{"id":222696,"date":"2010-05-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-26T21:29:28","modified_gmt":"2018-06-26T15:59:28","slug":"velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"Velayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Velayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 16 of 1997(B)\n\n\n\n1. VELAYUDHAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. RAMACHANDRAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.BABU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :28\/05\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                          P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                          S.A. No. 16 of 1997\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n              Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010.\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
           The defendant in O.S.216 of 1989 before the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s Court, Wadakkancherry, who suffered a decree<\/p>\n
at the hands of the first appellate court is the appellant.<\/p>\n
The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they<\/p>\n
are available before the trial court.<\/p>\n
           2. The suit was one for partition in respect of<\/p>\n
25 cents of property comprised in Sy. No.602\/1 of<\/p>\n
Choondal village.          It is claimed that the property was<\/p>\n
jointly owned by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3.<\/p>\n
According to the plaintiff, the property was purchased in<\/p>\n
the name of the              second defendant and the father,<\/p>\n
Narayanan Nair, as guardian of the present plaintiff and<\/p>\n
deceased Madhavan and third defendant, who were then<\/p>\n
minors. Madhavan died unmarried and his sole legal heir<\/p>\n
is the first defendant mother. Father of the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
also no more.       Plaintiff claimed that he had attained<\/p>\n
majority. He found that the fourth and sixth respondents are<\/p>\n
in possession of certain portions of the property. They have<\/p>\n
no manner of right over the suit property. To the notice<\/p>\n
sent, they have sent a reply notice containing false<\/p>\n
allegations. The plaintiff does not wish to continue the joint<\/p>\n
possession and he seeks partition.      He claims one fourth<\/p>\n
share.\n<\/p>\n
            3. The first defendant filed a written statement<\/p>\n
supporting the plaintiff. The second defendant resisted the<\/p>\n
suit. In her written statement, it was pointed out that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff was very sick at the time of infancy and his father<\/p>\n
had to raise money for his treatment. The suit property was<\/p>\n
therefore assigned by the father for valid consideration as<\/p>\n
they had no means to raise the funds. Plaintiff is fully aware<\/p>\n
of the same.     The entire sale consideration received was<\/p>\n
utilized for the treatment of the plaintiff. After the death of<\/p>\n
Sethumadhavan, it is claimed that father and the plaintiff<\/p>\n
accompanied the second defendant to Allahabad, where her<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
husband was employed. Pointing out that the plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
entitled to any relief, she prayed for a dismissal of the suit.<\/p>\n
The third defendant chose to remain ex-parte.<\/p>\n
            4. Defendants 4 and 5 also resisted the suit. They<\/p>\n
claimed that by virtue of Ext.B1 dated 5.5.1967 they have<\/p>\n
absolute right over the suit property. At the time when the<\/p>\n
assignment was made, the plaintiff had no manner of right<\/p>\n
over the suit property. The plaintiff has not mentioned the<\/p>\n
date on which he had attained majority. His father who was<\/p>\n
the natural guardian at the relevant time has executed the<\/p>\n
deed on his behalf also. Sale consideration was utilized for<\/p>\n
the benefit and interest of the plaintiff.    They have also<\/p>\n
pointed out that without having the sale deed set aside, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff could not seek partition.        In addition, they<\/p>\n
contended that they perfected title by adverse possession<\/p>\n
and limitation. They pointed out that a residential building<\/p>\n
has been put up by them and they had effected<\/p>\n
improvements in the property. In case the court found that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff is entitled to a share, they claimed value of<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
improvements. Under those circumstances, they prayed for<\/p>\n
a dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
            5.  The trial court raised necessary issues for<\/p>\n
consideration.   The evidence consists of the testimony of<\/p>\n
P.W.1 and the documents marked as Exts. A1 to A5 from the<\/p>\n
side of the plaintiff.  The defendants had D.Ws. 1 and 2<\/p>\n
examined and Exts. B1 and B2 marked. Ext.C1 is the<\/p>\n
commission report.\n<\/p>\n
            6. The trial court found that the plaintiff was a<\/p>\n
minor at the time of assignment as per Ext.B1.         It also<\/p>\n
formed an opinion that on attaining majority within three<\/p>\n
years the plaintiff had to assail the assignment deed. Since<\/p>\n
he has not done so his claim is barred and accordingly<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
            7. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal as<\/p>\n
A.S. 219 of 1993. The appellate court concurred with the<\/p>\n
trial court as regards the fact that the plaintiff was a minor<\/p>\n
at the time of execution of Ext.B1. But the court was of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the suit having been brought within 12 years of<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
the date of assignment, the suit is not barred by limitation.<\/p>\n
Accordingly the judgment and decree of the trial court was<\/p>\n
reversed and a preliminary decree was passed. The said<\/p>\n
judgment and decree are assailed in this Second Appeal.<\/p>\n
            8. A very narrow question arises for consideration<\/p>\n
in this Second Appeal. The issue is whether the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
obliged to assail the sale deed, namely, Ext.B1, in favour of<\/p>\n
defendants 4 and 5 within three years of attainment of<\/p>\n
majority or whether he could take the aid of 12 years from<\/p>\n
the date of assignment deed to establish his claim. The trial<\/p>\n
court pointed out that the plaintiff had to set aside the sale<\/p>\n
deed within three years of attaining majority and the lower<\/p>\n
appellate court was of the opinion that he could take the aid<\/p>\n
of Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The trial court chose to<\/p>\n
dismiss the suit, while the appellate court decreed the suit.<\/p>\n
            9. Before going into the other circumstances, it is<\/p>\n
useful to refer to the statutory provisions applicable to the<\/p>\n
facts of the case. The statutory provisions applicable are<\/p>\n
Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
(Act 32 of 1956), Sections 29 and 31 of the Guardians and<\/p>\n
Wards Act, 1890 (Act 8 of 1890), Section 6 of the Limitation<\/p>\n
Act and Articles 60 and 65 of the Limitation Act.         The<\/p>\n
provisions read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956<\/p>\n
(Act 32 of 1956) reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “8.    Powers of Natural guardian.- (1)          The<\/p>\n
      natural guardian of a Hindu minor has power,<\/p>\n
      subject to the provisions of this section, to do all<\/p>\n
      acts which are necessary or reasonable, and<\/p>\n
      proper for the benefit of the minor or for the<\/p>\n
      realization, protection or benefit of the minor’s<\/p>\n
      estate; but the guardian can in no case bind the<\/p>\n
      minor by a personal covenant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (2)    The natural guardian shall not, without<\/p>\n
      previous permission of the Court, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a) mortgage or charge, or transfer by sale,<\/p>\n
      gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the<\/p>\n
      immovable property of the minor, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (b) lease any part of such property for a term<\/p>\n
      exceeding five years or for a term extending more<\/p>\n
      than one year beyond the date on which the minor<\/p>\n
      will attain majority.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
      (3)   Any disposal of immovable property by a<\/p>\n
      natural guardian, in contravention of sub-section<\/p>\n
      (1) or sub-section(2), is voidable at the instance of<\/p>\n
      the minor or any person claiming under him.<\/p>\n
      (4) No court shall grant permission to the natural<\/p>\n
      guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-<\/p>\n
      section (2) except in case of necessity or for an<\/p>\n
      evident advantage to the minor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (5)   The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (8 of<\/p>\n
      1890), shall apply to and in respect of an<\/p>\n
      application for obtaining the permission of the<\/p>\n
      Court under sub-section (2) in all respects as if it<\/p>\n
      were an application for obtaining the permission<\/p>\n
      of the Court under Sec. 29 of the Act, and in<\/p>\n
      particular,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a)   proceedings in connection with the<\/p>\n
      application shall be deemed to be proceedings<\/p>\n
      under that Act within the meaning of Sec.4A<\/p>\n
      thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b)  the court shall observe the procedure<\/p>\n
      and have the powers specified in sub-sections (2),<\/p>\n
      (3) and (4) of Sec.31 of that Act; and<\/p>\n
            ) an appeal shall lie from an order of the<\/p>\n
      Court refusing permission to the natural guardian<\/p>\n
      to do any of the acts mentioned in sub-section (2)<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
      of this section to the Court to which appeals<\/p>\n
      ordinarily lie from the decisions of that Court.<\/p>\n
      (6) In this Section, “Court” means the Civil Civil<\/p>\n
      Court or a District Court or a Court empowered<\/p>\n
      under Sec.4-A of the Guardians and Wards Act,<\/p>\n
      1890 (8 of 1890), within the local limits of whose<\/p>\n
      jurisdiction the immoveable property in respect of<\/p>\n
      which the application is made is situate, and<\/p>\n
      where the immoveable property is situate within<\/p>\n
      the    jurisdiction of more than one such Court<\/p>\n
      means the Court within the local limits of whose<\/p>\n
      jurisdiction any portion of the property is situate.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Sections 29 and 31 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890<\/p>\n
(Act 8 of 1890) read as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “29.    Limitation of powers of guardian of<\/p>\n
      property appointed or declared by the<\/p>\n
      Court.- Where a person other than a Collector or<\/p>\n
      than a guardian appointed by will or other<\/p>\n
      instrument, has been appointed or declared by the<\/p>\n
      Court to be guardian of the property of a ward, he<\/p>\n
      shall not without the previous permission of the<\/p>\n
      Court, –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                    9<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (a) mortgage or charge or transfer by sale,<\/p>\n
      gift, exchange or otherwise, any part of the<\/p>\n
      immovable property of his ward, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (b)   lease any part of that property for a term<\/p>\n
      exceeding five years or for any term extending<\/p>\n
      more than one year beyond the date on which the<\/p>\n
      ward will cease to be a minor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            xxxxx                        xxxxx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      31.     Practice with respect to permitting<\/p>\n
      transfers under Sec. 29.- (1) Permission to the<\/p>\n
      guardian to do any of the acts mentioned in<\/p>\n
      Sec.29 shall not be granted by the Court except in<\/p>\n
      case of necessity or for an evident advantage t0o<\/p>\n
      the ward.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (2) The order granting the permission shall<\/p>\n
      recite the necessity or advantage, as the case<\/p>\n
      may be, describe the property with respect to<\/p>\n
      which the act permitted is to e done, and specify<\/p>\n
      such conditions, if any, as the Court may see fit to<\/p>\n
      attach to the permission; and it shall be recorded,<\/p>\n
      dated and signed by the Judge of the Court with<\/p>\n
      his own hand, or, when from any cause he is<\/p>\n
      prevented from recording the order with own<\/p>\n
      hand, shall be taken down in writing from his<\/p>\n
      dictation and be dated and signed by him.<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                   10<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (3) The Court may in its discretion attach to<\/p>\n
      the   permission   the   following  among    other<\/p>\n
      conditions, namely:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a)  that a sale shall not be completed<\/p>\n
      without the sanction of the Court;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b) that a sale shall be made to the highest<\/p>\n
      bidder by public auction before the Court or some<\/p>\n
      person specially appointed by the Court for that<\/p>\n
      purpose, at a time and place to be specified by the<\/p>\n
      Court, after such proclamation of the intended<\/p>\n
      sale as the Court subject to any rules made under<\/p>\n
      this Act by the High Court, directs;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            )    that a lease shall not be made in<\/p>\n
      consideration of a premium or shall be made for<\/p>\n
      such term of years and subject to such rents and<\/p>\n
      covenants as the Court directs;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (d)  that the whole or any part of the<\/p>\n
      proceeds of the act permitted shall be paid into<\/p>\n
      the Court by the guardian, to be disbursed<\/p>\n
      therefrom or to be invested by the Court on<\/p>\n
      prescribed securities or to be otherwise disposed<\/p>\n
      of as the Court directs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (4) Before granting permission to a guardian<\/p>\n
      to do an act mentioned in Sec.29, the Court may<\/p>\n
      cause notice of the application for the permission<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
      to be given to any relative or friend of the ward<\/p>\n
      who should, in its opinion receive notice thereof,<\/p>\n
      and shall hear and record the statement of any<\/p>\n
      person    who    appears    in  opposition   to  the<\/p>\n
      application.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 6 of the Limitation Act reads as follows:<\/p>\n
            “6. Legal disability.- (1) Where a person<\/p>\n
      entitled to institute a suit or make an application<\/p>\n
      for the execution of a decree is, at the time from<\/p>\n
      which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a<\/p>\n
      minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the<\/p>\n
      suit or make the application within the same<\/p>\n
      period after the disability has ceased, as would<\/p>\n
      otherwise have been allowed from the time<\/p>\n
      specified therefor in the third column of the<\/p>\n
      Schedule.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (2) Where such person is, at the time from<\/p>\n
      which the prescribed period is to be reckoned,<\/p>\n
      affected by two such disabilities, or where, before<\/p>\n
      his disability has ceased, he is affected by another<\/p>\n
      disability, he may institute the suit or make the<\/p>\n
      application within the same period after both<\/p>\n
      disabilities have ceased, as would otherwise have<\/p>\n
      been allowed from the time so specified.<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                    12<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            (3) Where the disability continues up to the<\/p>\n
      death of that person, his legal representative may<\/p>\n
      institute the suit or make the application within<\/p>\n
      the same period after the death, as would<\/p>\n
      otherwise have been allowed from the time so<\/p>\n
      specified.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (4) Where the legal representative referred<\/p>\n
      to in sub-section (3) is, at the date of the death of<\/p>\n
      the person whom he represents, affected by any<\/p>\n
      such disability, the rules contained in sub-sections<\/p>\n
      (1) and (2) shall apply.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (5)  Where a person under disability dies<\/p>\n
      after the disability ceases but within the period<\/p>\n
      allowed to him under this section, his legal<\/p>\n
      representative may institute the suit or make the<\/p>\n
      application within the same period after the<\/p>\n
      death, as would otherwise have been available to<\/p>\n
      that person had he not died.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Explanation.-    For the purposes of this<\/p>\n
      section, ‘minor’ includes a child in the womb.”<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                      13<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Articles 60 and 65 of the Limitation Act read as follows:<\/p>\n
“60.To set aside a transfer of
\nproperty made by the guardian
\nof a ward-\n<\/p>\n
      (a) by the ward who has     Three years   When the ward attains
\nattained majority;                              majority.\n<\/p>\n
      (b) by the ward’s legal
\nrepresentative-\n<\/p>\n
      (i) when the ward dies        -do-        When the ward attains
\nwithin three years from the date                majority.
\nof attaining majority;\n<\/p>\n
      (ii) when the ward dies       -do-        When the ward dies.
\nbefore attaining majority.\n<\/p>\n
      xxxxx                                     xxxxx<\/p>\n
65. For possession of immovable    Twelve years When the possession
\nproperty or any interest therein                of    the     defendant
\nbased on title.                                 becomes adverse to
\n                                                the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.-For the purposes
\nof this article-\n<\/p>\n
(a)where the suit is by a
\nremainderman, a reversioner
\n(other than a landlord) or a
\ndevisee, the possession of the
\ndefendant shall be deemed to
\nbecome adverse only when the
\nestate of the remainderman,
\nreversioner or devisee,as the case
\nmay be, falls into possession;\n<\/p>\n
(b)where the suit is by a Hindu or
\nMuslim entitled to the possession
\nof immovable property on the death
\nof a Hindu or Muslim female, the
\npossession of the defendant shall
\nbe deemed to become adverse<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
only when the female dies;\n<\/p>\n
) where the suit is by a purchaser
\nat a sale in execution of a decree when
\nthe judgment-debtor was out of
\npossession at the date of the sale,
\nthe purchaser shall be deemed to be a
\nrepresentative of the judgment-debtor
\nwho was out of possession.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             10.     Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and<\/p>\n
Guardianship Act deals with the powers of natural guardian<\/p>\n
in respect of properties of the minor. The provisions which<\/p>\n
are relevant for the present purpose are Sections 8(2) and<\/p>\n
8(3). On a reading of the provisions, it can be seen that the<\/p>\n
natural guardian shall not, without the previous sanction of<\/p>\n
the court, assign the property belonging to the minor.<\/p>\n
Section 8(3) says that if the above provision is violated, then<\/p>\n
the assignment becomes voidable at the instance of the<\/p>\n
minor. It may be noticed that Section 8 makes provision of<\/p>\n
the Guardian and Wards Act (Act 8 of 1890) applicable to the<\/p>\n
proceedings under Act 32 of 1956. Sections 29 and 31 of<\/p>\n
Act 8 of 1980 gives the procedure when a guardian applies<\/p>\n
for assignment of a minor’s property. These provisions are<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                   15<\/span><\/p>\n
not very relevant in the present context. It is not necessary<\/p>\n
to refer it extensively.\n<\/p>\n
            11. Section 6 of the Limitation Act deals with a<\/p>\n
case where the person, who is entitled to institute a suit is<\/p>\n
under a disability. As far as the provision is applicable to the<\/p>\n
present case, it could be said that going by Section 6 the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has three years period, that is till 21 years of age, to<\/p>\n
assail Ext.B1.     One may remember that even going by<\/p>\n
Section 8 of Act 32 of 1956 the assignment is only voidable<\/p>\n
at the instance of the minor. Article 60 provides a period of<\/p>\n
three years to a ward to set aside the transfer made by his<\/p>\n
guardian. It is three years from the date of attainment of<\/p>\n
majority. Article 65 provides for possession of immovable<\/p>\n
property or any interest therein based on title. It provides<\/p>\n
12 years period when the possession of the defendant<\/p>\n
becomes adverse to that of the plaintiff. It is well settled<\/p>\n
that going by Article 65, the plaintiff is able to establish title<\/p>\n
to the suit property then the plea of adverse possession and<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
limitation will have to be established by the defendants<\/p>\n
concerned.\n<\/p>\n
            12.  The issue that arises for consideration is<\/p>\n
whether it is obligatory on the part of the minor to have the<\/p>\n
sale deed, ie., Ext.B1 set aside or can he simply avoid it.<\/p>\n
            13. There is a clear distinction between ‘void’ and<\/p>\n
‘voidable’. It may be remembered that the expression ‘void’<\/p>\n
itself has several facets. It may be ab initio void. It may be<\/p>\n
that the procedural requirements are not followed and hence<\/p>\n
void and such other matters. It has been held that the word<\/p>\n
‘void’ has a relative rather than an absolute meaning.<\/p>\n
‘Voidable’ on the other hand means that the transaction is<\/p>\n
good as long as it is not set aside. Voidable transaction<\/p>\n
cannot be treated as non-est. If the voidable transaction is<\/p>\n
not avoided through the known means of law, it remains<\/p>\n
good. One may recall that going by Section 8(3) of Act 32 of<\/p>\n
1956 the transaction is voidable.\n<\/p>\n
            14.  One may recollect here that Article 60<\/p>\n
provides three years period from the date of attaining<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                    17<\/span><\/p>\n
majority to have the transaction entered into by the<\/p>\n
guardian on his behalf set aside. Therefore, if as a matter of<\/p>\n
fact on a combined reading of Section 6 and Article 60 of the<\/p>\n
Limitation Act, if setting aside of the document assailed is<\/p>\n
essential, then obviously the suit filed by the plaintiff in the<\/p>\n
present case is barred by limitation.<\/p>\n
            15. The court below has chosen to rely on the<\/p>\n
decision reported in Santhosh Kumar v. Varghese<\/a> (1987<\/p>\n
(2) KLT 27). It is true that in the said decision it was held as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
            “S.8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship<\/p>\n
      Act enumerates the powers of a natural guardian.<\/p>\n
      S.8(1) reads:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            “The natural guardian of a Hindu minor has<\/p>\n
      power, subject to the provisions of this section, to do<\/p>\n
      all acts which are necessary or reasonable, and proper<\/p>\n
      for the benefit of the minor or for the realization,<\/p>\n
      protection or benefit of the minor’s estate; but the<\/p>\n
      guardian can in no case bind the minor by a personal<\/p>\n
      covenant.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Sub.s.(2) of the Act prohibits the natural guardian<\/p>\n
      from mortgaging, charging or transferring the<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                    18<\/span><\/p>\n
      minor’s property without permission of the court.<\/p>\n
      S.8(3) stipulates that any disposal  of immovable<\/p>\n
      property by a natural guardian, in contravention of<\/p>\n
      sub-s. (1) or sub-s.(2), is voidable at the instance<\/p>\n
      of the minor or any person claiming under him.<\/p>\n
      S.8(4) mandates the court not to grant permission<\/p>\n
      to the natural guardian to do any of the acts<\/p>\n
      mentioned in sub-s. (2) except in case of necessity<\/p>\n
      or for an evident advantage to the minor. Thus it<\/p>\n
      is manifestly clear that under S.8 of the Act<\/p>\n
      property of the minor can be alienated, mortgaged<\/p>\n
      or leased or gifted only for his evident advantage<\/p>\n
      or necessity and the court’s permission is a<\/p>\n
      condition precedent. Any transaction by a natural<\/p>\n
      guardian of the immovable property of the minors<\/p>\n
      without permission of the court will not have any<\/p>\n
      legal force and would not be binding on the<\/p>\n
      minors.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the decision reported in Sreedharan v. Prasanna (1996<\/p>\n
(2) KLT 784 (SC)) it was held as follows:<\/p>\n
                “It would be obvious that sine the<\/p>\n
      mandatory requirement of sanction from the Court<\/p>\n
      for alienating the property of the minor, as<\/p>\n
      required under S.8 of the Hindu Minority and<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                   19<\/span><\/p>\n
      Guardianship Act, had not been obtained, the<\/p>\n
      contract of sale to the extent of the half share of<\/p>\n
      the minor is void and it does not bind the minor.<\/p>\n
      The Courts have rightly declined to exercise<\/p>\n
      discretion on sound principle of law to protect the<\/p>\n
      estate of the minor.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the decision reported in Kunhiraman v. Vanaja<\/a> (1997(2)<\/p>\n
KLT 5), it was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
            “We do not think that S.8(3) of the Act in any<\/p>\n
      manner whittles down the scope or operation of<\/p>\n
      S.892) of the Act. S. 8(3) of the Act only clarifies<\/p>\n
      that the person who is entitled to treat the<\/p>\n
      transaction as void is only the minor or any person<\/p>\n
      claiming under him. According to us, S. 8(3) only<\/p>\n
      indicates that the guardian who had sold his own<\/p>\n
      interest alongwith that of the minor without the<\/p>\n
      consent of the court or any other alienor who was<\/p>\n
      suir juris, would not be in a position to turn round<\/p>\n
      and contend that the sale effected by him of his<\/p>\n
      own interest or share is also void or invalid. The<\/p>\n
      object of S.8(3) of the Act, according to us, is not<\/p>\n
      to whittle down the scope of S.8(2) of the Act but<\/p>\n
      only to clarify that the right to treat the<\/p>\n
      transaction as void is available only to the minor<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                     20<\/span><\/p>\n
      whose property is sold by the natural guardian<\/p>\n
      without permission of the court or to a person who<\/p>\n
      is claiming under that minor. Thus, understood,<\/p>\n
      S.8(3) cannot be relied on to hold that a<\/p>\n
      transaction in contravention of the mandate of S.8<\/p>\n
      (2) of the Act, is only voidable and not void.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In Moidu Haji v. Kunhabdulla<\/a> (1998(2) KLT 691) it was<\/p>\n
held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
            “In the property exclusively belonged to a<\/p>\n
      Mohammedan minor and the same had been<\/p>\n
      alienated by a person who was not his legal<\/p>\n
      guardian, the said transaction would be void and<\/p>\n
      applying Art.65 of the Limitation Act and in the<\/p>\n
      light of Ss.6 and 8 of the Act, the suit had to be<\/p>\n
      instituted by the quondam minor within three<\/p>\n
      years of his attaining majority or within 12 years<\/p>\n
      of the transaction itself. The alienation effected<\/p>\n
      by the Mohammedan co-owners including the<\/p>\n
      defecto guardian of the minor plaintiff, has to be<\/p>\n
      considered altogether void?       If it were to be<\/p>\n
      considered void altogether void, that is to say, as<\/p>\n
      not being capable of conveying even the rights of<\/p>\n
      the Mohammedan co-owners who were competent<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                      21<\/span><\/p>\n
      to execute the sale deed, the position would be<\/p>\n
      the same as a case where a Mohammedan minor<\/p>\n
      is the exclusive owner of the property and an<\/p>\n
      alienation is effected on his behalf by a defacto<\/p>\n
      guardian and the alienation is treated as void. In<\/p>\n
      that case, the suit by the Mohammedan quondam<\/p>\n
      minor will have to be filed within three years of his<\/p>\n
      attaining majority or within 12 years of the<\/p>\n
      alienation itself, lest his rights become barred.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In the decision reported in Gopalakrishnan Nair v.<\/p>\n
Karthiyayani Nangeli Amma<\/a> (2000(1) KLT 59) it was held<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n
            “Section 8(1) of the Act while recognizing the<\/p>\n
      power of a natural guardian to do all acts which<\/p>\n
      are necessary or reasonable and proper for the<\/p>\n
      benefit of the minors or for the realisation,<\/p>\n
      protection or benefit of the minor’s estate has<\/p>\n
      made that recognition subject to the provisions of<\/p>\n
      S.8. S.8(2) provides that the natural guardian shall<\/p>\n
      not without the previous permission of the court<\/p>\n
      (emphasis supplied) mortgage or charge or<\/p>\n
      transfer by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise any<\/p>\n
      part of the immovable property of the minor. S.8<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                     22<\/span><\/p>\n
      (3) indicates that any disposal of immovable<\/p>\n
      property by the natural guardian in contravention<\/p>\n
      of sub-ss.1 and 2 of S.8 is voidable at the instance<\/p>\n
      of the minor or by any person claiming under him.<\/p>\n
      When a statute provides that an act shall not be<\/p>\n
      done without the previous permission of the Court<\/p>\n
      and something is done in contravention of that,<\/p>\n
      according to us the transaction has to be treated<\/p>\n
      as invalid as a whole and this is the view taken by<\/p>\n
      this court in the decision in Santha v.Cherukutty<\/p>\n
      (1972 KLT 1051) and in Kunhiraman v. Vanaja<\/a><\/p>\n
      (1997(2) KLT 5). On the scheme of the Act, we<\/p>\n
      find no reason to differ from the view adopted in<\/p>\n
      those cases. The lower appellate court in the case<\/p>\n
      on hand was substantially in error in law in holding<\/p>\n
      that the plaintiffs were obliged to seek the setting<\/p>\n
      aside of the sale of the equity of redemption by<\/p>\n
      the father and their rights have been lost in view<\/p>\n
      of the fact that plaintiff No.1 had attained majority<\/p>\n
      three years prior to the suit and only the right<\/p>\n
      inherited by plaintiff No.2 from the mother would<\/p>\n
      be available to him for being enforced. In our view<\/p>\n
      the transaction of sale of the equity of redemption<\/p>\n
      by the father without the previous permission of<\/p>\n
      the court envisaged by S.8(2) of the Act could be<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                  23<\/span><\/p>\n
      ignored by the plaintiffs and they could seek the<\/p>\n
      relief of redemption of Ext.A1 mortgage on the<\/p>\n
      basis that they continue to hold the equity of<\/p>\n
      redemption. Admittedly the suit for redemption<\/p>\n
      of the mortgage is in time and therefore the<\/p>\n
      plaintiffs would be entitled to redeem the<\/p>\n
      mortgage Ext.A1 and recover possession of the<\/p>\n
      property ignoring the sale of the equity of<\/p>\n
      redemption Ext.B1 executed by their father in<\/p>\n
      contravention of S.8(2) of the Act.    In view of<\/p>\n
      Manik Chand v. Ramachandra (AIR 1981 SC 519)<\/p>\n
      the father could enter into an agreement for sale.<\/p>\n
      But, if the minor on attaining majority repudiated<\/p>\n
      the obligation undertaken under the contract, the<\/p>\n
      agreement had to be tested for its validity. A sale<\/p>\n
      of property by a guardian stands on a different<\/p>\n
      footing and S.8(2) of the Act gets squarely<\/p>\n
      attracted.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            16. Going by the above decisions, it may appear<\/p>\n
that the lower appellate court is justified in its finding that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff can take the aid of 12 years period to bring his<\/p>\n
suit based on title.      However the issues have been<\/p>\n
considered in the latter decisions and a contra view appears<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                   24<\/span><\/p>\n
to have been taken. In the decision reported in Madhukar<\/p>\n
Vishwanath Munje v. Madhao<\/a> ((2001) 10 SCC 460) the<\/p>\n
application of Article 59 and 60 of the Limitation Act with<\/p>\n
respect to Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship<\/p>\n
Act was considered. The issue was whether the transaction<\/p>\n
is void or voidable. Since the learned Judges were of the<\/p>\n
view that it is an important question of law, the matter<\/p>\n
seems to have been referred to a larger Bench. The issue<\/p>\n
was considered in the decision reported in Vishwambhar v.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Laxminarayan ((2001) 6 SCC 163), wherein it was held as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
            “On a fair reading of the plaint, it is clear that<\/p>\n
      the main fulcrum on which the case of the<\/p>\n
      plaintiffs was balanced was that the alienations<\/p>\n
      made by their mother-guardian Laxmibai were<\/p>\n
      void and therefore, liable to be ignored since they<\/p>\n
      were not supported by legal necessity and without<\/p>\n
      permission of the competent court. On that basis,<\/p>\n
      he claim was made that the alienations did not<\/p>\n
      affect the interest of the plaintiffs in the suit<\/p>\n
      property. The prayers in the plaint were inter alia<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                   25<\/span><\/p>\n
      to set aside the sale deeds dated 14.11.1967 and<\/p>\n
      24.10.1974, recover possession of the properties<\/p>\n
      from the respective purchasers, partition of the<\/p>\n
      properties carving out separate possession of the<\/p>\n
      share from the suit properties of the plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
      deliver the same to them. As noted earlier, the<\/p>\n
      trial court as well as the first appellate court<\/p>\n
      accepted the case of the plaintiffs that the<\/p>\n
      alienations in dispute were not supported by legal<\/p>\n
      necessity. They also held that no prior permission<\/p>\n
      of the court was taken for the said alienations.<\/p>\n
      The question is, in such circumstances, are the<\/p>\n
      alienations void or voidable? In Section 8(2) of the<\/p>\n
      Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, it is<\/p>\n
      laid down, inter alia, that the natural guardian<\/p>\n
      shall not, without previous permission of the court,<\/p>\n
      transfer by sale any part of the immoveable<\/p>\n
      property of the minor. In sub-section (3) of the<\/p>\n
      said section, it is specifically provided that any<\/p>\n
      disposal of immoveable property by a natural<\/p>\n
      guardian, in contravention of sub-section (2) is<\/p>\n
      voidable at the instance of the minor or any<\/p>\n
      person claiming under him. There is, therefore,<\/p>\n
      little scope for doubt that the alienations made by<\/p>\n
      Laxmibai which are under challenge in the suit<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                     26<\/span><\/p>\n
      were voidable at the instance of the plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
      the plaintiffs were required to get the alienations<\/p>\n
      set aside if they wanted to avoid the transfers and<\/p>\n
      regain the properties from the purchasers.            As<\/p>\n
      noted earlier in the plaint as it stood before the<\/p>\n
      amendment the prayer for setting aside the sale<\/p>\n
      deeds was not there, such a prayer appears to<\/p>\n
      have been introduced by amendment during<\/p>\n
      hearing of the suit and the trial court considered<\/p>\n
      the amended prayer and decided the suit on that<\/p>\n
      basis. If in law the plaintiffs were required to have<\/p>\n
      the sale deeds set aside before making any claim<\/p>\n
      in respect of the properties sold, then a suit<\/p>\n
      without such a prayer was of no avail to the<\/p>\n
      plaintiffs. In all probability, realising this difficulty<\/p>\n
      the plaintiffs filed the application for amendment<\/p>\n
      of the plaint seeking to introduce the prayer for<\/p>\n
      setting aside the sale deeds. Unfortunately, the<\/p>\n
      realisation came too late. Concededly, plaintiff 2<\/p>\n
      Digamber attained majority on 5.8.1975 and<\/p>\n
      Vishwambhar, plaintiff 1 attained majority on<\/p>\n
      20.7.1978.       Though the suit was filed on<\/p>\n
      30.11.1980 the prayer seeking setting aside of the<\/p>\n
      sale deeds was made in December 1985. Article<\/p>\n
      60 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                     27<\/span><\/p>\n
      three years for setting aside a transfer of property<\/p>\n
      made by the guardian of a ward, by the ward who<\/p>\n
      has attained majority and the period is to be<\/p>\n
      computed from the date when the ward attains<\/p>\n
      majority. Since the limitation started running from<\/p>\n
      the dates when the plaintiffs attained majority the<\/p>\n
      prescribed period had elapsed by the date of<\/p>\n
      presentation of the plaint so far as Digamber is<\/p>\n
      concerned.       Therefore, the trial court rightly<\/p>\n
      dismissed the suit filed by Digamber.           The<\/p>\n
      judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit was<\/p>\n
      not challenged by him. Even assuming that as the<\/p>\n
      suit filed by one of the plaintiffs was within time<\/p>\n
      the entire suit court not be dismissed on the<\/p>\n
      ground of limitation, in the absence of challenge<\/p>\n
      against the dismissal of the suit filed by Digamber<\/p>\n
      the first appellate court could not have interfered<\/p>\n
      with that part of the decision of the trial court.<\/p>\n
      Regarding the suit filed by Vishwambhar, it was<\/p>\n
      filed within the prescribed period of limitation but<\/p>\n
      without the prayer for setting aside the sale<\/p>\n
      deeds. Since the claim for recovery of possession<\/p>\n
      of the properties alienated could not have been<\/p>\n
      made without setting aside the sale deeds the<\/p>\n
      suit as initially filed was not maintainable. By the<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                    28<\/span><\/p>\n
      date the defect was rectified (December 1985) by<\/p>\n
      introducing such a prayer by amendment of the<\/p>\n
      plaint the prescribed period of limitation for<\/p>\n
      seeking such a relief had elapsed.          In the<\/p>\n
      circumstances, the amendment of the plaint could<\/p>\n
      not come to the rescue of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            From the averments in the plaint, it cannot<\/p>\n
      be said that all the necessary averments for<\/p>\n
      setting aside the sale deeds executed by Laxmibai<\/p>\n
      were contained in the plaint and adding specific<\/p>\n
      prayer for setting aside the sale deeds was a mere<\/p>\n
      formality. As noticed earlier, the basis of the suit<\/p>\n
      as it stood before the amendment of the plaint<\/p>\n
      was that the sale transactions made by Laxmibai<\/p>\n
      as guardian of the minors were ab initio void and,<\/p>\n
      therefore, liable to be ignored. By introducing the<\/p>\n
      prayer for setting aside the sale deeds the basis of<\/p>\n
      the suit was changed to one seeking setting aside<\/p>\n
      the alienations of the property by the guardian. In<\/p>\n
      such circumstance, the suit for setting aside the<\/p>\n
      transfers could be taken to have been filed on the<\/p>\n
      date the amendment of the plaint was allowed<\/p>\n
      and not earlier than that.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                     29<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The issue was again considered in the decision reported in<\/p>\n
Nangali Amma Bhavani Amma v. Gopalakrishnan Nair<\/a><\/p>\n
((2004) 8 SCC 785), wherein it was held as follows:<\/p>\n
            “But the learned counsel for the appellant is<\/p>\n
      right in contending that the High Court had<\/p>\n
      misconstrued the provisions of Section 8 of the<\/p>\n
      Act. Section 8(1) empowers the natural guardian<\/p>\n
      of the Hindu minor to do all acts which are<\/p>\n
      necessary or reasonable and proper for the<\/p>\n
      benefit of a minor or for the realisation, protection<\/p>\n
      or benefit of the minor’s estate subject to two<\/p>\n
      exceptions of which we may only note the<\/p>\n
      exception carved out in sub-section (2) of Section<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      8. Section 8(2) provides that the natural guardian<\/p>\n
      shall not without the previous permission of the<\/p>\n
      Court, inter alia, transfer by way of a sale any part<\/p>\n
      of the immovable property of a minor. The effect<\/p>\n
      of violation of this provision has been provided for<\/p>\n
      in the section itself under sub-section (3). This<\/p>\n
      sub-section reads:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            “8. (3) Any disposal of immovable property by a<\/p>\n
      natural guardian, in contravention of sub-section(1) or<\/p>\n
      sub-section(2), is voidable at the instance of the minor<\/p>\n
      or any person claiming under him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                    30<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            In view of the express language used, it is<\/p>\n
      clear that the transaction entered into by the<\/p>\n
      natural guardian in contravention of sub-section<\/p>\n
      (2) was not void but merely voidable at the<\/p>\n
      instance of the minor.          To hold that the<\/p>\n
      transaction in violation of Section 8(2) is void<\/p>\n
      would not only be contrary to the plain words of<\/p>\n
      the statute but would also deprive the minor of<\/p>\n
      the right to affirm or ratify the transaction upon<\/p>\n
      attaining majority. This Court in Vishambhar v.<\/p>\n
      Laxminarayan has also held that such transactions<\/p>\n
      are not void but merely voidable. It was also held<\/p>\n
      that a suit must be filed by a minor in order to<\/p>\n
      avoid the transaction within the period prescribed<\/p>\n
      under Article 60 of the Limitation Act. The High<\/p>\n
      Court did not consider the issue of limitation at all<\/p>\n
      in view of its finding on the effect of a violation of<\/p>\n
      Section 8(2) of the Act. As the conclusion of the<\/p>\n
      High    Court    on  this  aspect    of   matter    is<\/p>\n
      unsustainable, the impugned decision must be set<\/p>\n
      aside.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
This court had occasion to consider the issue in the decision<\/p>\n
reported in Ramadas Menon v. Sreedevi<\/a> (2004() K.L.T.<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                     31<\/span><\/p>\n
323 (F.B)). After referring to the various decisions, this court<\/p>\n
noticing that going by Section 8(3),         transaction is only<\/p>\n
voidable held that it is incumbent on the part of the person<\/p>\n
concerned to have the deed set aside. Without having the<\/p>\n
deed set aside, he cannot seek any other relief in respect of<\/p>\n
the property. It cannot be said that the transaction could be<\/p>\n
simply ignored. The relevant portion reads as follows:<\/p>\n
            “It is seen that the reference was answered in<\/p>\n
      the decision reported in Madhukar Viswanath v.<\/p>\n
      Madhao & Ors.<\/a> (1999) 9 SCC 4456. The Supreme<\/p>\n
      Court took the view that it was not necessary to<\/p>\n
      decide the question in the particular fats of the<\/p>\n
      case. Subsequently the Supreme Court in another<\/p>\n
      decision reported in Viswambhar & Ors. v.<\/p>\n
      Laxminarayan (2001) 6 SCC 163, considered S.8 of<\/p>\n
      the Act and held as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            “The question is, in such circumstances, are the<\/p>\n
      alienations void or voidable? In Section 8(2) of the<\/p>\n
      Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, it is laid<\/p>\n
      down, inter alia, that the natural guardian shall not,<\/p>\n
      without previous permission of the court, transfer by<\/p>\n
      sale any part of the immoveable property of the minor.<\/p>\n
      In sub-section (3) of the said section, it is specifically<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                     32<\/span><\/p>\n
      provided that any disposal of immoveable property by<\/p>\n
      a natural guardian, in contravention of sub-section (2)<\/p>\n
      is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person<\/p>\n
      claiming under him. There is, therefore, little scope for<\/p>\n
      doubt that the alienations made by Laxmibai which are<\/p>\n
      under challenge in the suit were voidable at the<\/p>\n
      instance of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were<\/p>\n
      required to get the alienations set aside if they wanted<\/p>\n
      to avoid the transfers and regain the properties from<\/p>\n
      the purchasers.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In view of the above decision, it is now clear that<\/p>\n
      the alienations have to be challenged and without<\/p>\n
      setting aside the alienation, no relief can be<\/p>\n
      obtained.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In the above view of the matter, we hold that<\/p>\n
      there should be a prayer to set aside the<\/p>\n
      alienation effected by the natural guardian without<\/p>\n
      the court’s sanction. The plaintiff cannot merely<\/p>\n
      ignore the sale deed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            17.   In the light of latter decisions and the<\/p>\n
authority pronounced by this court and the apex court in the<\/p>\n
matter, the view taken by the lower appellate court cannot<\/p>\n
be sustained.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
S.A.16\/1997.                     33<\/span><\/p>\n
            18. There is no prayer in the plaint to have Ext.B1<\/p>\n
sale deed set aside. Going by the decisions already referred<\/p>\n
to, the current view is that it is absolutely necessary for the<\/p>\n
person, who was assailing the transaction, to have it set<\/p>\n
aside in accordance with law before he could seek further<\/p>\n
reliefs in the matter. That having not been done, the suit<\/p>\n
has to fail.\n<\/p>\n
            in the result, this appeal is allowed, the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is set<\/p>\n
aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court is<\/p>\n
restored. There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                              P. BHAVADASAN,
\n                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
sb.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.16\/1997.    34<\/p>\n
                        P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
                        S.A. No. 16 of 1997\n<\/p>\n
                – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                 28.05.2010<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Velayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 16 of 1997(B) 1. VELAYUDHAN … Petitioner Vs 1. RAMACHANDRAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL For Respondent :SRI.K.S.BABU The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN Dated :28\/05\/2010 O R D E R P. BHAVADASAN, J. – – – […]<\/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-222696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVelayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 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\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Velayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-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=\"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-26T15:59:28+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=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Velayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-26T15:59:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":6163,\"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\\\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010\",\"name\":\"Velayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-26T15:59:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Velayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 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":"Velayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 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\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Velayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-26T15:59:28+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":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Velayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-26T15:59:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010"},"wordCount":6163,"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\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010","name":"Velayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-26T15:59:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/velayudhan-vs-ramachandran-on-28-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Velayudhan vs Ramachandran on 28 May, 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\/222696","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=222696"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222696\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}