{"id":224301,"date":"2010-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-21T16:55:24","modified_gmt":"2017-11-21T11:25:24","slug":"ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRFA.No. 318 of 2010()\n\n\n1. M\/S.PATEL SAW MILL, A PARTNERSHIP\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. PURUSHOTHAM KANJI PATEL, S\/O.KANJI PATEL\n3. KRISHNA DAS KANJI PATEL,\n4. MANILAL KANJI PATEL,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. JOHNSON KANADAN, ADVOCATE,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. TOMY, RETIRED BANK OFFICER,\n\n3. SEBASTIAN, COMPANY EMPLOYEE,\n\n4. GRACY PAUL, HOUSE WIFE,\n\n5. JOE PAUL, BUSINESS, S\/O.LATE PAULSON,\n\n6. ABY PAUL, PHARMACIST, S\/O.LATE PAULSON,\n\n7. JEEMON PAUL, BUSINESS,\n\n8. LEGY PAUL, HOUSE WIFE,\n\n9. REJANI LAL KANJI PETE,\n\n10. GOVIND KANJI PATEL,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SHYAM\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.C.T.JOSEPH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :26\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
      THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
                         RFA No.318 of 2010-B\n<\/p>\n
     ————————————————————————\n<\/p>\n
                      Dated 26th November 2010<\/p>\n
                                  Judgment<\/p>\n
Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J.\n<\/p>\n
             Defendants 1 to 3 and 5 in a suit for mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction and in the alternative for recovery of possession, are<\/p>\n
the appellants. Plaintiffs sued on the allegation that the first<\/p>\n
defendant – a partnership firm was permitted to use the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property consisting of a building and 56 cents of land<\/p>\n
for the purpose of conducting timber business and that the said<\/p>\n
transaction is only a licence which was being renewed from<\/p>\n
time to time.\n<\/p>\n
             2. On the premise that the building and 16.5 cents<\/p>\n
on which it stands, was governed by the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, the plaintiffs filed<\/p>\n
Ext.A7 rent control petition seeking eviction. Ext.A8 was the<\/p>\n
objection filed by the first defendant firm.               The Rent Control<\/p>\n
Court dismissed that eviction petition by holding that the<\/p>\n
transaction was not a building lease as contended in those<\/p>\n
proceedings and the lease was for the entire extent of 56 cents<\/p>\n
RFA 318\/10                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
with building standing thereon and therefore, it is not a building<\/p>\n
lease for the purpose of Act 2 of 1965. This was affirmed by<\/p>\n
the appellate authority. That led to a revision before this court at<\/p>\n
the instance of the plaintiffs in the suit from which this appeal<\/p>\n
arises.    This court affirmed the decision of the appellate<\/p>\n
authority and the rent control court that the transaction was not<\/p>\n
a building lease. Nevertheless, this court further dilated on the<\/p>\n
question whether the transaction between the parties was a<\/p>\n
lease or licence and held as per Ext.A9 that the transaction was<\/p>\n
a licence.\n<\/p>\n
            3. On the face of the aforesaid finding of this court,<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs sued for mandatory injunction to direct the first<\/p>\n
defendant and the partners of the firm to vacate the premises<\/p>\n
which was covered by the licence. In the alternative, it was<\/p>\n
contended that if for some reason, the court were to conclude<\/p>\n
that the transaction is a lease, the plaintiffs may be granted a<\/p>\n
decree for recovery of possession since any such subsisting<\/p>\n
lease should also stand terminated.\n<\/p>\n
            4. In defence, the plea was that the transaction is<\/p>\n
not a licence, but a lease of land and that the defendants are<\/p>\n
RFA 318\/10                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
entitled to the benefit of Section 106 of the Kerala Land<\/p>\n
Reforms Act, 1963. The court below, after hearing PW1 and<\/p>\n
DW1 and also taking on record the documents produced, held<\/p>\n
that the transaction between the parties is essentially a licence<\/p>\n
and even if it were a lease, the defendants were not entitled to<\/p>\n
the benefit of Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. This<\/p>\n
is under challenge.\n<\/p>\n
            5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued<\/p>\n
that the court below erred in law in interpreting the provisions<\/p>\n
contained in Exts.A1 and A6 which are the last among the<\/p>\n
documents between the parties. According to him, those<\/p>\n
documents essentially relate to renewal of leases even on<\/p>\n
nomenclature, and there is no reason, intrinsic or extrinsic, to<\/p>\n
hold that the transaction is a licence and not a lease. He<\/p>\n
impeached the finding of the court below that clauses 3, 4 and<\/p>\n
10 of Exts.A1 and A6 tend to show that the transaction is only a<\/p>\n
licence. Contending that the transaction is essentially a lease, it<\/p>\n
is argued that the lease was only of land for commercial<\/p>\n
purpose and the mere existence of a building in the land at the<\/p>\n
time of grant of lease does not, in any manner, deprive the<\/p>\n
RFA 318\/10                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
defendants of the benefit of Section 106 of the Kerala Land<\/p>\n
Reforms Act. He attempted to distinguish the decision referred<\/p>\n
to by the court below in support of the proposition that the<\/p>\n
benefit of Section 106 of the Land Reforms Act would enure<\/p>\n
only to cases where the lease is of land only and such benefit<\/p>\n
could not be claimed in relation to a lease of land and building<\/p>\n
or a lease of land with building.\n<\/p>\n
           6. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs, contesting<\/p>\n
the appeal, argued that the issue relating to Section 106 of the<\/p>\n
Kerala Land Reforms Act is squarely covered against the<\/p>\n
appellants by the decision of the Apex Court in Chandy<\/p>\n
Varghese v. Abdul Khader<\/a> (2003(3) KLT 553 (S.C.), which<\/p>\n
stands to affirm the view taken by the Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court in Abdul Rahiman v. Iype (1965 KLT 247). He also<\/p>\n
relied on the decision in T.K.Jacob v. Gracykutty (AIR<\/a> 1991<\/p>\n
Kerala 281) to point out that when there is no absolute<\/p>\n
entrustment of the land, there is no question of a lease and the<\/p>\n
transaction could only be a licence. He also projected the<\/p>\n
findings in Ext.A9 decision of this court rendered interparties<\/p>\n
and contended that notwithstanding the fact that the said<\/p>\n
RFA 318\/10                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
decision ultimately went in favour of the defendants, there was<\/p>\n
an issue in that case which was pivotal to the decision and such<\/p>\n
a decision could be treated as an issue estoppel interparties in<\/p>\n
a subsequent litigation.\n<\/p>\n
           7. The court below adverted to clauses 3, 4 and 10<\/p>\n
of Ext.A1 and held that clause 3 reserves the right of the owner<\/p>\n
to enter into the property to take usufructs from the trees<\/p>\n
standing thereon. Clause 4 provides permission for the<\/p>\n
occupier\/defendants to put up sheds in addition to the building<\/p>\n
thereon, for running a saw-mill. That clause also obliged the<\/p>\n
defendants to remove those sheds at their cost at the time of<\/p>\n
surrender of premises and the defendant was also granted time<\/p>\n
to remove the sheds and other materials at the time of eviction.<\/p>\n
Clause 10 of Exts.A1 and A6 respectively, were referred to by<\/p>\n
the court below to notice that     the land was always to be<\/p>\n
deemed to be in the possession of the lessee. These were the<\/p>\n
clauses in Exts.A1 and A6 which, according to the court below,<\/p>\n
were    of      abundant    importance     notwithstanding   the<\/p>\n
nomenclature of those documents as renewal of lease.<\/p>\n
RFA 318\/10                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
            8. We may note that this court had in Ext.A9 found<\/p>\n
that the transaction is a licence.\n<\/p>\n
            9. However, the court below has independently<\/p>\n
assessed the evidence and has come to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
transaction is a licence. It did not merely act on Ext.A9 as if it<\/p>\n
constitutes res judicata. Either way, the conclusion arrived at by<\/p>\n
the court below independent of Ext.A9 is only in tune with what<\/p>\n
is stated in Ext.A9 and the decision of this court in Jacob<\/p>\n
(supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. We,<\/p>\n
therefore, do not find any ground to upset the finding of the<\/p>\n
court below in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
            10. The aforesaid decision notwithstanding, even if<\/p>\n
we were to assume that the transaction is a lease, the court<\/p>\n
below has held that in terms of the provisions of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Land Reforms Act, three types of leases are contemplated, i.e.,<\/p>\n
to say, leases of buildings, leases of building and land, as also<\/p>\n
leases of land. With reference to Section 3(1)(iii) of the Kerala<\/p>\n
Land Reforms Act, it was held in Abdul Rahiman (supra) that<\/p>\n
these three kinds of leases are excluded from fixity of tenure<\/p>\n
and after those categories of leases are excluded under that<\/p>\n
RFA 318\/10                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
provision, one among them, namely, leases relating to lands<\/p>\n
whereon the lessees have constructed building prior to the<\/p>\n
relevant date, may give protection from eviction on the<\/p>\n
conditions in Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,<\/p>\n
being satisfied. That precedent is rendered holding that the<\/p>\n
other two types of leases, namely leases of building and leases<\/p>\n
of building and land, are not entitled to fixity of tenure. The ratio<\/p>\n
of the decision of the Division Bench of this court stands<\/p>\n
affirmed by the law laid down by the Apex Court in Chandy<\/p>\n
Varghese (supra).\n<\/p>\n
            11. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs may be<\/p>\n
right in saying that the classification of the lease into three<\/p>\n
categories have been made in the aforesaid decisions, with<\/p>\n
reference to Chapter II of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, while<\/p>\n
Section 106 falls within Chapter IV. That makes no difference<\/p>\n
because the classification noticed from Section 3(1)(iii) of the<\/p>\n
Land Reforms Act is utilised only for the purpose of interpreting<\/p>\n
Section 106 to understand that Section 106 takes care of only<\/p>\n
leases of lands followed by the lessee putting up buildings for<\/p>\n
commercial or industrial purposes before 30.05.1967 provided<\/p>\n
RFA 318\/10                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
the lease of land was for commercial or industrial purposes.<\/p>\n
            12. The legislature uses in Section 106 of the Land<\/p>\n
Reforms Act, the clear terms – “………………………..where on any<\/p>\n
land leased for commercial or industrial purpose, the lessee<\/p>\n
has constructed buildings for such commercial or industrial<\/p>\n
purpose………………..”. If lease of land with buildings was also<\/p>\n
intended to be covered by Section 106, that would have been<\/p>\n
specifically expressed. As already noted, the Kerala Land<\/p>\n
Reforms Act contains necessary classification of leases into<\/p>\n
leases of land only, leases of buildings and also leases of land<\/p>\n
with building. In this view of the matter, we do not find any way<\/p>\n
to cull out any distinction from out of the law laid down in Abdul<\/p>\n
Rahiman and Chandy Varghese (supra). Therefore, the<\/p>\n
impugned decree and judgment stand and this appeal fails.<\/p>\n
            In the result, this appeal is dismissed subject to the<\/p>\n
directions contained in the preceding paragraph. No costs.<\/p>\n
            13. At this point of time, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants sought that the appellants be granted reasonable<\/p>\n
time to enable the defendants to shift out of the premises and<\/p>\n
deliver vacant possession. We grant a period of six months<\/p>\n
RFA 318\/10                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
from now on condition that the appellants pay the occupational<\/p>\n
charges for the said period fixed @ Rs.5,000\/- per month from<\/p>\n
December 2010 and also deposit the accrued arrears of<\/p>\n
occupational charges, if any, and file appropriate affidavit<\/p>\n
before the court below undertaking to so surrender. Let the<\/p>\n
deposit be made and affidavit be filed before the court below<\/p>\n
within a period of three weeks from now. It is clarified that the<\/p>\n
entire occupational charges for six months in terms of this<\/p>\n
direction have to be deposited in one go within a period of three<\/p>\n
weeks from now. Enforcement of the impugned decree will<\/p>\n
stand regulated accordingly.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                            THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN,\n                            JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n                            P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE\n\nsta\n\nRFA 318\/10    10\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court M\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RFA.No. 318 of 2010() 1. M\/S.PATEL SAW MILL, A PARTNERSHIP … Petitioner 2. PURUSHOTHAM KANJI PATEL, S\/O.KANJI PATEL 3. KRISHNA DAS KANJI PATEL, 4. MANILAL KANJI PATEL, Vs 1. JOHNSON KANADAN, ADVOCATE, … Respondent […]<\/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-224301","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 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\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-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=\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-21T11:25:24+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\\\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-21T11:25:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1700,\"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\\\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-21T11:25:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 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":"M\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 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\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-21T11:25:24+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\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-21T11:25:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010"},"wordCount":1700,"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\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010","name":"M\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-21T11:25:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-patel-saw-mill-vs-johnson-kanadan-on-26-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Patel Saw Mill vs Johnson Kanadan on 26 November, 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\/224301","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=224301"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224301\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224301"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224301"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224301"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}