{"id":21092,"date":"2009-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009"},"modified":"2015-04-29T17:28:22","modified_gmt":"2015-04-29T11:58:22","slug":"puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Puthiya Vaniyan Veettil … vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Puthiya Vaniyan Veettil … vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 241 of 2005()\n\n\n1. PUTHIYA VANIYAN VEETTIL KAMALAKSHI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MEETHALEPURAYIL IBRAHIM KUTTY,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.A.MUHAMMED MOSHTAQUE, COVEATOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :29\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n           PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                              R.C.R NO: 241 OF 2005\n        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                     Dated this the 29th October, 2009.\n\n                                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Under challenge in this revision petition filed by the tenant is<\/p>\n
the order of eviction concurrently passed against the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner accepting the need for own occupation projected by the<\/p>\n
respondent-landlord. The landlord’s case                            was that he who was<\/p>\n
employed previously in Saudi Arabia was expelled from that country<\/p>\n
on amnesty and that presently he is jobless and he needs to start<\/p>\n
business     in the petition schedule building.                               Exts.A3 and A4<\/p>\n
documents were produced by the revision petitioner before the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Court in endeavour to prove that the pleaded case is<\/p>\n
true. In fact the oral evidence by the respondent was in conformity<\/p>\n
with the fact that the respondent has been compelled to come back<\/p>\n
to India. The tenant, apart from contending that the need is not<\/p>\n
bonafide also contended that the landlord is in possession of other<\/p>\n
buildings of his own in possession and that the petition is liable to<\/p>\n
be rejected due to the first proviso to Sub Section (3) of Section 11<\/p>\n
of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965,<\/p>\n
RCR 241\/2005                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. He has alternatively contended<\/p>\n
that he is entitled to the protection of the second proviso to Section<\/p>\n
11(3). On evaluating the evidence the Rent Control Court would<\/p>\n
find that the need projected by the landlord in the RCP and spoken<\/p>\n
to by him in evidence as P.W.1, is a bonafide one. That Court also<\/p>\n
found that on the basis of Ext.A9 property tax assessment register<\/p>\n
that the rent control petitioner was not liable to fail by virtue of the<\/p>\n
first proviso of Sub Section 3 of Section 11. It was further found<\/p>\n
that the tenant was unsuccessful in proving that he satisfies either<\/p>\n
of the ingredients of the second proviso to Sub Section (3).<\/p>\n
      2. In appeal preferred by the revision petitioner tenant the<\/p>\n
appellate authority re-appraised the evidence.      That authority on<\/p>\n
appreciating Exts.A3 and A4 accepted the case of the tenant that<\/p>\n
those two documents by themselves do not prove that the landlord<\/p>\n
was expelled from Saudi Arabia on amnesty. In fact before the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority it was brought to the notice of that Authority<\/p>\n
that the landlord had gone back to Saudi Arabia. An affidavit to<\/p>\n
that effect was filed by the tenant. The landlord filed a counter<\/p>\n
statement wherein he admitted that he had gone back to Saudi<\/p>\n
Arabia. The landlord’s explanation was that on account of delay<\/p>\n
caused in getting back possession of the building he had no other<\/p>\n
go than     back to Saudi Arabia since he needed money for<\/p>\n
RCR 241\/2005                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
supporting himself and his family.         The Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
accepting the explanation offered by the landlord found that the<\/p>\n
landlord is not expected to remain idle till such time as vacant<\/p>\n
possession of the building in question is obtained. Accordingly the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority concurred with the conclusions of the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court and dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     3. We have heard the submissions of Mr. M.V.Amaresan for<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner and those of Mr. A. Muhammed Mustaque for<\/p>\n
the respondent. Mr. M.V.Amaresan drew our attention to Exts.A3<\/p>\n
and A4 and also to       the pleadings raised.  He submitted that<\/p>\n
Exts.A3 and A4 do not prove the averments in the RCP. The best<\/p>\n
evidence to prove the averments in the RCP was the passport. The<\/p>\n
non-production of the passport should arouse adverse inferences<\/p>\n
against the landlord.     The learned counsel submitted that the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority has chosen to confirm the order of eviction<\/p>\n
taking into account the circumstance that the landlord was jobless<\/p>\n
and that the landlord belongs to this country. But the landlord’s<\/p>\n
case as pleaded by him in the RCP was that he was compelled to<\/p>\n
leave Saudi Arabia since he was expelled on amnesty. It is not his<\/p>\n
case that he would not have continued in Saudi Arabia even if he<\/p>\n
was not expelled. It is a very lucrative job that the landlord has<\/p>\n
secured in Saudi Arabia. The above subsequent event eclipses need<\/p>\n
RCR 241\/2005                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
if any, which existed at the time when the RCR was originally filed.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel referred to the finding of the authorities below<\/p>\n
in the context of the first proviso to Sub Section (3) of Section 11<\/p>\n
and submitted that there is conflict between Exts.A9 and B1 both<\/p>\n
of which are property tax assessment registers enjoying the<\/p>\n
presumptions of Section 26 of Act 2 of 1965. In the teeth of that<\/p>\n
conflict, in the absence of more responsible evidence coming from<\/p>\n
the side of the Panchayath, the authorities below were not justified<\/p>\n
in relying on Ext.A9 the subsequent document. The oral evidence<\/p>\n
of P.Ws 1 and 2 were to the effect that the new building was put up<\/p>\n
by them jointly.   The documents show that all the rooms stand<\/p>\n
assessed to property tax in the name of P.W.2 only. This has been<\/p>\n
deliberately done.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   All the submissions of Mr. Amaresan were very stiffly<\/p>\n
resisted by Mr. A. Mohammed Mustaque.         The learned counsel<\/p>\n
placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava<\/a> {2001(1) KLT 753 (SC) to<\/p>\n
answer the argument of Mr. Amaraesan made in the context of<\/p>\n
subsequent event of landlord securing a job in Saudi Arabia. The<\/p>\n
important question according to Mr. Mustaque is whether the<\/p>\n
petitioner landlord is jobless and nobody can say that a landlord<\/p>\n
who belongs to Payyannur is projecting a malafide need when he<\/p>\n
RCR 241\/2005                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
says that he wants to come back to Payyannur. Mr. Mustaque also<\/p>\n
referred to a Bench decision of this Court in Eanu Haji v. Mustafa<\/a><\/p>\n
{2004(2) KLT 668} to which one of us (Pius C. Kuriakose,J) was a<\/p>\n
party and the counsel submitted that the landlord is not expected<\/p>\n
to remain jobless for indefinite duration of time especially when it<\/p>\n
is notorious that litigations like the present one take decades to<\/p>\n
come to a final close.\n<\/p>\n
     5. We have very anxiously considered the rival submissions<\/p>\n
addressed at the Bar.     According to us the question whether the<\/p>\n
need of the landlord is a bonafide one,        the most important<\/p>\n
question to be answered by the authorities under the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Act not been properly considered by the Rent Control Court and the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority.      Proper consideration would necessitate<\/p>\n
scrutiny of the pleadings and the evidence.        As we notice the<\/p>\n
pleaded case was that the landlord was expelled from Saudi Arabia<\/p>\n
on amnesty and that he is presently jobless.        The evidence did<\/p>\n
reveal that the above case was not correct. At the same time, the<\/p>\n
need of a person belonging to Payyannur presently working abroad<\/p>\n
to come back to Payyannur and to do business in his own building<\/p>\n
at Payyannur can ordinarily be accepted to be a bonafide need,<\/p>\n
provided proper pleadings are there. The implications of the first<\/p>\n
proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 11 are that if the landlord is in<\/p>\n
RCR 241\/2005                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of another vacant building belonging to him, then,<\/p>\n
unless special reasons are pleaded and established, the landlord<\/p>\n
will not be granted order of eviction. The evidence regarding the<\/p>\n
availability of other buildings with the landlord in this case gives<\/p>\n
room for some confusion. We are of the view that the landlord can<\/p>\n
be given an opportunity to amend his pleadings and to adduce<\/p>\n
fresh evidence on all aspects of the case including bonafides of the<\/p>\n
need and the operation of the first proviso to sub-section (3) of<\/p>\n
Section 11. As for the question whether the tenant is entitled to<\/p>\n
the second proviso to sub-section (3), we are of the view that the<\/p>\n
finding concurrently entered in that context by the authorities<\/p>\n
below does not warrant any interference.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    The result is that we set aside the order of the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court and the Appellate Authority and remand RCP<\/p>\n
19\/1998 to the Rent Control Court, Taliparamba. That Court is<\/p>\n
directed to take a fresh decision on the following questions:-<\/p>\n
           a)  Whether the need of the landlord under Sub<\/p>\n
    Section (3) of Section 11 of the Act is bonafide.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           b) Whether the RCP is liable to fail by virtue of Sub<\/p>\n
    Section (3) of Section 11 of the Act. That Court is directed<\/p>\n
    to permit the parties to amend the pleadings.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     7.    The top priority will be given to the RCP which was<\/p>\n
RCR 241\/2005                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
instituted in the year 1998. Once pleadings are completed and pre<\/p>\n
trial steps are over the RCP will be special listed for trial. The trial<\/p>\n
will be taken up on a day to day basis and revised judgment will be<\/p>\n
passed early, at any rate within three months of the parties<\/p>\n
entering appearance pursuant to this order of remand. The parties<\/p>\n
will enter appearance before the Rent Control Court, Taliparamba<\/p>\n
on 11.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    We notice that the monthly rent of Rs.350\/- presently<\/p>\n
being paid by the revision petitioner-tenant is far below the<\/p>\n
reasonable rent for like buildings. We tentatively refix the rent at<\/p>\n
Rs.700\/- per month making it clear that it will be open to both sides<\/p>\n
to move the competent Court for fixation of fair rent.<\/p>\n
                                            PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
\n                                                     Judge<\/p>\n
                                         K. SURENDRA MOHAN
\n                                                    Judge<\/p>\n
jj<\/p>\n
              PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
\n              K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
—————————————\n<\/p>\n
                   L.A.A.NO:\n<\/p>\n
—————————————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                    Dated:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Puthiya Vaniyan Veettil … vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 241 of 2005() 1. PUTHIYA VANIYAN VEETTIL KAMALAKSHI, … Petitioner Vs 1. MEETHALEPURAYIL IBRAHIM KUTTY, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.AMARESAN For Respondent :SRI.A.MUHAMMED MOSHTAQUE, COVEATOR 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-21092","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPuthiya Vaniyan Veettil ... vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009 - 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\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Puthiya Vaniyan Veettil ... vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-29T11:58:22+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Puthiya Vaniyan Veettil … vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-29T11:58:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1536,\"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\\\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Puthiya Vaniyan Veettil ... vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-29T11:58:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Puthiya Vaniyan Veettil … vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Puthiya Vaniyan Veettil ... vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009 - 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\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Puthiya Vaniyan Veettil ... vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-29T11:58:22+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Puthiya Vaniyan Veettil … vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-29T11:58:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009"},"wordCount":1536,"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\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009","name":"Puthiya Vaniyan Veettil ... vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-29T11:58:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiya-vaniyan-veettil-vs-meethalepurayil-ibrahim-kutty-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Puthiya Vaniyan Veettil … vs Meethalepurayil Ibrahim Kutty on 29 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/21092","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=21092"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21092\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21092"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21092"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21092"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}