{"id":228011,"date":"2009-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009"},"modified":"2017-11-01T04:38:44","modified_gmt":"2017-10-31T23:08:44","slug":"k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nFAO.No. 295 of 2007()\n\n\n1. K.MOHANAN PILLAI,S\/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. PADMAVATHY AMMA, W\/O. PADMALAYATHIL\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. K.ASOKAN,S\/O.PADMALAYATHIL\n\n3. K.AJAYAN,S\/O..PADMALAYATHIL\n\n4. K.MANOJ KUMAR,,S\/O..PADMALAYATHIL\n\n5. INDIRA VIJAYAN D\/O.PADMALAYATHIL\n\n6. K.MALATHY SASI,D\/O.PADMALAYATHIL\n\n7. K.AJITHA,D\/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI,\n\n8. K.SHOBHANA,D\/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI,\n\n9. K.MAYA,D\/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLI AND\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :11\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n\n              -------------------------------------------------\n\n                      F.A.O.No. 295 OF 2007\n\n              --------------------------------------------------\n\n             Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009\n\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
           Plaintiff in O.S.256 of 2001 on the file of Sub Court,<\/p>\n
North Paravur is the appellant. Respondents are the defendants.<\/p>\n
Appeal is filed against the judgment in A.S.222 of 2005<\/p>\n
whereunder Additional District Judge, North Paravur set aside<\/p>\n
the decree and judgment passed by learned Sub Judge and<\/p>\n
remanded the suit for fresh disposal. A.S.222 of 2005 was filed<\/p>\n
by the defendants challenging the preliminary decree. Appellant<\/p>\n
instituted the suit contending that the plaint schedule properties<\/p>\n
jointly belonged to the appellant and respondents and the<\/p>\n
properties are to be divided into ten equal shares and one such<\/p>\n
share is to be allotted to the appellant. It is the case of the<\/p>\n
appellant that item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties are<\/p>\n
the properties allotted to the Thavazhy of first respondent<\/p>\n
mother and appellant and respondents 2 to 9, the children, as<\/p>\n
schedule E of Ext.A1 partition deed and item No. 3 of the<\/p>\n
property was purchased by first respondent out of the income<\/p>\n
FAO.295\/2007
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
from the said properties as well as the consideration received by<\/p>\n
the selling portions of the properties allotted under Ext.A1. It<\/p>\n
was contended that under Ext.A2 partition deed, some of the<\/p>\n
properties were divided but item Nos. 1 and 2 were not divided<\/p>\n
thereunder and therefore they are available for partition. It was<\/p>\n
also contended that though item No.3 was purchased under<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 sale deed by first respondent, it was for the benefit of all<\/p>\n
the members of the Thavazhy and the said property is also<\/p>\n
available for partition. Respondents resisted the suit contending<\/p>\n
that plaint schedule properties are not the properties available<\/p>\n
for partition but the independent properties of the first<\/p>\n
respondent and therefore appellant is not entitled to claim for<\/p>\n
partition.   It was also contended that first respondent has<\/p>\n
executed settlement deeds in favour of the other respondents<\/p>\n
and the properties are not available for partition.     It is also<\/p>\n
contended that item No.3 of the plaint schedule property was<\/p>\n
purchased by first respondent and appellant has no right to<\/p>\n
claim partition.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Before the trial court, appellant alone was examined<\/p>\n
as PW1 and respondents did not adduce any oral evidence.<\/p>\n
FAO.295\/2007
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A7 and C1 series were marked. Learned Sub Judge,<\/p>\n
on the evidence, found that item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule properties are the properties allotted to the Thavazhy<\/p>\n
of the first respondent and her children and therefore the<\/p>\n
properties are available for partition. It was also found that item<\/p>\n
No.3 of the plaint schedule property was purchased out of the<\/p>\n
income from the properties allotted to the Thavazhy under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 and therefore it is also available for partition.          A<\/p>\n
preliminary decree was passed.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    Respondents challenged the preliminary decree in<\/p>\n
A.S.222 of 2005 before the first Appellate Court. Appellants<\/p>\n
produced four documents as per I.A.478 of 2006.              Those<\/p>\n
documents are the registration copies of the settlement deed<\/p>\n
executed by the first respondent in 1998 in favour of the<\/p>\n
respondents 8 and 4. Learned District Judge allowed I.A.478 of<\/p>\n
2006 and received the documents as additional evidence and<\/p>\n
marked as Exts.B1 to B4.           Learned District Judge after<\/p>\n
acceptance of Exts.B1 to B4 remanded the suit for fresh disposal.<\/p>\n
It is challenged in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    The appeal was admitted on the following substantial<\/p>\n
FAO.295\/2007
\n                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
questions of law:\n<\/p>\n
          (1) Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified<\/p>\n
              in receiving additional documents in evidence<\/p>\n
              without satisfying the requirements under Order<\/p>\n
              XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure ?<\/p>\n
          (2) Whether the First Appellate Court was justified<\/p>\n
              in remanding the suit by receiving additional<\/p>\n
              evidence when the additional documents are<\/p>\n
              unilateral documents created by the respondents?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      5.    Learned counsel appearing for appellant and the<\/p>\n
learned senior counsel appearing for respondents were heard.<\/p>\n
      6.    Item Nos. 1 and 2 of plaint schedule properties are<\/p>\n
two of the properties allotted to the Thavazhy of first respondent<\/p>\n
and her children under schedule E of Ext.A1 partition deed.<\/p>\n
Though under Ext.A2 partition deed, some of the joint properties<\/p>\n
of the Thavazhy were later divided in 1973, item Nos. 1 and 2 of<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule properties were not divided under Ext.A2.<\/p>\n
Item No.3 of the plaint schedule property was acquired under<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 sale deed. Learned Sub Judge accepted the case of the<\/p>\n
appellant that the said acquisition, though in the name of the<\/p>\n
FAO.295\/2007
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
first respondent mother is for and on behalf of the Thavazhy and<\/p>\n
therefore found that it is also available for partition. Though it<\/p>\n
was contended before the trial Court that the properties<\/p>\n
exclusively belong to the first respondent, no evidence was<\/p>\n
adduced. Learned District Judge did not consider the findings of<\/p>\n
the learned Sub Judge on the evidence on record and instead<\/p>\n
accepting the additional documents produced as per I.A.478 of<\/p>\n
2006 and marking the additional documents as Exts.B1 to B4,<\/p>\n
remanded the suit back to the trial Court. I.A. 478 of 2006 filed<\/p>\n
under Rule 27 of Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure was<\/p>\n
allowed for the reason that respondents have stated in the<\/p>\n
affidavit of that application that photocopies of the documents<\/p>\n
were produced before the trial court but being photocopies they<\/p>\n
were not accepted and if the documents are received, it will not<\/p>\n
prejudice the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    Under Rule 27 of Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure<\/p>\n
Appellate Court can permit a party to produce additional<\/p>\n
documents only if the party satisfies the provisions of clause (a)<\/p>\n
or clause (aa) or clause (b) of Rule 27. If additional documents<\/p>\n
are to be received under clause (a), the first Appellate Court the<\/p>\n
FAO.295\/2007
\n                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
documents were produced but not received by the trial Court,<\/p>\n
should have been received in evidence. When the documents<\/p>\n
received as per I.A.478 of 2006 are not the documents which<\/p>\n
were produced before the trial court, as even according to the<\/p>\n
respondents what was produced before the trial Court was only<\/p>\n
photocopies of the documents, the additional documents could<\/p>\n
not have been received under clause (a). If clause (aa) is to be<\/p>\n
invoked, first appellate court should find that in spite of due<\/p>\n
diligence the documents could not have been produced. There is<\/p>\n
no such finding by the first appellate court. If the additional<\/p>\n
evidence is to be received under clause (b), first Appellate Court<\/p>\n
should require those documents to pronounce judgment or there<\/p>\n
should be other substantial reasons.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    The judgment of the first appellate court and the<\/p>\n
order receiving the additional documents do not show that<\/p>\n
I.A.478 of 2006 was considered in the light of the provisions of<\/p>\n
Rule 27 of Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure. Even if it is<\/p>\n
stated that the documents are to be received as additional<\/p>\n
evidence, it does not mean that suit is to be remanded to the trial<\/p>\n
court. Learned District Judge should have considered the appeal<\/p>\n
FAO.295\/2007
\n                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
on merits. Even if it is found that additional evidence is to be<\/p>\n
received, the effect of the additional evidence so received should<\/p>\n
have been considered and only thereafter the suit should have<\/p>\n
been remanded. As the additional documents could have been<\/p>\n
received under clause (b) for pronouncing a better judgment, the<\/p>\n
learned District Judge should have heard I.A.478 of 2006 only<\/p>\n
along with the hearing of the appeal and not earlier. Acceptance<\/p>\n
of additional documents under Rule 27 of Order XLI without<\/p>\n
considering the evidence considered by the trial Court and then<\/p>\n
remanding the appeal to the trial Court for the reason of<\/p>\n
acceptance of additional evidence is illegal. As the additional<\/p>\n
documents are documents executed by the respondents inter se,<\/p>\n
in the absence of plea of ouster and adverse possession, they<\/p>\n
would not have any difference in the right of the appellant for a<\/p>\n
share. This aspect was not considered by the first appellate<\/p>\n
court. The judgment of the learned Additional District Judge<\/p>\n
does not show that the appeal was heard on merits. The order of<\/p>\n
remand is therefore bad in law.\n<\/p>\n
      Appeal is allowed. Order of remand is set aside. A.S.222 of<\/p>\n
2005 is remanded to Additional District Court, North Paravur for<\/p>\n
FAO.295\/2007
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
fresh disposal in accordance with law. The order in I.A.478 of<\/p>\n
2006 is also set aside and I.A. 478 of 2006 is restored to file.<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge is directed to hear that application<\/p>\n
along with the appeal. Parties are directed to appear before<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, North Paravur on 8.4.2009.<\/p>\n
                      M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
okb<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM FAO.No. 295 of 2007() 1. K.MOHANAN PILLAI,S\/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI … Petitioner Vs 1. PADMAVATHY AMMA, W\/O. PADMALAYATHIL … Respondent 2. K.ASOKAN,S\/O.PADMALAYATHIL 3. K.AJAYAN,S\/O..PADMALAYATHIL 4. K.MANOJ KUMAR,,S\/O..PADMALAYATHIL 5. INDIRA VIJAYAN D\/O.PADMALAYATHIL 6. K.MALATHY SASI,D\/O.PADMALAYATHIL 7. K.AJITHA,D\/O.KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, […]<\/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-228011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009 - 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\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-31T23:08:44+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-31T23:08:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1393,\"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\\\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009\",\"name\":\"K.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-31T23:08:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"K.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009 - 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\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-31T23:08:44+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-31T23:08:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009"},"wordCount":1393,"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\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009","name":"K.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-31T23:08:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohanan-pillai-vs-padmavathy-amma-on-11-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Mohanan Pillai vs Padmavathy Amma on 11 March, 2009"}]},{"@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\/228011","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=228011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228011\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}