{"id":222333,"date":"2010-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-11T12:36:13","modified_gmt":"2018-06-11T07:06:13","slug":"t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"T.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 397 of 2010()\n\n\n\n1. T.K.SASIDHARAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. GOVINDAN NAIR\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN\n\n                For Respondent  :RAJIT\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN\n\n Dated :14\/12\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                    PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &\n                  N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.\n         ------------------------------------------------\n                  R. C. R. No.397 of 2010\n         ------------------------------------------------\n         Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010\n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J<\/p>\n
      Under challenge in this revision filed by the tenant<\/p>\n
under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Appellate Authority confirming the order of<\/p>\n
eviction passed by the Rent Control Court against the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner on the ground under sub Section 3 of<\/p>\n
Section 11 of Act 2 of 1965. The landlord had invoked<\/p>\n
grounds of arrears of rent and cessation of occupation also<\/p>\n
to evict the revision petitioner. But the statutory authorities<\/p>\n
denied eviction on those grounds and the order declining<\/p>\n
eviction on those grounds have become final and in this<\/p>\n
Revision we need have to be concerned only with the<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
correctness of the eviction order passed under Section 11<\/p>\n
(3).\n<\/p>\n
      2. The need projected by the landlord is that he wants<\/p>\n
the building for the purpose of conducting a tea shop, the<\/p>\n
very business which the tenant is presently conducting in<\/p>\n
the petition schedule building. The bona fides of the need<\/p>\n
was disputed by the tenant who contended that the RCP is<\/p>\n
liable to be rejected by virtue of the first proviso to sub<\/p>\n
Section 3 of Section 11 as the landlord is in possession of<\/p>\n
other vacant buildings belonging to the landlord as parts of<\/p>\n
the very larger building another part of which is the petition<\/p>\n
schedule building. It was also contended that the tenant is<\/p>\n
entitled for the protection of the second proviso to sub<\/p>\n
Section 3 of Section 11. The Rent Control Court conducted<\/p>\n
an enquiry and the evidence consisted of the oral evidence<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
of the landlord as PW1 and that of the tenant as RW1.<\/p>\n
Documentary evidence consisted of Exts.A1 and A2 series<\/p>\n
and Exts.B1 to B4. Exts.C1 and C2 were respectively<\/p>\n
commission report and sketch submitted by an Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner on the basis of a local inspection. On<\/p>\n
evaluating the evidence, the Rent Control Court came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the need was bona fide. It was also<\/p>\n
concluded that the RCP was not liable to be rejected by the<\/p>\n
first proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. It was further<\/p>\n
concluded that the tenant was totally unsuccessful in<\/p>\n
showing that he is entitled to the protection of the second<\/p>\n
proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. Accordingly, order of<\/p>\n
eviction was passed. The tenant preferred an appeal under<\/p>\n
Section 18 of the Rent Control Act before the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority,Thrissur. The learned Appellate Authority made a<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010      -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
thorough reappraisal of the pleadings and evidence in the<\/p>\n
case and would concur with all the findings of the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court and accordingly, appeal was dismissed<\/p>\n
confirming the order of the Rent Control Court.<\/p>\n
      3. In this revision under Section 20, various grounds<\/p>\n
are raised assailing the judgment of the Appellate Authority.<\/p>\n
Sri.P.V.Chandramohan, the learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner addressed very strenuous arguments before us on<\/p>\n
the basis of the various grounds raised. All the submissions<\/p>\n
of Sri.Chandramohan were resisted by Sri.Rajit the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent who had lodged a caveat in<\/p>\n
anticipation of the RCA. Sri.Chandramohan highlighted<\/p>\n
before us that the respondent was an octogenarian and<\/p>\n
according to him, the idea of such a person thinking it in<\/p>\n
terms of commencing tea shop business in the evening<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010        -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
period of his life is inherently improbable and without bona<\/p>\n
fides. He would further submitted that the RCP was liable to<\/p>\n
be rejected by virtue of the first proviso to sub Section 3 of<\/p>\n
Section 11. He drew our attention to the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner’s report and submitted that it has been<\/p>\n
reported by the Commissioner that one of the rooms in the<\/p>\n
larger building is occupied by one Ramesh Babu who is none<\/p>\n
other than son of the landlord. Sri.Ramesh Babu has now<\/p>\n
become a “Sanyasi” and in this context the learned counsel<\/p>\n
drew our attention to Ext.B4 which is a pamphlet under the<\/p>\n
caption “Guruvayoor Brahmasthanam” which describes<\/p>\n
Sri.Ramesh Babu as a “Swamy”. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that there was no response from the landlord to<\/p>\n
the application submitted by the revision petitioner for the<\/p>\n
production of the lease deed pertaining to the other rooms.<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010       -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Adverse inference should have been drawn against the<\/p>\n
landlord. Counsel further submitted that the finding<\/p>\n
regarding the tenant’s eligibility for protection of the second<\/p>\n
proviso is erroneous. As already stated all the submissions<\/p>\n
of Sri.Chandramohan were resisted by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the respondent. We have very anxiously considered the<\/p>\n
submissions addressed at the Bar. We have gone through<\/p>\n
the judgment of the Rent Control Appellate Authority as well<\/p>\n
as the order of the Rent Control Court. The jurisdiction<\/p>\n
under Section 20 of Act 2 of 1965 is revisional in nature and<\/p>\n
in this jurisdiction we are not ordinarily expected to make a<\/p>\n
reappraisal of the evidence for the purpose of substituting<\/p>\n
factual findings arrived at by the statutory fact finding<\/p>\n
authorities especially when they are founded on evidence.<\/p>\n
On going through the judgment of the Appellate Authority,<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010       -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
we find that all the findings entered therein are founded on<\/p>\n
legal evidence available on record. True, there was some<\/p>\n
indication in the evidence that the landlord or at least the<\/p>\n
landlord’s son Ramesh Babu who is now engaged in spiritual<\/p>\n
matters was in vacant possession of one room in the larger<\/p>\n
building consisting of five rooms including the petition<\/p>\n
schedule building. But as rightly observed by the learned<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority, of all the five rooms in the larger<\/p>\n
building, the petition schedule building is the only room<\/p>\n
which has got a kitchen annexed to the same. Having regard<\/p>\n
to the nature of the business proposed, which is for conduct<\/p>\n
of a tea shop the learned Appellate Authority was perfectly<\/p>\n
justified in taking the view that the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building alone is ideally suited for the proposed business<\/p>\n
and that there was special reasons for the landlord insisting<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010       -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
of getting possession of the petition schedule building itself.<\/p>\n
      4. As for the finding that the tenant is not entitled for<\/p>\n
the protection of the second proviso, we find that such a<\/p>\n
finding has been arrived at by the statutory authorities<\/p>\n
keeping in mind the statutory provisions as well as binding<\/p>\n
judicial precedents including the judgment of the Full Bench<\/p>\n
of this Court in Francis v. Sreedevi Varassiar<\/a> (2003(2) KLT<\/p>\n
230). In short, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or<\/p>\n
impropriety as envisaged by Section 20 about the judgment<\/p>\n
of the Appellate Authority. The revision necessarily has to<\/p>\n
fail and will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      5. Sri.P.V.Chandramohan made a fervent appeal for the<\/p>\n
grant of two years’ time for the tenant to vacate the<\/p>\n
premises. This request was opposed tooth and nail by<\/p>\n
Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel for the respondent. However,<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010       -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
having taken into account all the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
attending on this case, we feel that there is justification for<\/p>\n
granting time till 31st September, 2011 to the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner subject to the following conditions. The result of<\/p>\n
the above discussion is therefore, as follows:-<\/p>\n
      6. The RCR is dismissed. The execution court is<\/p>\n
directed to keep in abeyance proceedings for delivery till<\/p>\n
30\/09\/11 subject to the following conditions:-<\/p>\n
      7. The revision petitioner shall file an affidavit within<\/p>\n
three weeks from today undertaking to give peaceful<\/p>\n
surrender of the building to the respondent on or before<\/p>\n
30\/09\/11 and undertaking further to discharge the arrears<\/p>\n
of rent within one month and to pay occupational charges at<\/p>\n
the current rent rate promptly and regularly as and when<\/p>\n
the same falls due till the date of actual surrender. It is<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.397 of 2010     -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
made clear that the revision petitioner will get the benefit of<\/p>\n
time granted as above only if he files the affidavit on time<\/p>\n
and honours the undertakings contained therein.<\/p>\n
                                        PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
\n                                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                       N. K. BALAKRISHNAN
\n                                                       JUDGE
\nkns\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 397 of 2010() 1. T.K.SASIDHARAN … Petitioner Vs 1. GOVINDAN NAIR … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN For Respondent :RAJIT The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice N.K.BALAKRISHNAN Dated :14\/12\/2010 O R […]<\/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-222333","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010 - 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\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-11T07:06:13+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-11T07:06:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1353,\"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\\\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010\",\"name\":\"T.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-11T07:06:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"T.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010 - 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\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-11T07:06:13+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-11T07:06:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010"},"wordCount":1353,"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\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010","name":"T.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-11T07:06:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sasidharan-vs-govindan-nair-on-14-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.K.Sasidharan vs Govindan Nair on 14 December, 2010"}]},{"@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\/222333","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=222333"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222333\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222333"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222333"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222333"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}