{"id":227221,"date":"1958-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1958-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958"},"modified":"2016-08-14T09:10:15","modified_gmt":"2016-08-14T03:40:15","slug":"kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958","title":{"rendered":"Kochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma … on 1 October, 1958"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma … on 1 October, 1958<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 71, \t\t 1959 SCR Supl. (1)\t1<\/div>\n
Author: T V Aiyyar<\/div>\n
Bench: Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKOCHU GOVINDAN KAIMAL & OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHAYANKOOT THEKKOT LAKSHMI AMMA AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n01\/10\/1958\n\nBENCH:\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nBENCH:\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSARKAR, A.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1959 AIR   71\t\t  1959 SCR  Supl. (1)\t1\n\n\nACT:\n       Will- jointly executed by three testators-Construction-joint\n       tenants\tor tenants in common-Claim of entire properties\t by\n       survivor -Maintainability.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nA  will executed jointly :by three persons contained,  inter\nalia,  the following recitals:-\" We have hereby settled\t and\nagreed\tthat  all  the moveable\t and  immoveable  properties\nacquired  jointly and separately by us till now,  and  those\nwhich we may be so acquiring in future and those which\thave\ndevolved  on  us and those which we may\t yet  be  obtaining,\nshall be held by us in our possession and under our  control\nand  dealt  with by us as we please till our  death.\"  There\nwere  bequests\tin favour of certain persons  and  the\twill\nprovided  that in the event of the executants effecting\t any\ntransfers  or  alienations of the said\tproperties,  either,\njointly or severally till their death, the aforesaid persons\nshall have the right only in respect of the remaining  items\nof  the\t properties.  Two of the testators having  died\t the\nthird claimed that he had become entitled by surviorship  to\nall  the  properties  disposed of by  the  document  on\t the\nfooting\t that  it  was in effect a  transfer  of  all  their\nindividual   properties\t to  themselves\t jointly  as   joint\ntenants.\nHeld,  that the document was a testamentary  disposition  by\nthe  three  testators of their properties operating  on\t the\ndeath of each testator on his properties, and was, in effect\nthree  wills combined in one.  The properties were  held  by\nthe   testators\t at,  tenants-in-common\t and  the   legatees\nmentioned   in\tthe  will  would  become  entitled  to\t the\nproperties of the testator who dies.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 5 and 6  of
\n1955.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals\t from  the judgment and decree dated  September\t 15,
\n1952,  of the Madras High Court in Second Appeals Nos.\t2256
\nof 1947and 2545 of 1948,
\n2<\/span>
\narising. out of the judgment and decree dated September\t 19,
\n1946,  of  the Court of Subordinate Judge  of  Kozhikode  in
\nAppeal\tSuit Nos. 336 and 180 of 1946, against the  judgment
\nand  decree  dated  October  9, 1945,  and  June  29,  1946,
\nrespectively of the Court of Districts Munsif, Chowghat,  in
\nO. S. Nos. 131 and 158 of 1945.\n<\/p>\n
B.   K. B. Naidu, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
V.   Karunakara\t Menon\tand M. R. Krishna  Pillai,  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
1958.  October 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nVENKATARAMA  AIYAR J.-The point for determination  in  these
\ntwo  appeals  is whether one Kesavan Kaimal who was  one  of
\nthree  executants of a will dated February 10, 1906,  became
\nentitled  under that will to the properties, which  are\t the
\nsubject-matter of these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
The  will is a short one, and is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
  ” Will executed on 28th Makaram 1081 M. E.,  corresponding
\nto  10th  February, 1906, jointly by Kunhan Kaimal,  son  of
\nKarayamvattath Katbayakkal Kunhu Kutti Amma, Kesavan Kaimal,
\nson  of Theyi Amma and Theyi Amma, daughter of Nani Amma  of
\nEtathiruthi amsom and Etamuttan desom in Ponnani Taluk.\t  We
\nhave  hereby  settled and agreed that all  the\tmovable\t and
\nimmovable  properties acquired jointly and separately by  us
\ntill  now, and those which we may be so acquiring in  future
\nand  those which have devolved on us and those which we\t may
\nyet  be obtaining shall be held by us in our possession\t and
\nunder our control and dealt with by us as we please till our
\ndeath  and  that subsequent to our  death,  Kalliani  Amma’s
\nchildren,  Kali\t and  Kunhu Kutty,  Thona  Amma’s  children,
\nParukutty,  Kunhunni,  Kochu  Govindan and  Ramar,  and\t the
\nchildren of the deceased Narayani Amma, namely,\t Kunhunniri,
\nKuttiparu  and\tLakshmikutty  and  their  children  and\t the
\nchildren  who may be born to them as also the  children\t who
\nmay  be\t born  of  them,  shall\t as  our  heirs\t and   legal
\nrepresentatives, hold the said properties in their
\n3<\/span>
\npossession  and\t enjoy\tthem hereditarily  in  equal  shares
\namongst themselves.\n<\/p>\n
2.   Except after our death, the aforesaid persons shall not
\nlay claim to any of the properties belonging to us.\n<\/p>\n
3.   It\t is settled that in the event of our  effecting\t any
\ntransfers  or  alienations of the  said\t properties.  either
\njointly or severally till our death, the aforesaid’  persons
\nshall  have  the right and freedom only in  respect  of\t the
\nremaining  items  of properties to the\texclusion  of  those
\nitems of properties included in the above transactions.\n<\/p>\n
4.   It is hereby further settled and agreed that subsequent
\nto  our death, save our legal representatives aforesaid\t and
\nsuch  of  those as may be born hereafter, no  other  persons
\nshall have the right to claim to or right of entry upon\t the
\nentire properties moveable and immoveable found belonging to
\nus.\n<\/p>\n
And we have signed herein in the presence of the undersigned
\nwitnesses-\n<\/p>\n
(signed) Kunhan Kaimal.\n<\/p>\n
( ” ” ) Kesavan Kaimal.\n<\/p>\n
(” ” ) Theyi Amma.”\n<\/p>\n
of the three testators, Theyi Amma died first-the exact date
\nof  her death does not appear and is not  very\tmaterial-and
\nKunhan\tKaimal died thereafter sometime in 1930.  It is\t the
\ncase  of  Kesavan  Kaimal  that\t in  the  events  which\t had
\nhappened, he had become entitled by survivorship to all\t the
\nproperties  disposed  of  by the will,\tincluding  those  of
\nKunhan\tKaimal, and on this footing he conveyed\t on  October
\n14,1938, seven items of properties, of which three  belonged
\nto Kunhan Kaimal, to one Sankarankutti Kaimal and on October
\n16,  1944, another three items of properties which  belonged
\nto  Kunhan Kaimal, to Kalyani and Vijayan.  These  transfers
\nled  to\t the two litigations; which have culminated  in\t the
\npresent appeals.\n<\/p>\n
 The  legatees\tunder  the will\t dated\tFebruary  10,  1906,
\ninstituted  O.\tS.  No.\t 131 of 1945 in\t the  Court  of\t the
\nDistrict  Munsif, Chowghat, then in the Province of  Madras,
\nfor  recovery  of possession of three  items  of  properties
\nwhich had belonged to Kunhan Kaimal
\n4<\/span>
\nafter  redeeming a mortgage for Rs. 100 created\t over  those
\nproperties on February 3, 1901.\t The plaintiffs claimed that
\non  the\t death\tof Kunhan Kaimal in  1930  they\t had  become
\nentitled  to  those properties as legatees under  the  will.
\nDefendants  1 to 3 represented the mortgagees.\tDefendant  6
\nwas  Kesavan Kaimal, and defendants 4 and 5 were brought  on
\nrecord\tas  persons  claiming to be  entitled  to  the\tsuit
\nproperties  under a deed of transfer by defendant  6,  dated
\nOctober 16, 1944.  Defendants 4 to 6 contested the suit, and
\npleaded\t that  on  a proper construction of  the  will,\t the
\nproperties  of Kunhan Kaimal survived to Kesavan  Kaimal  on
\nthe death of the former in 1930, and that the plaintiffs got
\nno  title  to them.  This contention was  overruled  by\t the
\nDistrict  Munsif, and the suit was decreed.  There were\t two
\nappeals against this decree, A. S. No. 179 of 1946 and A. S.
\nNo.  180  of  1946 in the Court of  the\t Subordinate  Judge,
\nCalicut, the former by defendants 4 and 5 and the latter, by
\ndefendant   6.\tThe  Subordinate  Judge\t agreed\t  with\t the
\nconstruction  put  on the will by the District\tMunsif,\t and
\ndismissed  the\tappeals.  Against that decree,\tdefendant  6
\npreferred  S.  A.  No. 2256 of 1947 in\tthe  High  Court  of
\nMadras.\n<\/p>\n
Basing\thimself\t on the deed of transfer dated\tOctober\t 14,
\n1938, Sankarankutti Kaimal instituted O. S. No. 158 of\t1945
\nin the Court of the District Munsif, Chowghat, for  recovery
\nof  possession\tof three items of properties, of  which\t one
\nbelonged  to Kunhan Kaimal absolutely and the other two’  to
\nhim and others as co-owners.  In the plaint, he alleged that
\nthere  was  an\toral lease of the properties  to  the  first
\ndefendant and to one Kali Amma, whose legal  representatives
\nwere defendants 2 and 3, that the defendants were in arrears
\nin the payment of rent, and were disputing his title to\t the
\nproperties,  and  that he was therefore\t entitled  to  eject
\nthem.\tDefendant  4 is Kesavan Kaimal, the  vendor  of\t the
\nplaintiff.   The contesting defendants who were the same  as
\nthe  plaintiffs in O.S. No. 131 of 1945 pleaded\t that  under
\nthe  will  they\t became entitled to all\t the  properties  of
\nKunhan Faimal, that the oral lease was untrue, and that the
\n5<\/span>
\nsuit  was barred by limitation.\t The District  Munsif  found
\nall  the  contentions  in favour of defendants 1  to  3\t and
\ndismissed  the\tsuit.,\tAgainst this decree,  there  was  an
\nappeal,\t A.  S.\t No.  336  of 1946,  in\t the  Court  of\t the
\nSubordinate Judge of Ottapalam, and that was dismissed,\t the
\nSubordinate  Judge agreeing with the District Munsif on\t all
\nthe issues.  Against his decree, the plaintiff preferred  S.
\nA.  No. 2545 of 1948 in the High Court of Madras.  Both\t the
\nsecond appeals came up for hearing before Raghava Rao J. who
\nheld  that  on its true construction the  will\toperated  to
\nvest,  in the three testators all the properties covered  by
\nit  in joint ownership, that, in consequence, on  the  death
\nsuccessively of Theyi Amma and Kunhan Kaimal, their interest
\nsurvived  to Kesavan Kaimal, and that the transfers made  by
\nhim  on October 14, 1938, and October 16, 1944, were  valid.
\nIn  the\t result, both the second appeals were  allowed,\t the
\nsuit  for redemption, O. S. No 131 of 1945,  was  dismissed,
\nand  the  suit\tin ejectment, O. S. No.\t 158  of  1945,\t was
\ndecreed.   Against this judgment, the present  appeals\thave
\nbeen  brought on a certificate granted by this\tcourt  under
\nArt. 136.\n<\/p>\n
The sole point for determination in these appeals is whether
\nunder  the will all the three testators became joint  owners
\nof  all the properties on which it operated.  After  hearing
\nthe  question fully argued, we have come to  the  conclusion
\nthat  that  is\tnot the effect of the  will,  and  that\t the
\njudgment  of  the  High Court contra  cannot  be  supported.
\nThere  were  three  executants of the will.   Each  of\tthem
\npossessed   properties,\t  which\t were  his  or\t her   self-
\nacquisitions.\tThey- also owned some properties which\tthey
\nhad jointly acquired, but their title to such properties was
\nas tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants.\tEach of them
\nwould  have  been entitled to execute a will of his  or\t her
\nproperties,  and if that had been done, the  legatees  named
\ntherein\t would undoubtedly have been entitled to those\tpro-
\nperties.   In  the  present  case,  the\t legatees  who\twere
\nintended to take were the same persons, and it was for\tthat
\nreason that the three testators instead of each executing  a
\nseparate will jointly executed it.  It ist
\n6<\/span>
\nnevertheless,  a  will\tby which  each\ttestator  bequeathed
\nproperties belonging to him or to her, and therefore on\t the
\ndeath  of each testator, the legatees mentioned in the\twill
\nwould  be  entitled to the properties of the  testator,\t who
\ndies.\n<\/p>\n
The  contention\t of the respondents which has  found  favour
\nwith the High Court is that the will must be construed as  a
\ntransfer  by the several testators of all  their  individual
\nproperties  to\tthemselves jointly as joint  tenants.\tThat
\nwould really be a transfer inter Vivos and not a will.\t The
\nword  “will”  is widely known and used, and it has  a  well-
\nunderstood significance as meaning a disposition which is to
\ntake effect on the death of a person.  The executants of the
\nwill  could  not  have therefore  intended  that  it  should
\noperate inter ViVOs.  Moreover, if the document was intended
\nto  take effect as a present disposition, it should have  to
\nbe  stamped under the provisions of the Stamp Act,  but\t the
\nwill is an unstamped document.\n<\/p>\n
Coming\tto the recitals in the will, there are no  words  by
\nwhich  the  executants thereof divest  themselves  of  their
\nindividual ownership and vest it in themselves jointly.\t  It
\nis said that that could be implied from the words ” all\t the
\nmovable\t and  immovable\t properties  acquired  jointly\t and
\nseparately  by\tus till now, and those which we\t may  be  so
\nacquiring in future and those which have devolved on us\t and
\nthose  which we may yet be obtaining shall be held by us  in
\nour  possession\t and under our control “. We are  unable  to
\nread  any such implication in those words.  It is  difficult
\nto  imagine-how\t properties  which were to  be\tacquired  in
\nfuture\tcould  form the subject-matter of a  disposition  in
\npraesenti.   On\t the other band, the true  purpose  of\tthis
\nclause\twould seem to be to emphasise that the execution  of
\nthe  will does not affect the rights of the  testators\tover
\ntheir  properties,  and that is an indication the it  is  to
\noperate as a will.  The matter appears to us to be concluded
\nbeyond\tall doubt by the terms of clause 3,  which  provides
\nthat the testators could alienate the properties jointly  or
\nseverally.  If the properties were intended to be  impressed
\nwith the character of joint property, an alienation by any
\n7<\/span>
\none  of them singly would be incompetent.  In coming to\t the
\nconclusion  to which he did, the learned Judge in the  Court
\nbelow was very largely influenced by the fact that the\twill
\ndealt  with,  not  only\t the  separate\tproperties  of\t the
\ntestators but also of their joint properties, and that there
\nwas  one  disposition  as regards all  of  them.   But\tthis
\nreasoning is based on a misconception of the recitals in the
\nwill.\tThe will does not refer to any joint  properties  of
\nthe  testators but to properties jointly acquired  by  them-
\nwhich  is very different.  They would hold these  properties
\nas tenants-in-common, and their share therein would  devolve
\nas their separate properties.\n<\/p>\n
It was further argued for the respondents that it could\t not
\nhave been the intention of Theyi Amma, one of the testators,
\nto benefit the legatees under the will in preference to\t her
\nown  son,  Kesavan Kaimal, and that, therefore, it  must  be
\nheld that she intended that her son who was the youngest  of
\nthe  testators\tshould\ttake all  the  properties.   But  if
\nKesavan\t  Kaimal  could\t himself  agree\t to   bequeath\t his
\nproperties  to those legatees, we see nothing  unnatural  in
\nhis mother also agreeing to bequeath her properties to them-
\nthey being the heirs of the testators under the\t Marumakkat-
\ntayam  Law.  Learned counsel for the respondents  sought  to
\nrely  on  the subsequent conduct of the parties\t as  showing
\nthat  they understood the will as conferring a joint  estate
\non  the testators.  It was said that it was in\tthat  belief
\nthat  Kesavan Kaimal was dealing with the properties of\t the
\nother testators as his own, after their death.\tIt was\talso
\nsaid  that the conduct of the other members of\tthe  tarwad,
\nincluding  the\tplaintiffs,  showed that  they\tshared\tthat
\nbelief.\t And this was sought to be made out by reference  to
\nthe proceedings in E. A. No. 320 of 1938 in S. C. No. 480 of
\n1933.\tThe facts were that one Kunhunni Kaimal\t obtained  a
\ndecree against Kesavan Kaimal in S. C. No. 480 of 1933,\t and
\nin  execution of that decree, he brought some of the  tarwad
\nproperties  to\tsale, purchased them himself  and  got\tinto
\npossession.   The  members  of\tthe  tarwad  then  filed  an
\napplication, E. A. No. 320 of 1938, under 0. 21, r. 100, for
\nredelivery of the
\n8<\/span>
\nproperties  to\tthem on the ground that the decree  and\t the
\nsale  proceedings  were not binding on them,  and  that\t was
\ndismissed.   In\t the order dismissing the  application,\t the
\nDistrict Munsif observed that under the will dated  February
\n10,  1906,  Kesavan  Kaimal had the power  to  transfer\t the
\nproperties.   This order was relied on in these\t proceedings
\nas  operating as res judicata in favour of the\trespondents;
\nbut  that contention was negatived by the Courts below,\t and
\nhas not been repeated before us.  But these proceedings\t are
\nnow  sought to be relied on as showing that the\t members  of
\nthe  tarwad did not dispute the title of Kesavan  Kaimal  to
\nthe properties which were dealt with by the will.
\nAs  against this, the appellant referred us to\ta  partition
\ndeed dated May 16, 1915, and a mortgage deed dated March  4,
\n1926, to both of which Kesavan Kaimal was a party, in  which
\nbe  and other members of the family had understood the\twill
\nin   question  as  meaning  that  the  testators  held\t the
\nproperties  covered by the will in separate’  and  exclusive
\nownership.   Whatever  value one might attach to  the  above
\nconsiderations\tif there was any doubt or uncertainty as  to
\nthe  meaning  of  the will, when once it is  held  that\t the
\nlanguage  thereof is clear and unambiguous, evidence of\t the
\nsubsequent conduct of the parties cannot be admitted for the
\npurpose\t of  limiting or controlling its  meaning.   In\t our
\nview,  the terms of the will are clear, and  the  subsequent
\nconduct\t of  the  parties sought to be\trelied\ton  must  be
\ndisregarded  as wholly inadmissible.  We are accordingly  of
\nopinion\t that the will dated February 10, 1906, is  what  it
\npurports to be a will, and nothing else.  It does not confer
\nany  rights  inter se on the testators; it  only  vests\t the
\ntitle to the properties disposed of by it in the legatees on
\nthe death of the testators.  In this view, the will must  be
\nheld to be a testamentary disposition by the three testators
\nof their properties operating on the death of each  testator
\non  his properties, and is, in effect, three wills  combined
\nin one.\n<\/p>\n
A  joint  will, though unusual, is not unknown to  law.\t  In
\nHalsbury’s Laws of England, Hailsham’s Edition, Vol. 34,  p.
\n17, para. 12, the law is thus stated:\n<\/p>\n
9<\/span><\/p>\n
 ”  A  joint will is a will made by two\t or  more  testators
\ncontained  in  a  single document,  duly  executed  by\teach
\ntestator, disposing either of their separate properties,  or
\nof their joint property.  It is not, however, recognised  in
\nEnglish\t law as a single will.\tIt operates on the death  of
\neach  testator\tas his will disposing of  his  own  separate
\nproperty,  and is in effect two or more wills “. There is  a
\nsimilar statement of the law in Jarman on Wills, 8th Ed., p.\n<\/p>\n
41.  The following observations of Farewell J. in Duddell in
\nre.  Roundway V.    Roundway (1) are apposite:
\n“….  in  my judgment it is plain on the  authorities\tthat
\nthere  may be a joint will in the sense that if\t two  people
\nmake a bargain to make a joint will, effect may be given  to
\nthat  document.\t  On  the death of the first  of  those\t two
\npersons the will is admitted to probate as a disposition  of
\nthe property that be possesses.\t On the death of the  second
\nperson, assuming that no fresh will has been made, the\twill
\nis  admitted  to probate as the disposition  of\t the  second
\nperson’s property……….\n<\/p>\n
It  was also argued for the respondents that the will  might
\nbe construed as a mutual will, but that, in our opinion,  is
\nan  impossible\tcontention to urge on the  recitals  of\t the
\ndocument.   A will is mutual when two testators confer\tupon
\neach  other  reciprocal\t benefits,  as\tby  either  of\tthem
\nconstituting the other his legatee; that is to say, when the
\nexecutants  fill  the  roles of both  testator\tand  legatee
\ntowards\t each  other.  But where the legatees  are  distinct
\nfrom  the  testators, there can be no question of  a  mutual
\nwill.\tIt  cannot be argued that there is, in\tthe  present
\ncase,  a bequest by the testators to themselves.   There  is
\nnothing\t in  the will to support such  a  contention,  which
\nwould be inconsistent with the position taken by the respon-
\ndents  that there was a settlement of the  properties  inter
\nvivos converting separate properties into joint\t properties.
\nIn  this view, on the death of Kunhan Kaimal his  properties
\nvested\tin  the legatees under the will dated  February\t 10,
\n1906,\tand  therefore\tneither\t Kesavan  Kaimal   nor\t his
\ntransferees under the deeds could lay any claim to them.
\n(1)  [1932] 1 Ch. 585, 592.\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span>
\n10<\/span><\/p>\n
In  the result, the appeals are allowed, the decrees  passed
\nby  the\t High Court are set aside, and those of\t the  Courts
\nbelow are restored, with costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t      Appeals allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma … on 1 October, 1958 Equivalent citations: 1959 AIR 71, 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 1 Author: T V Aiyyar Bench: Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: KOCHU GOVINDAN KAIMAL & OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: THAYANKOOT THEKKOT LAKSHMI AMMA AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/10\/1958 […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-227221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma ... on 1 October, 1958 - 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\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma ... on 1 October, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958\" \/>\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=\"1958-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-14T03:40:15+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma … on 1 October, 1958\",\"datePublished\":\"1958-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-14T03:40:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958\"},\"wordCount\":2958,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958\",\"name\":\"Kochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma ... on 1 October, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1958-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-14T03:40:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma … on 1 October, 1958\"}]},{\"@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":"Kochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma ... on 1 October, 1958 - 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\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma ... on 1 October, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1958-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-14T03:40:15+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma … on 1 October, 1958","datePublished":"1958-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-14T03:40:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958"},"wordCount":2958,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958","name":"Kochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma ... on 1 October, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1958-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-14T03:40:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kochu-govindan-kaimal-others-vs-thayankoot-thekkot-lakshmi-amma-on-1-october-1958#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kochu Govindan Kaimal & Others vs Thayankoot Thekkot Lakshmi Amma … on 1 October, 1958"}]},{"@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\/227221","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=227221"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227221\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227221"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227221"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227221"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}