{"id":228412,"date":"2009-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-05-22T08:08:08","modified_gmt":"2016-05-22T02:38:08","slug":"c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"C.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
C.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 224 of 2005()\n\n\n1. C.O.VENUGOPAL, VAISALI TEXTILES,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. R.RAJALAKSHMI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. BEENA KRISHNA MOORTHY,\n\n3. DEENA SATHEESH, W\/O.P.SATHEESH,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :19\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                                                                                            C.R.\n           PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.\n        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                 R.C.R. NOS: 224, 334, 335,343,349, 361,\n                           363, 372, 570, 592 OF 2005\n        -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n                      Dated this the 19th August, 2009.\n\n                                        JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
SURENDRA MOHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
      These Rent Control Revisions are filed by the tenants<\/p>\n
challenging the common judgment dated 21.12.2004 of the<\/p>\n
Additional     Rent       Control         Appellate          Authority,         Alappuzha      in<\/p>\n
connected Rent Control Appeals. The Rent Control Appeals were<\/p>\n
filed by the respondents-landlords challenging the dismissal of the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Petitions filed by them against the tenants. The Rent<\/p>\n
Control    Appellate Authority reversed the findings of the Rent<\/p>\n
Controller and ordered eviction of the revision petitioners under<\/p>\n
Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act,<\/p>\n
1965, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The revision petitioners are all tenants in occupation of<\/p>\n
different shop rooms in a line building, in the heart of Alappuzha<\/p>\n
town. The revision petitioners have been in occupation of the shop<\/p>\n
rooms in their possession for considerably long periods of time and<\/p>\n
the rent paid by them is also nominal. They are conducting various<\/p>\n
businesses. The Rent Control petitions were tried together since<\/p>\n
RCR 224\/2005 etc.                2<\/span><\/p>\n
the landlords in respect of all the    premises are same and the<\/p>\n
contentions raised by the parties are also common.<\/p>\n
      3. The line building situate in Survey No: 818\/8, C1, C2, A2,<\/p>\n
D1, 1\/1 and 818\/9 A2 belonged to late Radhakrishna Reddiar,<\/p>\n
having acquired ownership and possession over the same as per<\/p>\n
registered partition deed No: 18\/1955. The first respondent is the<\/p>\n
wife and the second and third respondents are the daughters of<\/p>\n
late Radhakrishna Reddiar. They are his sole legal heirs, on whom<\/p>\n
the property has devolved on his death.         After the death of<\/p>\n
Radhakrishna Reddiar the tenants in occupation of the building<\/p>\n
attorned to the respondents and started paying rent in respect of<\/p>\n
the premises to them. Thus, the petitioners in all these revision<\/p>\n
petitions are tenants under the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The revision petitioners are all in occupation of separate<\/p>\n
shop rooms forming        part of the same building.      They are<\/p>\n
conducting various businesses of their own and paying rent at<\/p>\n
different rates to the landlords.\n<\/p>\n
      5. In the above circumstances, the landlords filed separate<\/p>\n
Rent Control Petitions for eviction of all the tenants alleging that<\/p>\n
they required the building for their bonafide own occupation.<\/p>\n
According to them, the existing building was old and, therefore,<\/p>\n
RCR 224\/2005 etc.               3<\/span><\/p>\n
they wanted to demolish the building and construct a spacious<\/p>\n
building in which, they wanted to start a textile shop. According to<\/p>\n
the landlords, it was necessary to demolish the building for the<\/p>\n
purpose of construction of the new building so as to provide the<\/p>\n
same with proper road access and other conveniences.          It was<\/p>\n
contended by the landlords that the first respondent was having<\/p>\n
sufficient experience in running a textile shop as she was doing the<\/p>\n
business in the name and style, ‘Sowbhagya Textiles’. The second<\/p>\n
respondent who is the eldest daughter is working in the IBM<\/p>\n
Computers, U.S.A.    She was prepared to join the business since it<\/p>\n
was the desire of both herself and her husband to settle in India.<\/p>\n
She also has the necessary financial resources to help her mother<\/p>\n
in setting up and developing the business. The third respondent<\/p>\n
who is the youngest daughter is without any employment.<\/p>\n
Therefore, she wants to help her mother in conducting the<\/p>\n
business. Her husband who is a businessman in the textile field<\/p>\n
was prepared to give proper guidance and assistance to them in the<\/p>\n
business. Though they requested the tenants for vacant possession<\/p>\n
of the premises, they did not vacate the premises. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
Rent Control petitions were filed.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The Rent Control Petitions were resisted by the tenants on<\/p>\n
RCR 224\/2005 etc.               4<\/span><\/p>\n
the basis of identical contentions. According to them the need put<\/p>\n
forward was only a ruse for eviction. The object of the respondents<\/p>\n
was to let out the rooms on a higher rent. They had no need of the<\/p>\n
schedule shop rooms for starting a textile shop. They have no plan<\/p>\n
or licence to construct a building after demolishing the existing<\/p>\n
structure. It was contended that the landlords did not have the<\/p>\n
capacity or ability to construct the new building.         Further the<\/p>\n
tenants contended that the first petitioner who was a widow was<\/p>\n
not capable of doing any business.      The second respondent was a<\/p>\n
person who was permanently settled in America with no interest in<\/p>\n
India. She has no interest to settle in India or to start any business.<\/p>\n
According to the tenants, the third respondent’s husband was<\/p>\n
conducting a leading textile business at Alappuzha in the name<\/p>\n
and style ‘Swamees’.    It was pointed out that eviction proceedings<\/p>\n
had not been initiated against some of the tenants.          A further<\/p>\n
contention was raised that the husband of the first respondent had<\/p>\n
been conducting a textile shop in the building on the western side<\/p>\n
of the scheduled shop rooms in the name and style ‘Saubhagya<\/p>\n
Textiles’,  which   building   was    already   in   her   possession.<\/p>\n
Therefore, if the landlords were desirous of starting a business,<\/p>\n
they could very well start the same in the said premises. On the<\/p>\n
RCR 224\/2005 etc.                5<\/span><\/p>\n
above contentions they prayed for dismissal of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Petition.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The Rent Control Court tried all the Rent Control Petitions<\/p>\n
together. The evidence in the cases consists of the oral testimonies<\/p>\n
of P.W.1 and R.Ws 1 to 9 and Exts. A1 to A5 and B1 to B3<\/p>\n
documents.\n<\/p>\n
      7. The Rent Control Court considered the contentions of the<\/p>\n
rival parties and held that the bonafide need put forward by the<\/p>\n
landlords was not proved. Hence, it was found that they were not<\/p>\n
entitled to evict the tenants from the petition schedule shop rooms.<\/p>\n
The Rent Control Court therefore dismissed all the petitions by a<\/p>\n
common order.       The respondents\/landlords challenged the order<\/p>\n
of the Rent Control Court before the         Rent Control Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority by filing separate appeals in all the cases.   All the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Appeals were heard and disposed of together by the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority reversed the<\/p>\n
findings of the Rent Control Court and found that the bonafide<\/p>\n
need projected by the landlords was established to be genuine and<\/p>\n
bonafide.    Therefore, the Appellate Authority      set aside   the<\/p>\n
common order of the Rent Control Court and ordered eviction of<\/p>\n
the tenants.     It is the said common order of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
RCR 224\/2005 etc.              6<\/span><\/p>\n
Appellate Authority   that is assailed by the revision petitioners<\/p>\n
before us.\n<\/p>\n
      8. We have heard the counsel appearing for the respective<\/p>\n
tenants as well as the landlords, in detail. We have been taken<\/p>\n
through the evidence in the cases both oral and documentary. We<\/p>\n
have also considered the contentions of the parties.<\/p>\n
      9.   The only point that arises for consideration in these<\/p>\n
revisions is whether the landlords have been able to establish the<\/p>\n
bonafide need put forward by them.\n<\/p>\n
      10. It is contended by the counsel for the revision petitioners<\/p>\n
that though the case of the landlords is that they were proposing to<\/p>\n
demolish the existing building and to construct a new building in<\/p>\n
the property They have not obtained a proper plan and licence for<\/p>\n
such construction. In the absence of any such plan or licence, it is<\/p>\n
contended that no eviction could be granted. As rightly noted by<\/p>\n
the Appellate Authority, eviction is sought in these cases under<\/p>\n
Section 11(3) of the Act and not under Section 11(4)(iv) thereof.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the requirement of production of a plan and licence need<\/p>\n
not be insisted upon in an action under Section 11(3) of the Act.<\/p>\n
Further, it is to be noted that in the present case in fact Exts.A3<\/p>\n
and A4 plans have been produced by the landlords. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
RCR 224\/2005 etc.               7<\/span><\/p>\n
fact that necessary plans have been prepared by the landlords<\/p>\n
cannot be disputed. The requirement of a licence or a building<\/p>\n
permit is necessary only for starting construction and can be<\/p>\n
obtained subsequently.       Therefore, as rightly found by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority it is sufficient that the landlords obtain a<\/p>\n
building permit before they start the actual construction. It has<\/p>\n
been further found by the Appellate Authority that the landlords<\/p>\n
have the necessary financial capacity to start the business and that<\/p>\n
they have the necessary experience to conduct the same.          The<\/p>\n
counsel for the revision petitioners have not been able to point out<\/p>\n
anything to assail the above findings of the Appellate Authority.<\/p>\n
Therefore, we confirm the finding of the Rent Control Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority that the landlords have been successful in establishing<\/p>\n
the need projected by them under Section 11(3) of the Act.<\/p>\n
      11. Counsel for the revision petitioners have pointed out that<\/p>\n
the landlords had not filed petitions for eviction against all the<\/p>\n
tenants in the building. It is pointed out that the two tenants, who<\/p>\n
are conducting business in the name ‘Prakruthi Stores’ and<\/p>\n
Bhagavathy Textiles’ were not sought to be evicted. It is worth<\/p>\n
noticing that when P.W.1 was in the box, she was questioned on<\/p>\n
this aspect. Her explanation was that the said two tenants had<\/p>\n
RCR 224\/2005 etc.               8<\/span><\/p>\n
already agreed to vacate the rooms occupied by them. Therefore,<\/p>\n
no petitions for eviction were filed against them. However, it is<\/p>\n
pointed out that they could have been examined to prove the above<\/p>\n
fact or at least affidavits could have been obtained from them in<\/p>\n
proof of the said statements.    As rightly found by the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority, just because the said two tenants were not examined or<\/p>\n
their affidavits obtained, it cannot be concluded that the<\/p>\n
explanation of P.W.1 was not true.\n<\/p>\n
     12. Therefore the next question is whether it is necessary<\/p>\n
that a litigation should precede the recovery of possession of the<\/p>\n
tenanted premises by the landlord in all cases, as a general rule?<\/p>\n
     There is no presumption that as a general rule, a litigation has<\/p>\n
to invariably precede the surrender of vacant possession of a<\/p>\n
tenanted premises to the landlord. It is common knowledge that<\/p>\n
many tenants vacate the premises occupied by them accepting and<\/p>\n
appreciating the genuineness of the need of their landlords.<\/p>\n
Especially so, in situations where the landlord and tenant maintain<\/p>\n
close and cordial relationship among themselves. It is only in cases<\/p>\n
where the tenant disputes the bonafides of the need put forth by<\/p>\n
the landlord that the Rent Control Court is called upon to consider<\/p>\n
the question of genuineness of the need and to pass orders of<\/p>\n
RCR 224\/2005 etc.                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
eviction. Though it has become common place for tenants to resist<\/p>\n
the need of the landlords by protracted litigation and to continue in<\/p>\n
possession for as long as possible, especially in the case of<\/p>\n
commercial premises, such litigation cannot be held to be<\/p>\n
necessary in all cases, as a rule.\n<\/p>\n
      13. At the same time, we do not think that the apprehensions<\/p>\n
expressed by the tenants do not have any substance at all. The<\/p>\n
conduct of the landlords in not initiating any action for evicting the<\/p>\n
said two tenants has to be scrutinized closely with a view to<\/p>\n
ensuring that the justification put forward is genuine.          It is<\/p>\n
contended that the landlords should not be permitted to pick and<\/p>\n
choose in the matter of eviction of tenants who are all occupying<\/p>\n
similar premises in the same building.           We feel that the<\/p>\n
apprehensions of the tenants can be set at rest by providing<\/p>\n
appropriate safeguards to ensure that the said tenants are also got<\/p>\n
vacated while evicting the revision petitioners.<\/p>\n
      14.  A contention has been put forward by the tenant in RCR<\/p>\n
592\/2005 that he is occupying a separate building located in the<\/p>\n
same property and that it was possible to reconstruct the existing<\/p>\n
building without evicting him. However, the evidence of P.W.1 and<\/p>\n
the plans Exts.A3 & A4 show that the said building is also required<\/p>\n
RCR 224\/2005 etc.               10<\/span><\/p>\n
to be demolished to accommodate the proposed construction.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Appellate Authority has rejected the above<\/p>\n
contention. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the said<\/p>\n
finding.\n<\/p>\n
      15. As a last submission, counsel for the revision petitioners<\/p>\n
made an appeal for the grant of a sufficiently long period of time, a<\/p>\n
period of one year, to vacate the premises. Though we are not<\/p>\n
inclined to grant one year’s time, considering their long occupation<\/p>\n
of the premises, we feel that their request can be sympathetically<\/p>\n
considered. Accordingly, we feel that the tenants could be granted<\/p>\n
time up to 28.2.2010 subject to appropriate conditions.<\/p>\n
      16.   In view of the above, the Rent Control Revisions are<\/p>\n
dismissed confirming the common judgment passed by the<\/p>\n
Additional Rent Control Appellate Authority, Alappuzha, subject to<\/p>\n
the following conditions:-\n<\/p>\n
           1) The tenants are granted time upto 28.2.2010 to<\/p>\n
     surrender vacant possession of the premises to the<\/p>\n
     landlords on condition that each one of the revision<\/p>\n
     petitioners shall file separate affidavits before the Rent<\/p>\n
     Control Court or the Execution Court as the case may be,<\/p>\n
     unconditionally undertaking to vacate the premises on or<\/p>\n
     before the said date within 3 weeks of the date of receipt of<\/p>\n
     a copy of this judgment.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
RCR 224\/2005 etc.               11<\/span><\/p>\n
          2) The revision petitioners shall pay all arrears of rent<\/p>\n
   due in respect of the premises to the landlords and shall<\/p>\n
   continue to pay the future rent in respect of the premises<\/p>\n
   regularly till they surrender vacant possession thereof.<\/p>\n
          3) The landlords shall produce the approved pla n<\/p>\n
   and building permit in respect of the proposed construction<\/p>\n
   before the Execution Court for perusal before the time<\/p>\n
   fixed for the tenants to vacate the premises;\n<\/p>\n
          4) The Execution Court shall ensure that the tenants<\/p>\n
   in occupation of the shop rooms from where the business<\/p>\n
   of ‘Prakruthi Stores’ and ‘Bhagavathy Textiles’ are being<\/p>\n
   conducted are also vacated before 28.2.2010.\n<\/p>\n
          5) Delivery warrants shall be issued by the execution<\/p>\n
   court for compelling the eviction of these revision<\/p>\n
   petitioners only after conditions 3 and 4 above are<\/p>\n
   complied with.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
\n                                                    Judge<\/p>\n
                                         K. SURENDRA MOHAN
\n                                                    Judge<\/p>\n
jj<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court C.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 224 of 2005() 1. C.O.VENUGOPAL, VAISALI TEXTILES, … Petitioner Vs 1. R.RAJALAKSHMI, … Respondent 2. BEENA KRISHNA MOORTHY, 3. DEENA SATHEESH, W\/O.P.SATHEESH, For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR For Respondent :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE […]<\/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-228412","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 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\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-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=\"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-22T02:38:08+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-22T02:38:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2274,\"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\\\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009\",\"name\":\"C.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-22T02:38:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 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":"C.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 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\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-22T02:38:08+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-22T02:38:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009"},"wordCount":2274,"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\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009","name":"C.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-22T02:38:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-o-venugopal-vs-r-rajalakshmi-on-19-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.O.Venugopal vs R.Rajalakshmi on 19 August, 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\/228412","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=228412"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228412\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228412"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228412"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228412"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}