{"id":220618,"date":"2008-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008"},"modified":"2018-05-11T12:00:25","modified_gmt":"2018-05-11T06:30:25","slug":"k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 739 of 2008()\n\n\n1. K.M.SIVADASAN, S\/O. KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. T.P.MOLLY, W\/O. SIVADASAN, AGED 39 YEARS\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. T.P.GENGADHARAN, S\/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SURENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :07\/10\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                        V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n                     = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                       C.R.P.No.739 of 2008\n                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n               Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008\n\n                                ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
     Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The defendants in O.S.No.433 of 2005 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s Court, Taliparamba are the revision petitioners. The said<\/p>\n
suit which was instituted by the respondent herein was one for a<\/p>\n
perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing<\/p>\n
the plaintiff from using the plaint B schedule road for the beneficial<\/p>\n
enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property admeasuring 1.60<\/p>\n
acres by having access to and from the Chooliyad-Irikkur road on<\/p>\n
the north.    The plaintiff claimed the   right to use the Plaint B<\/p>\n
Schedule property as a way on the basis of an easement by<\/p>\n
prescription even though no declaration of the said right was<\/p>\n
prayed for in the suit. The plaintiff claimed his exclusive right over<\/p>\n
the Plaint A Schedule Property as per Ext.A1 partition deed dated<\/p>\n
11.3.85 eventhough he claimed possession over the same as per<\/p>\n
Ext.B11 Registered Dhana Nischaya Adharam dated 26.6.81. The<\/p>\n
plaint contains a specific averment that the plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property does not belong to the defendants eventhough the right to<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.739 of 2008
\n                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
use the same is claimed an easement prescription.<\/p>\n
       2. A Commission was taken out before the trial court and<\/p>\n
going by the report and plan of the Commissioner the plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property admeasuring 1.64 acres is situated to the south<\/p>\n
of the defendant’s property and the plaint B schedule strip of land<\/p>\n
passes along the eastern side of the defendant’s property and goes<\/p>\n
northwards to reach the Chooliyad-Irikkur road running east-west.<\/p>\n
The Commissioner also noticed a pathway running along the<\/p>\n
southern boundary of the plaint A schedule property.<\/p>\n
       3.  The   learned Munsiff after trial as per judgment and<\/p>\n
decree dated 31.7.08 dismissed the suit holding that eventhough<\/p>\n
the plaint A schedule property was acquired by the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
1985, that plaint B schedule way came into existence only in the<\/p>\n
year 2003, that the plaintiff’s title deeds also did not show the<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule strip of land as a northern boundary and that<\/p>\n
the 2nd defendant purchased the northern property in the year 1994<\/p>\n
and thereafter put up the house therein shown as H3 in the plan.<\/p>\n
       4. There was an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
till the disposal of the suit which was dismissed on 31.7.08. After<\/p>\n
the dismissal of the suit, according to the defendants they filled up<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.739 of 2008
\n                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
the property and raised tapioca and plantain cultivation and also<\/p>\n
planted coconut saplings in the plaint B Schedule strip of land.<\/p>\n
Four days after the dismissal of the suit the plaintiff filed<\/p>\n
I.A.No.1979 of 2008 for maintaining the status quo as per the<\/p>\n
report of the Advocate Commissioner till the filing of the appeal.<\/p>\n
The said application was opposed by the defendants contending<\/p>\n
inter alia that after dismissal of the suit they had filled up the land<\/p>\n
with 50 loads of soil and had effected cultivation and therefore it<\/p>\n
was not possible to maintain status quo as on the date of the<\/p>\n
Commissioner’s report. As per the order dated 4.8.08, the trial<\/p>\n
court held that it was not possible to maintain the status quo as on<\/p>\n
the date of filing of the Commissioner’s report and that what was<\/p>\n
needed was only an interim arrangement so as to permit the<\/p>\n
ingress and egress through the plaint B schedule property till the<\/p>\n
filing of the appeal.        The trial court also observed that<\/p>\n
notwithstanding the filling of the property it had not become unfit<\/p>\n
to be used as a way. Hence, the defendants were restrained from<\/p>\n
causing any further obstruction on the way or altering the present<\/p>\n
position of the B Schedule Property as stated in the petitions filed<\/p>\n
by the defendants or from obstructing the plaintiff from using the<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.739 of 2008
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
Plaint B Schedule way to the plaint A schedule property in its<\/p>\n
present condition.    Thus notwithstanding the filling up of the<\/p>\n
property by the defendants after the dismissal of the suit, the trial<\/p>\n
court permitted the plaintiff to use the plaint B Schedule as a<\/p>\n
pathway after taking note of the fact of filling up the property and<\/p>\n
the act of effecting cultivation by the defendants after the dismissal<\/p>\n
of the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Sub<\/p>\n
Court, Payyannur as A.S.No.75 of 2008 against the decree passed<\/p>\n
by the trial court.   They also filed I.A.No.1203 of 2008 for an<\/p>\n
interim mandatory injunction so as to restore the property to the<\/p>\n
original condition as on the date of filing the Commission Report.<\/p>\n
The status quo order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.1979 of<\/p>\n
2008 after dismissal of the suit and the efforts which had taken<\/p>\n
note of by the trial court while passing the said order were<\/p>\n
concealed from the lower appellate court while filing I.A.No.1203<\/p>\n
of 2008. The lower appellate court, as per the impugned order<\/p>\n
dated 27.9.2008, has now allowed the said application holding that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff’s case will have to be considered in the appeal and<\/p>\n
pending the appeal the property has to be restored to the original<\/p>\n
condition right up to the report of the Advocate Commissioner<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.739 of 2008
\n                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n
failing which irreparable injuries would be caused to the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the defendants     have been directed to restore the<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule to its original position as on the date of Ext.C1<\/p>\n
Commissioner’s Report within 7 days of the said order failing which<\/p>\n
the plaintiff has been permitted get the order executed through<\/p>\n
the court.\n<\/p>\n
      5.The learned counsel for the plaintiff \/caveator made the<\/p>\n
following submissions before me in support of the imugned order:-<\/p>\n
      Eventhough the suit has been dismissed by the trial court<\/p>\n
there are findings in the judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
suit for perpetual injunction was based on the right of easement.<\/p>\n
But no issue was framed by the trial court. The user of the plaint B<\/p>\n
Schedule pathway by the      and plaintiff and his predecessors- in-<\/p>\n
interest from the year 1981 has been appreciated by the trial court.<\/p>\n
By filling up the B Schedule property and raising cultivation<\/p>\n
thereon the defendants were altering the nature of the property to<\/p>\n
the detriment of the plaintiff. By doing so, the defendants have<\/p>\n
virtually obliterated the plaint B Schedule pathway to the extreme<\/p>\n
prejudice of the plaintiff.   The lower appellate court was only<\/p>\n
directing the status quo to be maintained so that the defendants<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.739 of 2008
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
are not placed in an advantageous position.\n<\/p>\n
     6. I am not inclined to agree with the above submissions. It<\/p>\n
is true that pending the suit there was an interim injunction in<\/p>\n
favour of the plaintiff. But the trial court has categorically taken<\/p>\n
note of the following facts:-\n<\/p>\n
     i) The plaint B schedule property belonging to the defendants<\/p>\n
and situated to the north of the plaint A schedule property came<\/p>\n
into existence only in the year 2003. The plaintiff acquired the<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule property in the year 1985.\n<\/p>\n
     ii)  The title deeds of the plaintiffs as well as the documents<\/p>\n
by which the plaintiff had pledged the plaint A schedule property<\/p>\n
would go to show that the defendants’ property and the property of<\/p>\n
one Unnikrishnan alone were shown as the northern boundary. If<\/p>\n
the plaint B Schedule     way was in existence and was used as<\/p>\n
alleged by the plaintiff then that would have certainly figured as<\/p>\n
one of the northern boundary.\n<\/p>\n
     (iii) The plaintiff has an alternative way in the form of a<\/p>\n
pathway lying towards the southern boundary of the plaint A<\/p>\n
Schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
     (iv) The plaint contains a specific allegation that the plaint B<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.739 of 2008
\n                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
Schedule property does not belong to the defendants if so the<\/p>\n
claim of easement by way of prescription is inconsistent to the said<\/p>\n
allegation.\n<\/p>\n
      v) It was after dismissal of the suit that the defendants had<\/p>\n
filled up the plaint B Schedule and raised cultivation thereon.<\/p>\n
      7. It was never alleged by the plaintiff that the said act of the<\/p>\n
defendants was in violation of the interim injunction pending suit.<\/p>\n
If so it was taking note of the said change in the situation and the<\/p>\n
trial court passed the status quo restraining the defendants from<\/p>\n
making any further change in the property and allowing the<\/p>\n
plaintiff to use the plaint B Schedule as a pathway till the filing of<\/p>\n
the appeal. The circumstances which were noticed by the trial<\/p>\n
court were concealed from the lower appellate court while filing<\/p>\n
I.A.No.1203 of 2008 seeking the interim mandatory injunction. The<\/p>\n
lower appellate court was not justified in ignoring the fact that the<\/p>\n
filling of the land and raising of the cultivation was not at a time<\/p>\n
when the order of injunction against the defendants was in force.<\/p>\n
If so,   there was no need     for granting the interim mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction allegedly for the restoration of the status quo to the<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.739 of 2008
\n                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
anterior date of Ext.C1 report. The lower appellate court has failed<\/p>\n
to notice the detailed order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.1979<\/p>\n
of 2008 as per which the plaintiff’s requirements were adequately<\/p>\n
taken care of and there was no irreparable injury or balance of<\/p>\n
convenience so as to direct the defendants to restore the property<\/p>\n
to original condition and that too to a date even before the date of<\/p>\n
disposal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
      Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the status<\/p>\n
quo order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.1979 of 2008 shall<\/p>\n
continue to be in operation till the lower appellate court disposes of<\/p>\n
the appeal which shall be disposed of untrammelled by the<\/p>\n
observations in this order.\n<\/p>\n
      Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 739 of 2008() 1. K.M.SIVADASAN, S\/O. KUNHIKANNAN NAMBIAR … Petitioner 2. T.P.MOLLY, W\/O. SIVADASAN, AGED 39 YEARS Vs 1. T.P.GENGADHARAN, S\/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.R.SURENDRAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-220618","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008 - 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\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-11T06:30:25+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\\\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-11T06:30:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1638,\"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\\\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008\",\"name\":\"K.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-11T06:30:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"K.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008 - 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\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-11T06:30:25+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\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-11T06:30:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008"},"wordCount":1638,"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\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008","name":"K.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-11T06:30:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-m-sivadasan-vs-t-p-gengadharan-on-7-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.M.Sivadasan vs T.P.Gengadharan on 7 October, 2008"}]},{"@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\/220618","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=220618"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220618\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220618"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220618"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220618"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}