   order   the   petition   was<\/p>\n
dismissed   as   not   maintainable.     In   view   of   the<\/p>\n
finding of the learned Munsiff that defendants 5 to<\/p>\n
12   are   in   possession   of   the   property   and   to   prove<\/p>\n
that possession continued with the appellants, they<\/p>\n
applied   for   a   Commission.   First   appellate   court<\/p>\n
appointed a commission and Commissioner   submitted<\/p>\n
a   report.   The   learned   Additional   district   judge   on<\/p>\n
reappreciation of evidence confirmed the finding of<\/p>\n
the   learned   Munsiff   that   the   remedy   available   to<\/p>\n
the   appellants   is   only   under   section   85(8)   of   the<\/p>\n
Kerala Land   Reforms Act and therefore the suit is<\/p>\n
S.A.82\/93                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
not   maintainable   and   dismissed   the   appeal.     It   is<\/p>\n
challenging the concurrent findings   Second Appeal<\/p>\n
was filed.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The   second   appeal   was   admitted   formulating<\/p>\n
the following substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
      1)     Was   the   court   below   correct   in   dismissing<\/p>\n
the   suit   after   finding   that   the   fourth   respondent<\/p>\n
obtained the order from this court in C.R.P. 826\/75<\/p>\n
by playing fraud?\n<\/p>\n
      2)   Whether   the   order   in   C.R.P.826\/75   procured<\/p>\n
without   impleading   the   appellants   is   binding     on<\/p>\n
the   appellants   and   if   so,   whether   the   subsequent<\/p>\n
proceedings   initiated   by   Taluk   Land   Board   pursuant<\/p>\n
to the order is sustainable?\n<\/p>\n
      3.  Learned Munsiff and learned District  Judge<\/p>\n
after   elaborate   discussion   of   the   facts   found   that<\/p>\n
fourth            respondent         filed         C.R.P.826\/75         without<\/p>\n
impleading     appellants   and   without   disclosing   the<\/p>\n
true   facts   and   obtained   an   order   directing   the<\/p>\n
Taluk  Land  Board  to  accept  the  option  submitted  by<\/p>\n
him.   It was found that the order was obtained   by<\/p>\n
S.A.82\/93                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
playing fraud   on the court.   That factual finding<\/p>\n
is   fully   supported   by   the   evidence.             Fourth<\/p>\n
respondent is   aware of the fact that the property<\/p>\n
which   he   has   opted   to   surrender   and   which   he<\/p>\n
persuaded this court to accept, was the property in<\/p>\n
the   possession   of   the   appellants   which   was<\/p>\n
considered   by   the   Taluk   Land   Board   before   the<\/p>\n
earlier order was passed.  Inspite of the exclusive<\/p>\n
claim   over   the   properties   raised   by   appellant<\/p>\n
fourth respondent did not disclose that fact in the<\/p>\n
C.R.P   and   did   not   implead   them.     It   was     not<\/p>\n
revealed  to  this  court  that  appellants  herein    had<\/p>\n
raised   independent   claim   over   that   property.       In<\/p>\n
such   circumstances,without   deciding   the   claim<\/p>\n
raised   by   appellants   it   is   not   possible   to   accept<\/p>\n
the   option   of   surrender   made   by   fourth   defendant.\n<\/p>\n
Eventhough the finding of fraud was entered into by<\/p>\n
the   trial   court,   that   portion   of   the     finding   was<\/p>\n
not   challenged   before   the   first   Appellate   Court   by<\/p>\n
filing   a   Cross   Objection.     Eventhough   notice   was<\/p>\n
served  on  the  fourth  respondent,  he  did  not  appear<\/p>\n
S.A.82\/93                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
in   the   second   appeal.Therefore   the   finding   of   fact<\/p>\n
that   the   order   in   C.R.P.826\/75   is   the     result   of<\/p>\n
fraud can only be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
      4. As observed by De Grey,C.J in Rex v. Duchess<\/p>\n
of   Kingston   (2   Smith   LC   687)   “Fraud”   is   an<\/p>\n
intrinsic,   collateral   act,   which   vitiates   the   most<\/p>\n
solemn proceedings of courts of justice.  Lord Coke<\/p>\n
says it avoids all judicial acts ecclesiastical and<\/p>\n
temporal.”     The   law   in   India   is   not   different.\n<\/p>\n
Section   44   of   Evidence   Act   enables   a   party,<\/p>\n
otherwise bound by a previous adjudication, to show<\/p>\n
that   it   was   not   final   or   binding   because   it   is<\/p>\n
vitiated by fraud.   It is always   competent to any<\/p>\n
court   to   vacate   any   judgment   or   order   if   it   is<\/p>\n
proved  that  such  judgment  or  order  was  obtained  by<\/p>\n
manifest   fraud.  (Paranjpe   v.   Kanade   (ILR   6   Bombay<\/p>\n
1481).         Apex   Court   in          Chengalvaraya   Naidu   v.\n<\/p>\n
Jagannath (1993) Supp.3SCR 422) held:\n<\/p>\n
             “It   is   the   settled<\/p>\n
             proposition of law that<\/p>\n
S.A.82\/93                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
             a   judgment   or   decree<\/p>\n
             obtained                by         playing<\/p>\n
             fraud on the court is a<\/p>\n
             nullity   and   nonest   in<\/p>\n
             the   eyes   of   law.     Such<\/p>\n
             a   judgment\/decree   by<\/p>\n
             the   first   court   or   by<\/p>\n
             the   highest   court   has<\/p>\n
             to   be   treated   as   a<\/p>\n
             nullity by every court,<\/p>\n
             whether                superior              or<\/p>\n
             inferior.     It   can   be<\/p>\n
             challenged in any court<\/p>\n
             even         in               collateral<\/p>\n
             proceedings.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The   result   is   that   the   order   in   C.R.P.826\/75<\/p>\n
obtained   by   fourth   defendant   by   playing   fraud   on<\/p>\n
the court is to be treated as nonest in the eyes of<\/p>\n
law as against  appellants.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   When   it   is   established   that   the   order   in<\/p>\n
C.R.P.826\/75  is  the  result  of  fraud  played  on  this<\/p>\n
S.A.82\/93                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
court,   it   is     necessarily   to   be   found   that   the<\/p>\n
order   has   no   value   and   is   not   binding   on<\/p>\n
appellants.      The  grievance  of  the  appellants  were<\/p>\n
that   eventhough   appellants   filed   a   review   petition<\/p>\n
to   review   the   order   in   C.R.P.826\/75,   the   petition<\/p>\n
was   dismissed   holding   that   the   remedy   of   the<\/p>\n
appellants  is  elsewhere  and    the  courts  below  held<\/p>\n
that   the   remedy   is     under   section   85(8)   of   the<\/p>\n
Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act   and       when   appellants<\/p>\n
approached   the   Taluk   Land   Board   subsequent   to   the<\/p>\n
dismissal  of the suit, that was also dismissed and<\/p>\n
in  such  circumstance  they  have  no  other  remedy  and<\/p>\n
the   properties   of   the   appellants   cannot   be<\/p>\n
interfered. There is force in the submission.  When<\/p>\n
the  order  passed  by  this  court  directing  to  accept<\/p>\n
the   option   filed   by   the   fourth   defendant   is   found<\/p>\n
to   be   vitiated   by   fraud   played   on   the   court,<\/p>\n
without   hearing   the   appellants   on   the   rights<\/p>\n
claimed   by   them,   the   property   cannot   be   taken<\/p>\n
possession of.  In such circumstances the dismissal<\/p>\n
of the suit is illegal.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.82\/93                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
      The   Second   Appeal   is   therefore   allowed.     The<\/p>\n
decree   and   judgment   passed   by   learned   Munsiff   in<\/p>\n
O.S.193\/82 and learned District Judge in A.S.154\/84<\/p>\n
are set aside.  A decree is passed in O.S.193\/82 as<\/p>\n
follows:-        The   order   in   C.R.P.   826\/75   is   not<\/p>\n
binding on the appellants.  The Taluk Land Board is<\/p>\n
directed to consider the claim raised by appellants<\/p>\n
in respect of the plaint schedule properties basing<\/p>\n
Ext.A1,   A2,   A7   and   A10.     The   Taluk   Land   Board   has<\/p>\n
to decide whether plaint schedule properties belong<\/p>\n
to     appellants   under   the     title   deeds   as   claimed.\n<\/p>\n
If   it   is   found   that   the   properties     belong   to<\/p>\n
appellants     Taluk   Land   Board   is   at   liberty   to<\/p>\n
proceed   against     fourth   respondent   directing     to<\/p>\n
surrender   other     excess   land   ignoring   the   option<\/p>\n
submitted   by   fourth   defendant.     The   Taluk   Land<\/p>\n
Board  has  to  decide  the  question  after  hearing  the<\/p>\n
appellants   within   six   months   from   the   date   of<\/p>\n
receipt of a copy of this judgment.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                         M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n\nS.A.82\/93    12\n\n\n                   JUDGE\n\ntpl\/-\n\n\n\n\nM.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n\n\n\n\n\n    ---------------------\n\n    S.A..NO.82 \/1993\n\n    ---------------------\n\n\n\n\n        JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n\n\n     7th MARCH, 2007\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Poulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 82 of 1993() 1. POULOSE GEORGE … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI M.C.CHERIAN For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :08\/03\/2007 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-207357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPoulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 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\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Poulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-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=\"2007-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-14T12:54:06+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\\\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Poulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-14T12:54:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1730,\"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\\\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Poulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-14T12:54:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Poulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 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":"Poulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 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\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Poulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-14T12:54:06+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\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Poulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-14T12:54:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007"},"wordCount":1730,"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\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007","name":"Poulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-14T12:54:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/poulose-george-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Poulose George vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 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\/207357","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=207357"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/207357\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=207357"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=207357"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=207357"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}