{"id":238211,"date":"2007-06-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007"},"modified":"2016-08-25T08:29:21","modified_gmt":"2016-08-25T02:59:21","slug":"t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"T.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 12094 of 2004(M)\n\n\n1. T.THOMAS BABU, S\/O.LATE C.THARIAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. R.VISWANATHAN NAIR, S\/O.RAGHAVA KURUP,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. MARIAMMA THARIAN, BUNGLAVIL PUTHEN\n\n3. SUSAMMA THARIAN, BUNGLAVIL PUTHEN\n\n4. MARY THARIAN, BUNGLAVIL PUTHEN VEEDU,\n\n5. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE DISTRICT\n\n6. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.ALEX VARGHESE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\n\n Dated :12\/06\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n                            PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.\n\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n                           W.P.(C) No.12094 of 2004\n\n                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n                             Dated: 12th June, 2007\n\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       What   precisely   is   the   distinction   between   legal   heir   and   legal<\/p>\n
representative, whether the execution court can enforce obedience to<\/p>\n
a decree of mandatory injunction even by compelling perpetration of<\/p>\n
trespass are among the questions involved in this Writ Petition under<\/p>\n
Article 227 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2. The additional 6th defendant-judgment-debtor- respondent in<\/p>\n
a   proceeding   for   execution   of   a   decree   of   mandatory   injunction<\/p>\n
commanding restoration of the decree schedule pathway   challenges<\/p>\n
Ext.P3   order   passed   by   the   execution   court   directing   him   and   the<\/p>\n
other legal heirs of his deceased father, the 1st  defendant to restore<\/p>\n
the pathway to its original width and failing obedience to the above<\/p>\n
direction, to arrest and detain them in civil prison. Ext.P1 is copy of<\/p>\n
the   decree   which   would  show   that   though   the   legal   heirs   of   the   1st<\/p>\n
defendant   had   been   impleaded   on   the   trial   side   itself,   decree   has<\/p>\n
been   passed   only   against   defendants   1   and   2   and   not   against   the<\/p>\n
legal   heirs   of   the   deceased   defendant   No.1.   Ext.P2   is   copy   of   an<\/p>\n
application   which   was   filed   before   the   execution   court   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner and the 10th  defendant in the suit contending that there is<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.7867\/04                                         –  2  –<\/span><\/p>\n
no executable decree against them and seeking a decision   regarding<\/p>\n
the executability   of the decree  against  them. Ext.P3 is copy of the<\/p>\n
order   by   which   the   learned   Munsiff   held   that   the   decree   was   not<\/p>\n
executable  against  the 10th  defendant  but the same  was executable<\/p>\n
as against the petitioner and others though there is no decree against<\/p>\n
them   on   the   reason   that   they   are   legal   representatives   of     the   1st<\/p>\n
defendant against whom there was  decree. The facts relating to this<\/p>\n
case   have   been   dealt   with   by   me   more   detail   in   my   judgment   in<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.12099\/04 filed by the decree-holder. Under that judgment I<\/p>\n
have   upheld   the   order   of   the   execution   court   declining   execution<\/p>\n
against the 10th defendant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         3.   Mr.Alex   Varghese,   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   and<\/p>\n
Mr.T.K.M.Unnithan, learned counsel for the respondent-decree-holder<\/p>\n
addressed me in extenso.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         4. One  of the grounds   urged before  me by Mr.Alex  Varghese<\/p>\n
was  that  the  decree   which  is   attempted   to be   executed   against  the<\/p>\n
petitioner is decree against a dead person, namely, the 1st defendant<\/p>\n
who was dead and gone at the time the decree was issued. Though<\/p>\n
the   petitioner   and   the   other   legal   heirs   of   the   1st  defendant   were<\/p>\n
impleaded   on   the   trial   side   itself   the   decree-holder   did   not   seek<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.7867\/04                                         –  3  –<\/span><\/p>\n
amendment   of   the   relief   portion   of   the   plaint   so   as   to   seek   decree<\/p>\n
against the persons  so impleaded and this has resulted in the court<\/p>\n
passing decree against a dead person alone. Decree  against a dead<\/p>\n
person is a nullity and is not executable. Counsel submitted that the<\/p>\n
decree of declaration and mandatory injunction passed in respect of<\/p>\n
the property against the 1st defendant cannot be obeyed by the legal<\/p>\n
heirs of the deceased 1st defendant since the properties are conveyed<\/p>\n
to the 10th  defendant years prior to the institution of the suit. It will<\/p>\n
be possible to obey the decree only by trespassing into the property<\/p>\n
owned and possessed by the 10th  defendant. The  execution court is<\/p>\n
not   justified   in   insisting   that   the   petitioner   trespasses   into   the   10th<\/p>\n
defendant’s property for obeying a decree which has not been passed<\/p>\n
against him.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         5.   Mr.T.K.M.Unnithan,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent-<\/p>\n
decree-holder   would   submit   that   the   petitioner   is   concededly   a   son<\/p>\n
and   legal   heir   of   the   deceased   1st  defendant  against   whom   there   is<\/p>\n
decree. He was made party to the suit. He had lodged a counter claim<\/p>\n
along   with   his   brothers   raising   claims   against   the   plaintiff.   The<\/p>\n
counter claim was dismissed. The failure to amend the relief portion<\/p>\n
of   the   plaint   so   as   to   seek   decree   against   the   petitioner   was   an<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.7867\/04                                         –  4  –<\/span><\/p>\n
omission on the part of the counsel who was conducting the case on<\/p>\n
behalf of the plaintiff and for  such  omission the respondent-decree-<\/p>\n
holder may not be penalised. The decree of injunction passed by the<\/p>\n
trial court with notice to the petitioner is being blatantly violated.<\/p>\n
         6. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner would highlight<\/p>\n
the   distinction   between   the   expressions   ‘legal   heir’   and   ‘legal<\/p>\n
representative’ and submit that since the schedule pathway was not<\/p>\n
the property of the deceased 1st defendant at the time of his demise,<\/p>\n
the   petitioner   or   for   that   matter   any   of  the   other   legal   heirs  of   the<\/p>\n
deceased   1st  defendant   could   not   be   legal   representatives   of   the<\/p>\n
deceased 1st defendant in relation to the  schedule property.<\/p>\n
         7. The learned Munsiff noticed under Ext.P3 order that though<\/p>\n
the   10th  defendant   and   the   additional   defendants   6   to   9   were<\/p>\n
impleaded as defendants on the trial side itself, the petitioner plaintiff<\/p>\n
did   not   seek   relief   against   them   and   that   the   court   passed   decree<\/p>\n
only against  D1 and  D2. It  was  further  noticed that  the   B schedule<\/p>\n
property  is presently owned by the  10th  defendant. The  court  found<\/p>\n
that the decree which is passed against D1 and D2 is not binding on<\/p>\n
the   10th  defendant   since   the   10th  defendant   had   purchased   the<\/p>\n
property from the predecessor-in-interest of the 2nd  defendant years<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.7867\/04                                         –  5  –<\/span><\/p>\n
prior   to   the   institution   of   the   suit.   But   in   the   case   of   additional<\/p>\n
defendats 6 to 9, the learned Munsiff has taken the view that those<\/p>\n
defendants   are   legal   representatives   of   the   1st  defendant   and<\/p>\n
therefore  the decree  against the 1st  defendant  is executable  against<\/p>\n
them.   It   is   on   that   reasoning   the   impugned   directions   are   passed<\/p>\n
against the petitioner and additional defendants 7, 8 and 9 to restore<\/p>\n
the B schedule pathway to its original condition failing which it is held<\/p>\n
that   the   decree   will   be   enforced   by   arrest   and   detention   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioner and the fellow judgment-debtors.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         8. I am at a loss to understand how the court below could say<\/p>\n
that the petitioner and the additional defendants 7, 8 and 9 are the<\/p>\n
legal representatives of the 1st  defendant. Section 2(11) of the Code<\/p>\n
of Civil Procedure defines the term “legal representative” as follows:<\/p>\n
        “Legal   representative”   means   a   person   who   in   law   represents<\/p>\n
        the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who<\/p>\n
        intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party<\/p>\n
        sues   or   is   sued   in   a   representative   character   the   person   on<\/p>\n
        whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or<\/p>\n
        sued.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
The question thus is whether it can be said that in respect of the B<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.7867\/04                                         –  6  –<\/span><\/p>\n
schedule   property   regarding   which   a   decree   of   declaration   and<\/p>\n
consequential mandatory injunction is granted by the trial court, the<\/p>\n
petitioners   qualify   as   legal   representatives   of   the   deceased   1st<\/p>\n
defendant? The above question can be answered only in the negative.<\/p>\n
The 1st defendant was not the owner of the B schedule property at all.<\/p>\n
In   fact   years   prior   to   the   execution   of   the   suit   the   additional   10th<\/p>\n
defendant   had   come   to   have   ownership   and   possession   over   the<\/p>\n
property.   The   learned   Munsiff   himself   has   found   so   and   declined<\/p>\n
execution   against   that   defendant   under   the   impugned   order   itself.<\/p>\n
Since   the   property   was   neither   owned   nor   possessed   by   the   1st<\/p>\n
defendant   at   the   time   of   his   demise,   his   legal   heirs   including   the<\/p>\n
petitioner could not have represented or meddled with the estate in<\/p>\n
question. It is not at all difficult to accept the argument of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   petitioner   that   the   petitioner   is   not   the   legal<\/p>\n
representative of the deceased 1st defendant in relation to the decree<\/p>\n
schedule   property.   Legal   heirs   are   persons   entitled   to   inherit   the<\/p>\n
surviving   estate   of   the   deceased.   In   this   case   the   deceased   1st<\/p>\n
defendant had no right at all over the estate sued at the time of his<\/p>\n
demise.   In   other   words,   the   deceased   1st  defendant   had   not   left<\/p>\n
behind him the estate sued so that his legal heirs could represent the<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.7867\/04                                         –  7  –<\/span><\/p>\n
same  after  his  demise  [see   the  judgment  of  this  court  in  Mercy  v.<\/p>\n
Aisha Ummal  (1987  (2) KLT 166) ]. In this case the suit property<\/p>\n
was not part of the estate of the deceased and therefore there is no<\/p>\n
question   of   any   of   the   additional   defendants   representing   the   suit<\/p>\n
property as legal heirs of the deceased.   Pithily put, the question is<\/p>\n
whether   the   suit   property   was   the   property   of   the   deceased   at   the<\/p>\n
time   of   his   demise   and   whether   the   same   has   devolved   upon   the<\/p>\n
legal   heirs   upon   his   demise.   The   answer   has   to   be   in   the   negative<\/p>\n
(see   the   decision   of   the   Supreme   Court   in  Leela   Bai   v.   Rajaram<\/p>\n
[ (1998) 8 S.C.C. 543].\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         9. There is yet another reason as to why the petitioner cannot<\/p>\n
be   compelled   to   obey   the   decree.   On   the   court’s   own   finding   the<\/p>\n
decree schedule property belongs to and is in possession of the 10th<\/p>\n
defendant found to be a total stranger. Obeying the decree is possible<\/p>\n
only  by  trespassing  into the  10th  defendant’s property  which  will  be<\/p>\n
illegal.   The   execution   court   cannot   compel   the   petitioner   to<\/p>\n
perpetrate   an   illegality   under   the   guise   of   enforcing   obedience   to  a<\/p>\n
decree which is not passed against him by the trial court though he<\/p>\n
too was on the array.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         10. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the petitioner<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.7867\/04                                         –  8  –<\/span><\/p>\n
is   not   a   legal   representative   of   the   first   defendant   in   relation   to   B<\/p>\n
schedule property. The property at all relevant times belonged to the<\/p>\n
10th  defendant.   Accordingly,   the   Writ   Petition     has   to   be   allowed.<\/p>\n
Setting   aside   the   impugned   order,   I   hold   that   the   decree   is   not<\/p>\n
executable as against the petitioner and dismiss the E.P. against him.<\/p>\n
         The Writ Petition is allowed as above. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
srd                                                     PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 12094 of 2004(M) 1. T.THOMAS BABU, S\/O.LATE C.THARIAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. R.VISWANATHAN NAIR, S\/O.RAGHAVA KURUP, … Respondent 2. MARIAMMA THARIAN, BUNGLAVIL PUTHEN 3. SUSAMMA THARIAN, BUNGLAVIL PUTHEN 4. MARY THARIAN, BUNGLAVIL PUTHEN […]<\/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-238211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-06-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-25T02:59:21+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=\"9 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-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-25T02:59:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1622,\"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-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007\",\"name\":\"T.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-25T02:59:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-25T02:59:21+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-25T02:59:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007"},"wordCount":1622,"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-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007","name":"T.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-25T02:59:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-thomas-babu-vs-r-viswanathan-nair-on-12-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Thomas Babu vs R.Viswanathan Nair on 12 June, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238211","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=238211"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/238211\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=238211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=238211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=238211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}