{"id":234881,"date":"2010-07-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010"},"modified":"2014-03-12T03:13:25","modified_gmt":"2014-03-11T21:43:25","slug":"manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Manathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Manathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 1035 of 2003()\n\n\n\n1. MANATHANATH JANU AMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. VANATHU POYIL KUNHIRAMAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :26\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n        PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n                   ----------------------------------\n\n                    C.R.P. No.1035 of 2003\n\n                   ----------------------------------\n               Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010\n\n\n                             O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                            —————\n<\/p>\n
Pius C.Kuriakose,J.\n<\/p>\n
           The landlady is the revision petitioner.      She is<\/p>\n
aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
dismissing the application filed by her on the ground of<\/p>\n
subletting under Section 11(4)(i) after reversing an order of<\/p>\n
eviction which had been passed in her favour by the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court. In fact the landlady had invoked the ground of<\/p>\n
arrears of rent also. But it is submitted before us that, that<\/p>\n
ground does not any longer survive since the entire arrears<\/p>\n
alleged in the Rent Control Petition was discharged during<\/p>\n
the pendency of the Rent Control Petition.\n<\/p>\n
     2.    The allegation of the landlady in the context of the<\/p>\n
ground under Section 11(4)(i) was that the first respondent in<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Petition was the tenant on the basis of<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 rent chit and that he has unauthorisedly sublet or<\/p>\n
transferred the building to the second respondent in the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Petition. The name of the first respondent in the Rent<\/p>\n
Control Petition is Mr.Kunhiraman and that of the second<\/p>\n
CRP.1035\/03                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent in the Rent Control Petition, who is the alleged<\/p>\n
sub-lessee, is Mr.Sivadasan. Mr.Sivadasan remained ex-parte<\/p>\n
before the Rent Control Court.            The contention of<\/p>\n
Sri.Kunhiraman, the tenant, was that there is no sub-lease<\/p>\n
that he continued and retained possession of the building;<\/p>\n
that Sivadasan was his employee till 1992 and thereafter he<\/p>\n
and Sivadasan fell     apart.      Kunhiraman’s explanation<\/p>\n
regarding Ext.A5 agreement which was relied on by the<\/p>\n
landlady to prove the case of the sub-lease was that the stamp<\/p>\n
paper on which Ext.A5 agreement is written and also the plain<\/p>\n
paper on which Kunhiraman’s signature appears was kept in<\/p>\n
the schedule premises to be given to Canara Bank from who<\/p>\n
there was a proposal to avail a loan and that Sivadasan took<\/p>\n
away the stamp paper as well as the blank signed paper and<\/p>\n
has created Ext.A5 in collusion with the landlady. The Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court enquired into the matter and at trial the<\/p>\n
evidence consisted of Ext.A1 the rent chit governing the<\/p>\n
tenancy, Exts.A2 and A3 copies of the lawyer notice sent to<\/p>\n
the respondents in the RCP, Exts.A4 and A4(a) postal<\/p>\n
acknowledgment cards signed by the respondents in the RCP<\/p>\n
and Ext.A5 agreement between first respondent and second<\/p>\n
respondent in the RCP, Ext.A6 receipt issued by the first<\/p>\n
CRP.1035\/03                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent in the RCP in favour of the second respondent<\/p>\n
against payment of rent and the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2<\/p>\n
on the side of the landlady. PW2 significantly was none other<\/p>\n
than the alleged sub-lessee, who remained ex-parte in the<\/p>\n
case.   On the side of the first respondent the evidence<\/p>\n
consisted of Ext.B1 letter sent by the alleged sub-lessee to<\/p>\n
Mr.Prabhakaran, RW1, son of first respondent. Exts.B2 and<\/p>\n
B3 were documents which would show that in October 1995<\/p>\n
the local branch of the Canara Bank had advanced a loan to<\/p>\n
Sri.V.P.Dinesan, brother of RW1. The Rent Control Court, on<\/p>\n
making a thorough analysis of the entire evidence, came to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that the first respondent had unauthorisedly<\/p>\n
sublet or transferred the building in question to the second<\/p>\n
respondent, and that the first respondent was totally<\/p>\n
unsuccessful in proving that after the date of Ext.A5 the jural<\/p>\n
relationship between the first respondent and second<\/p>\n
respondent was continuing as that of employer and employee.<\/p>\n
Accordingly the Rent Control Court ordered eviction on the<\/p>\n
ground under Section 11(4)(i).\n<\/p>\n
      3.   The Appellate Authority considered an appeal<\/p>\n
preferred by the first respondent, made a re-appraisal of the<\/p>\n
evidence and would reverse the finding of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
CRP.1035\/03                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
Court. The Appellate Authority also practically agreed with<\/p>\n
the finding of the Rent Control Court that Ext.A5 agreement<\/p>\n
shows an apparent transfer or sub-lease of the building by the<\/p>\n
first respondent to the second respondent. But, according to<\/p>\n
that authority, in order that eviction ground under Section 11<\/p>\n
(4)(i) is established, it is necessary that the landlady proves<\/p>\n
that the sub-lease or unauthorised transfer is in existence at<\/p>\n
the time of issuance of statutory notice, Ext.A3. The Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority has opined that if as a matter of fact, it was the<\/p>\n
second respondent in the Rent Control Petition who was in<\/p>\n
possession of the building at the time when the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Petition was instituted and that the landlady could have taken<\/p>\n
out a commission to prove the same. The authority also would<\/p>\n
find fault with the landlady for not having examined the<\/p>\n
neighbouring shopkeepers for proving that it is the alleged<\/p>\n
sub-tenant who is in physical possession, and not the tenant.<\/p>\n
In this context the Appellate Authority would highlight certain<\/p>\n
statements in PW1’s evidence to the effect that she has seen<\/p>\n
the children of Kunhiraman, the first respondent, inside the<\/p>\n
petition schedule building.     The Appellate Authority would<\/p>\n
also observe that possibilities of the second respondent<\/p>\n
colluding with the landlady for defeating the interests of his<\/p>\n
CRP.1035\/03                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
former employer cannot be ruled out.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    In this revision under Section 20 the landlady has<\/p>\n
raised various grounds assailing the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority.     It is urged that the finding of the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority that there is no objectionable sub-lease<\/p>\n
and that the sub-lease, at any rate, was not in existence at the<\/p>\n
time when the Rent Control Petition was instituted, is illegal,<\/p>\n
irregular and improper. It is urged that re-appreciation of the<\/p>\n
entire evidence by the Appellate Authority was in an<\/p>\n
erroneous fashion and this resulted in prejudice to the<\/p>\n
landlady.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    Sri.C.P.Mohammed Nias, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner addressed us very elaborately on the<\/p>\n
various grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal.<\/p>\n
Mr.Nias submitted that the explanation of the first respondent<\/p>\n
regarding Ext.A5 cannot stand judicial scrutiny even for a<\/p>\n
moment. It is not disputed that Ext.A5 contains signature of<\/p>\n
the first respondent in the Rent Control Petition. Ext.A6 is<\/p>\n
also admittedly a receipt issued by the first respondent in<\/p>\n
favour of the second respondent. If the relationship between<\/p>\n
the first respondent and second respondent was that of<\/p>\n
employer and employee, there cannot be any occasion for<\/p>\n
CRP.1035\/03                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
second respondent paying rent to first respondent.        The<\/p>\n
probability of second respondent paying hire charges of the<\/p>\n
sewing machine is also remote since it is for the employer to<\/p>\n
provide the employee with sewing machine. The approach of<\/p>\n
the learned Appellate Authority, according to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel, was too technical. The statutory authorities under<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Act who are expected to be governed by the<\/p>\n
principles of justice in good conscience are not expected to<\/p>\n
show this much of indulgence towards subletting tenants, so<\/p>\n
submitted the learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan, learned counsel for the first<\/p>\n
respondent tenant would resist all the submissions of<\/p>\n
Mr.Nias. He submitted that the unusual circumstance of the<\/p>\n
subtenant giving evidence as a witness on the side of the<\/p>\n
landlord and his supplying the details of Ext.A5 document to<\/p>\n
the landlord even before the landlord issues statutory<\/p>\n
intimation notice Ext.A3, demonstrates to the very hilt that<\/p>\n
there is collusion between the landlord and PW2.          Mr.<\/p>\n
Mohanan submitted that PW2’s testimony should not have<\/p>\n
been attached any credit worthiness in the circumstance of<\/p>\n
this case. According to Mr.Mohanan, PW2 himself conceded<\/p>\n
in evidence that only for a period of four months after Ext.A5<\/p>\n
CRP.1035\/03                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
was executed, he continued in the building.        Mr.Mohanan<\/p>\n
submitted that the genuine case of the tenant was that on<\/p>\n
account of a difference of opinion that cropped up between<\/p>\n
the tenant and the subtenant, the subtenant was sent away<\/p>\n
from the building in July 2007 itself, which is actually prior to<\/p>\n
the issuance of Ext.A3. Sri.Mohanan further submitted that<\/p>\n
the appreciation of the evidence on record in the case by the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Court was highly improper and the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority being the final fact finding authority under the<\/p>\n
statutory scheme only correctly appreciated the evidence and<\/p>\n
arrived at correct findings. Mr. Mohanan reminded us of the<\/p>\n
limits of jurisdiction under Section 20 and submitted that in<\/p>\n
this jurisdiction this court is not expected to make a<\/p>\n
reappraisal of the evidence.\n<\/p>\n
     7.    We have considered the submissions addressed at<\/p>\n
the bar. We have gone through the pleadings raised by the<\/p>\n
parties and we have made a re-appraisal of the evidence on<\/p>\n
record particularly of those items of evidence to which our<\/p>\n
attention was drawn by the learned counsel in their<\/p>\n
submissions.     Ext.A5, in our opinion, is a very crucial<\/p>\n
document. It is dated 19th May, 1995. It is written on stamp<\/p>\n
paper purchased in the name of Sri.Kunhiraman the first<\/p>\n
CRP.1035\/03                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent, and on three appended sheets. The parties to<\/p>\n
Ext.A5 are the respondents in the Rent Control Petition. The<\/p>\n
first party is Kunhiraman the first respondent, and the<\/p>\n
genuineness of his signature in Ext.A5 is admitted by RW1,<\/p>\n
the first respondent’s son. Eaxt.A6 is another document. This<\/p>\n
is a receipt against payment of rent (hmSI) from the second<\/p>\n
respondent by the first respondent. The explanation of RW1<\/p>\n
was that hmSI referred to Ext.A6 is not hmSI for building, but<\/p>\n
it is hmSI for sewing machine. Ext.B1 is one document which<\/p>\n
was relied on much by the first respondent before the<\/p>\n
authorities below. Ext.B1 is a letter written by the second<\/p>\n
respondent in the RCP to RW1 the son of the first respondent.<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 certainly proves that at the time when Ext.B1 is<\/p>\n
written there was employer-employee relationship between<\/p>\n
the first respondent and the second respondent in the RCP.<\/p>\n
Section 114(d) of the Evidence Act provides that, a thing or<\/p>\n
state of things which has been shown to be in existence within<\/p>\n
a period shorter than that within which such things or state of<\/p>\n
things usually cease to exist, is still in existence. We will, for<\/p>\n
the purpose of this case, assume that Section 114(d) of the<\/p>\n
Evidence Act is attracted in this case which means that unless<\/p>\n
CRP.1035\/03                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
contra evidence is adduced by the tenant or the landlady it<\/p>\n
will have to be presumed that the employer-employee<\/p>\n
relationship between the first respondent and the second<\/p>\n
respondent continues.       But, we find that in Ext.A5 the<\/p>\n
landlady has produced convincing contra evidence.           It is<\/p>\n
extremely difficult for us to accept the explanation of first<\/p>\n
respondent that the second respondent stole the stamp paper<\/p>\n
and the signed appended sheet presently forming part of<\/p>\n
Ext.A5 from the shop in question and has fabricated Ext.A5 in<\/p>\n
collusion with the landlady. We are of the view that it is only<\/p>\n
for the purpose of giving surface credibility to the above<\/p>\n
explanation that the first respondent has introduced Ext.B3<\/p>\n
and B4 into the evidence. Exts.B3 and B4 at best only shows<\/p>\n
that the brother of RW1 availed a loan from Canara Bank<\/p>\n
several months after Ext.A5 was apparently executed between<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2. We also see from the evidence that<\/p>\n
second respondent at the time when he was working as<\/p>\n
employee under first respondent was abstaining from duty off<\/p>\n
and on. It appears to us that second respondent was a very<\/p>\n
talented tailor and that first respondent was finding it difficult<\/p>\n
to successfully conduct his business without the help of first<\/p>\n
respondent as a result of which second respondent had<\/p>\n
CRP.1035\/03                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
acquired     considerable   bargaining    power     with  first<\/p>\n
respondent.     May be second respondent exploited that<\/p>\n
bargaining power and could ensure that the first respondent<\/p>\n
agrees to have the arrangement under Ext.A5 with second<\/p>\n
respondent under which first respondent is gaining to a<\/p>\n
certain extent as he is getting much more than what he is<\/p>\n
liable to pay as rent to the landlady.     For coming to this<\/p>\n
conclusion we take into account the probative value of Ext.A6.<\/p>\n
Ext.A6 is a receipt against payment of rent. We cannot even<\/p>\n
for a moment countenance the explanation of the first<\/p>\n
respondent that Ext.A6 is a receipt against payment of hire<\/p>\n
charges of sewing machine.       In all probability Ext.A6 is a<\/p>\n
receipt against payment of rent due from second respondent<\/p>\n
to first respondent by virtue of Ext.A5.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    The learned Appellate Authority has observed that<\/p>\n
even if Ext.A5 is accepted as a genuine document, then also<\/p>\n
RCP should fail for want of evidence regarding continuance of<\/p>\n
the unauthorised sub-lease or transfer at the time of<\/p>\n
institution of RCP. We have carefully scanned PW1’s oral<\/p>\n
evidence.    It is seen that the suggestions made in cross-<\/p>\n
examination to PW1 are to the effect that the second<\/p>\n
respondent continues to be in the petition schedule building<\/p>\n
CRP.1035\/03                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
(of course, the suggestion is of continuing as an employee).<\/p>\n
When the physical presence of the second respondent is<\/p>\n
conceded by the cross-examiner, then in the teeth of Ext.A5 it<\/p>\n
will have to be held that his physical presence is not in his<\/p>\n
capacity as an employee but is by virtue of Ext.A5.         The<\/p>\n
approach of the learned Appellate Authority was too technical<\/p>\n
and the same will not receive acceptance at our hands. When<\/p>\n
physical presence of the alleged sub-tenant is admitted by the<\/p>\n
tenant, then the jural relationship between tenant and sub-<\/p>\n
tenant being a matter which is especially within the<\/p>\n
knowledge of tenant and the sub-tenant, the burden will shift<\/p>\n
to the tenant to show that the same is that of an employer and<\/p>\n
employee. The tenant could have discharged that burden by<\/p>\n
producing convincing evidence or even by examining the<\/p>\n
neighbours.    The Appellate Authority was not justified in<\/p>\n
placing all the blame on the landlady for not examining the<\/p>\n
neighbours.\n<\/p>\n
     9.    Result of the above discussion is that the finding of<\/p>\n
the Appellate Authority regarding the jural relationship<\/p>\n
between the first respondent and the second respondent is<\/p>\n
liable to be vacated. We vacate that finding and restore the<\/p>\n
finding of the Rent Control Court. As a consequence, order of<\/p>\n
CRP.1035\/03                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
eviction under Section 11(4)(i) will stand passed against both<\/p>\n
the respondents. The CRP is allowed however without any<\/p>\n
order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan after we pronounced this order<\/p>\n
requested that at least two years time be granted to the<\/p>\n
additional respondents 3 to 8 for surrendering the premises<\/p>\n
as it will be very difficult for him to identify another building<\/p>\n
for shifting the business. The above request is opposed very<\/p>\n
stiffly by Mr.Nias who submitted that it will not be equitable<\/p>\n
to grant time to a tenant who has sublet.         Ordinarily, we<\/p>\n
would not have granted time to a tenant who is liable to be<\/p>\n
evicted on the ground of subletting. But we feel that on the<\/p>\n
totality of the facts and circumstances which attendant on this<\/p>\n
case, there is justification for giving an unusually long period<\/p>\n
of time to the additional respondents 3 to 8 to surrender the<\/p>\n
premises.    We therefore direct the execution court not to<\/p>\n
order and effect delivery of the building till 1-8-2011,<\/p>\n
provided the following conditions are satisfied by the<\/p>\n
additional respondents 3 to 8.\n<\/p>\n
      11. The additional respondents shall file an affidavit<\/p>\n
before the execution court or the rent control court, as the<\/p>\n
case may be, within one month from today undertaking to<\/p>\n
CRP.1035\/03                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
give peaceful surrender of the building in question to the<\/p>\n
revision petitioner landlord on or before 1-8-2011 and<\/p>\n
undertaking further that arrears of rent if any, due as on<\/p>\n
today will be discharged and that occupational charges at the<\/p>\n
rate of Rs.110\/- per mensem will also be paid to the revision<\/p>\n
petitioner without fail as and when the same falls due. It is<\/p>\n
made clear that the respondents will be eligible for benefit of<\/p>\n
time as granted above is only if the additional respondents<\/p>\n
file the affidavit on time.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                           PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                           C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
okb\/ksv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Manathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 1035 of 2003() 1. MANATHANATH JANU AMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. VANATHU POYIL KUNHIRAMAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS For Respondent :SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K. The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble […]<\/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-234881","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-11T21:43:25+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-11T21:43:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2650,\"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\\\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Manathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-11T21:43:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Manathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-11T21:43:25+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-11T21:43:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010"},"wordCount":2650,"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\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010","name":"Manathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-11T21:43:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manathanath-janu-amma-vs-vanathu-poyil-kunhiraman-on-26-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manathanath Janu Amma vs Vanathu Poyil Kunhiraman on 26 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234881","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=234881"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234881\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234881"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234881"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234881"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}