{"id":232014,"date":"2007-06-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007"},"modified":"2014-10-23T11:31:18","modified_gmt":"2014-10-23T06:01:18","slug":"narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Narayanannamboothiry Mohanan … vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Narayanannamboothiry Mohanan … vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 798 of 1993()\n\n\n\n1. NARAYANANNAMBOOTHIRY MOHANAN NAMBOOTHIRY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. BHAVANI VASUMATHY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI GIRI V.\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :20\/06\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n               ===========================\n\n                 S.A.  NO. 798   OF 1993\n\n               ===========================\n\n\n\n        Dated this the 20th day of June, 2007\n\n\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Plaintiff   in   O.S.107\/1984   on   the   file   of   Sub<\/p>\n
Court,   Cherthala   is   the   appellant.         Defendants<\/p>\n
10,11,12, 15 and 21 are the respondents.  Plaintiff<\/p>\n
instituted the suit to set aside Ext.A2 to A7 sale<\/p>\n
deeds   executed   by       21st  defendant,   his   father<\/p>\n
contending   that   the   alienations   are   not   for<\/p>\n
consideration   or   for   the   illom   necessity   and<\/p>\n
therefore   are   not   valid   and   binding   on   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff or the illom properties.  Defendant No.21<\/p>\n
was   the   father   of   the   plaintiff   and   defendant<\/p>\n
No.22,       mother   of   21st  defendant.     Defendants   21,<\/p>\n
22   and   plaintiff   were   admittedly   members   of<\/p>\n
Pallikkezhil   Illom.        Plaint   schedule   properties<\/p>\n
originally belonged to the  illom. Under schedule C<\/p>\n
of     Ext.A1   settlement   deed   dated   6.2.1963,   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   properties   were   allotted   to   the     Sakha<\/p>\n
consisting   of   plaintiff   and   his   parents.          His<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
mother          Saraswathi         Antherjanam               subsequently<\/p>\n
released   her   right   in   favour   of   husband,   21st<\/p>\n
defendant   and   son   plaintiff.     Subsequently   Ext.A4<\/p>\n
sale deed was executed on 15.7.1968 in favour of 9th<\/p>\n
defendant who in turn assigned it to 15th  defendant<\/p>\n
under   Ext.B11   sale   deed.     Ext.A4   was   executed   by<\/p>\n
the   father   for   himself   and   for   the   minor   son<\/p>\n
plaintiff.   Ext.A5   sale   deed   was   executed   on<\/p>\n
16.7.1969   in   favour   of   10th               defendant.          10th<\/p>\n
defendant later alienated the property in favour of<\/p>\n
respondents   16   to   18.                  Ext.A6   sale   deed   was<\/p>\n
executed   on   13-4-1970   in   favour   of   defendants   11<\/p>\n
and 12.  Similarly Ext.A2 sale deed was executed on<\/p>\n
23.5.1966.   Ext.A3   sale   deed   was   executed                     on<\/p>\n
8.3.1967   and   Ext.A7   dated   27.8.1970.     Plaintiff<\/p>\n
contended   that   these   alienations   are   invalid   as<\/p>\n
they     are   not   supported   by   consideration   and   as<\/p>\n
they   were   not   for   the   illom   necessity   or   benefit<\/p>\n
and   therefore     to   be   set   aside   and   in   any   case<\/p>\n
plaintiff   is   entitled   to   get   half   share   in   the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
      2.Defendants   1   to   4   filed   a   joint   written<\/p>\n
statement  and  defendants  10  to  15  filed  a  separate<\/p>\n
written   statements.     Defendants   contended   that   the<\/p>\n
alienations   were   made   for   illom   necessity   and   for<\/p>\n
valid   consideration   and   so     they   are   valid   and<\/p>\n
binding on the  plaintiff and the  illom properties<\/p>\n
and plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the same<\/p>\n
and   is   not   entitled   to   the   decree   sought   for.\n<\/p>\n
Defendants   13   and   14   who   obtained   right   under<\/p>\n
Ext.A7   sale   deed   also   claimed   fixity   of   tenure<\/p>\n
under   Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act.     That   question   was<\/p>\n
referred   to   the   Land   Tribunal.             Land   Tribunal<\/p>\n
upheld   the   claim.       Learned   Sub   Judge   on   the<\/p>\n
evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and Exts.A1 to A16, Exts.B1<\/p>\n
to   B23   and   X1   to   X3   found   that   Ext.A2   and   A7   sale<\/p>\n
deeds are valid and binding on the plaintiff and he<\/p>\n
is not entitled to challenge the same. But  holding<\/p>\n
that   Exts.A3   to   A6   sale   deeds   are   valid   only   in<\/p>\n
respect   of   only   the   half   share   of     21st  defendant<\/p>\n
and   are   not   valid   and   binding   on   plaintiff     a<\/p>\n
preliminary   decree   for   partition   was   passed.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
Defendants           10,11,12         and         15         challenged         the<\/p>\n
preliminary   decree   and   judgment   before   Additional<\/p>\n
District Court, Alappuzha in A.S.78\/1990 contending<\/p>\n
that learned Sub Judge should have upheld Ext.A4 to<\/p>\n
A6   alienations   also   and   should   have   found   that<\/p>\n
properties covered thereunder are not available for<\/p>\n
partition.     Plaintiff   on   his   part   challenged   the<\/p>\n
preliminary   decree   whereunder   Exts.A2   and   A7<\/p>\n
alienations   were   upheld   by   the   trial   court     in<\/p>\n
A.S.397\/1990   before   this   court.                                 Similarly<\/p>\n
defendants 1 to 8 challenged the preliminary decree<\/p>\n
and   judgment   before   this   court   in   A.S.363\/1991,<\/p>\n
contending that learned Sub Judge should have found<\/p>\n
that Ext.A3 sale deed was also valid as it was  for<\/p>\n
illom necessity  and therefore the property covered<\/p>\n
under   Ext.A3   should   have   been   excluded   from<\/p>\n
partition.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   Unfortunately                pendancy   of   A.S.78\/1990<\/p>\n
before the Sub Court  was not brought to the notice<\/p>\n
of this court.   As a result, the said first appeal<\/p>\n
happened  to  be  disposed  of    by  Additional  District<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
Judge,   Alappuzha   independently   and   that   appeal   was<\/p>\n
not called for to this court to be disposed of with<\/p>\n
other   connected   pending   first   appeals.     Learned<\/p>\n
District Judge on reappreciation of evidence upheld<\/p>\n
Exts.A4  to  A6  alienations    holding  that  those  sale<\/p>\n
deeds were executed by the father for the minor son<\/p>\n
also   for   valid   consideration   and            for   illom<\/p>\n
necessity   and   therefore   they   are   valid   and   binding<\/p>\n
on   the   plaintiff.   The   Second   Appeal   is   filed<\/p>\n
challenging   the   decree   and   judgment   passed   by<\/p>\n
Additional   District   Judge   in   A.S.78\/1990   under<\/p>\n
which   Exts.A4   to   A6   sale   deeds   were   found     valid<\/p>\n
and   binding   on   the   plaintiff   and     the   properties<\/p>\n
covered thereunder  not available for partition.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   Meanwhile   A.S.397\/1990   and   363\/1991   were<\/p>\n
heard   and   disposed   by   a   common   judgment   dated<\/p>\n
6.2.2002.     Even   while   the   said   first   appeals   were<\/p>\n
disposed   of     the   fact   that   this   Second   Appeal   is<\/p>\n
pending,     was   not   brought   to   the   notice   of   the<\/p>\n
leanred   Single   Judge.   Consequently   the   second<\/p>\n
appeal  was  not  heard  along  with  the  first  appeals.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
In   the   first   appeals   the   learned   single   Judge<\/p>\n
upheld   Ext.A3   sale   deed   also   and   confirmed   the<\/p>\n
alienations   under   Ext.A2   and   A7   sale   deeds.     As   a<\/p>\n
result   of   the   findings   in   A.S.397\/1990   and<\/p>\n
A.S.363\/1991   which   has   become   final   except   with<\/p>\n
regard   to   the   alienations   under   Exts.A4   to   A6   and<\/p>\n
availability   of   the   properties   covered   thereunder,<\/p>\n
the   other   dispute   between   the   parties   are   now<\/p>\n
concluded.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Learned  single  Judge  confirmed the  finding<\/p>\n
of   the   learned   Sub   Judge   that   Ext.A2   and   A7<\/p>\n
alienations             are         valid         and         binding         on         the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   and   those   properties   are   not   available<\/p>\n
for   partition.     In   addition,   this   court   held   that<\/p>\n
Ext.A3          sale         deed         was          also         executed             for<\/p>\n
consideration and for illom necessity and therefore<\/p>\n
valid and binding on the plaintiff and the property<\/p>\n
covered   thereunder   is   not   available   for   partition.\n<\/p>\n
What   remains   is   whether   Ext.A4   to   A6   alienations<\/p>\n
are valid and binding on the plaintiff and if not,<\/p>\n
whether   the             properties   covered   thereunder   are<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
available for partition.\n<\/p>\n
      6.  Learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
vehemently   argued   that   courts   below   did   not<\/p>\n
properly consider the impact of Section 5 and  8 of<\/p>\n
Kerala   Nambudiri   Act,   1958,(   hereinafter   referred<\/p>\n
to as the Act) and the fact that defendants 10,11,<\/p>\n
12   and   15   who   claim   right   under   Ext.A4   to   A6   sale<\/p>\n
deeds did not adduce any evidence and even did not<\/p>\n
mount   the   box   to   depose   that   they   had   made   any<\/p>\n
inquiries   with   regard   to   the   illom   necessity,<\/p>\n
should   have   persuaded       courts   below   to   hold   that<\/p>\n
Exts.A4   to   A6   alienations   are   not   for   illom<\/p>\n
necessity. It was further argued that under Section<\/p>\n
5   of   the   Act,   no   sale   or   mortgage   of   immovable<\/p>\n
property of an illom shall be valid unless the sale<\/p>\n
deed was executed by the karnavan for consideration<\/p>\n
and   also   for   illom   necessity   or   the   benefit   of<\/p>\n
illom   and   also   with   the   written   consent   of   the<\/p>\n
majority   of   the   major   members   and   under   section   8<\/p>\n
of   the   Act,   the   burden   is   on   the   alienee   to<\/p>\n
establish   that   it   was   for   the   Illom   necessity   or<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
for the benefit of the illom and on the failure of<\/p>\n
the   alienees   to   adduce   evidence,   courts   below<\/p>\n
should not have interfered with the findings of the<\/p>\n
trial   court   and   should   have   found   that   the<\/p>\n
properties   covered   under   Exts.A4   to   A6   sale   deeds<\/p>\n
are   available   for   partition.     Reliance   was   placed<\/p>\n
on   the   decision   of   a   Full   Bench   of   this   Court   in<\/p>\n
Venkiteswara   Kammathi   Balakrishna   Kammathi   v.\n<\/p>\n
Anantha Pai Ganesha Pai (1954 K.L.T. 87).\n<\/p>\n
      7.Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   contesting<\/p>\n
respondents   argued   that   the   facts   appreciated   by<\/p>\n
first   appellate   court   establish   that   the   facts   are<\/p>\n
similar to the alienations which was upheld by this<\/p>\n
court   in   the   first   appeal   A.S.397\/1990   and<\/p>\n
363\/1991.   It   was   pointed   out   that   similar   recitals<\/p>\n
as   in   Ext.A2,A3   and   A7   are   there   in   Ext.A4   to   A6<\/p>\n
also and the trial court and this court found that<\/p>\n
the   alienations   are   for   illom   necessity   and<\/p>\n
therefore   the   said   findings   are   applicable   in<\/p>\n
respect of the alienations covered under Exts.A4 to<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
A6 also.  Learned counsel also argued that as found<\/p>\n
by   the   learned   single   Judge   in   the   first   appeals,<\/p>\n
when   21st  defendant   the   father   was   the   only   major<\/p>\n
member   available   in   the   illom   and   he     executed<\/p>\n
Exts.A4   to   A6   sale   deeds,   proviso   to   Section   8   of<\/p>\n
the Act applies and  court has to presume that such<\/p>\n
necessity   were   there   as   stated   in   Section   5   and<\/p>\n
therefore     first   appellate   court   rightly   upheld<\/p>\n
Ext.A4   to   A6   and   there   is   no   reason   to   interfere<\/p>\n
with the findings of the first appellate court.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    The  Second  Appeal  was admitted  formulating<\/p>\n
the following substantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n
      On   whom   the   burden   of   proof   lies   in   a   case,<\/p>\n
where   sale   deeds   executed     by   the   father   for     the<\/p>\n
memberson   also,   alienating   the   properties   of   the<\/p>\n
illom  covered  under  the  Act  is  challenged  for  want<\/p>\n
of consideration and illom necessity, to prove that<\/p>\n
the   alienations   were   for   consideration   and   illom<\/p>\n
necessity   or     the   benefit   of   illom     and   on     the<\/p>\n
evidence on record whether Ext.A4 to A6 alienations<\/p>\n
are valid.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
      9.   Ext.A4   sale   deed   was   executed   in   favour   of<\/p>\n
9th  defendant   on   15.7.1968.   The     consideration   was<\/p>\n
Rs.1000\/-.           Ext.A5   sale   deed   was   executed   on<\/p>\n
16.7.1969. Its consideration was Rs.7000\/-.  Ext.A6<\/p>\n
sale   deed   was   executed   on   13.4.1980.                The<\/p>\n
consideration   shown   is   Rs.300\/-.     The   assignees<\/p>\n
under Exts.A4 to A6 were not examined.   Infact, no<\/p>\n
oral   evidence   was   adduced   by   the   contesting<\/p>\n
respondents   who   seek   to   uphold   Ext.A4   to   A6<\/p>\n
alienations.   On the side of the plaintiff, he was<\/p>\n
examined as PW1 and a witness was examined as PW3.\n<\/p>\n
The   evidence   of   PW3   was   not   at   all   helpful   to<\/p>\n
decide the question whether the alienations are for<\/p>\n
illom   necessity   or   for   the   benefit   or   and   whether<\/p>\n
they   were   for   consideration.     Exts.A4   to   A6   show<\/p>\n
that   consideration   thereunder   was   received   by   the<\/p>\n
21st  defendant who executed the sale deed on behalf<\/p>\n
of   the   plaintiff   also.   As   rightly   pointed   out   by<\/p>\n
learned   counsel   appeaing   for   the   contesting<\/p>\n
respondents,   apart   from   the   recitals   about   the<\/p>\n
passing           of   consideration   in   Exts.A4   to   A6,<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff   as   PW1   admitted   that   his   father   had<\/p>\n
received             the              consideration                                shown         therein.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore   first   appellate   court   rightly   found   that<\/p>\n
Ext.A4  to  A6  were  supported  by  consideration.    The<\/p>\n
only   question   is   whether   the   alienations   are   for<\/p>\n
illom necessity or benefit.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Section 5 of the Act reads:-\n<\/p>\n
                “(1)                  No              sale                  or<\/p>\n
                mortgage                              of                    any<\/p>\n
                immovable   property   of<\/p>\n
                an   illom   and   no   lease<\/p>\n
                of   any   such   property<\/p>\n
                shall   be   valid,   unless<\/p>\n
                it   is   executed   by   the<\/p>\n
                karnavan                                                    for<\/p>\n
                consideration,                                              for<\/p>\n
                illom                 necessity                              or<\/p>\n
                benefit,   and   with   the<\/p>\n
                written   consent   of   the<\/p>\n
                majority   of   the   major<\/p>\n
                members of the illom.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                             12<\/span><\/p>\n
                (2)Nothing   contained   in<\/p>\n
                sub-section   (1)   shall<\/p>\n
                be deemed to affect the<\/p>\n
                validity   of   any   sale,<\/p>\n
                mortgage           or          lease<\/p>\n
                executed          before             the<\/p>\n
                commencement   of   this<\/p>\n
                Act   in   accordance   with<\/p>\n
                the law in force at the<\/p>\n
                time              of                such<\/p>\n
                execution.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 7 provides that it shall be lawful for the<\/p>\n
karnavan   to   contract,   or   enter   into   debts   or<\/p>\n
transaction   other   than   those   falling   under   section<\/p>\n
5,   without   the   written   consent   of   the   majority   of<\/p>\n
the   members   of   the   illom.     The   proviso   mandates<\/p>\n
that   the   debts   or   transactions   so   contracted   or<\/p>\n
entered into are for illom necessity or benefit.\n<\/p>\n
      11.Section 8 reads:-<\/p>\n
        “The  burden   of  proving  illom<\/p>\n
        necessity   or   benefit   shall<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                                13<\/span><\/p>\n
        be           on         the         purchaser,<\/p>\n
        mortgagee,   pledgee,   or   other<\/p>\n
        alienee, or creditor, as the<\/p>\n
        case   may   be.   But   the   court<\/p>\n
        may   presume   such   necessity<\/p>\n
        where   the   majority   of   the<\/p>\n
        major   members   of   the   illom<\/p>\n
        are parties to or have given<\/p>\n
        their written consent to the<\/p>\n
        transaction.”\n<\/p>\n
A   combined   reading   of   Section   5   and   Section   8<\/p>\n
establish   that   the   burden   of   proving   illom<\/p>\n
necessity   or   benefit     shall   be   on   the   purchaser,<\/p>\n
mortgagee,   pledgee,   or   other   alienee.     But   the<\/p>\n
proviso   mandates   that   where   the   majority   of   the<\/p>\n
major   members   of   the   illom   are   parties   to   or   have<\/p>\n
given   their   written   consent   to   the   transaction,<\/p>\n
the  court  may  presume  that  the  alienations  are  for<\/p>\n
illom   necessity   as   provided   under   section   5.\n<\/p>\n
Section 5 provides  that no sale or mortgage of any<\/p>\n
immovable   property   of   illom   shall   be   valid,   unless<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
it   is   executed   by   the   karnavan   and   the   alienation<\/p>\n
is   for   considertion   and   for   illom   necessity   or<\/p>\n
benefit   and   also   with   the   written   consent   of   the<\/p>\n
majority  of  major  members.    Because  of  the  proviso<\/p>\n
to   Section   8,   if   an   alienation   is   made   by   the<\/p>\n
karnavan   with   the   written   consent   of   the   majority<\/p>\n
of   the   major   members   and   for   consideration,   then<\/p>\n
court   may   presume   that   it   is   for   the   illom<\/p>\n
necessity.\n<\/p>\n
      12. When Ext.A4 to A6 alienations were made the<\/p>\n
only  members  of  the  illom  were  defendant  No.21  and<\/p>\n
the   plaintiff.     Admittedly   Saraswathi   Antherjanam<\/p>\n
the   other   member   of   the   illom   the   mother   of<\/p>\n
plaintiff,     had   released   all   her   rights   in   favour<\/p>\n
of   her   husband   and   son   the   plaintiff   and   21st<\/p>\n
defendant   under   Ext.B2.     Therefore   when   Ext.A4   to<\/p>\n
A6 alienations were made, the  only major member of<\/p>\n
the   illom   was     21st  defendant.     The   question   is<\/p>\n
when the only members of the illom are a major and<\/p>\n
a   minor   and   the   alienations   are   made   by   the   major<\/p>\n
for   the   minor   also,   can   it     be   said   that   the<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                    15<\/span><\/p>\n
alienations   are   made   with   the   consent   of   the<\/p>\n
majority   of   the   major   members   so   as   to   attract<\/p>\n
section 8 of the Act.  This question was considered<\/p>\n
by   the   learned   single   Judge     in   the   first   appeal<\/p>\n
referred to earlier and held that as  21st defendant<\/p>\n
was   the   only   major   member   of   the   illom   and   he<\/p>\n
executed   the   sale   deeds,     proviso   to   Section   8<\/p>\n
applies.That   decision   was   rendered   in   the   same<\/p>\n
suit. Hence  at least as against the plaintiff  who<\/p>\n
was   the   appellant   in   one   of   the   appeals   and   that<\/p>\n
too   against   the   very   same   preliminary   decree   of<\/p>\n
this   case,   the   finding   is   binding.           In   such<\/p>\n
circumstances,   I   do   not   find   it   necessary   to   go<\/p>\n
further on that question. Exts.A4 to A6 alienations<\/p>\n
also   attract   the   provisions   of   proviso   to   Section<\/p>\n
8.<\/p>\n
      13.     Similar   recitals   in   Exts.A2,   A3   and   A7<\/p>\n
were  considered  by  this  court  in  the  first  appeals<\/p>\n
and it was  held that the alienations are for illom<\/p>\n
necessity.     In   the   light   of   the   said   finding,   the<\/p>\n
factual   finding   of   the   first   appellate   court   that<\/p>\n
S.A.798\/1993                   16<\/span><\/p>\n
Exts.A4   to   A6   alienations   are   for   illom   necessity<\/p>\n
cannot   be   challenged.     In   any   event,   that   factual<\/p>\n
finding   cannot   be   reconsidered   by   this   court   in<\/p>\n
exercise   of   the   limited   scope   of   the   powers<\/p>\n
provided   under   section   100   of   the   Civil   Procedure<\/p>\n
Code.   Therefore as it is proved that Ext.A4 to A6<\/p>\n
sale   deeds   were   executed   for   consideration   and   the<\/p>\n
alienations are for illom necessity, they are valid<\/p>\n
and   binding   on   the   plaintiff.   Therefore   the<\/p>\n
properties covered under Exts.A4 to A6 are also not<\/p>\n
available for partition.\n<\/p>\n
      Second appeal is  dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                       M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR<\/p>\n
                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
     S.A.NO.798 \/03<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    20TH JUNE ,2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Narayanannamboothiry Mohanan … vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 798 of 1993() 1. NARAYANANNAMBOOTHIRY MOHANAN NAMBOOTHIRY … Petitioner Vs 1. BHAVANI VASUMATHY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI GIRI V. For Respondent :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :20\/06\/2007 O […]<\/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-232014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNarayanannamboothiry Mohanan ... vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007 - 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\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narayanannamboothiry Mohanan ... vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-23T06:01:18+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narayanannamboothiry Mohanan … vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-23T06:01:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2453,\"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\\\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Narayanannamboothiry Mohanan ... vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-23T06:01:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narayanannamboothiry Mohanan … vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Narayanannamboothiry Mohanan ... vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007 - 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\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narayanannamboothiry Mohanan ... vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-23T06:01:18+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narayanannamboothiry Mohanan … vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-23T06:01:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007"},"wordCount":2453,"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\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007","name":"Narayanannamboothiry Mohanan ... vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-23T06:01:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayanannamboothiry-mohanan-vs-bhavani-vasumathy-on-20-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narayanannamboothiry Mohanan … vs Bhavani Vasumathy on 20 June, 2007"}]},{"@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\/232014","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=232014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}