{"id":234677,"date":"2007-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007"},"modified":"2018-02-24T13:54:18","modified_gmt":"2018-02-24T08:24:18","slug":"damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Damodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Damodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 21 of 1994(C)\n\n\n\n1. DAMODARAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. A.R.THANKAMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :18\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n              ------------------------------------------\n                   S.A .NO. 21 OF 1994\n              ------------------------------------------\n\n            Dated        18th     September 2007\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
          Defendants in O.S.142 of 1988 on the file of<\/p>\n
Munsiff court, Taliparamba          are appellants.         Plaintiff<\/p>\n
is  the   respondent.        Plaint        A     schedule    property<\/p>\n
admittedly belongs to the               respondent under Ext.A1<\/p>\n
sale deed dated 2\/12\/1965. Respondent instituted the<\/p>\n
suit contending that appellants             with the      consent of<\/p>\n
plaintiff used to go towards west through the northern<\/p>\n
boundary of their property and Alakkodu-Manakkadavu<\/p>\n
road is only 25 meters to the                     east of plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property and plaint B schedule property is a<\/p>\n
portion of plaint A schedule property and appellants<\/p>\n
wanted to construct a road through plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property and sought       consent of respondent to form a<\/p>\n
road and no consent was granted. Contending that<\/p>\n
appellants attempted to construct a road by force,<\/p>\n
suit  was  filed       seeking        a    decree       for permanent<\/p>\n
prohibitory injunction restraining appellants                    from<\/p>\n
trespassing into the plaint B schedule property and<\/p>\n
SA 21\/94
\n                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
forming a road through plaint B schedule property or<\/p>\n
interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of<\/p>\n
the property. Appellants in their written statement<\/p>\n
contended  that  a road has been in existence  for the<\/p>\n
last 25 years  through which vehicles used to be taken<\/p>\n
towards west and appellants have been using that road<\/p>\n
along with the general public and therefore respondent<\/p>\n
is not entitled to the decree sought for. Learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff appointed a Commissioner      and Commissioner<\/p>\n
submitted Exts.C1 report and C1(a) plan. Ext.C1(a) plan<\/p>\n
shows that Alakkode-Manakkadavu road lies north-south<\/p>\n
towards the east of plaint schedule property     and a<\/p>\n
road starts  from Alakkode-Manakkadavu road which runs<\/p>\n
towards west    and reaches    the plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property and plaint B schedule property is portion of<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule property in continuation of that road<\/p>\n
if the road extended further towards the west       and<\/p>\n
there is  a stream  on the western boundary of plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property and towards west  in continuation of<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property there was a newly formed<\/p>\n
road. Commissioner also reported that in the B schedule<\/p>\n
property there is one electric post and granite rock<\/p>\n
indicating that there was no road. Learned Munsiff on<\/p>\n
SA 21\/94
\n                             3<\/span><\/p>\n
the evidence found that plaint B schedule property is a<\/p>\n
part of panchayat road as evidenced by Ext.X1 road<\/p>\n
register maintained by the Panchayat and Alakkode-<\/p>\n
Manakkadavu panchayat road was formed after obtaining<\/p>\n
surrender, evidenced by Ext.X2 series of surrender<\/p>\n
forms and therefore respondent is not entitled to a<\/p>\n
decree sought for    in respect of plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property. Suit was dismissed. Respondent challenged<\/p>\n
the decree and judgment before Sub court, Payyannur in<\/p>\n
A.S.101 of 1990. Learned Sub Judge on re-appreciation<\/p>\n
of evidence found that Ext.X1 only shows that entry<\/p>\n
with regard to panchayat road was made on 11\/5\/1988<\/p>\n
after the institution of the suit and Ext.X2 series do<\/p>\n
not establish that respondent surrendered any portion<\/p>\n
of his property and if a road was in existence as<\/p>\n
claimed by appellants  there was no necessity to give<\/p>\n
consent in May 1988 and therefore held that    case of<\/p>\n
appellants  that there was an existing road for the<\/p>\n
last 25 years is unsustainable. Learned Sub Judge also<\/p>\n
found that  appellants have no right to construct    a<\/p>\n
road in the plaint B schedule property without the<\/p>\n
consent or  permission of respondent and appellants are<\/p>\n
not entitled to  cause any obstruction to the peaceful<\/p>\n
SA 21\/94
\n                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
enjoyment of plaint A schedule property by respondent<\/p>\n
and therefore granted a    decree as sought for. It is<\/p>\n
challenged in the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        2. Second  appeal   was   admitted  formulating<\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law.<\/p>\n
               1)   Whether  on  the  facts
\n           and circumstances   of the  case
\n           plaintiff  is   entitled  to   a
\n           decree   for   injunction  under
\n           Section  41   (g)   of  Specific
\n           Relief Act.\n<\/p>\n
               2)   Whether     suit     is
\n           maintainable   when   plaint   B
\n           schedule property is used as a
\n           road by general public and suit
\n           is   not    instituted   seeking
\n           permission  as   provided  under
\n           Rule 8 of Order I of Code of
\n           Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
               3)   Whether first appellate
\n           Court was justified in granting
\n           a decree   when appellants  have
\n           been using the road as   members
\n           of general public.\n<\/p>\n
        3. Learned counsel appearing for appellants and<\/p>\n
respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
        4. Arguments of learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
appellants   is  that  First  Appellate Court  was  not<\/p>\n
SA 21\/94
\n                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
justified in interfering with the decree of the trial<\/p>\n
court when Ext.X1 establish that plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property is part of panchayat road. It was also agreed<\/p>\n
that suit was dismissed by the trial court accepting<\/p>\n
evidence of Dws.2 and 3     which were not considered by<\/p>\n
First Appellate court. It was further argued that in<\/p>\n
the plaint itself it is admitted that appellants are<\/p>\n
using     plaint B schedule property to pass towards west<\/p>\n
with her consent       and even if there is no road,<\/p>\n
appellants    are  entitled  to  pass  through  plaint  B<\/p>\n
schedule property     and first appellate court was not<\/p>\n
justified in granting a decree      restraining them from<\/p>\n
passing through plaint B schedule property, especially<\/p>\n
when no such relief was sought for in the plaint.<\/p>\n
        5.    Learned counsel appearing for respondent<\/p>\n
argued that if road was in existence as claimed by<\/p>\n
appellants, there was no      necessity for a consent or<\/p>\n
surrender evidenced by Ext.X2 series after institution<\/p>\n
of suit and entry in Ext.X1 only shows that a road was<\/p>\n
formed subsequent to filing of suit and there is no<\/p>\n
case that respondent either    surrendered any portion of<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule property or any portion of plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property was acquired for forming the road<\/p>\n
SA 21\/94
\n                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
and so after filing of the suit, no road could be<\/p>\n
formed and First Appellate Court rightly appreciated<\/p>\n
the evidence and found that no road is in existence<\/p>\n
through plaint B schedule property. It was also pointed<\/p>\n
out that from the existence of an electric post,<\/p>\n
granite rock in the plaint B schedule property noted by<\/p>\n
the     Commissioner a road  could  not  have been   in<\/p>\n
existence and as respondent did not surrender any<\/p>\n
portion of plaint A schedule property to form a road,<\/p>\n
no road could be formed without an acquisition and as<\/p>\n
there is no case of acquisition appellants cannot<\/p>\n
construct a road through plaint B schedule property and<\/p>\n
decree is sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Though it was contended that a road was in<\/p>\n
existence for the last 25 years, evidence adduced on<\/p>\n
the side of appellants themselves establish that no<\/p>\n
road was in existence prior to institution of the suit<\/p>\n
through     plaint  B  schedule  property.  Admittedly,<\/p>\n
Alakkode-Manakkadavu   road  lies  further to east   of<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property and a road which starts from<\/p>\n
that road runs towards       west up to the plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property. But there is no evidence to prove<\/p>\n
that that road is running further towards west. As<\/p>\n
SA 21\/94
\n                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
rightly found by First Appellate court      existence of<\/p>\n
electric post, granite rock and a stream on the west<\/p>\n
and absence of extension of that road    towards further<\/p>\n
west, establish that there was no such road through<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property or towards       its west as<\/p>\n
claimed by appellants. If there was such a road, then<\/p>\n
Ext.X2 series of surrender     forms would not have been<\/p>\n
executed in May 1988 and that too for the purpose of<\/p>\n
forming     a road. It proves that  till a road could be<\/p>\n
formed making use of the     surrender of land evidenced<\/p>\n
by Ext.X2 series of surrender forms, no road could have<\/p>\n
been     formed. It  is  in  such  circumstances,  First<\/p>\n
Appellate court found that no road was in existence<\/p>\n
through     plaint  B   schedule  property  before   the<\/p>\n
institution of the suit. That finding of fact is<\/p>\n
perfectly in accordance with the evidence and warrants<\/p>\n
no interference.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  Then the question is whether appellants have<\/p>\n
a right to form a road. Unless respondent gives consent<\/p>\n
to form       a road or surrenders a portion of her<\/p>\n
property for forming a road or a portion of plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule    property  is  acquired for  the  purpose  of<\/p>\n
forming road, no road could be constructed through<\/p>\n
SA 21\/94
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property. Appellants have no case<\/p>\n
that there was any surrender or consent by respondent<\/p>\n
or any acquisition to enable appellants to form     a road<\/p>\n
through plaint B schedule property. As it was contended<\/p>\n
that a road has been formed by panchayat subsequent to<\/p>\n
institution     of   suit,  First   Appellate  court   was<\/p>\n
justified in granting a decree restraining appellants<\/p>\n
from forming     a road through plaint B schedule property<\/p>\n
as they have no right to form a road through plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  Then the question is whether respondent is<\/p>\n
entitled to decree granted by First Appellate court<\/p>\n
either in view of Section      41 (g) of Specific Relief<\/p>\n
Act or for the reason that respondent has consented<\/p>\n
appellants to pass through plaint B schedule property.<\/p>\n
        9.  Section 41 of Specific Relief Act provides<\/p>\n
that     injunction cannot  be   granted if  any   of  the<\/p>\n
conditions provided under sub sections(a) to (j) apply.<\/p>\n
Under     clause  (g)  injunction  cannot  be  granted  to<\/p>\n
prevent     a continuing   breach in which the   plaintiff<\/p>\n
has acquiesced. Question is whether respondent has<\/p>\n
acquiesced either the     forming of road   or making use<\/p>\n
to any portion of plaint A schedule property as a road.<\/p>\n
SA 21\/94
\n                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
Evidence    establish  that no  road  was  in  existence<\/p>\n
through    plaint  B  schedule  property  prior  to  the<\/p>\n
institution    of   suit.  Therefore   no  question   of<\/p>\n
acquiescence    as provided  under clause (g) of Section<\/p>\n
41     arises. Argument of learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
appellants is that the       decree    granted by First<\/p>\n
Appellate    court    even restrains    appellants  from<\/p>\n
passing through plaint B schedule property       and as<\/p>\n
appellants have been using that way and it      was not<\/p>\n
prevented by respondent till the date of filing of the<\/p>\n
suit, there is acquiescence and therefore decree to<\/p>\n
that extent is not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
        10. Paragraph 3 of plaint shows that  respondent<\/p>\n
specifically pleaded that appellants 1 to 3 are owners<\/p>\n
of the property to the west of plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property and they got number of entries     to the house<\/p>\n
and compound to go to west and they pass through plaint<\/p>\n
A schedule property       between the    house and the<\/p>\n
northern boundary with the consent of respondent. There<\/p>\n
is no case in the plaint that the said consent was<\/p>\n
withdrawn at any point of time. A reading of the plaint<\/p>\n
shows that grievance of the respondent was only against<\/p>\n
forming a road through plaint B schedule property as<\/p>\n
SA 21\/94
\n                              10<\/span><\/p>\n
according to respondent, if a road is formed it would<\/p>\n
cause difficulty and impediment     to residential house<\/p>\n
of respondent which is touching       plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property. In the plaint respondent did not seek a<\/p>\n
decree     restraining appellants  from  passing  through<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property to reach eastern     Alakkode-<\/p>\n
Manakkadavu     road. In   such  circumstances,     First<\/p>\n
Appellate court was not    justified in granting a decree<\/p>\n
restraining appellants from passing through plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule property. To that extent the decree granted is<\/p>\n
to be modified. In all other respects decree granted by<\/p>\n
First Appellate court is perfectly correct.<\/p>\n
        11. Second appeal is allowed in part. Decree<\/p>\n
granted by Sub court, Payyannur in A.S.101 of 1990     is<\/p>\n
confirmed     with the modification that the decree will<\/p>\n
not affect the rights of the defendants\/appellants     to<\/p>\n
pass through plaint B schedule property as admitted by<\/p>\n
in para 3 of the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                               JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\nuj.\n<\/p>\n
SA 21\/94
\n            11<\/span><\/p>\n
            =============================
\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
              S.A.NO.21 OF 1994<\/p>\n
                 18th  September  2007<\/p>\n
            ============================<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Damodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 21 of 1994(C) 1. DAMODARAN … Petitioner Vs 1. A.R.THANKAMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :18\/09\/2007 O R D E R M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. […]<\/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-234677","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDamodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 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\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Damodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-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=\"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-24T08:24:18+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=\"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\\\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Damodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-24T08:24:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1853,\"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\\\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Damodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-24T08:24:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Damodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 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":"Damodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 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\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Damodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-24T08:24:18+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Damodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-24T08:24:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007"},"wordCount":1853,"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\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007","name":"Damodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-24T08:24:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/damodaran-vs-a-r-thankamma-on-18-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Damodaran vs A.R.Thankamma on 18 September, 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\/234677","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=234677"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234677\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234677"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234677"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234677"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}