{"id":219781,"date":"1970-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970"},"modified":"2017-12-26T10:35:55","modified_gmt":"2017-12-26T05:05:55","slug":"sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970","title":{"rendered":"Sankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1971 Ker 27<\/div>\n
Author: E Moidu<\/div>\n
Bench: E Moidu<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER <\/p>\n
 E.K. Moidu, J.  <\/p>\n
1. The question that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the respondent-plaintiff has made out a case for temporary injunction restraining the pctilioner-3rd defendant from entering upon the plaint property and conducting a tutorial college thereon and also restraining the petitioner disturbing the quiet possession of the respondent. The suit out of which the petition for temporary injunction arose was one for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property and also for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants in the suit to demolish the 4 sheds erected on the property and by removing the same therefrom thereby giving vacant possession of the property to the respondent. Both the courts below granted the temporary injunction as prayed for. The decretal order passed by the trial court is couched in the following words: “The defendants are restrained from concluding any tutorial college in the 4 sheds constructed by the 3rd defendant. They arc also restrained from putting up any additional shed or from interfering with the possession of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff.”\n<\/p>\n
 2. It is admitted case that the petitioner is conducting a tutorial college in the above 4 sheds which were erected on the plaint schedule property. The plaint property belongs to the respondent. The original owner was his father, Peter Rosario, Since 1956, a tutorial college had been conducted in one of the buildings erected upon the properly by one Prabhakaran. While so, the petitioner got an assignment of that shed as per Ext. 134 in I960. Thereafter, the petitioner executed a lease deed to the 4th defendant, who is the uncle of the respondent. The petitioner has been in possession under the renewed lease deed dated 24-1-60 on payment of Rs. 200 ground rent a year to the 4th defendant. 4th defendant was the agent of Peter Kosario, who left for Penang in 1959. In the meanwhile, he had assigned the property to the respondent who is his son. By that time the respondent and his father came back from Penang, the petitioner had executed Ext. P3 rent deed dated 29-4-66 in favour of the 4th defendant. The petitioner had also erected 3 more sheds for the conduct of the tutorial college. The  ground rent under the latest arrangement was to pay Rs. 400 a year. There is no case that rent had not been paid to the 4th defendant. In Ext. P3 rent deed, which is produced by the respondent in court, it is stated that when Peter Rosario came back from Penang, the petitioner would surrender the property on demolition of the sheds erected by him upon the property. It is stated that Peter Rosario and the petitioner came back to this country in 1968 and demanded the petitioner to surrender the property. Since there was no surrender effected, the instant<\/p>\n
suit had been filed along with the application for temporary injunction. The question for us to consider is whether the respondent has made out a case for temporary injunction to be issued as prayed for against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 3. A temporary injunction can be issued under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, Civil P. C. which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
  “Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise-\n<\/p>\n
 (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or  <\/p>\n
 (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property as the Court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.”\n<\/p>\n
 4. Before a temporary injunction is granted, therefore, a court must be satisfied that (1) the applicant has a prima facie case, (2) protection is necessary from the species of injuries known as irreparable, before legal right can be established, and (3) the mischief or inconvenience likely to arise from the withholding of injunction is greater than by granting it. It has to be stated in this case that the subordinate courts did not consider the case in the light of the ingredients Nos. 2 and 3 specified above. The case was disposed of only on the basis that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case. However, it is contended that even if the prayer for temporary injunction is not covered by Order XXXIX, Rule 1, still the inherent power of court by virtue of Section 131, Civil P. C. can be invoked to grant an injunction. There can be no dispute that the inherent power of court under Section 157., Civil P. C., can be invoked in suitable cases. But, still the question is whether the Court is bound to consider not only that the applicant has a prima facie case, but also the other two ingredients, which wore set forth above. In Mathura Rai v. Marachoo Kuer, AIR 1946 Pat 176 it is stated that in order to obtain an interlocutory injunction, it is not enough for the plaintiff to show that he has a prima facie case. He must further show the following ingredients:\n<\/p>\n
 (1) In the event of withholding the relief of temporary injunction he will suffer an irreparable injury;\n<\/p>\n
 (2) in the event of his success in the suit in establishing his alleged legal right, the encroachment whereof is complained against, he will not have the proper remedy in being awarded adequate damages.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) in taking into consideration the comparative mischief or inconveniences to the parties, the balance of convenience is in his<\/p>\n
favour, or in other words, that his inconvenience in the event of withholding the relief of temporary injunction will in all events exceed that or the defendant in case he is restrained. This condition can, under circumstances, be so adjusted as not to deprive either party of the benefits he is entitled to in the event it tarns out that the party in whoso favour the order is made shall be in the wrong, by imposition of forms on one party or the other as condition of either granting or withholding the injunction;\n<\/p>\n
 (4) lastly, the plaintiff must show a dear necessity for affording immediate protection to his alleged right or interest which would otherwise be seriously injured or impaired.\n<\/p>\n
 5. In this regard, I may point out the manner of exercise of the power relating to the grant of temporary injunction and the circumstances to be taken into consideration in exercise thereof. At page 101 of “the Law relating to Injunctions’ (12th Edn. by Woodroffe) the following observation is made:\n<\/p>\n
  “The power which the Court possesses of granting injunctions whether interlocutory or perpetual (however salutary), should be very cautiously exercised, and only upon clear and satisfactory grounds; otherwise it may work the greatest injustice. An application for an injunction is an appeal to the extraordinary power of the Court, and the, plaintiff is bound to make out a case showing a clear necessity for its exercise; it being the duty of the Court rather to protect acknowledged rights than to establish new and doubtful ones. Moreover, a temporary injunction is a restrictive or prohibitory process designed to compel the party against whom it is granted to maintain his status merely until the matters in dispute shall by due process of the Courts be determined. As such, an injunction is in its operation, somewhat like judgment and execution before trial; it is only to be resorted to from a pressing necessity, to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be repaired under any standard of compensation.”\n<\/p>\n
 6. So, before a temporary injunction is granted the court must be satisfied that the applicant has a prima facie case: protection is necessary from irreparable injury before legal right can be established and the mischief nr inconvenience is likely to arise from withholding of the injunction is greater than by granting it. In elucidating the points to be considered in an application for temporary injunction, the following observation of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Malla Suranna v. K. Somulu, AIR 1969 Andh Pra 368 is relevant.\n<\/p>\n
  “It is no doubt true that under Order 39, Rule 1, Civil P. C., it is in the discretion of the Court to issue or refuse to issue an injunction, and the appellate Court would not normally interfere in the exercise of the discretion. The discretion should however like other cases of discretion vested in the<\/p>\n
Courts, have to be exercised in accordance with the reason and on sound judicial principles. The grant of injunction is a serious matter and Courts should always take good care to grant an injunction in cases only where such an injunction is essential. The three things which must necessarily go into consideration, while considering the question of granting or refusing an injunction are now fairly well known. The prima facie existence of a right and its infringement, irreparable injury and the balance of convenience are the three things which must necessarily be properly considered. I have already said that the matter of issuing injunction is discretionary. What must therefore follow is that even if these three things exist, in a proper case, the Court can refuse even then to issue an injunction. The rule is fully established that in cases where the facts are already established and the injury is real and the plaintiff acts promptly upon his acquired knowledge of the defendant’s acts a preliminary mandatory injunction may be granted although the act complained of was fully completed before the suit or the appeal was actually filed or preferred. Nevertheless as stated earlier, exceptional circumstances have to be made out by the appellant in order to entitle him to the issue of a mandatory injunction particularly when the trial court has gone against him on all the issues.”\n<\/p>\n
 7. It is, therefore, clear that the temporary injunction cannot be granted only on the basis that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, but the plaintiff must show to which side the balance of convenience lies. On this point, the following observation in Hemraj v. Seventeen Textile Traders, AIR 1961 Pat 318 may be seen. It is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
  “But the circumstances that the plaintiff has a prima facie case does not necessarily mean that an order of injunction must follow. The Court must also consider on which side lies the balance of convenience, In the case of Brajendra Nath v. Kashibai, AIR 1946 Pat 177, their Lordships have laid down that in order to obtain an interlocutory injunction it is not enough for the plaintiff to show that he has a prima facie case. He must further show that (1) he will suffer an irreparable injury if the relief of temporary injunction is not granted; (2) in the event of his success he will not have the proper remedy in being awarded adequate damages; (3) the balance of convenience will in all events exceed that of the defendant in case he is restrained; and (4) lastly, he must show a clear necessity for affording immediate protection to his alleged right or interest which would otherwise be seriously injured or impaired. Their Lordships have further laid down that temporary injunction can only be granted where award of compensation and damages will not be a full and complete remedy to the person applying for the same.”\n<\/p>\n
 8.    The lower Courts did not consider the question  as  to  the    balance of convenience between the parties if the injunction is allowed  or refused. The question as to whether the  plaintiff  is  likely  to  suffer  any  damage which  could  not  be  compensated  by  other means also was not considered by the subordinate  Courts.       When    the  petitioner  was conducting  a  tutorial   college  wherein  more than  500  students  were  educated and  large number  of  lecturers  and     others  were  employed, the grant of a mandatory injunction in  the form  in which it is    couched would really put an end to the educational activity of the petition or.    In an almost similar case it is held in A. R. Gangadhara & Co. v. Finn P.M. Rajeswar & Co., AIR 1902 Andh Pra 510 that where the question is who is entitled  to  the property, whether the plaintiffs or the defendants,  an    order of injunction restraining the defendants  to carry on business is not  a proper one to be passed.    In such cases,   the  balance  of convenience docs  not require  the  issue  of an  order  of  injunction which in effect would destroy the entire business  of the defendants.    This aspect of  the question  has    not  been  considered by    the courts   below,    it   is   true   that   the   respondent  is  the owner of the site in which the buildings  are   erected.    It   is   also   true   that the petitioner agreed  to demolish the building  and  give  the  vacant  site  to  the  owner whenever he returns from  Penang.    But,  at the same  time,  he  executed     Ext.  P3  as  a rent  deed  in   favour  of  the  4th  defendant, who   is   an   agent   of   the   respondent.     The injunction was issued at the stage when the petitioner did not even file his written statement  in   answer  to   the    plaint.     The  petitioner did  not  so  far put  forth  his  contentions in the suit.    It is argued that the petitioner  must  be  given  a  chance  to  establish his case on the basis of the rent deed Ext. P3 and  other  provisions  of  law  as  to  how  he would  be  able  to  continue  in possession  of the   buildings.     Before   the   entire   evidence is placed before the subordinate Courts, they have practically put back the  buildings into the possession  of the respondent.    The relevant part of the trial court’s order is to the effect   that  the possession  of  the respondent over the property shall not be interfered with by   the   petitioner.    That  would   amount   to the   respondent  entering  upon   the  property forthwith and make use of the buildings by himself under  the guise of the order of injunction.    The agreement    by the petitioner is to pay Rs. 400  a year as ground rent to the 4th defendant in respect of the property in   question.    So,  if the  rent was     paid  a: agreed, the petitioner would be able to conduct   the   tutorial   college   until   a   decree  is passed against him as prayed for in the suit. But,   if   a  temporary   injunction   is   allowed, it would  cause irreparable loss  to  the petitioner.    But, the ultimate loss to be accrued to  the respondent  could    be estimated     in damage.    The respondent would be entitled<\/p>\n
to get cither the rent or the mesne profits if a decree against the petitioner is passed in the final analysis of the case. So, on the two questions as to whether protection is necessary from the injury known as irreparable before legal right can be established or the mischief or inconvenience is likely to arise from withholding of injunction is greater than by granting it have never been considered by the courts below. Balance of convenience in the circumstances of the case is to withhold the injunction until a decree is passed in the suit. It is, however, contended that under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code this court has no jurisdiction to disturb the finding of fact arrived at by the courts below. On this question, the Section 115 may be seen. It reads as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
 “The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears-\n<\/p>\n
 (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or  <\/p>\n
 (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or  <\/p>\n
 (c) to have acted in the exorcise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity,
\nthe High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks  fit.”\n<\/p>\n
 9. The right to interfere in revision under Section 115, Civil P.C. is considered in Pandurang v. Maruti, AIR 1966 SC 153 which made the following observation:\n<\/p>\n
  “The High Court cannot while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 115, correct errors of fact, however gross they nay be, or even errors of law. It can only do so when the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. It is only in cases where the subordinate Court has exorcised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise oi its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity that the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be properly invoked. Points of law may arise which are related to questions of jurisdiction. A plea of limitation or a plea of res judicata is a plea of law which concerns the jurisdiction of the Court which trios the proceedings. A finding on these pleas in favour of the party which raises them would oust the jurisdiction of the Court. An erroneous decision on these picas, therefore, can be said to be concerned with questions of jurisdiction falling within the purview of Section 115 of the Code. But an erroneous decision oo a question of law having no relation to questions of jurisdiction will not be corrected by the High Court under Section 115.”\n<\/p>\n
 10. The above observation shows that in case where a subordinate court exercised a<\/p>\n
jurisdiction not vested in it by law pr it failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of the jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court can be properly invoked. In some cases, points of law may arise which are related to questions of jurisdiction. In the instant case, points of taw have arisen with regard to the propriety of granting injunction. The provision of law is that in granting injunction the court is bound to follow certain well laid down principles. Of these principles, the subordinate courtly failed to consider two of the important conditions. One is irreparable loss which ran be compensated in damages if an injunction is refused, and the other is the balance of convenience. When the subordinate court failed to consider this important question of law, it can be said that they failed to exercise jurisdiction which is vested in it. If there is such a failure to exercise jurisdiction on a question of law, evidently Section 115, Civil P. C. comes into play. I may, in this connection, point out that in a similar case, it was held by this court in Rajalakshmi Amma v. Kunjipilla, 1959 Ker LJ 120 = (AIR 1959) Ker 277) that it comes within the ambit of Clause (c) of Section 115, Civil P. C. On that question as well as the other questions regarding the grant of infunction, the relevant observation of Kumara Pillai, J. may be seen in paragraph 8 of the decision which reads as follows:—\n<\/p>\n
  ‘It was also contended by the respondent’ counsel that this was not a case in which the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, can be exercised, especially in view of the concurrent findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs have a prima Facie case as regards title to the lane. But, as pointed out in Kalyanpur Lime Works v. State of Bihar, AIR<\/a> 1934 Pat 220, the fact that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case does not necessarily mean that a temporary injunction can be issued. Before issuing such an injunction the court must consider and satisfy itself whether the effect of the injunction would be to preserve or alter the status quo during the pendency of the litigation and whether irreparable or serious injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the injunction is not issued. If the effect of the injunction would be to alter the status quo during pendency of the trial and no irreparable injury would be caused to the plaintiffs by preserving the status quo it is not a fit case for issuing a temporary injunction which is a remedy which should be sparingly resorted to, since it would often result in giving to the plaintiffs the remedy they seek in the suit oven before the contentions of the contending parties are properly tried. As the courts below have omitted to consider these essential aspects and have only considered the question of prima facie title to the land, it cannot but be held that they have acted with material irregularity<\/p>\n
in the exercise of their jurisdiction. The case, therefore, clearly falls under Clause (c) of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and attracts the exorcise of the revisional jurisdiction of this court.”\n<\/p>\n
 11. So, on analysis of the entire case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for refusing temporary injunction to the respondent. If an injunction is allowed, the entire educational activity conducted by the petitioner would completely be stopped. On the other hand, if the petitioner is allowed to continue in possession until the disposal of the suit, the injury caused to the respondent could be compensated in damages. The subordinate courts were not correct in putting the respondent back in possession of the property when the questions as to the contention of the petitioner regarding his right to be in possession were nut fully considered and the consideration of the same can he made only after hearing both sides with the documentary and oral evidence placed before the court. It is, therefore, clear that the balance of convenience requires that the petitioner is allowed to be in possession until the decree is passed in the suit. However, I may direct the Munsiff to take up the suit for trial and dispose of the same as quickly as possible after the summer recess.\n<\/p>\n
 12. In the result, I allow the civil revision petition, set aside the orders of the courts below and dismiss the application for in function, however, subject to the direction that the defendants shall not erect any new sheds pending the suit. No costs. The trial court will dispose of the suit as quickly as possible after the summer recess.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970 Equivalent citations: AIR 1971 Ker 27 Author: E Moidu Bench: E Moidu ORDER E.K. Moidu, J. 1. The question that arises for determination in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the respondent-plaintiff has made out a case for temporary injunction restraining […]<\/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-219781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970 - 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\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970\" \/>\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=\"1970-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-26T05:05:55+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-26T05:05:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970\"},\"wordCount\":3712,\"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\\\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970\",\"name\":\"Sankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-26T05:05:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970\"}]},{\"@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":"Sankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970 - 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\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-26T05:05:55+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970","datePublished":"1970-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-26T05:05:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970"},"wordCount":3712,"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\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970","name":"Sankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-26T05:05:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankara-pillai-madhavan-pillai-vs-inez-rosario-on-10-april-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sankara Pillai Madhavan Pillai vs Inez Rosario on 10 April, 1970"}]},{"@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\/219781","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=219781"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219781\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}