{"id":237617,"date":"2009-06-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-21T00:45:12","modified_gmt":"2019-01-20T19:15:12","slug":"k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"K. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 313 of 2008()\n\n\n1. K. SUGAVATHY,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THADIPPARAMBATH KUNHIRAMAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI\n\n Dated :03\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n          PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ.\n                       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                             R.C.R.No. 313 OF 2008\n                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                     Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009\n\n                                     ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Pius.C.Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n
      A tenant who has suffered an order of eviction on the grounds of<\/p>\n
additional accommodation ( Section 11(8) ) and cessation of<\/p>\n
occupation ( Section 11(4)(v) has filed this petition under Section 20 of<\/p>\n
Act 2 of 1965. In fact order of eviction was passed under Section 11(2)<\/p>\n
(b) also, but it is conceded before us that the said ground no longer<\/p>\n
survives since by payment of arrears of rent the order of eviction<\/p>\n
passed under Section 11(2)(b) is being vacated.<\/p>\n
      2.     The case of the landlord in the context of the ground of<\/p>\n
cessation of occupation was that the building was being used by the<\/p>\n
tenant for residential purposes and that the tenant having already<\/p>\n
acquired another residential premises, has ceased to occupy the<\/p>\n
building continuously for more than six months without any reasonable<\/p>\n
cause. The above case was stoutly denied by the tenant who contended<\/p>\n
that apart from residing in the building, her husband who is a head load<\/p>\n
worker in the town is occasionally roasting ground nuts so that the<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
tenant can sell the same in the bus stand and other locations in the<\/p>\n
town.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    The case projected by the landlord in the context of ground<\/p>\n
under Section 11(8) was that the landlord is in occupation of another<\/p>\n
portion of the larger building of which the petition schedule building is<\/p>\n
also a part and in that portion he is conducting a hotel by name ‘Hotel<\/p>\n
Highland’ and further that the landlord needs possession of the petition<\/p>\n
schedule building also so that he can expand his hotel business. This<\/p>\n
case was also stiffly denied by the tenant who contended alternatively<\/p>\n
that at any rate by getting possession of the petition schedule building,<\/p>\n
which is very small, the avowed purpose of additional accommodation<\/p>\n
for expansion of hotel business is not going to be accomplished. The<\/p>\n
tenant contended that the hardships which will be occasioned to her by<\/p>\n
the eviction will out weigh the advantages which may enure to the<\/p>\n
landlord by securing eviction.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    At trial, the evidence before the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
consisted of Exts.A1 to A5, Ext.C1 Commissioner’s report , testimonies<\/p>\n
of PWs 1 and 2, Exts.B1 to B12 and the testimony of RW1. Ext.A1<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
was a registration copy of the rent chit executed between the<\/p>\n
predecessors in interest of the parties.      On an evaluation of the<\/p>\n
evidence, the Rent Control Court found that the landlord’s need for<\/p>\n
additional accommodation is bonafide and also that the advantages<\/p>\n
which will enure to the landlord by getting eviction will out weigh the<\/p>\n
hardship which may be occasioned to be tenant. Accordingly, eviction<\/p>\n
order was passed under Sub Section 8 of Section 11. But relying on<\/p>\n
Ext.C1 Commissioner’s report, which was filed by the Commissioner<\/p>\n
on the basis of a surprise inspection reporting that during inspection the<\/p>\n
husband of the tenant was seen roasting ground nuts, the learned Rent<\/p>\n
Control Court found that the tenant had not ceased to occupy the<\/p>\n
premises and that the tenant continues to occupy the premises for non<\/p>\n
residential purposes. On that basis, order of eviction was declined<\/p>\n
under Clause 5 of Sub Section 4 of Section 11.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    The tenant preferred appeal to the Rent Control Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority as R.C.A.No.79\/2007 and the landlord filed cross objections<\/p>\n
to the same. The appeal and the cross objections were considered<\/p>\n
together by the learned Appellate Authority which under the impugned<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment has allowed the cross objections and dismissing the appeal<\/p>\n
preferred by the tenant has now ordered eviction both under ground 11<\/p>\n
(8) and 11(4)(v).\n<\/p>\n
      6.   We have heard the submissions of Sri.P.B.Krishnan,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner and those of Sri.P.A.Harish, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondent. Our attention was drawn by Sri.Krishnan<\/p>\n
to the various grounds raised in the memorandum of revision. He<\/p>\n
would highlight before us Ext.A1 rent chit and submit that the very<\/p>\n
purpose of the lease as per that admitted rent chit was to enable the<\/p>\n
tenant to carry on business.      According to him, even when the<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner conducted a surprise inspection of the<\/p>\n
premises without notice, it was found that the tenant’s husband was<\/p>\n
roasting ground nuts. Sri.Krishnan submitted that the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority has not even found that the statutory eviction<\/p>\n
ground under Clause 5 of Sub Section 4 of Section 11 i.e. cessation of<\/p>\n
occupation continuously for more than six months without reasonable<\/p>\n
cause – exists in this case. The appellate authority according to the<\/p>\n
learned counsel has only found that the tenant has ceased to reside in<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
the petition schedule building. According to the learned counsel, even<\/p>\n
if it is assumed that the tenant is not residing in the petition schedule<\/p>\n
building, a ground under Section 11(4)(v) will not be established since<\/p>\n
in this particular case the purpose of the lease was business. The order<\/p>\n
of the Appellate Authority under Sub Section 8 of Section 11 was<\/p>\n
assailed even more forcefully by Sri.P.B.Krishnan. He submitted that<\/p>\n
the preliminary question to be considered is whether the need for<\/p>\n
additional accommodation is bonafide.            Before answering that<\/p>\n
question, it is necessary that the court examines as to what is the extent<\/p>\n
of    accommodation already available with the landlord and as to<\/p>\n
whether the said accommodation is insufficient to meet the<\/p>\n
requirements of the landlord. This aspect of the matter according to the<\/p>\n
learned counsel is capable of being proved by report of an Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner on the basis of inspection. Ext.C1, learned counsel<\/p>\n
would argue, will not of any assistance of the court in this context.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel submitted that it was significant that despite having<\/p>\n
taken a Commissioner to the building, the landlord did not want the<\/p>\n
commissioner even to enter into the building under the possession of<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
the landlord wherein the landlord is presently conducting Hotel<\/p>\n
Hyland.     Learned counsel also highlighted the report of the<\/p>\n
Commissioner that two rooms are actually vacant. If this is true, the<\/p>\n
need for additional accommodation will have to be found to be without<\/p>\n
bonafides.   As for the question of the benefit of the proviso to Sub<\/p>\n
Section 10 of Section 11, Sri.Krishnan submitted that the above<\/p>\n
question can arise only if it is found that the need for additional<\/p>\n
accommodation is bonafide.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    Sri.P.A.Harish would oppose all the submissions of<\/p>\n
Sri.P.B.Krishnan. He took us through the oral evidence adduced by<\/p>\n
AW1 and RW1 as well as AW2, the Advocate Commissioner. He also<\/p>\n
took us to the counter statement filed by the tenant and highlighted that<\/p>\n
the tenant has not specifically contended that the landlord has already<\/p>\n
in landlord’s possession enough space for accomplishing the avowed<\/p>\n
need of additional accommodation projected.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    We have anxiously considered the rival submissions<\/p>\n
addressed at the Bar. We find much force in all the submissions of<\/p>\n
Sri.P.B.Krishnan made in the context of the ground for eviction under<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
clause 5 of Sub Section 4 of Section 11. Ext.A1 rent chit will show<\/p>\n
that the purpose of the lease was commercial. This means that the<\/p>\n
tenant is entitled to use the schedule building for commercial and trade<\/p>\n
purposes. May be it is true that the tenant was as contended by herself<\/p>\n
using the building mainly for residential purposes and the tenant is not<\/p>\n
presently using the building for that purposes at all. But in order that a<\/p>\n
ground for eviction under Section 11(4)(v) is made out, it has to be<\/p>\n
shown that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises continuously<\/p>\n
for more than six months without reasonable cause for the purpose for<\/p>\n
which the building was let out. Ext.C1 Commissioner’s report will<\/p>\n
show that the tenant’s husband was roasting ground nuts in the<\/p>\n
premises. Description of the petition schedule building will also show<\/p>\n
that the building is essentially a commercial building        and not a<\/p>\n
residential building. Since it is evident that the tenant has not ceased<\/p>\n
to occupy the building for the purposes for which the building was let<\/p>\n
out under Ext.A1, it cannot be said that eviction ground under Section<\/p>\n
11(4)(v) is established. The eviction order passed under Section 11(4)<\/p>\n
(v) is liable to be vacated. We vacate the same.\n<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
      9.    Coming to the ground of eviction under Sub Section 8 of<\/p>\n
Section 11, it will be noticed immediately that both sides adduced<\/p>\n
evidence in the context of proviso to Sub Section 10 of Section 11<\/p>\n
which qualifies Sub Section 8 of Section 11. The landlord adduced<\/p>\n
evidence to show that he will gain advantages by securing eviction and<\/p>\n
the tenant adduced evidence to show that he will sustain hardship by<\/p>\n
suffering eviction. Going by the contention raised by the tenant, the<\/p>\n
building was being used despite its commercial nature for residential<\/p>\n
purposes. It has become evident in the case that the building is no<\/p>\n
longer being used for residential purposes. As for the purposes of<\/p>\n
trade, it should be seen that sale of roasted ground nuts if at all is being<\/p>\n
conducted in the town not by the tenant but by the husband of the<\/p>\n
tenant perhaps on behalf of the tenant. The activities which is being<\/p>\n
carried on in the building is only roasting of ground nuts. Of course,<\/p>\n
Sri.Harish submitted that Ext.A1 prohibits having any fire hearth or<\/p>\n
fire grate   in the premises.      We are not prepared to agree with<\/p>\n
Sri.Harish. Roasting ground nuts by using Kerosene stove will not<\/p>\n
amount to violation of the above condition in Ext.A1. But it is seen<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
from the evidence that sale of ground nuts is not the main activity of<\/p>\n
the husband of the tenant. He is a head load worker in the town and the<\/p>\n
evidence is to the effect that only when he is without such work that he<\/p>\n
engages himself in the activity of sale of ground nuts on behalf of his<\/p>\n
wife. Thus by the order of eviction to be passed under Section 11(8),<\/p>\n
the tenant is not going to be deprived of the main means of livelihood.<\/p>\n
It will still be possible for the tenant to pursue the sale of ground nuts-<\/p>\n
her additional means by making alternate arrangements.             But the<\/p>\n
advantages which will enure to the landlord by securing eviction is that<\/p>\n
he who is presently conducting Hotel in a building of moderate size<\/p>\n
will be able to conduct hotel in a bigger way in a larger building. Thus<\/p>\n
the landlord will certainly gain clear advantages by securing eviction.<\/p>\n
We therefore have no difficultly at all to confirm the finding of the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Appellate Authority and the Rent Control Court that the<\/p>\n
petition under Sub Section (8) of Section 11 is not liable to be rejected<\/p>\n
on the basis of proviso to Sub Section (10) of Section 11.<\/p>\n
      10.     But as rightly submitted by Sri.P.B.Krishnan, before the<\/p>\n
authorities examine the question of comparative advantages and<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
hardships, the more important aspect to be considered is whether the<\/p>\n
landlord has proved that he needs additional accommodation for<\/p>\n
personal use. The word ‘bonafide’ is not used in Sub Section 8 of<\/p>\n
Section 11, but since Sub Section 8 of Section 11 is qualified by Sub<\/p>\n
Section 10 of Section 11, it is necessary that the landlord establishes<\/p>\n
before the Rent Control Court that the need is bonafide. We find force<\/p>\n
in the submissions of Sri.P.B.Krishnan that in order that it can be found<\/p>\n
that the need for additional accommodation is bonafide, an enquiry<\/p>\n
necessarily has to be conducted as to what is the extent of<\/p>\n
accommodation presently available with the landlord and as to what is<\/p>\n
the landlord’s requirement for additional accommodation.             The<\/p>\n
evidence in this case is totally insufficient to prove the aspect of the<\/p>\n
extent of accommodation presently available with the landlord.       The<\/p>\n
evidence of the landlord as AW1 is only to the effect that there are 11<\/p>\n
tables in Hotel Hyland building. That may not be enough as already<\/p>\n
stated to prove that the landlord is in need of additional<\/p>\n
accommodation.    This is an aspect which can be of better quality<\/p>\n
evidence.    Significantly even the Advocate Commissioner who<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
submitted Ext.C1 was not asked to inspect the building in the<\/p>\n
possession of the landlord so that the court will get a report as to the<\/p>\n
area of that building. Thus in our opinion, the evidence available in<\/p>\n
this case so far, falls short of holding correctly that the landlord needs<\/p>\n
additional accommodation for his personal use.          We are therefore<\/p>\n
inclined to interfere with the finding of the authorities below that the<\/p>\n
landlord needs additional accommodation for personal use. We set<\/p>\n
aside the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that the<\/p>\n
landlord needs additional accommodation for personal use and remand<\/p>\n
the RCA to the Rent Control Appellate Authority. In terms of Section<\/p>\n
23, Section 18(3) of Act 2 of 1965 and Rule 16(2) of the Building<\/p>\n
(Lease and Rent Control) Rules, the Appellate Authority’s power to<\/p>\n
hold enquiry is co-terminus with that of the Rent Control Court itself.<\/p>\n
Accordingly we direct the Appellate Authority to permit the landlord to<\/p>\n
apply for issuance of a Commission for local inspection of the building<\/p>\n
in the possession of the landlord and the petition schedule building so<\/p>\n
that the said authority will have a satisfactory report as to the extent of<\/p>\n
the accommodation presently available with the landlord for the<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
purpose of deciding objectively whether the landlord’s case that he<\/p>\n
needs additional accommodation for the expansion of his Hotel Hyland<\/p>\n
business is bonafide. The Advocate Commissioner to be appointed by<\/p>\n
the Appellate Authority should also be directed to permit both sides to<\/p>\n
submit work memos before him during inspection so that on all<\/p>\n
relevant matters, evidence will be made available to the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Appellant Authority. The appellate authority shall permit both sides to<\/p>\n
file objections if any to the Commissioner’s report and if it become<\/p>\n
absolutely necessary, the Appellate Authority can permit examination<\/p>\n
of the Commissioner also for the purpose of substantiating the<\/p>\n
objections filed. The appellate authority will also for the purpose of<\/p>\n
deciding the issue whether the landlord’s claim for additional<\/p>\n
accommodation is bonafide permit both parties to adduce documentary<\/p>\n
evidence. The Rent Control Appellate Authority will expedite matters<\/p>\n
and ensure that enquiry is completed and a revised judgment is passed<\/p>\n
in the appeal at the earliest and at any rate within four months of<\/p>\n
receiving a copy of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
      11.    It is clarified that the finding entered herein above that the<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
tenant is not entitled to the protection of the proviso to Sub Section<\/p>\n
(10) of Section 11 shall not be understood as expression of any opinion<\/p>\n
by this court regarding the bonafides of the landlord’s claim for<\/p>\n
additional accommodation.\n<\/p>\n
       Transmit the records forthwith to the Appellate Authority. The<\/p>\n
parties will enter appearance before the Appellate Authority on<\/p>\n
22\/06\/2009.\n<\/p>\n
                                               PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE
\n                                                      JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                                P.Q.BARKATH ALI
\n                                                       JUDGE
\nsv.\n<\/p>\n
RCR.No.313\/2008
\n                   14<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 313 of 2008() 1. K. SUGAVATHY, … Petitioner Vs 1. THADIPPARAMBATH KUNHIRAMAN, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI Dated :03\/06\/2009 […]<\/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-237617","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009 - 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-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-20T19:15:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-20T19:15:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2490,\"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-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009\",\"name\":\"K. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-20T19:15:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009 - 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-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-20T19:15:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-20T19:15:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009"},"wordCount":2490,"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-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009","name":"K. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-20T19:15:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sugavathy-vs-thadipparambath-kunhiraman-on-3-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Sugavathy vs Thadipparambath Kunhiraman on 3 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/237617","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=237617"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237617\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237617"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237617"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237617"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}