{"id":215814,"date":"2011-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011"},"modified":"2018-08-26T09:21:45","modified_gmt":"2018-08-26T03:51:45","slug":"yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Yelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Yelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 466 of 1999(E)\n\n\n\n1. YELATH LAKSHMI AMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. KOOKAL RAGHAVAN NAIR\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :25\/01\/2011\n\n O R D E R\n                        P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                       S.A. No. 466 of 1999\n            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n           Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011.\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
          The defeated defendants are the appellants.<\/p>\n
The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they<\/p>\n
are available before the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
          2.   The suit was in respect of two items of<\/p>\n
properties. Item No.1 consists of 40 cents and item No.2<\/p>\n
consists of     25 cents.             The plaintiff claims to have<\/p>\n
obtained   the     properties           as      per       Exts.A1     and A2<\/p>\n
respectively.      The predecessor in interest of the<\/p>\n
defendants was allotted the plaint schedule property as<\/p>\n
per partition deed, which is on the north of item No.1.<\/p>\n
Alleging that the defendants were trying to trespass into<\/p>\n
the property, the suit was laid.\n<\/p>\n
          3.    The defendants resisted the suit. They<\/p>\n
challenged the validity of Ext.A1 partition deed, on the<\/p>\n
basis of which the plaintiff laid claim to item No.1.<\/p>\n
S.A.466\/1999.                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
According to them, 10 acres of land comprised in Sy.<\/p>\n
No.84\/1D was outstanding on lease with Kunhikannan Nair,<\/p>\n
the predecessor in interest of the defendants, and he had<\/p>\n
obtained Ext.B1 purchase certificate.   That property was<\/p>\n
fraudulently included in the partition deed evidenced by<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 deed and the plaintiff was not derived any right over<\/p>\n
the suit property. They therefore prayed for a dismissal of<\/p>\n
the suit.\n<\/p>\n
             4. It appears that there was a subsequent<\/p>\n
amendment to the plaint.       The defendants also filed<\/p>\n
additional written statement. Based on the above pleadings,<\/p>\n
necessary issues were raised by the trial court.          The<\/p>\n
evidence consists of the testimony of P.W.1 and documents<\/p>\n
marked as Exts.A1 to A8 from the side of the plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
defendants examined D.W.1 and had Exts.B1 to B6 marked.<\/p>\n
Exts.C1 and C2 are the commission report and plan. The<\/p>\n
trial court, mainly based on the commission report Ext.C1<\/p>\n
and Ext.C2 plan came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
unsuccessful in establishing possession over the suit<\/p>\n
S.A.466\/1999.                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
property and accordingly dismissed the suit. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
carried the matter in appeal as A.S.55 of 1996. The lower<\/p>\n
appellate court found that the trial court was not justified in<\/p>\n
coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no possession<\/p>\n
over the suit property and accordingly reversed the finding<\/p>\n
of the trial court and decreed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
             5. Notice is seen issued on the following questions<\/p>\n
of law:\n<\/p>\n
             “1. In a suit for injunction simplicitor, is not<\/p>\n
      possession of the property alone material and<\/p>\n
      unless the plaintiff establishes possession as on<\/p>\n
      the date of suit, should not the suit entail a<\/p>\n
      dismissal, even assuming that the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
      been able to trace title to the property?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             2. When a decision rendered by a Court was<\/p>\n
      taken up in appeal and when a compromise<\/p>\n
      decree was passed in such appeal, will it not have<\/p>\n
      the effect of effacing the decision of the trial court<\/p>\n
      and does not the principle of merger apply in such<\/p>\n
      circumstances.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3. When a decision rendered by a Court is<\/p>\n
      taken up in appeal and when the said appeal<\/p>\n
S.A.466\/1999.                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
      culminates in a compromise decision, and when<\/p>\n
      the decision of the former court thus merges with<\/p>\n
      that of the latter court, can the decision of the<\/p>\n
      former court be relied on for any purpose?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             4. When a family arrangement or partition is<\/p>\n
      under serious attack on various grounds including<\/p>\n
      fraud, whether the existence of such family<\/p>\n
      arrangement\/partition by itself would be sufficient<\/p>\n
      to uphold title and possession of the properties<\/p>\n
      thereunder.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             5. Is not the impugned decision vitiated by<\/p>\n
      reason of misreading of the pleadings and the<\/p>\n
      evidence?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             6.     Whether   under     the   facts  and\n\n      circumstances,     the    impugned     decree    is\n\n      sustainable?\"\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
             6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants<\/p>\n
contended that the lower appellate court was not justified in<\/p>\n
reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court. The<\/p>\n
trial court had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
miserably failed to establish his possession over the suit<\/p>\n
property.     Being a suit for injunction, the only issue that<\/p>\n
S.A.466\/1999.                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
arose for consideration was whether the plaintiff is in actual<\/p>\n
physical possession over the suit property as on the date of<\/p>\n
suit. Even assuming that they had title to the suit property<\/p>\n
as per Exts.A1 and A2, that will not be sufficient. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants drew the attention of this court to<\/p>\n
Ext. C1 commission report which shows that there is no clear<\/p>\n
boundary separating the property of the plaintiff from<\/p>\n
adjacent properties. The commission report also shows that<\/p>\n
the properties are lying contiguously.        It is therefore<\/p>\n
contended that the lower appellate court judgment and<\/p>\n
decree are unsustainable in law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             7. Learned counsel for the respondents contended<\/p>\n
that there may not be any confusion regarding the property<\/p>\n
obtained by each of the sharers as per Ext.A1 since a plan is<\/p>\n
appended to Ext.A1. Nobody has a case that the said plan is<\/p>\n
either wrong and the sharers, who had allotted with shares<\/p>\n
had not taken possession of the respective properties. The<\/p>\n
predecessor in interest of the defendants being a party to<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, it comes with     little grace from the defendants<\/p>\n
S.A.466\/1999.                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
now to say that the partition deed is not binding on them<\/p>\n
and it has no effect. In fact they conveyed a portion of the<\/p>\n
property allotted to them under the partition deed. The plea<\/p>\n
of fraud cannot be sustained because there was an earlier<\/p>\n
suit between the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
defendants, in which the partition deed was put forward.<\/p>\n
That was a suit of the year 1974. If as a matter of fact the<\/p>\n
predecessor in interest of the defendant had any case that<\/p>\n
the partition deed is a fraudulent one, he could have taken<\/p>\n
steps to set it aside. Since that has not been done, there is<\/p>\n
no merit in the contention that Ext.A1 is not binding.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel also pointed out that the lower appellate<\/p>\n
court has considered the issue in the proper perspective and<\/p>\n
no grounds are made out to interfere with the finding of the<\/p>\n
lower appellate court.\n<\/p>\n
             8. Ext.A1 partition deed is the document of title of<\/p>\n
both the parties.     The defendants have a contention that<\/p>\n
their predecessor in interest, who was illiterate,          was<\/p>\n
defrauded by including the properties in his possession in<\/p>\n
S.A.466\/1999.                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
the partition deed Ext.A1. They have a contention that the<\/p>\n
partition deed is not binding on them.\n<\/p>\n
             9.  This contention, to say the least, is totally<\/p>\n
unacceptable. The predecessor in interest of the defendants<\/p>\n
namely Kunhikannan Nair was a party to Ext.A1 document of<\/p>\n
the year 1967.       In 1974 there was a suit between the<\/p>\n
predecessor of the plaintiff and the predecessor in interest<\/p>\n
of the defendants. That was based on Ext.A1 partition deed.<\/p>\n
Therefore Kunhikannan Nair was fully aware of the fact that<\/p>\n
the properties covered by Ext.B1 were subject matter of the<\/p>\n
partition as per Ext.A1. Nothing was done by him in that<\/p>\n
regard.      Further, the defendants are not enjoying the<\/p>\n
properties obtained by Kunhikannan Nair as per Ext.A1<\/p>\n
partition.\n<\/p>\n
             10. There can be no difficulty in identifying the<\/p>\n
property allotted to each of the parties as per Ext.A1 since a<\/p>\n
plan is appended to the deed showing the shares allotted to<\/p>\n
each of the sharers.      The trial court heavily relied on the<\/p>\n
commission report and plan       to hold against the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
S.A.466\/1999.                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
The lower appellate court has considered this aspect in<\/p>\n
considerable detail and had come to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
reliance placed on Exts.C1 and C2 is not justified. Of course,<\/p>\n
it is true that the plaintiff was not able to give complete<\/p>\n
details about the property, but the fact remains that he sued<\/p>\n
in respect of the properties obtained by him in the partition<\/p>\n
evidenced by Ext.A1 and an assignment deed from one of<\/p>\n
the sharers under the same deed. There is no case for the<\/p>\n
defendants that the properties in respect of which the suit is<\/p>\n
laid is not the property covered by Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
             11. It is also interesting to note that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
had filed objection to the commission report and had prayed<\/p>\n
that it may be remitted to the commissioner. The specific<\/p>\n
allegation is that commission report and plan are incorrect<\/p>\n
and contrary to the plan appended to Ext.A1. That does not<\/p>\n
appear to have been considered at all and the trial court<\/p>\n
relied on that report and plan.\n<\/p>\n
             12.  As rightly noticed by the lower appellate<\/p>\n
court, there is no question of any crisis in the identity of the<\/p>\n
S.A.466\/1999.                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
properties since as already noted, a plan is appended to the<\/p>\n
partition deed. There is no case for the defendants that the<\/p>\n
plan is either erroneous or the allocation is not as per the<\/p>\n
deed.       The lower appellate court, in the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances of the case, was therefore fully justified in<\/p>\n
accepting the principle that possession follows title in the<\/p>\n
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n
             There is no justification to interfere with the<\/p>\n
finding of the lower appellate court, which is based on an<\/p>\n
appreciation of the evidence on record.       The finding is<\/p>\n
essentially one of fact. No question of law, much less any<\/p>\n
substantial question of law, arises for consideration in this<\/p>\n
Second Appeal.       This Second appeal is without merits.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, it is dismissed. There will be no order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          P. BHAVADASAN,
\n                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n
sb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Yelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 466 of 1999(E) 1. YELATH LAKSHMI AMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. KOOKAL RAGHAVAN NAIR … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD For Respondent :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN Dated :25\/01\/2011 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-215814","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nYelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011 - 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\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-26T03:51:45+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\\\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-26T03:51:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1546,\"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\\\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Yelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-26T03:51:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Yelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011 - 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\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-26T03:51:45+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\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-26T03:51:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011"},"wordCount":1546,"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\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011","name":"Yelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-26T03:51:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yelath-lakshmi-amma-vs-kookal-raghavan-nair-on-25-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yelath Lakshmi Amma vs Kookal Raghavan Nair on 25 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/215814","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=215814"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215814\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215814"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215814"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215814"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}