{"id":237221,"date":"2008-10-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-11T05:32:16","modified_gmt":"2017-11-11T00:02:16","slug":"t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"T.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 26584 of 2008(M)\n\n\n1. T.G.N.KUMAR, 33\/3004, THEKKUMURI HOUSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.S.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.N.NEELAKANDHAN NAMBOODIRI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :21\/10\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                           --------------------------------------\n                          W.P.(C) No.26584 of 2008 M\n                                            &\n                         W.P.(C) No.30467 of 2008 B\n                           --------------------------------------\n                    Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008.\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
              Heard both sides. Parties are referred hereunder as in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.26584 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        2.    The petitioner, it is claimed is a devotee of the temple referred in<\/p>\n
these petitions which according to the petitioner is an ancient Hindu Religious<\/p>\n
Endowment. Alleging that there is no proper management of the temple, no<\/p>\n
proper accounting, etc. petitioner approached the second respondent, Cochin<\/p>\n
Devaswom Board (for short, `the Board’) requesting it to take over the<\/p>\n
management of the temple.          Pursuant to his initiative, the Board initiated<\/p>\n
action. First respondent\/plaintiff filed O.S.No.4 of 2008 in the Additional District<\/p>\n
Court, Ernakulam for a declaration that the Board has no jurisdiction or authority<\/p>\n
to control the temple in question and seeking injunction against the Board<\/p>\n
initiating proceedings against it for taking over of the management. While that<\/p>\n
suit was pending petitioner (in W.P.(C) No.26584 of 2008) filed application<\/p>\n
(I.A.No.1090 of 2008) to implead himself in the suit as additional second<\/p>\n
defendant. That application was allowed as per Ext.P10, order dated 18.6.2008.<\/p>\n
In W.P.(C) No.30467 of 2008, first respondent\/plaintiff challenges the legality<\/p>\n
and correctness of that order, while in W.P.(C) No.26584 of 2008 petitioner<\/p>\n
WP(c) Nos.26584 & 30467\/2008<\/p>\n
                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
seeks a direction to the Additional District Court for early disposal of O.S.No.4 of<\/p>\n
2008.\n<\/p>\n
        3.     So far as the legality and correctness of Ext.P10 (in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.26584 of 2008) order dated 18.6.2008 is concerned, learned counsel for first<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff being the master of the suit, it is<\/p>\n
the discretion of the plaintiff to implead necessary parties in the suit. It is also<\/p>\n
contended by learned counsel for first respondent\/plaintiff that petitioner in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.26584 of 2008 is not a necessary or proper party in the sense that<\/p>\n
his presence is not necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the plaintiff<\/p>\n
and Board. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Malabar<\/p>\n
Industrial Co. Ltd. V. John Anthraper<\/a> (1986 KLT 409). Per contra, counsel<\/p>\n
for petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26584 of 2008 contends that presence of petitioner<\/p>\n
in the suit is necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
also points out that it was as per petitioner’s initiative that the Board initiated<\/p>\n
action which culminated in the plaintiff filing O.S.No.4 of 2008.<\/p>\n
       4.      Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the<\/p>\n
Code’) provides for impleadment of additional parties. It is stated that “the court<\/p>\n
may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of<\/p>\n
either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that<\/p>\n
the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be<\/p>\n
struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined,<\/p>\n
whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be<\/p>\n
necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate<\/p>\n
WP(c) Nos.26584 & 30467\/2008<\/p>\n
                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.” It is clear from<\/p>\n
Sub-rule (2) that even without a motion from the plaintiff who is the master of<\/p>\n
the suit, it is within the power of the court to implead any person provided, the<\/p>\n
court is satisfied that such a person ought to have been joined as a party or the<\/p>\n
presence of such a party is necessary for effectually and completely adjudicating<\/p>\n
upon and settling all the questions involved in the suit. Therefore the authority<\/p>\n
of the court below to implead an additional party even without a request from the<\/p>\n
plaintiff cannot be challenged.\n<\/p>\n
        5.      What remained for consideration is whether petitioner in W.P.(C)<\/p>\n
No.26584 of 2008 ought to have been made a party or, at any rate his presence<\/p>\n
was necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the<\/p>\n
questions involved in the suit. It is not disputed and records also revealed that it<\/p>\n
was at the initiative of petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26584 of 2008 that the whole<\/p>\n
proceedings started which ultimately ended in plaintiff filing O.S.No.4 of 2008<\/p>\n
and the Board informing the petitioner by Ext.P7 letter that since the suit is<\/p>\n
pending, no further action can be taken. It is also not disputed that petitioner<\/p>\n
had filed W.P.(C) No.7570 of 2006 in this Court and the Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court as per Ext.P2, judgment dated 20.3.2006 directed the Board to enquire<\/p>\n
into the complaint preferred by the petitioner to it and pass appropriate orders<\/p>\n
within three months. It is pursuant to that order that the Board later issued<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 letter stating that on account of pendency of O.S.No.4 of 2008, no further<\/p>\n
action could be taken. In other words, plaintiff by filing the suit wanted to stall<\/p>\n
the endeavour of the petitioner to ensure that the Board took over the<\/p>\n
WP(c) Nos.26584 & 30467\/2008<\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
administration of the temple. Petitioner     who claimed to be a devotee of the<\/p>\n
temple alleged that it is a Hindu Religious Endowment and further, that the<\/p>\n
temple is being mis-managed by the plaintiff, was very much behind of the most<\/p>\n
which culminated in Ext.P7 letter. What the plaintiff is challenging in the suit is<\/p>\n
the authority of the Board to take action against the temple on the grounds<\/p>\n
alleged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26584 of 2008. Therefore, it cannot be<\/p>\n
said that petitioner has no interest whatsoever in the subject matter of the suit.<\/p>\n
      6.        Court has power to order impleadment, if the person sought to<\/p>\n
be impleaded has a direct interest which could be legal or equitable on the<\/p>\n
subject matter. In the facts of this case I am inclined to think that petitioner in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.26584 of 2008 has atleast an equitable interest.        No jurisdictional<\/p>\n
error or illegality has been committed by learned Additional District Judge in<\/p>\n
ordering impleadment requiring interference           under Article 227 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
      7.         It  is  then    contended      by   learned    counsel    for  first<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff that at any rate, principle of res judicata will apply since in<\/p>\n
C.M.Appeal No.17 of 2007, petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26584 of 2008 had<\/p>\n
unsuccessfully attempted to get himself impleaded and therefore, that order<\/p>\n
operates as res judicata.       C.M.Appeal     arose from an interlocutory order.<\/p>\n
C.M.Appeal is not a continuation of the suit and therefore, no impleadment in the<\/p>\n
suit could have been      ordered in the C.M.Appeal and therefore, that order<\/p>\n
cannot operate as res judicata on I.A.No.1090 of 2008. The challenge made to<\/p>\n
Ext.P10 order dated 18.10.2008 (in W.P.(C) No.26584 of 2008) has therefore, to<\/p>\n
WP(c) Nos.26584 & 30467\/2008<\/p>\n
                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
fail.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     So far as the relief prayed for in W.P.(C) No.26584 of 2008 is<\/p>\n
concerned, I do not think it proper or necessary to issue a direction for time<\/p>\n
bound or early disposal of the suit without knowing the volume of work in that<\/p>\n
court.  It is open to the petitioner to request the learned Additional District<\/p>\n
Judge to expedite the trial and disposal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
      With the above observation, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                     THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                             JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 26584 of 2008(M) 1. T.G.N.KUMAR, 33\/3004, THEKKUMURI HOUSE, … Petitioner Vs 1. K.S.VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRI, … Respondent 2. THE COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.N.NEELAKANDHAN NAMBOODIRI The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH […]<\/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-237221","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-11T00:02:16+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-11T00:02:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1210,\"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\\\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008\",\"name\":\"T.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-11T00:02:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-11T00:02:16+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-11T00:02:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008"},"wordCount":1210,"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\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008","name":"T.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-11T00:02:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-g-n-kumar-vs-k-s-vasudevan-namboodiri-on-21-october-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.G.N.Kumar vs K.S.Vasudevan Namboodiri on 21 October, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237221","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=237221"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237221\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237221"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237221"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237221"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}