{"id":22964,"date":"2008-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-29T08:49:51","modified_gmt":"2018-08-29T03:19:51","slug":"parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Parameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Parameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 685 of 2008()\n\n\n1. PARAMESWARAN, AGED 54 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MADHAVI, AGED 71 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. VALSAMMA, AGED 53 YEARS,\n\n3. SARASAMMA, AGED 52 YEARS,\n\n4. SANTHAMMA, AGED 49 YEARS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.A.HASSAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :17\/09\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                       V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n                   = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                      R.S.A.No.685 of 2008\n                   = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n           Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     The 1st defendant in O.S.No.211 of 2000 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s Court, Kanjirappally is the appellant in the Second<\/p>\n
Appeal. The said suit, instituted by the Appellant’s mother, 1st<\/p>\n
respondent herein namely Madhavi, was one for partition and<\/p>\n
consequential injunction.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The case of the plaintiff can be summarised as follows:-<\/p>\n
     The plaint schedule property admeasuring 5.99 acres of<\/p>\n
land is an unregistered forestland which was originally in the<\/p>\n
possession of Kunjukutty, the deceased husband of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
The 1st defendant is the son and defendants 2 to 4 are the<\/p>\n
daughters of the said Kunjukutty and the plaintiff. Kunjukutty<\/p>\n
died in testate in the year 1987 leaving behind the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
the defendants as his legal heirs. Upon his death the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendants<\/p>\n
in equal shares as per the law of succession applicable to the<\/p>\n
parties belonging to Malayaraya community. As per the law as<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.685 of 2008
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
well as as per the ancient custom prevailing among the parties<\/p>\n
the plaintiff being the widow of the deceased Kunjukutty is<\/p>\n
entitled to equal shares over the plaint schedule property along<\/p>\n
with the children of the deceased Kunjukutty.        The plaintiff is<\/p>\n
entitled to get 1\/5 share over the plaint schedule property and<\/p>\n
defendants 2 to 4 are also entitled to get 1\/5 share each over the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property.     The plaintiff understands that the<\/p>\n
defendants are taking hasty steps to induct strangers to the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property and cut and remove valuable trees<\/p>\n
standing in the property.     The defendants have no right or<\/p>\n
authority to do so. The cause of action for the suit has arisen on<\/p>\n
2.7.2000 and continuously thereafter when the 1st defendant<\/p>\n
refused the plaintiff’s attempts for partition, the suit for partition<\/p>\n
and separate possession of the plaintiff’s 1\/5th share is filed.<\/p>\n
      3.   Defendants 2 to 4, the daughters of the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
remained ex parte. The suit was contested by the 1st defendant,<\/p>\n
the only son of the plaintiff and the deceased Kunjukutty . The<\/p>\n
1st defendant filed written statement contending, inter alia, that<\/p>\n
the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The extent<\/p>\n
of the plaint schedule property is not 5.99 acres but 6.99 acres<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.685 of 2008
\n                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
comprising Sy.No.385\/1 of Erumerly South, Village Office in<\/p>\n
Kanjirappally Taluk.     During the life time of Kunjukutty, the<\/p>\n
father of the defendants obtained entire plaint schedule property<\/p>\n
as his share from his father. The plaint schedule property is not<\/p>\n
liable to be partitioned. During the life time of the father,<\/p>\n
defendants 2 to 4, who are the sisters of the 1st defendant, were<\/p>\n
given in marriage after giving their due shares. On 4.6.2000, the<\/p>\n
2nd defendant trespassed into the plaint schedule property and<\/p>\n
reduced 1 cent of property to her possession and constructed a<\/p>\n
shed therein. The 1st defendant filed O.S.No.172 of 2000 before<\/p>\n
the Munsiff’s Court, Kanjirappally       for evicting her from the<\/p>\n
trespassed area and the said suit is pending. Defendants 2 to 4<\/p>\n
have not effected any improvements in the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property. The plaintiff who is the mother of the defendants is<\/p>\n
now residing along with the 1st defendant. The plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for in the plaint. Hence the<\/p>\n
suit is liable to be dismissed with costs to the defendants.<\/p>\n
      4. The trial court framed four issues for trial. On the side<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff, Ext.A1 Marriage Register was marked and<\/p>\n
plaintiff examined herself as PW1. On the side of the appellant\/<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.685 of 2008
\n                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
1st defendant 7 documents were got marked as Exts.B1 to B7<\/p>\n
and he examined himself as DW1.\n<\/p>\n
     5. The learned Munsiff after trial as per judgment and<\/p>\n
decree dated 27.3.02 accepted the plaintiff’s contention and<\/p>\n
passed a preliminary decree for partition directing division of<\/p>\n
6.99 acres of land into five equal shares and allotment of 1\/5<\/p>\n
share of the same to the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   On appeal preferred by the appellant\/1st defendant<\/p>\n
before the District Court, Kottayam as A.S.No.87 of 2002, the<\/p>\n
lower appellate court as per judgment and decree dated 31.3.08<\/p>\n
dismissed the appeal confirming the preliminary decree passed<\/p>\n
by the trial court. Hence this Second Appeal<\/p>\n
     7. The questions of law formulated in the memorandum of<\/p>\n
appeal are the following:-\n<\/p>\n
       1. Whether there is essentially an erroneous approach in<\/p>\n
         the finding that the property is partible and the plaintiff<\/p>\n
         is entitled for 1\/5th share from a forest land, which is a<\/p>\n
         settlement area, possessed and enjoyed by the<\/p>\n
         appellant, who is a Malayaraya.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       2.In a specific case of possession of the scheduled<\/p>\n
         property by the appellant even from the lifetime of the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.685 of 2008
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
        father, whether the question of succession arises.<\/p>\n
      3.Whether customs alleged by the plaintiffs is proved<\/p>\n
        under Section 13 of the Evidence Act by particular<\/p>\n
        instances in which the custom was asserted or<\/p>\n
        recognised. The existence of custom is mixed question<\/p>\n
        of fact and law.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Whether the courts below acted without regard to<\/p>\n
        standard of acceptable evidence of custom.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     8. I heard the learned counsel appearig for the appellant.<\/p>\n
Assailing the concurrent decrees passed by the court, the<\/p>\n
learned   counsel   for   the  appellant   made   the   following<\/p>\n
submissions before me:-\n<\/p>\n
     This is a case where the plaintiff has come before the Court<\/p>\n
setting up a custom that was prevailing among Malayaras. The<\/p>\n
widow and daughter inherit the properties left behind the<\/p>\n
common ancestor in equal shares. In support of the said custom<\/p>\n
the plaintiff alone was examined as PW1. In order to get judicial<\/p>\n
recognition of a custom, the party setting up a custom should<\/p>\n
prove the same to the hilt in terms of Section 13 of the Evidence<\/p>\n
Act. The custom should not only be long, continuous but should<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.685 of 2008
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
also be of reasonable antiquity as insisted by Section 13 of the<\/p>\n
Evidence Act vide 1960 KLT 1195, 1971 KLT 458, 1966 KLT 181<\/p>\n
and ILR 1975 Kerala 156. The plaintiff has failed to adduce<\/p>\n
sufficient evidence to prove the custom set up by her. As against<\/p>\n
this, the case of the appellant was that even during the lifetime<\/p>\n
of the father the property was entrusted by him to the appellant<\/p>\n
and the appellant had effected valuable improvements including<\/p>\n
the residential building in the property which has a Panchayat<\/p>\n
Number assigned in the name of the 1st defendant. During the<\/p>\n
lifetime of the father himself the three daughters were given<\/p>\n
away in marriage after giving their share. In the year 2000, the<\/p>\n
State Government in recognition of the exclusive possession and<\/p>\n
cultivation of the property by the 1st defendant had issued an<\/p>\n
extract of the record of rights on 19.1.2000. The said document<\/p>\n
issued by the Tahasildar, Kanjirappally and countersigned by the<\/p>\n
Forest Range officer, Erumely has been produced by the<\/p>\n
Appellant as an additional document in the Second Appeal The<\/p>\n
appellant has also produced five other documents as additional<\/p>\n
evidences in the second appeal.         The 2nd document is a<\/p>\n
possession certificate dated 22.11.04 issued in respect of a<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.685 of 2008
\n                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
portion of the property in the name of Manoj, the son of the<\/p>\n
appellant\/1st defendant by the Village Officer, Erumely south.<\/p>\n
The 3rd document is also a possession certificate dated 23.3.04<\/p>\n
issued by the village officer, Erumely South in favour of the said<\/p>\n
Manoj. The 4th document is a Survey plan dated 26.2.95 which is<\/p>\n
produced in O.S.No.132 of 1993 on the file of the Munsiff’s<\/p>\n
Court, Kanjirappally. The 5th document is a copy of the judgment<\/p>\n
in O.S.No.132 of 1993 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court,<\/p>\n
Kanjirappally. The 6th document is the true certified copy of the<\/p>\n
Commission Report dated 19.10.94 in O.S.No.132 of 1993.<\/p>\n
These documents will reinforce the contention of the 1st<\/p>\n
defendant. He has been in exclusive possession of the entire<\/p>\n
property in his own right to the exclusion of his mother and his<\/p>\n
sisters. These documents were not relied upon by the court<\/p>\n
below since they could not file the same before the court below.<\/p>\n
     9.   I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above<\/p>\n
submissions. There is no dispute that the property admeasuring<\/p>\n
6.99 acres comprising Re.survey No.13 of Erumely Village of<\/p>\n
Kanjirappally Taluk    which is a Government forest land was<\/p>\n
encroached upon by the deceased Kunjukutty who was the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.685 of 2008
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
husband of the plaintiff Madhavi and the father of three<\/p>\n
daughters(D2 to D4) and one son(1st defendant),.           The said<\/p>\n
Kunjukutty died in the year 1987. The parties are admittedly<\/p>\n
Malayarayas who belonged to the scheduled tribe. It is true that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff came to court setting up a custom that was among<\/p>\n
the Malayarayas. If the father dies in testate then the property<\/p>\n
devolves in equal shares on the widow and all the children. It is<\/p>\n
also true that except the interested testimony, no other<\/p>\n
individual evidence was adduced by the plaintiff to prove the<\/p>\n
said custom set up by her. But then the worst that can be said<\/p>\n
about it is that the plaintiff has failed to prove the custom set up<\/p>\n
by her. From that alone it does not follow that the contentions of<\/p>\n
the defendant is to be accepted. Apart from the fact that there<\/p>\n
was only oath against oath of the disputing parties, there was no<\/p>\n
evidence regarding the in testate succession of the estate of the<\/p>\n
person.     Of course the right of Kunjukutty was only a<\/p>\n
possessinary right, the ownership being vested in the<\/p>\n
Government. In the absence of any evidence in support of the<\/p>\n
custom set up by the plaintiff the law is well settled that the<\/p>\n
principles to be applied are justice, equity and good conscience.<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.685 of 2008
\n                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
In applying the said principles also justice demands that the<\/p>\n
right of possession over the property should be allowed to be<\/p>\n
partitioned in equal shares between the widow and all children.<\/p>\n
The appellant\/1st defendant should plead an entrustment by the<\/p>\n
father in his favour did not either give the date of entrust or the<\/p>\n
terms of entrustment. Hence, the said case of the appellant also<\/p>\n
falls to the ground.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Coming to the additional documents produced in this<\/p>\n
Second Appeal, apart from the fact that the appellant has not<\/p>\n
made out sufficient grounds in respect of the additional evidence<\/p>\n
in the Second Appeal by virtue of the provisions of Order XLI<\/p>\n
Rule 27 C.P.C, the extract of record of rights only proves that<\/p>\n
one of the co-owners was in possession and cultivation of a<\/p>\n
portion of the property in the year 2000. That cannot have the<\/p>\n
effect of excluding the other co-owners from possession or<\/p>\n
enjoyment of the property.      It is significant to note that the<\/p>\n
appellant has not even pleaded adverse possession or ouster<\/p>\n
much less adduced in evidence to that effect.           Hence as<\/p>\n
concluded by the courts below, he is only a recipient of record of<\/p>\n
rights from Tahasildar of Kanjirappally. He cannot walk away<\/p>\n
R.S.A.No.685 of 2008
\n                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
with the property with the exclusion of his mother and sisters.<\/p>\n
The record of rights will have to be constituted as the document<\/p>\n
which ensues in favour of all the co-owners ( See 1986 KLT..SN)<\/p>\n
The other documents also, apart from the fact that it is not being<\/p>\n
relevant for deciding the issues, could have been produced<\/p>\n
before the court below and no exclusion is forthcoming for non-<\/p>\n
production of the documents before the court below. Hence,<\/p>\n
I.A.No.168 of 2008 filed in respect of the above additional<\/p>\n
documents is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     After an anxious consideration of the matter, I see no<\/p>\n
reason to interfere with the preliminary decree for partition<\/p>\n
passed by the court below. This Second Appeal is accordingly<\/p>\n
dismissed as in limine.\n<\/p>\n
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Parameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 685 of 2008() 1. PARAMESWARAN, AGED 54 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. MADHAVI, AGED 71 YEARS, … Respondent 2. VALSAMMA, AGED 53 YEARS, 3. SARASAMMA, AGED 52 YEARS, 4. SANTHAMMA, AGED 49 YEARS, For Petitioner :SRI.K.A.HASSAN […]<\/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-22964","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nParameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008 - 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\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-29T03:19:51+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-29T03:19:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1952,\"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\\\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Parameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-29T03:19:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Parameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008 - 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\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-29T03:19:51+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-29T03:19:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008"},"wordCount":1952,"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\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008","name":"Parameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-29T03:19:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parameswaran-vs-madhavi-on-17-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parameswaran vs Madhavi on 17 September, 2008"}]},{"@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\/22964","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=22964"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22964\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22964"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22964"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22964"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}