{"id":218610,"date":"2009-02-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009"},"modified":"2016-08-07T08:24:01","modified_gmt":"2016-08-07T02:54:01","slug":"claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Claramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Claramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 367 of 1996(B)\n\n\n\n1. CLARAMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. THRESIAMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.R.VENKATESH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.A.KRISHNAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN\n\n Dated :05\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                          P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.\n         ======================================\n                         S.A.No.367 of 1996\n          ======================================\n              Dated this the 5th day of February 2009\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       The legal heirs of the plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 1986 on the<\/p>\n
file of the Court of the Munsiff of Alappuzha are the appellants in<\/p>\n
this Second Appeal. Respondents 1 and 2 are the defendants<\/p>\n
therein. The third respondent is yet another legal heir of the<\/p>\n
deceased plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
    2. The suit property in O.S.No.283 of 1986 is a parcel of land<\/p>\n
51.25 cents in extent, situated in Sy.No.72\/9B of Purakkad<\/p>\n
Village,    Ambalapuzha Taluk, Alappuzha District. It admittedly<\/p>\n
belonged to four brothers, Sri.Mathew Thomas, Sri.Mathew<\/p>\n
Sebastian, Sri.Mathew Mathew and Sri.Mathew Joseph.           Mathew<\/p>\n
Joseph got a release of the rights of his three brothers as per<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 release deed dated 16.5.1978 and became the absolute<\/p>\n
owner thereof. The plaintiff claimed that he was put in possession<\/p>\n
of the suit property by the four brothers, even before the<\/p>\n
execution of the release deed and that after Sri.Mathew Joseph<\/p>\n
became the absolute owner, his power of attorney executed<\/p>\n
Ext.B3 assignment deed dated 11.10.1983 conveying the suit<\/p>\n
property to him. The plaintiff contended that he thus obtained<\/p>\n
title to and is in possession of the suit property. According to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, the suit property and the lands lying to its north having a<\/p>\n
similar extent, situated in Sy.No.72\/9AB lie as one compact block<\/p>\n
S.A.367 of 1996                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
   without a boundary separating the two different parcels of land.<\/p>\n
   He instituted O.S.No.283 of 1986 contending that the defendants,<\/p>\n
   are attempting to trespass into the suit property and interfere<\/p>\n
   with his possession and enjoyment thereof.\n<\/p>\n
      3. In respect of the very same suit property, the defendants in<\/p>\n
   O.S.No.283 of 1986 had earlier instituted O.S.No.1031 of 1983 on<\/p>\n
   the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Alappuzha wherein they<\/p>\n
   claimed possession of the suit property under Ext.A1 agreement<\/p>\n
   dated 17.5.1978 executed by Sri.Mathew Joseph, the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
   vendor in favour of Thresiamma, the first defendant in O.S.No.283<\/p>\n
   of 1986. The plaintiffs in O.S.1031 of 1983 contended that the<\/p>\n
   plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 1986 had earlier instituted O.S.No.509<\/p>\n
   of 1979 against the first plaintiff in O.S.No.1031 of 1983 and<\/p>\n
   Sri.Mathew Sebastian, one among the four co-owners for a<\/p>\n
   permanent     prohibitory  injunction   restraining  them   from<\/p>\n
   interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit<\/p>\n
   property. They contended that though by Ext.A4 judgment<\/p>\n
   delivered on 26.6.1980, the Court of the Munsiff of Alappuzha<\/p>\n
   decreed the suit, on appeal filed by the first plaintiff in<\/p>\n
   O.S.No.1031 of 1983, the Court of the Subordinate Judge by<\/p>\n
   Ext.A5 judgment delivered on 30.6.1982 reversed the decree<\/p>\n
   passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit holding that the<\/p>\n
S.A.367 of 1996                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
   plaintiffs in O.S.No.1031 of 1983 are in possession of the suit<\/p>\n
   property. They also contended that S.A.No.523 of 1982 filed by<\/p>\n
   the plaintiff in O.S. No.283 of 1986 was dismissed by this Court<\/p>\n
   as per Ext.A2 judgment delivered on 29.11.1982 and therefore<\/p>\n
   the present suit is barred by resjudicata.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 1986, who is the first<\/p>\n
   defendant in O.S.No.1031 of 1983, resisted        the said suit,<\/p>\n
   claiming title to and possession over the suit property as per<\/p>\n
   Ext.B3 assignment deed dated 11.10.1983.        The plaintiffs in<\/p>\n
   O.S.No.1031 of 1983 resisted O.S.No.283 of 1986, re-iterating<\/p>\n
   the contentions raised in the plaint O.S.No.1031 of 1983. They<\/p>\n
   also contended that they are entitled to the protection of Section<\/p>\n
   53A of the Transfer of Property Act.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The two suits were jointly tried and disposed of by a<\/p>\n
   common judgment.        In the trial court, the first plaintiff in<\/p>\n
   O.S.No.1031 of 1981 was examined as PW1, one of his workers<\/p>\n
   was examined as PW2, the scribe of Ext.A1 agreement was<\/p>\n
   examined as PW3 and Exts.A1 to A5 were produced and marked<\/p>\n
   on their side.    The plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 1986 examined<\/p>\n
   himself as DW2, his vendor (the executant of Ext.B3 assignment<\/p>\n
   deed and Ext.A1 agreement) as DW1, one of the workers engaged<\/p>\n
   by him as DW3 and produced and marked Exts.B1 to B8 on his<\/p>\n
S.A.367 of 1996                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
   side. The trial court on an analysis of evidence oral and<\/p>\n
   documentary available in the case held that Ext.A1 agreement put<\/p>\n
   forward by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1031 of 1983 is a genuine<\/p>\n
   document and that it was validly executed by DW1. Though the<\/p>\n
   trial court found that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1031 of 1983 are in<\/p>\n
   possession of the suit property, it was held that the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
   O.S.No.283 of 1986 has title to the suit property. In view of the<\/p>\n
   finding that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1031 of 1983 are in<\/p>\n
   possession of the suit property, O.S.No.1031 of 1981 was decreed<\/p>\n
   and defendants therein were restrained by a permanent<\/p>\n
   prohibitory injunction from trespassing upon the suit property.<\/p>\n
   O.S.No.283 of 1986 was partly decreed declaring the title of the<\/p>\n
   plaintiff over the suit property. The relief of declaration of<\/p>\n
   possession and injunction was declined and the suit was<\/p>\n
   dismissed in relation to the said relief.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 1986 filed A.S.No.36 of 1989<\/p>\n
   challenging the decree and judgment in O.S.No.1031 of 1983 and<\/p>\n
   A.S.No.37 of 1989 challenging the decree and judgment in<\/p>\n
   O.S.No.283 of 1986. A.S.No.36 of 1989 and 37 of 1989 were<\/p>\n
   presented on 25.7.1989. Nearly two years after A.S.No.37 of 1989<\/p>\n
   was filed, the plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 1986 filed I.A.No.1179 of<\/p>\n
   1991 in A.S.No.37 of 1989 seeking an amendment of the plaint in<\/p>\n
S.A.367 of 1996                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
   O.S.No.283 of 1986 to incorporate the relief of recovery of<\/p>\n
   possession of the suit property on the strength of title. By order<\/p>\n
   passed on 17.10.1992, the Court of the Subordinate judge of<\/p>\n
   Alappuzha dismissed the said application holding that the<\/p>\n
   application is belated and that if the amendment prayed for is<\/p>\n
   allowed, it will alter the nature of the suit. By a common judgment<\/p>\n
   delivered on 31.10.1995, the Court of the Additional Subordinate<\/p>\n
   judge of Alappuzha dismissed both the appeals, affirming the<\/p>\n
   decision of the trial court. He thereafter filed S.A.No.368 of 1996<\/p>\n
   in this Court challenging the decree and judgment in O.S.No.1031<\/p>\n
   of 1983 and A.S.No.36 of 1989.           By judgment delivered on<\/p>\n
   6.8.1996, S.A.No.368 of 1996 was dismissed illimine. Though<\/p>\n
   S.A.No.368 of 1996 was dismissed in limine on 6.8.1996, this<\/p>\n
   Second Appeal filed from the decree and judgment in O.S.No.283<\/p>\n
   of 1986 and A.S.No.37 of 1989 was admitted on the very same<\/p>\n
   day and notice ordered to the respondents on the question<\/p>\n
   whether the appellate court acted legally in dismissing the<\/p>\n
   application for amendment of the plaint, viz.I.A.No.1179 of 1991<\/p>\n
   in A.S.No.37 of 1989.\n<\/p>\n
      7. I have heard Sri.P.R.Venketesh, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
   appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.Krishnan, the learned<\/p>\n
   counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Sri.P.R.Venketesh,<\/p>\n
S.A.367 of 1996                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
   the learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that<\/p>\n
   the order passed by the lower appellate court on 17.10.1992<\/p>\n
   dismissing I.A.No.1179 of 1991 in A.S.No.37 of 1989 wherein the<\/p>\n
   plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 1986 had prayed for an amendment of<\/p>\n
   the plaint by incorporating the relief of recovery of possession of<\/p>\n
   the suit property on the strength of title, is not sustainable in law<\/p>\n
   and is liable to be set aside.      The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
   appellants contended that as title to the suit property had been<\/p>\n
   found in his favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 1986 and as<\/p>\n
   admittedly the defendants in the suit do not have title, and as the<\/p>\n
   essential pleadings entitling the plaintiff to the relief of recovery<\/p>\n
   of possession on the strength of title had been set out in the<\/p>\n
   plaint originally filed, the lower appellate court ought to have<\/p>\n
   allowed the application for amendment and remanded the suit to<\/p>\n
   the trial court for fresh disposal. He also contended that in the<\/p>\n
   written statement filed by the defendants in O.S.No.283 of 1986,<\/p>\n
   they had raised a contention relying on Ext.A1 agreement that<\/p>\n
   they are entitled to the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer<\/p>\n
   of Property Act. The learned counsel for the appellant further<\/p>\n
   contended that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants in<\/p>\n
   the suit if the amendment prayed for is allowed and the suit<\/p>\n
   remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal on the question<\/p>\n
S.A.367 of 1996                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
   whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit<\/p>\n
   property on the strength of title.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1<\/p>\n
   and 2 contended that defendants in O.S.No.283 of 1986 had<\/p>\n
   instituted the suit even in the year 1983 asserting that they are in<\/p>\n
   possession of the suit property under Ext.A1 agreement for sale,<\/p>\n
   that the suits were disposed of only on 6.12.1988, that the<\/p>\n
   plaintiffs in O.S.No.283 of 1986 did not move for amendment of<\/p>\n
   the plaint though the suit was pending for a period of two years<\/p>\n
   after it was instituted, that even after the first appeal was filed<\/p>\n
   they waited for nearly two years to move for an amendment of the<\/p>\n
   plaint, that the application for amendment is highly belated and<\/p>\n
   was rightly rejected by the lower appellate court. The learned<\/p>\n
   counsel also contended that if the amendment passed for is<\/p>\n
   granted, it will alter the very nature of the suit.<\/p>\n
      9. From the pleadings and the evidence on record and the<\/p>\n
   concurrent findings of the courts below, it is crystal clear that the<\/p>\n
   appellants in this Second Appeal, (the legal heirs of the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
   O.S.No.283 of 1986) have exclusive title to the suit property. The<\/p>\n
   defendants in O.S.No.283 of 1986 have been found to be in<\/p>\n
   possession of the suit property under Ext.A1 agreement executed<\/p>\n
   by the vendor of the plaintiff. The assertion of the title by the<\/p>\n
S.A.367 of 1996                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
   predecessor in interest of the appellants in this Second Appeal, is<\/p>\n
   evident from the plaint in O.S.No.283 of 1986 and also the<\/p>\n
   written statement filed by him in O.S.No.1031 of 1983. In fact<\/p>\n
   the defendants in O.S.No.283 of 1986 had in their written<\/p>\n
   statement claimed protection under Section 53A of the Transfer<\/p>\n
   of Property Act contending that they were put in possession of<\/p>\n
   the suit property by the plaintiff’s vendor under Ext.A1 agreement<\/p>\n
   dated 16.5.1978, that they have paid a substantial portion of the<\/p>\n
   agreed sale consideration, that they have effected improvements<\/p>\n
   in the suit property and are in possession and enjoyment thereof.<\/p>\n
   Though the plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 1986 had asserted title over<\/p>\n
   the suit properties, he did not seek recovery of possession of the<\/p>\n
   suit property on the strength of title, but prayed for a declaration<\/p>\n
   that he has title to and is in possession of the suit property and<\/p>\n
   also for a consequential injunction based on such possession.<\/p>\n
       10. From the pleadings and the evidence on record, the finding<\/p>\n
   of the courts below that the plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 1986 has<\/p>\n
   title to the suit property, cannot be faulted. As title to the suit<\/p>\n
   property had been found in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of<\/p>\n
   1986 by the trial court and as the necessary pleadings regarding<\/p>\n
   the plaintiff’s title to the suit property had been set out even in<\/p>\n
   the plaint originally filed in O.S.No.283 of 1986, the finding of the<\/p>\n
S.A.367 of 1996                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
   lower appellate court in the order passed on 17.10.1992<\/p>\n
   dismissing I.A.No.1179 of 1991 in A.S.No.37 of 1989 that if the<\/p>\n
   plaintiff is permitted to amend the plaint by incorporating the<\/p>\n
   relief of recovery of possession on the strength of title, it will alter<\/p>\n
   the nature of the suit, cannot be sustained. The suit as laid was<\/p>\n
   one for declaration of title, possession and consequential<\/p>\n
   injunction.   The appellate court was therefore in my opinion not<\/p>\n
   right in taking the view that the amendment sought by the<\/p>\n
   plaintiff would alter the nature of the suit. The suit would still be<\/p>\n
   one on title. The lower appellate court rejected the application for<\/p>\n
   amendment also for the reason that the application is belated and<\/p>\n
   was filed nearly two years after the appeal was presented. The<\/p>\n
   lower appellate court also took the view that the plaintiff could<\/p>\n
   not have moved an application to amend the plaint in the<\/p>\n
   appellate court.\n<\/p>\n
      11. The courts below have concurrently found that the<\/p>\n
   defendants in O.S.No.283 of 1986 are in possession of the suit<\/p>\n
   property under Ext.A1 agreement executed          by the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
   vendor. The courts below have also found that the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
   O.S.No.283 of 1986 has title to the suit property. The defendants<\/p>\n
   had also understood the case set out by the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
   attempted to resist     his claim of title over the suit property,<\/p>\n
S.A.367 of 1996                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
   relying on Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Though an<\/p>\n
   issue had been framed by the trial court as regards the right of<\/p>\n
   the defendants under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act,<\/p>\n
   the said issue was deleted for the reason that the plaintiff had not<\/p>\n
   prayed for recovery of possession on the strength of title. In the<\/p>\n
   facts and circumstances obtaining on the case on hand, especially<\/p>\n
   the concurrent finding of title in favour of the plaintiff, I am<\/p>\n
   persuaded to take the view that the lower appellate court ought to<\/p>\n
   have enabled the parties to have the entitlement of the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
   recover possession of the suit property on the strength of title<\/p>\n
   resolved in the present suit itself, instead of driving the parties to<\/p>\n
   another round of litigation involving additional expenditure and<\/p>\n
   waste of time. On the facts that emanate from the pleadings and<\/p>\n
   the evidence on record, it cannot be said that any serious<\/p>\n
   prejudice would be caused to the defendants if the amendment<\/p>\n
   of the plaint as prayed for by the plaintiff is allowed.<\/p>\n
        For the reasons stated above, I allow this Second Appeal, set<\/p>\n
   aside decree and judgment passed by the Court of the Additional<\/p>\n
   Subordinate    Judge  of    Alappuzha     in   A.S.No.37   of  1989.<\/p>\n
   I.A.No.1179 of 1991 in A.S.No.37 of 1989 is allowed and the<\/p>\n
   appellants are permitted to amend the plaint in O.S.No.283 of<\/p>\n
   1986 by incorporating the relief of recovery of possession on the<\/p>\n
S.A.367 of 1996                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
   strength of title. Consequently, the suit O.S.No.283 of 1986 is<\/p>\n
   remanded to the Court of the Munsiff of Alappuzha for the limited<\/p>\n
   purpose of deciding whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover<\/p>\n
   possession of the suit property on the strength of title and<\/p>\n
   whether the defendants are entitled to the protection of Section<\/p>\n
   53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It will be open to both sides<\/p>\n
   to adduce fresh evidence in support of their respective<\/p>\n
   contentions, limited, no doubt, to these two issues. The finding of<\/p>\n
   the trial court that the plaintiff in O.S.No.283 of 1986 has title to<\/p>\n
   the suit property shall stand. The parties shall appear before the<\/p>\n
   Court of the Principal Munsiff of Alappuzha on 31.3. 2009. The<\/p>\n
   appellants    shall   carry  out    the  amendment     proposed    in<\/p>\n
   I.A.No.1179 of 1991 within two weeks therefrom. The defendants<\/p>\n
   will be free to file an additional written statement to the amended<\/p>\n
   plaint. The registry is directed to transmit the records to the trial<\/p>\n
   court along with a copy of this judgment expeditiously.<\/p>\n
      The Second Appeal is allowed as above. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE<\/p>\n
css\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Claramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 367 of 1996(B) 1. CLARAMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. THRESIAMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.VENKATESH For Respondent :SRI.A.KRISHNAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN Dated :05\/02\/2009 O R D E R P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== S.A.No.367 of 1996 […]<\/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-218610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nClaramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 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\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Claramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-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=\"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-07T02:54:01+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Claramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-07T02:54:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2580,\"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\\\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Claramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-07T02:54:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Claramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 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":"Claramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 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\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Claramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-07T02:54:01+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Claramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-07T02:54:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009"},"wordCount":2580,"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\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009","name":"Claramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-07T02:54:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/claramma-vs-thresiamma-on-5-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Claramma vs Thresiamma on 5 February, 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\/218610","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=218610"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218610\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}