{"id":237591,"date":"2008-02-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-04T21:52:44","modified_gmt":"2016-10-04T16:22:44","slug":"k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 555 of 1994(G)\n\n\n\n1. K.J.XAVIER\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. T.K.RAGHAVAN NAIR\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :12\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n               ===========================\n\n                 S.A.  NO.555    OF 1994\n\n               ===========================\n\n\n\n      Dated this the 12th  day of February, 2008\n\n\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Plaintiffs   in   O.S.468\/1983   on   the   file   of<\/p>\n
Munsiff   Court,   Alappuzha   are   the   appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Defendants   are   the   respondents.              Appellants<\/p>\n
instituted the suit for declaration of their title,<\/p>\n
possession   and     permanent   prohibitory   injunction.\n<\/p>\n
Plaint schedule property is about 4 cents in extent<\/p>\n
in   survey   No.188\/1A   of   Kozhimukku   Village   of<\/p>\n
Kuttanad   taluk   which   is   part   of   9.02   acres.\n<\/p>\n
According   to   appellants,   9.02   acres   known   as<\/p>\n
noottirupathum   padam   lying   as   a   separate   block   and<\/p>\n
the   property   was   obtained   on   lease   hold   right   by<\/p>\n
appellants.  Subsequently they purchased jenm right<\/p>\n
from the Land Tribunal evidenced by Ext.A2 purchase<\/p>\n
certificate.     It   was   contended   that   on   all   the<\/p>\n
sides  of  the  paddy  field,  there  are  chiras  (banks)<\/p>\n
where   coconuts   are   planted   and   a   portion   of<\/p>\n
Noottirupatham padam is lying on  the southern side<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
of     Thirumanassery   purayidom   also   and   on   the   side<\/p>\n
of   this     portion   there   exists   the   motor   and   the<\/p>\n
accessories and on the eastern side of padasekharam<\/p>\n
there   is   a   muttuthodu   which   originates   from   main<\/p>\n
thodu   which   lies   on   the   southern   side   and   it   is   a<\/p>\n
chira   on   the   northern   side   of   padasekharam   lying<\/p>\n
east   west   and   on   the   eastern   side   of   padasekharam<\/p>\n
lying   east   west   there   are   yielding   coconut   trees<\/p>\n
and   on   the   northern   side   of   Thirumanassery<\/p>\n
purayidom there is a pond and there exists a chira<\/p>\n
around   the   banks   of   the     pond   and   this   portion   of<\/p>\n
Thirumanassery   purayidom   is   projecting   to   the<\/p>\n
eastern   side   and     is   in   the   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
Parvathi   Amma   the   sister   of   respondents   and   they<\/p>\n
are   in   possession   of   the   southern   side   of<\/p>\n
Thirumanassery   purayidom.   There   exist   another<\/p>\n
muttuthodu   abutting   the   property   in   the   possession<\/p>\n
of   respondents   and   the   said   muttuthodu   is   starting<\/p>\n
from  the  muttuthodu  lying  on  the  southern  side  and<\/p>\n
terminates at the pond owned by Parvathi Amma.  The<\/p>\n
eastern   side   of   the   said   muttuthodu   is   a   chira<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
which   is   the     as   plaint   schedule   property   and   on<\/p>\n
the   south   eastern   side   of   the   chira   is   the<\/p>\n
methikalam   owned   by   appellants   and   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property   forms   part   of   the   entire   paddy   fields<\/p>\n
owned   by   appellants   and   respondents   have   no   manner<\/p>\n
of right or possession over the said  property.  On<\/p>\n
24.6.1983   appellants     planted   30   plantains.   They<\/p>\n
were   forcibly   removed   by   respondents   two   days<\/p>\n
thereafter.     Appellants   filed   a   complaint   before<\/p>\n
the   police   authorities.     Respondents   have     claimed<\/p>\n
right in   the property. Hence   suit was filed   for<\/p>\n
declaration   of   title   and   injunction.     Respondents<\/p>\n
in   the   written   statement   contended   that   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   does   not   form   part   of   the   paddy<\/p>\n
field   owned   by   appellants   and   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
chira   is   owned   by   respondents   and   they   obtained<\/p>\n
right to   the property by virtue of partition deed<\/p>\n
982\/1955   (Ext.B5),   Ext.B4   partition   deed   2354\/1957<\/p>\n
and Ext.B3 sale deed of 1983 and appellants have no<\/p>\n
right   or   possession   to   the     plaint   schedule   chira<\/p>\n
and   therefore   they   are   not   entitled   to   the   decree<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
sought for.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     Learned   Munsiff   on   the   evidence   of   Pws.1<\/p>\n
and 2, Dws. 1 to 4, Exts.A1 and A2, Exts.B1 to B6 ,<\/p>\n
C1   to   C3   granted   a   decree   in   favour   of   appellants<\/p>\n
declaring   their   right   title   and   possession   to   the<\/p>\n
plaint   schedule   property   restraining   respondents<\/p>\n
from   trespassing   into   the                   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property.          Respondents   challenged   the   judgment<\/p>\n
before   District   Court,   Alappuzha   in   A.S.34\/1991.\n<\/p>\n
Learned Additional District Judge on reappreciation<\/p>\n
of   evidence   found   that   appellants   did   not   produce<\/p>\n
the   lease   deed   by   which   the   properties   were<\/p>\n
obtained and if that document was produced it would<\/p>\n
have  thrown light into the controversy and for its<\/p>\n
non   production     an   adverse   inference   has   to   be<\/p>\n
drawn.     Learned   District   Judge   also   found   that<\/p>\n
western   boundary   of   the   property   obtained   under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1          is         Mankuzhi         Chempothuparambu         and<\/p>\n
Thirumanassery   paddy   field   and     evidence   establish<\/p>\n
that   in   between            mankuzhi   Chempothuparambu   and<\/p>\n
Thirumanassery     there   are   three   paddy   fields   and<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
based   on   the   boundary   in   Ext.A1   appellants   cannot<\/p>\n
claim   title   to   the   disputed   chira.     Finding   that<\/p>\n
Ext.B3   sale   deed   shows   that   the   disputed   chira<\/p>\n
forms   part   of   the   property   of   respondents,   learned<\/p>\n
District   Judge   set   aside   the   decree   and   dismissed<\/p>\n
the suit.  It is challenged in the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   Second   appeal   was   admitted   formulating   the<\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
        1.     When   Ext.A1   establish<\/p>\n
        the   title   of   appellants,<\/p>\n
        whether   first   appellate<\/p>\n
        court was justified in not<\/p>\n
        relying   on   Ext.A1   in   view<\/p>\n
        of   Section   72K   of     Kerala<\/p>\n
        Land Reforms Act.\n<\/p>\n
        2.                Whether                 first<\/p>\n
        appellate                   court               was<\/p>\n
        justified   in   drawing   an<\/p>\n
        adverse   inference   against<\/p>\n
        appellants                   for               non-\n<\/p>\n
        production   of   the     lease<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
        deed   when Ext.A1 purchase<\/p>\n
        certificate was produced.\n<\/p>\n
        3.                Whether           on             the<\/p>\n
        evidence   first   appellate<\/p>\n
        court   was   justified   in<\/p>\n
        holding                that                   plaint<\/p>\n
        schedule property  does not<\/p>\n
        form   part   of   the   property<\/p>\n
        belonging   to   appellants<\/p>\n
        under             Ext.A1            purchase<\/p>\n
        certificate.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for   appellants<\/p>\n
and respondents were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     The   dispute   in   the   appeal   is   with   respect<\/p>\n
to   the   plaint   schedule   property   which   is   a   chira<\/p>\n
having   an   extent   of   about   4   cents,   which   lies   to<\/p>\n
the   west   of   the   admitted   paddy   fileds   of<\/p>\n
appellants   and   east   of   the   admitted   purauyidom   of<\/p>\n
respondents.     Respondents   admittedly   obtained   the<\/p>\n
property   which   lies   to   the   east   of   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   comprised   in   R.S.187\/18   under<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.B3 sale deed.   The right obtained under Ext.B3<\/p>\n
is   the   right   which   was   allotted   to   the   assignor<\/p>\n
thereunder,   under   Ext.B4   partition   deed   which   in<\/p>\n
turn   was   the   right   which   was   available   to   him<\/p>\n
under   Ext.B5   partition   deed.     Learned   Munsiff   on<\/p>\n
the   evidence   found   that   plaint   schedule   property<\/p>\n
forms   part   of   the   lease   hold   property   obtained   by<\/p>\n
appellants   and   its   jenm   right     was   subsequently<\/p>\n
purchased   from   the   Land   Tribunal   under   Ext.A1<\/p>\n
purchase certificate.    First appellate  court found<\/p>\n
fault   for   not   producing   the   lease   deed,   though<\/p>\n
Ext.A1   purchase   certificate   was   produced   then<\/p>\n
relying   on   Ext.B3   sale   deed   where,   the   right   over<\/p>\n
the         plaint         schedule         chira         was         claimed         by<\/p>\n
respondents     it   was   found   that   the   disputed   chira<\/p>\n
does   not   form   part   of   the   property   obtained   on<\/p>\n
lease   by   appellants.     The   argument   of   learned<\/p>\n
counsel   appearing   for   appellants   is   that   the<\/p>\n
finding   of   first   appellate   court   is   erroneous   and<\/p>\n
under     Ext.B4   and   B5   all   the   properties   available<\/p>\n
were divided between the co-owners and no property<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
was   left   common   as   undivided.     Therefore   at   the<\/p>\n
time   assigning   a   portion   of   the   property   divided<\/p>\n
under Ext.B4,   the plaint schedule chira could not<\/p>\n
have been referred as the property   which was left<\/p>\n
undivided   at   the   time   of   the   partition.       Learned<\/p>\n
counsel   also   argued   that   as   per   Ext.B3   the<\/p>\n
property   obtained   by   respondents   is   only   in<\/p>\n
R.S.187\/19   and   the   said   property   is   the   property<\/p>\n
which   lies   to   the   west   of   the   disputed   chira,   as<\/p>\n
the eastern boundary shown is the   chira and under<\/p>\n
Ext.B3 respondents cannot claim any right over the<\/p>\n
disputed   chira.     It   was   also   argued   when   the<\/p>\n
entire properties were divide under Ext.B4 and B5,<\/p>\n
it   is   improbable   that   a   strip   of   land   which<\/p>\n
constitute   only   a   chira   would   be   left   undivided<\/p>\n
and recital about the chira, as the property which<\/p>\n
was kept undivided in Ext.B3 is made just prior to<\/p>\n
the   institution   of   the   suit   to   raise   a     false<\/p>\n
claim   and   first   appellate   court   was   not   justified<\/p>\n
in relying on the said   recital in Ext.B3.   It was<\/p>\n
also   argued   that   the   eastern   boundary   of   the<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
property   which   was   divided   under   Ext.B5   and   later<\/p>\n
under   Ext.B4,   is   the   paddy   fields   belonging   to<\/p>\n
appellants   under   Ext.A1   purchase   certificate   and<\/p>\n
not   any   chira   and   first   appellate   court   was   not<\/p>\n
justified   in   interfering   with   the   decree   granted<\/p>\n
by   the   courts   below.     It   was   also   argued   that   it<\/p>\n
is   admitted   by   DW1   that   there   is   no   document   to<\/p>\n
show   that   they   have     any   right   over   the   disputed<\/p>\n
chira   and   that   paddy   fields   of   the   appellants   are<\/p>\n
surrounded by chiras   on all the sides and so  the<\/p>\n
disputed chira forms part of the paddy fields.   It<\/p>\n
was   argued   that          evidence   establish   that   the<\/p>\n
chiras            are   constructed   for   the   purpose   of<\/p>\n
cultivation   of   the   paddy     fields   and   not   for<\/p>\n
purauyidom and when the property of respondents is<\/p>\n
purayidom   and   so          there   is   no   necessity   for<\/p>\n
retaining a chira for the purayidom   and all these<\/p>\n
facts   probablise   the   case   of   appellants   that<\/p>\n
plaint   schedule   property   forms   part   of   the<\/p>\n
property   covered   under   Ext.A1.     Learned   counsel<\/p>\n
also   argued   that   first   appellate   court   was   not<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
justified   in   drawing   an   adverse   inference   for   the<\/p>\n
non-production   of   the   lease   deed   when     purchase<\/p>\n
certificate   was   produced   and   that   too   when   no<\/p>\n
application   was   filed   by   respondents   for   a<\/p>\n
direction to   appellants to produce the lease deed<\/p>\n
and   adverse   inference   should   not   have   drawn   for<\/p>\n
the   lease   deed   and   appellants   are   entitled   to   the<\/p>\n
decree   for   declaration   of   title   and   possession.\n<\/p>\n
Learned   counsel   appearing   for   respondents   argued<\/p>\n
that   when   cross   examined   PW1   admitted   that   there<\/p>\n
is   no   document   to   show   the   right   or   title   of   the<\/p>\n
appellants   to   the     plaint   schedule   property   and<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 does not establish the title   to the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   and   therefore   first   appellate<\/p>\n
court   rightly   found   that   appellants   are   not<\/p>\n
entitled to the decree sought for.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     Though   appellants   did   not   produce   the<\/p>\n
lease   deed   which   was   admittedly   executed   and     by<\/p>\n
which   the     undisputed   property   was   obtained   by<\/p>\n
appellants   on   lease   they   produced   Ext.A1   purchase<\/p>\n
certificate which establish  that they  were granted<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
purchase   certificate   in   respect   of   9.02   acres   in<\/p>\n
survey No.188\/1A and 1B.   Ext.C1 report and Ext.C2<\/p>\n
plan   submitted   by   the   Commissioner   establish   that<\/p>\n
the   disputed   chira   which   is   marked   in   red   shaded<\/p>\n
colour   forms   part   of   R.S.No.188\/1A.     It   is   not<\/p>\n
disputed   that   the   property   which            belong   to<\/p>\n
respondents   is   in   R.S.187\/19.          If   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   forms   part   of   R.S.No.188\/1A,<\/p>\n
appellants   have       title   to   the   said   property<\/p>\n
under   Ext.A1   and   respondents   cannot   claim       title<\/p>\n
to the property.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   The   evidence   establish   that   the   property<\/p>\n
obtained   by   appellants   on   lease   was   the   paddy<\/p>\n
field   by   name     noottirupathum   padam   which   forms<\/p>\n
part   of   padasekharam.   That   fact   was   not   disputed.\n<\/p>\n
It is also admitted case that on all four sides of<\/p>\n
the   paddy   field   there   are   chiras     where   coconut<\/p>\n
trees   are   planted.   The   chiras   form   part   of   the<\/p>\n
paddy   fields.   The   disputed   plaint   schedule   chira<\/p>\n
forms part of the western portion of paddy fields,<\/p>\n
which   lies   immediate   to   the   east   of   the   purayidom<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
of   respondents.     Learned   District   Judge   relied   on<\/p>\n
Ext.B3   to   find   that   appellants   have   no   title   to<\/p>\n
the   disputed   plaint   schedule   property.     It   was<\/p>\n
based   on   the   recital   in   Ext.B3   that   the   eastern<\/p>\n
boundary   of   that   property   is   chira     which   was<\/p>\n
described   as   kept   undivided   at   the   time   of   the<\/p>\n
earlier   partition.       As   rightly   argued   by   learned<\/p>\n
counsel   appearing   for   appellants,   unfortunately<\/p>\n
first   appellate   court   did   not   properly   appreciate<\/p>\n
Ext.B3   in   the   light   of   Ext.B4   and   B5.     As   stated<\/p>\n
earlier,   the   assignor   under   Ext.B3   obtained   the<\/p>\n
property   conveyed   under   Ext.B4     partition   deed.\n<\/p>\n
The        property   divided   under   Ext.B4   is   the<\/p>\n
property,   which   was   obtained   by   the   assignor   and<\/p>\n
others     under   Ext.B5   partition.     Both   Exts.B4   and<\/p>\n
B5 show that the eastern boundary of the property,<\/p>\n
which   was   subsequently   assigned   under   Ext.B3,   is<\/p>\n
the   property   which   lies   immediate   to   the   west   of<\/p>\n
the   paddy   fields   belonging   to   appellants.     If   in<\/p>\n
fact   a   portion   of   the   properties       was   left<\/p>\n
undivided   at   the   time   of   Ext.B5   partition     or<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.B4   partition,   it   would   have   been   specifically<\/p>\n
mentioned   in   Ext.B5   or   B4   partition   deeds.     The<\/p>\n
conspicuous   absence   of   such   a   recital   in   Exts.B4<\/p>\n
and   B5,     establish   that   no   property   was   left<\/p>\n
undivided   at   the   time   of   the                            partitions.\n<\/p>\n
Moreover,   it   is   not   at   all   probable   that   a   strip<\/p>\n
of   land,   which   forms   a   chira   alone,   would   be   left<\/p>\n
undivided at the time of Ext.B5 partition and also<\/p>\n
subsequently   under   Ext.B4   partition,       when   all<\/p>\n
the remaining properties were divided.   As rightly<\/p>\n
pointed   out   by   learned   counsel   for   appellants   the<\/p>\n
recital   about   the   chira,   as   kept   undivided   at   the<\/p>\n
time   of   partition   in   Ext.B3   sale   deed   could   only<\/p>\n
be   made     with   ulterior   motive,   especially   when   it<\/p>\n
was   just   prior   to   the   suit.     Moreover,   what   is<\/p>\n
shown   under   Ext.B3   is   that   the   property   assigned<\/p>\n
thereunder   is   the   property   which   lies   to   the   west<\/p>\n
of   the   eastern   chira.   So   Ext.B3   does   not   take   in<\/p>\n
the         chira         also.              Therefore         under         Ext.B3<\/p>\n
respondents   cannot   claim                         any   right   over   the<\/p>\n
chira.     At   best   it   could   be   said   that   the   chira<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                   14<\/span><\/p>\n
was   left   undivided   and   available   to   the   sharers.\n<\/p>\n
But as stated earlier if it was left undivided, it<\/p>\n
would   have   been   mentioned   in   Exts.B4   and   B5.   When<\/p>\n
Exts.B4   and   B5   show   that   the   entire   properties<\/p>\n
were   divided,   the   recital   in   Ext.B3   to   the<\/p>\n
contrary     cannot   be   relied   on   at   all.     Therefore<\/p>\n
first   appellate   court   was   not   justified   in<\/p>\n
interfering   with   the   finding   of   the   trial   court<\/p>\n
based on the recitals in Ext.B3.\n<\/p>\n
      8.On   appreciating   the   entire   evidence   the<\/p>\n
trial   court   rightly   found   that   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property   forms   part   of   the   paddy   fields   obtained<\/p>\n
by appellants on lease and comprised in R.S.188\/1A<\/p>\n
and   1B.         When   the   report   submitted   by   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner   after   proper   identification   establish<\/p>\n
that the disputed plaint schedule property is part<\/p>\n
of   survey   No.188\/1A   and   appellants   have   title   to<\/p>\n
the said property  under Ext.A1,  the non-production<\/p>\n
of lease deed   by appellants is not very material.\n<\/p>\n
Even if that lease deed was produced, it would not<\/p>\n
have   thrown     light   into   the   controversy   because<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                    15<\/span><\/p>\n
the   properties   would   have   been   described   only   as<\/p>\n
paddy   fields   comprised   in   survey   No.188\/1A   and<\/p>\n
188\/1B   and   it   would   not   have   helped   the   court   to<\/p>\n
decide   the   question   of   title   to   the   disputed<\/p>\n
chira.     Therefore   first   appellate   court   was   not<\/p>\n
justified   in   drawing   an   adverse   inference   for   the<\/p>\n
non-production   of   the   lease   deed   especially   when<\/p>\n
appellants   never asked appellants   to produce the<\/p>\n
said document.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   Appreciating   the   entire   evidence,   it   is<\/p>\n
absolutely   clear   that   first   appellate   court   did<\/p>\n
not   properly   appreciate   the   evidence,   when   the<\/p>\n
trial   court   on   proper   appreciation   of   evidence<\/p>\n
rightly   found   that   plaint   schedule   property   forms<\/p>\n
part   of   the   leasehold   property   and   under   Ext.A1<\/p>\n
appellants   have   title   and   possession   to   the   said<\/p>\n
property.   First appellate court was not justified<\/p>\n
in   interfering   with   the   decree   granted   by   the<\/p>\n
trial court.\n<\/p>\n
      The   appeal   is   allowed.     The   judgment   of   the<\/p>\n
first appellate court in A.S.34\/1991 is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.555\/1994                  16<\/span><\/p>\n
The   decree   and   judgment   of   the   trial   court   are<\/p>\n
restored.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                      M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR<\/p>\n
                                                JUDGE<\/p>\n
tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
    S.A..NO.555 \/1994<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  12TH  FEBRUARY,2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 555 of 1994(G) 1. K.J.XAVIER … Petitioner Vs 1. T.K.RAGHAVAN NAIR … Respondent For Petitioner :SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA For Respondent :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :12\/02\/2008 O R D E R […]<\/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-237591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 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\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-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=\"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-04T16:22:44+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-04T16:22:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2445,\"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\\\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008\",\"name\":\"K.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-04T16:22:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 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":"K.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 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\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-04T16:22:44+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-04T16:22:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008"},"wordCount":2445,"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\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008","name":"K.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-04T16:22:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-j-xavier-vs-t-k-raghavan-nair-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.J.Xavier vs T.K.Raghavan Nair on 12 February, 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\/237591","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=237591"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237591\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}