{"id":223917,"date":"2007-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007"},"modified":"2014-08-05T04:35:53","modified_gmt":"2014-08-04T23:05:53","slug":"bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Bayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Bayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 709 of 1996(A)\n\n\n\n1. BAYINTE MALIYAKKAL UMMATHABI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. M\/S.KANJI MORARJI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :01\/02\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J\n\n                      ---------------------------------------------\n\n                             S.A.No.709 of 1996\n\n                      ---------------------------------------------\n\n             Dated this the 1st day of February, 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Appellants are the plaintiffs and respondent, the defendant<\/p>\n
in O.S.No.983 of 1989 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kozhikode-I.<\/p>\n
The   suit   was   filed   seeking   a   decree   for   permanent   prohibitory<\/p>\n
injunction restraining respondent from demolishing the gates in<\/p>\n
the   B   schedule   property,   putting   up   new   gates   or   other<\/p>\n
structures therein, altering the nature of the B schedule property<\/p>\n
or using B schedule property except the portion on the western<\/p>\n
side   for   the   purpose   of   ingress   and   egress   to   the   A   schedule<\/p>\n
property.   The respondent is admittedly the tenant of a godown<\/p>\n
in the plaint A schedule property.  The way leading to the plaint<\/p>\n
A   schedule   property   is   through   plaint   B   schedule   property.<\/p>\n
There   is   a   gate   as   entrance   to   the   plaint   B   schedule   property.<\/p>\n
Respondent   attempted   to   put   up   a   new   gate   removing   the   old<\/p>\n
gate.     The   suit   was   filed   at   that   point,   contending     that<\/p>\n
respondent has no right to demolish the existing gate or to put<\/p>\n
up a new gate and the only right available to the respondent is to<\/p>\n
SA709\/1996                        Page numbers<\/p>\n
use   part   of   the   plaint   B   schedule   property   as   a   way   to   the<\/p>\n
godown   in   the   plaint   A   schedule   property.     Respondent   in   the<\/p>\n
written statement contended that the old gate has to be replaced<\/p>\n
for   security   of   the   godown   and   they   sought   permission   of<\/p>\n
appellants   and   they   permitted   to   change   the   gate   and   so<\/p>\n
appellants   are   not   entitled   to   the   decree   sought   for.   It   was<\/p>\n
admitted by respondent that respondent has only a right of way<\/p>\n
over plaint B schedule property to take articles to the godown.  It<\/p>\n
was   also   specifically   pleaded   in   the   written   statement   that<\/p>\n
respondent has no intention to trespass into or reduce the plaint<\/p>\n
B schedule property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.      Learned   Munsiff   on   the   evidence   of   PW1   and   DW1,<\/p>\n
Exts. A1 & A2 and C1 & C2, dismissed the suit holding that there<\/p>\n
is   nothing   to   prove   that   respondent   attempted   to   construct   the<\/p>\n
gate as claimed.   Appellants challenged the decree in judgment<\/p>\n
before  District  Court, Kozhikode in A.S.No.56  of 1992.  Learned<\/p>\n
Additional   Sessions   Judge   on   reappreciation   of   evidence   found<\/p>\n
that respondent has no right to change the gate and  respondent<\/p>\n
was not permitted to change the gate as claimed in the written<\/p>\n
SA709\/1996                         Page numbers<\/p>\n
statement   and   the   only   right   available   to   the   respondent   is   to<\/p>\n
enter   plaint   A   schedule   property   through   B   schedule   property<\/p>\n
and that right does not clothe him with an authority to demolish<\/p>\n
the   existing   pillars   or   put   up   new   structures.     Learned   District<\/p>\n
Judge   relying   on   Ext.   C1   plan   and   C2   report   submitted   by   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner,   found   that   plaint   B   schedule   property   has   been<\/p>\n
cement plastered and a net has been  drawn above the entire B<\/p>\n
schedule property and according to the respondent, respondent<\/p>\n
was stocking copra in the godown and using B schedule property<\/p>\n
for drying and grading the hill produces and the presence of the<\/p>\n
net   in   the   B   schedule   property   justifies   the   claim.     Learned<\/p>\n
District Judge held that in such circumstances appellants are not<\/p>\n
entitled   to   prevent   respondent   from   using   B   schedule   property<\/p>\n
for the purpose of taking any vehicle to the godown for loading<\/p>\n
and unloading purpose and for drying and grading hill produces.<\/p>\n
A decree was granted as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      “A decree is granted to the appellants restraining the<\/p>\n
      respondent from demolishing any of the existing gates<\/p>\n
      or pillars in the B schedule, putting up any new gate<\/p>\n
      or other structure in it or altering the present lie and<\/p>\n
SA709\/1996                        Page numbers<\/p>\n
      condition of the B schedule, by a decree of permanent<\/p>\n
      prohibitory injunction.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3.      Appellants   are   challenging   the   decree   to   the   limited<\/p>\n
extent   contending   that   decree   should   have   been   granted   as<\/p>\n
prayed   for   and   the   finding   of   learned   District   Judge   that<\/p>\n
respondent is entitled to use plaint  B schedule property for the<\/p>\n
purpose   of   drying   and   grading   his   hill   produces   is   against   the<\/p>\n
pleading as respondent has no such case in his written statement<\/p>\n
and the only right claimed in the written statement was a right to<\/p>\n
use the plaint B schedule property as a way to the godown.  The<\/p>\n
substantial   question   of   law   formulated   was   whether   first<\/p>\n
appellate   court   was   justified   in   granting   a   relief   to   the<\/p>\n
respondent\/defendant,   without   pleading   and   proof   and   whether<\/p>\n
the oral evidence of DW1 without pleading could be accepted.<\/p>\n
      4.      The   learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   vehemently<\/p>\n
argued   that   there   is   an   unambiguous   admission   in   the   written<\/p>\n
statement by the respondent that respondent has no intention to<\/p>\n
trespass into the plaint B schedule property or reduce the same<\/p>\n
into   his   possession   and   there   is   no   pleading   that   plaint   B<\/p>\n
schedule property was cement plastered by respondent or walls<\/p>\n
SA709\/1996                       Page numbers<\/p>\n
have been constructed on the eastern and western boundaries of<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property and a net was put up over the walls or<\/p>\n
that   plaint   B  schedule  property   was  being  used   for  drying     hill<\/p>\n
produces as found by the learned District Judge and evidence of<\/p>\n
DW1, which was not supported by pleading should not have been<\/p>\n
accepted and respondent should not have been permitted to use<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property except for ingress and egress to the<\/p>\n
godown in the plaint B schedule property.   The learned counsel<\/p>\n
argued   that  without   appreciation   of  the   pleading  and  evidence,<\/p>\n
first   appellate   court   virtually   granted   a   decree   in   favour   of<\/p>\n
respondent by granting a decree in favour of the plaintiffs in part<\/p>\n
and permitting  respondent to use  plaint B schedule property for<\/p>\n
drying the hill produces and therefore that portion of the decree<\/p>\n
of the appellate court is to be set aside.  The learned counsel  for<\/p>\n
the respondent argued that Ext.C2 report establish that walls on<\/p>\n
the  eastern   and  western  side   of  the   plaint   B  schedule   property<\/p>\n
are having a height of more than six feet were constructed in the<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property and a net was put over the walls and<\/p>\n
evidence   of   DW1   establish   that   the   plaint   B   schedule   property,<\/p>\n
SA709\/1996                         Page numbers<\/p>\n
which  was plastered   with   cement  has   been   used   for   drying  hill<\/p>\n
produces   necessary   in   the   godown   in   the   plaint   A   schedule<\/p>\n
property and therefore first appellate court rightly did not grant<\/p>\n
a   decree   in   favour   of   the   appellants.     It   was   also   argued   that<\/p>\n
respondent   has   been   using   plaint   B   schedule   property   as   a<\/p>\n
drying yard for the hill produces.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.      As rightly  pointed out  by the  learned counsel for  the<\/p>\n
appellants, there is no pleading by the respondent that plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule property was being used for any other purpose than as<\/p>\n
a way leading to the godown in  the plaint A schedule  property.<\/p>\n
Respondent is admittedly the tenant of the A schedule property.<\/p>\n
Appellants are not disputing the right of respondent to use a part<\/p>\n
of   plaint   B   schedule   property   as   a   way   to   the   godown   in   the<\/p>\n
plaint   A   schedule   property.   In   fact,   right   of   respondent   to   use<\/p>\n
that part of the plaint B schedule property leading to the plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule   property   as   a   way   was   admitted   in   the   plaint   itself.<\/p>\n
When   there   is   a   godown   in   the   plaint   A   schedule   property   and<\/p>\n
the only way leading to the plaint A schedule property is through<\/p>\n
plaint   B   schedule   property,   the   case   of   respondent   that<\/p>\n
SA709\/1996                        Page numbers<\/p>\n
respondent   is   entitled   to   take   vehicles   through   the   B   schedule<\/p>\n
property   cannot   be   disputed.   Learned   District   Judge   rightly<\/p>\n
found  that respondent is entitled to take vehicle to the  godown<\/p>\n
through   the   plaint   B   schedule   property   and   appellants   are   not<\/p>\n
entitled   to   a   decree   for   injunction   restraining   respondent   from<\/p>\n
doing   so.     That   finding   is   perfectly   in   accordance   with   the<\/p>\n
pleadings, evidence and warrants, no interference.<\/p>\n
      6.      But the question is whether respondent is entitled to<\/p>\n
use plaint B schedule property either as a drying yard or grading<\/p>\n
the   hill   produces   except   for   taking   vehicle   to   the   plaint   A<\/p>\n
schedule   property.     In   the   absence   of   a   specific   case   in   the<\/p>\n
written   statement   that   the   appellants   or   the   predecessors<\/p>\n
permitted   respondent   to   use   plaint   B   schedule   property     as   a<\/p>\n
drying yard or grading yard of hill produces or that  respondent<\/p>\n
has been using the plaint B schedule property as a drying yard of<\/p>\n
the   hill   produces,   learned   District   Judge   should   not   have   acted<\/p>\n
upon   the   interested   testimony   of   DW1   to   hold   that   respondent<\/p>\n
has  got  a  right  to  use   plaint   B   schedule   property   for   drying   or<\/p>\n
grading the hill produces.  So also in the absence of pleading, on<\/p>\n
SA709\/1996                        Page numbers<\/p>\n
the ground that when the  Commissioner has inspected plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule property it was found enclosed by walls on the east and<\/p>\n
west and a net was found placed above the B schedule property,<\/p>\n
it   should   not   have   been   found   indicating   a   right   to   use   the<\/p>\n
property other than as a way.  The learned District Judge on the<\/p>\n
evidence   should   not   found   that   it   was   constructed   by   the<\/p>\n
respondent   or   that   respondent   is   entitled   to   use   the   plaint   B<\/p>\n
schedule   property   except   for   using   it   as   a   way   including   for<\/p>\n
taking vehicles to the godown.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.      Learned   District   Judge   did   not   grant   a   decree   in<\/p>\n
favour   of   respondent.   But,   the   finding   in   the   judgment   of<\/p>\n
learned District Judge providing a right to use plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property   is   unsustainable.   But   as   no   decree   was   granted   in<\/p>\n
favour   of   respondent,   no   interference   in   the   judgment   was<\/p>\n
warranted except clarifying  the legal position.   It is made clear<\/p>\n
that   the   decree   granted   by   the   learned   District   Judge   is<\/p>\n
restraining  respondent\/defendant from demolishing the existing<\/p>\n
gates or pillars in the B schedule property, putting up a new gate<\/p>\n
or other structure or altering the present lie and condition of B<\/p>\n
SA709\/1996                  Page numbers<\/p>\n
schedule   property   by   a   permanent   prohibitory   injunction.<\/p>\n
Respondent is only entitled to use plaint B schedule property, as<\/p>\n
a way inclusive of taking vehicles to the godown in the plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       The Second Appeal is disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n
                                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,<\/p>\n
                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
csl<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Bayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 709 of 1996(A) 1. BAYINTE MALIYAKKAL UMMATHABI … Petitioner Vs 1. M\/S.KANJI MORARJI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN For Respondent :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :01\/02\/2007 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-223917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007 - 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\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-04T23:05:53+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\\\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-04T23:05:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1658,\"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\\\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Bayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\\\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-04T23:05:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\\\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Bayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007 - 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\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-04T23:05:53+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-04T23:05:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007"},"wordCount":1658,"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\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007","name":"Bayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-04T23:05:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bayinte-maliyakkal-ummathabi-vs-ms-kanji-morarji-on-1-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bayinte Maliyakkal Ummathabi vs M\/S.Kanji Morarji on 1 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/223917","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=223917"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223917\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}