{"id":228996,"date":"2010-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-03T00:53:57","modified_gmt":"2019-03-02T19:23:57","slug":"d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"D.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
D.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 103 of 2010()\n\n\n1. D.PARA,MESWARAN ACHARI,AJYANIVAS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. DAMODARAN GOPINATH, SUDNINAMVEEDU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :05\/04\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n       PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n                 ----------------------------------\n\n                   R.C.R. No.103 of 2010\n\n                 ----------------------------------\n\n              Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010\n\n\n                           O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                          —————\n<\/p>\n
Abdul Rehim,J.\n<\/p>\n
           Respondent in RCOP.No:5\/2000 on the files of the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Court, Karunagappally is the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
herein. The respondent is the petitioner\/landlord. Eviction<\/p>\n
was sought on the ground of rent arrears as well as bonafide<\/p>\n
need for own occupation, as enumerated under Section 11(2)<\/p>\n
(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Building Tax (Lease and Rent<\/p>\n
Control) Act, 1975, (the Act for short). The petition was<\/p>\n
dismissed by the Rent Control Court denying eviction on both<\/p>\n
the grounds. Landlord took up the matter in appeal and the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority found that the tenant is liable to be<\/p>\n
evicted on the ground under Section 11(3) of the Act. But<\/p>\n
the tenant challenged the decision before this court in<\/p>\n
RCR.No:97\/2009. During the pendency of the said revision<\/p>\n
petition, the tenant had sworn to an affidavit before this<\/p>\n
court to the effect that the business conducted by the<\/p>\n
landlord was shifted to his residential premises and that the<\/p>\n
RCR.103\/2010
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
need projected in the Rent Control Petition no more survives<\/p>\n
for consideration.     This court after considering such<\/p>\n
contentions remanded the case for fresh disposal by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority, with specific direction to examine<\/p>\n
impact of the subsequent events of shifting of the business of<\/p>\n
the landlord to his residential premises and its implications<\/p>\n
on the need projected for bonafide own occupation of the<\/p>\n
scheduled building. After remand both parties had adduced<\/p>\n
additional evidence and after consideration of the entire<\/p>\n
evidence on record including the additional evidence, the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Appellate Authority found that the need for<\/p>\n
bonafide own occupation raised by the landlord is genuine<\/p>\n
and therefore ordered eviction under Section 11(3) of the<\/p>\n
Act. Since the claim for eviction under Section 11(2)(b) had<\/p>\n
attained finality through decision of the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
at the first instance, challenge in this revision is confined<\/p>\n
only to the aspect of eviction ordered under Section 11(3).<\/p>\n
     2.    Averments in the Rent Control Petition was to the<\/p>\n
effect that, the landlord is conducting a Garments<\/p>\n
manufacturing industry under the name and style, ‘Shyam<\/p>\n
RCR.103\/2010
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
Industries’ in a rented temporary shed which is not sufficient<\/p>\n
and suitable for running the industrial unit and that the<\/p>\n
landlord of the said building (shed) is demanding surrender<\/p>\n
of possession. It is further stated that the shed in which the<\/p>\n
unit is functioning is situated in a remote area and there is<\/p>\n
no facility available for keeping the manufactured garments<\/p>\n
for sale. Hence it is contended that the landlord bonafide<\/p>\n
requires is requiring the scheduled shop room for the<\/p>\n
purpose of shifting the manufacturing unit.<\/p>\n
     3.    The tenant resisted the Rent Control Petition<\/p>\n
contending that the industry run by the landlord is being<\/p>\n
conducted in a premises which is sufficient and it is situated<\/p>\n
in a strong building. It is further contended that there is no<\/p>\n
necessity for a shop room since the items manufactured are<\/p>\n
sold in wholesale to different textile shops. According to the<\/p>\n
tenant, there is no bonafides in the need put forth and the<\/p>\n
same is only a ruse to evict the tenant from the scheduled<\/p>\n
premises. The Rent Control Court after evaluating evidence<\/p>\n
on record found that the need projected by the landlord is<\/p>\n
bonafide and genuine. But it is found that the tenant is<\/p>\n
RCR.103\/2010
\n                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
conducting a gold-smithy in the schedule room and the<\/p>\n
income derived therefrom is the sole means of his livelihood.<\/p>\n
Regarding availability of accommodation in the locality for<\/p>\n
shifting the business of the tenant, the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
found that, even if some vacant shop rooms are available the<\/p>\n
respondent may not be in a position to take on lease any of<\/p>\n
such room for shifting his business and therefore the tenant<\/p>\n
is entitled for protection of the second proviso to sub-section<\/p>\n
(3) of Section 11 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    In appeal filed by the landlord on a total re-<\/p>\n
appraisal of the evidence on record, it is categorically found<\/p>\n
by the Appellate Authority that the tenant had totally failed<\/p>\n
in proving through any cogent evidence that he is depending<\/p>\n
mainly on the income derived from the business carried on in<\/p>\n
the schedule premises.      It is found that no documentary<\/p>\n
evidence to prove the income derived has been produced. It<\/p>\n
is further found that the inability to pay higher rent or<\/p>\n
premium for occupying any alternate accommodation<\/p>\n
available in the locality, cannot be taken as a ground to<\/p>\n
negative the claim for bonafide own occupation of the<\/p>\n
RCR.103\/2010
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
landlord. Such a ground cannot be projected as proof of non-<\/p>\n
availability of suitable building, as enumerated under the<\/p>\n
second limb of the second proviso to Section 11(3), is the<\/p>\n
finding.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   With respect to genuineness of the need projected<\/p>\n
there is oral evidence of the landlord examined as PW1. He<\/p>\n
was further examined after remand.       PWs 2 and 3 were<\/p>\n
examined on behalf of the landlord and Exts.A1 to A4 were<\/p>\n
marked, after remand. PW4 was also examined before the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority. The evidence on behalf of the tenants<\/p>\n
consisted of oral testimonies of RW1 and 2 witnesses<\/p>\n
examined before the Rent Control Court as well as RW3 and<\/p>\n
4 examined after remand.       Two reports of the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner (Exts.C1 & C2) one taken after remand are<\/p>\n
also available on record.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   It has come out in evidence that the landlord had<\/p>\n
vacated the building (shed) wherein he was conducting the<\/p>\n
industry, without a litigation since he wanted to retain good<\/p>\n
relationship with its owner.        PW1 as well as PW4<\/p>\n
categorically stated that there was constant demand from the<\/p>\n
RCR.103\/2010
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
owner to vacate that premises since the owner wanted to<\/p>\n
modify the building in order to make it suitable for his<\/p>\n
residential purpose. Further it has come out in evidence that<\/p>\n
the business is shifted to the residence of the landlord only<\/p>\n
with an intention to see that it is continued even at a nominal<\/p>\n
rate.    The evidence adduced including report of the<\/p>\n
commissioner had categorically proved that the business is<\/p>\n
being conducted in the residence of the landlord in a highly<\/p>\n
congested manner without there being any sufficient space.<\/p>\n
Further it is proved that the residence of the tenant is<\/p>\n
situated in a highly remote area, whereas the petition<\/p>\n
schedule building is in a prominent location having good<\/p>\n
accessibility to customers.       From the oral as well as<\/p>\n
documentary evidence adduced in the case, the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority had arrived at a conclusion that the need projected<\/p>\n
is totally genuine and bonafide. Contention of the tenant<\/p>\n
that the petition schedule building is not suitable for<\/p>\n
accommodating the industry has also been discarded on the<\/p>\n
basis of the evidence available.\n<\/p>\n
     7.    Mr. M.K.Chandramohandas, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
RCR.103\/2010
\n                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
the revision petitioner as well as C.S. Sheeja, learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the respondent were heard at length.<\/p>\n
Counsel for the revision petitioner could not specifically<\/p>\n
point out any material evidence which the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority had omitted to appreciate, or to point out that<\/p>\n
there is any misappreciation of the evidence on record. On a<\/p>\n
scanning of the impugned judgment of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority as well as the Judgment of this court rendered<\/p>\n
earlier, we are convinced that the landlord was successful in<\/p>\n
proving through convincing evidence, especially the evidence<\/p>\n
adduced after remand of the matter, that inspite of shifting<\/p>\n
of the unit to his residence the need for occupation of the<\/p>\n
schedule building still survives and that the subsequent<\/p>\n
events has not in any manner eclipsed such a need.<\/p>\n
      8.   Under the above mentioned circumstances we do<\/p>\n
not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety with the<\/p>\n
findings arrived by the Appellate Authority. Being the final<\/p>\n
fact finding authority we do not think that there is any error<\/p>\n
or infirmity with respect to the conclusions arrived on the<\/p>\n
facts. Within the contours of attenuated jurisdiction vested<\/p>\n
RCR.103\/2010
\n                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
on this court under Section 20 of the Act we find no reasons<\/p>\n
warranting interference to reverse any such findings. Hence<\/p>\n
the revision petition deserves no merit.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   However,     as   a   last   submission,   Sri.M.K.<\/p>\n
Chandramohandas,      learned    counsel   for  the    revision<\/p>\n
petitioner, sought indulgence of this court for granting one<\/p>\n
year period for surrendering vacant possession of the<\/p>\n
schedule premises. C.S.Sheeja, learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the respondent stiffly opposed the prayer. Considering<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances we are inclined to grant time till<\/p>\n
31.12.2010. Therefore the rent control revision is disposed<\/p>\n
of with the following directions:\n<\/p>\n
      (i) While dismissing the revision petition, the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner\/tenant is granted time till 31.12.2010 to hand over<\/p>\n
peaceful and vacant possession of the schedule premises to<\/p>\n
the respondent\/landlord on condition of his filing an affidavit<\/p>\n
before the execution court or the Rent Control Court, as the<\/p>\n
case may be, undertaking peaceful surrender of the schedule<\/p>\n
premises on or before 31.12.2010 and also undertaking to<\/p>\n
make payment of arrears of rent if any, at the rate of Rs.500\/-<\/p>\n
RCR.103\/2010
\n                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
as fixed by this court in RCR.No.97\/2009. In the affidavit,<\/p>\n
the revision petitioner shall further undertake to make<\/p>\n
payment of occupational charges till the date of surrender at<\/p>\n
the same rate of Rs.500\/-. The affidavit as directed above<\/p>\n
shall be filed and arrears of rent if any due shall be paid<\/p>\n
within 10 days of re-opening of the court after the mid-<\/p>\n
summer vacation.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii) The execution court shall defer ordering delivery of<\/p>\n
possession of the schedule building till 1.1.2011, once filing<\/p>\n
of the affidavit and payment of arrears of rent and<\/p>\n
occupational charges as directed above is noticed.<\/p>\n
                         PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                         C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
okb\/ksv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court D.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 103 of 2010() 1. D.PARA,MESWARAN ACHARI,AJYANIVAS, … Petitioner Vs 1. DAMODARAN GOPINATH, SUDNINAMVEEDU, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL […]<\/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-228996","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nD.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-02T19:23:57+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\\\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-02T19:23:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1580,\"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\\\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010\",\"name\":\"D.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-02T19:23:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-02T19:23:57+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\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-02T19:23:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010"},"wordCount":1580,"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\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010","name":"D.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-02T19:23:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-para-vs-damodaran-gopinath-on-5-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.Para vs Damodaran Gopinath on 5 April, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228996","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=228996"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228996\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228996"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228996"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228996"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}