{"id":240685,"date":"2008-06-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008"},"modified":"2014-03-18T01:15:11","modified_gmt":"2014-03-17T19:45:11","slug":"mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Mary vs Saleena on 24 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mary vs Saleena on 24 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 130 of 2005()\n\n\n1. MARY, W\/O. LATE OUSEPH PETER, AGED 72,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. K.A.ELIZABETH, W\/O.LATE JOSEPH,\n3. T.J.ANTONY, S\/O. LATE JOSEPH,\n4. T.J.AUGUSTINE JOHN,\n5. T.J.LOURD, D\/O. LATE JOSEPH, AGED 38,\n6. T.J.MARY, D\/O. LATE JOSEPH, AGED 36,\n7. T.J.JELTHROUGHDHU,\n8. T.J.HENTRY ROY, S\/O. LATE JOSEPH,\n9. SELEENA VARGHESE (DIED),\n10. T.V.ANTONY, S\/O. LATE VARGHESE,\n11. LILLY, W\/O. LATE T.V.JOSEPH,\n12. KUMARI LIPSY, (MINOR),\n13. UMARI PEKSHY, (MINOR),\n14. T.V.JOHN, S\/O. LATE VARGHESE,\n15. CHRISTHU RAJ, S\/O. LATE VARGHESE,\n16. T.V.VARKEY, S\/O. LATE VARGHESE,\n17. BREGIT, D\/O. LATE VARGHESE, AGED 42,\n18. MARY, W\/O. LATE FRANCIS, AGED 45,\n19. CRAMEENA BREGITH, D\/O. FRANCIS,\n20. ESTHER ANSI, D\/O. FRANCIS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SALEENA, W\/O. RAPHEL (ALIAS)\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. RAFI, S\/O. RAPHEL (ALIAS) PETER,\n\n3. JOSE S\/O. RAPHEL, AGED 36 YEARS,\n\n4. MILTON S\/O. RAPHEL, AGED 30 YEARS,\n\n5. ANNY D\/O. RAPHEL, AGED 42 YEARS,\n\n6. BEENA D\/O. RAPHEL, AGED 28 YEARS,\n\n7. MRS.SILVESTOR SHERLY, W\/O. SILVESTOR,\n\n8. MRS.MARIA LEISSE,\n\n9. RITA W\/O. LATE ANTONY, AGED 45,\n\n10. ALLEN S\/O. LATE ANTONY,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJU ABRAHAM PULPARA\n\n                For Respondent  :SMT.P.R.LESLIE STEPHEN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :24\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n              K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.\n          ------------------------------------------------\n                   R. S. A. No.130 of 2005\n          ------------------------------------------------\n           Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    The plaintiffs in O.S.1380\/99 on the file<\/p>\n
of the Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam who lost<\/p>\n
their case in the first appellate court as the<\/p>\n
first  appellate        court        reversed            the decree<\/p>\n
passed by the trial court and dismissed the<\/p>\n
suit, have preferred this R.S.A.<\/p>\n
    2. Appellants filed O.S.1380\/99 aforesaid<\/p>\n
for  a  decree       for       partition             and    separate<\/p>\n
possession of their 4\/5 share in the scheduled<\/p>\n
property  alleging             inter          alia        that  the<\/p>\n
scheduled  property            was        purchased         by  one<\/p>\n
Vruschy  who    was       the      mother          of     the first<\/p>\n
plaintiff and mother-in-law of plaintiffs 2, 9<\/p>\n
and 18 as also the first defendant as per<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 sale deed of the year 1957; that the<\/p>\n
said property has got an extent of 11.25 cents<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
      comprised         in Sy. No.1070\/1  of  Cheranallur<\/p>\n
      Village;          that  after   purchase,   Vruschy<\/p>\n
      constructed         a building  in   the scheduled<\/p>\n
      property         which  was   numbered  with   Door<\/p>\n
      No.1536\/47; that after construction of the<\/p>\n
      building her eldest son Raphel alias Peter who<\/p>\n
      was the husband of the first defendant was<\/p>\n
      permitted to reside therein with his family;<\/p>\n
      that Raphel died and his wife and children are<\/p>\n
      defendants 1 to 6 and they continued to reside<\/p>\n
      in the said building with the permission of<\/p>\n
      the plaintiffs; that deceased Vruschy had four<\/p>\n
      sons and one daughter that the children of<\/p>\n
      Vruschy are entitled to get equal shares over<\/p>\n
      the scheduled property and they are co-owners<\/p>\n
      along with the defendants and despite demand<\/p>\n
      for        partition,   the  defendants  were  not<\/p>\n
      agreeable and they also committed waste in the<\/p>\n
      property so as to defeat the interests of the<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005          -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
      plaintiffs and hence, plaintiffs 18 to 20<\/p>\n
      filed O.S.365\/99 seeking prohibitory injunction<\/p>\n
      restraining defendants 1 to 6 from committing<\/p>\n
      acts of waste and alienation of the property<\/p>\n
      and other reliefs; that injunction was granted<\/p>\n
      in the said suit; that even after the said<\/p>\n
      suit,         the  demand of  the plaintiffs for<\/p>\n
      partition of the scheduled property was not<\/p>\n
      acceded to by the defendants and hence, the<\/p>\n
      suit.\n<\/p>\n
              3. Defendants 1 to 10 filed a written<\/p>\n
      statement contending that the first defendant<\/p>\n
      is having exclusive ownership of the scheduled<\/p>\n
      property by virtue of a will executed by<\/p>\n
      Vruschy on 30\/11\/1969; that though Vruschy<\/p>\n
      purchased the scheduled property as per Ext.A1<\/p>\n
      sale          deed,  the  building  therein  was<\/p>\n
      constructed utilising the funds of the first<\/p>\n
      defendant;         that  she  got the   help  of<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005            -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
      Vimalalayam,          a   religious  and   charitable<\/p>\n
      institution at Ernakulam for construction of<\/p>\n
      the       said     building; that   herself and  her<\/p>\n
      husband and children were residing in the said<\/p>\n
      building for which permission of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
      was not required; that the first defendant<\/p>\n
      became          the  absolute   owner  and   was  in<\/p>\n
      possession         and  enjoyment  of  the scheduled<\/p>\n
      property from the date of death of Vruschy;<\/p>\n
      that plaintiffs and defendants 7 to 10 have no<\/p>\n
      right to inherit the scheduled property and<\/p>\n
      they are not co-owners; that they are not<\/p>\n
      committing any act of waste in the property;<\/p>\n
      that the plaintiffs have no cause of action<\/p>\n
      and that the suit has to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
              4. On the above pleadings, the trial<\/p>\n
      court raised necessary issues for trial and<\/p>\n
      after         trial   and  considering  the evidence<\/p>\n
      adduced          at trial  which  consisted of   oral<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005          -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
      evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and DWs.1 and 2 and<\/p>\n
      documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A3 and B1<\/p>\n
      decreed the suit allowing partition of the<\/p>\n
      scheduled property by metes and bounds and<\/p>\n
      allotment of separate possession of plaintiffs<\/p>\n
      4\/5 share in the scheduled property and the<\/p>\n
      building therein. The decree of the trial<\/p>\n
      court was assailed in appeal by defendants 1<\/p>\n
      to 8 filing A.S.121\/02 before the district<\/p>\n
      court,         Ernakulam and  the appellate court<\/p>\n
      allowed the appeal setting aside the decree<\/p>\n
      and judgment passed by the trial court and<\/p>\n
      dismissed the suit. Hence, this R.S.A by the<\/p>\n
      aggrieved plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
              5. It is vehemently contended before me<\/p>\n
      by the learned counsel for the appellants that<\/p>\n
      Ext.B1 will is not genuine and is concocted<\/p>\n
      and the first appellate court should not have<\/p>\n
      upheld the will in which event the property<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005           -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
      would have been partible as has been found by<\/p>\n
      the trial court and that in the circumstances,<\/p>\n
      the trial court decree be restored allowing<\/p>\n
      the       R.S.A   and  that   substantial questions<\/p>\n
      regarding         the  validity  of   the will   as<\/p>\n
      formulated in the appeal memorandum do arise<\/p>\n
      for consideration in this R.S.A. It is also<\/p>\n
      contended          that   there    are   suspicious<\/p>\n
      circumstances attending execution of the will<\/p>\n
      and that the defendants not effecting mutation<\/p>\n
      after 30 years will show that the will was not<\/p>\n
      in existence and was being made up later so as<\/p>\n
      to advance exclusive title over the scheduled<\/p>\n
      property.\n<\/p>\n
              6. I have carefully gone through the<\/p>\n
      judgments of the trial court and the first<\/p>\n
      appellate court. It is not in dispute and it<\/p>\n
      cannot be gainsaid either that if Ext.B1 will<\/p>\n
      is found to be not genuine the scheduled<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005            -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
      property         and  the  building  therein  becomes<\/p>\n
      partible, the plaintiffs and defendants being<\/p>\n
      co-owners on the death of Vruschy intestate.<\/p>\n
      So the material question to be adjudged is the<\/p>\n
      question as to whether Ext.B1 will is genuine<\/p>\n
      or not. In this context as rightly observed by<\/p>\n
      the first appellate court what is to be given<\/p>\n
      utmost           importance  for   considering    the<\/p>\n
      genuineness or otherwise of the will is the<\/p>\n
      evidence tendered by PW3 the first plaintiff<\/p>\n
      and DW2 sister Thresiamma George who was the<\/p>\n
      custodian         of  the  will.  PW3 is   the  first<\/p>\n
      plaintiff. She is the only surviving daughter<\/p>\n
      of deceased Vruschy. The other children of<\/p>\n
      Vruschy were males and are no more. Both PW3<\/p>\n
      and DW2 are of the same age group being aged<\/p>\n
      more than 70 years at the time of tendering<\/p>\n
      the evidence and they were rightly found by<\/p>\n
      the        first    appellate   court  as   competent<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005           -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
      witnesses now available to tell about past<\/p>\n
      events as the other witnesses are not persons<\/p>\n
      who can be said to have knowledge of matters<\/p>\n
      that took place prior to 30 years namely of<\/p>\n
      matters pertaining to period from 1957 onwards<\/p>\n
      and during 1969 when the will was executed.<\/p>\n
              7. Ext.B1 is the copy of the will alleged<\/p>\n
      to      have     been executed  by the Vruschy on<\/p>\n
      30\/11\/69.         First  attestor of the will  is<\/p>\n
      Illiparambil Joseph Mani of Vaduthala and the<\/p>\n
      second attestor is sister Thresiamma George of<\/p>\n
      Vimalalayam. The contention of the respondents<\/p>\n
      is that Ext.B1 was created on a later date by<\/p>\n
      the first defendant and her children to defeat<\/p>\n
      the rights of the respondents. As observed by<\/p>\n
      the first appellate court, it is true that at<\/p>\n
      the         first    blush  there  are  suspicious<\/p>\n
      circumstances surrounding the execution of the<\/p>\n
      will inasmuch as testator has bequeathed the<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005           -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
      property in favour of first defendant the wife<\/p>\n
      of her eldest son Raphel alias Peter at a time<\/p>\n
      when Raphel himself was alive and further that<\/p>\n
      it      is      seen executed  in favour of  first<\/p>\n
      defendant to the exclusion of also three other<\/p>\n
      sons of Vruschy namely Joseph, Varghese and<\/p>\n
      Francis and the one and only daughter of<\/p>\n
      Vruschy namely the first plaintiff. It is true<\/p>\n
      that in the normal course one would not expect<\/p>\n
      the testator executing such a will excluding<\/p>\n
      all her children and executing will to one of<\/p>\n
      the daughters-in-law only. But all the same,<\/p>\n
      the       first    appellate court found that  the<\/p>\n
      reasons for executing the will exclusively to<\/p>\n
      the first defendant were explained also in<\/p>\n
      Ext.B1. Such recitals are to the effect that<\/p>\n
      for purchase of the property covered by the<\/p>\n
      will the first defendant had advanced money.<\/p>\n
      Further with the help of Vimalalayam sisters<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005          -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
      the first defendant constructed the house in<\/p>\n
      the property. The first defendant, her husband<\/p>\n
      Raphel and her children were residing in the<\/p>\n
      property.          Of the  aforesaid reasons, the<\/p>\n
      defendants dispute all the statements except<\/p>\n
      that the first defendant, her husband and her<\/p>\n
      children were residing in the building in the<\/p>\n
      scheduled property. They also point out that<\/p>\n
      in the written statement of defendants 1 to 6<\/p>\n
      they have not advanced contentions supporting<\/p>\n
      such recitals in Ext.B1.\n<\/p>\n
              8. It is worthy to note that despite the<\/p>\n
      fact that Vruschy died in 1971 there was no<\/p>\n
      demand           for partition  advanced  by  the<\/p>\n
      plaintiffs till 1997. Even O.S.365\/99 which<\/p>\n
      was a suit for injunction restraining the<\/p>\n
      defendants from dealing with the property was<\/p>\n
      filed only in 1999 and prior thereto it does<\/p>\n
      not appear that there was any dispute between<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005           -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
      the plaintiffs and the defendants or that the<\/p>\n
      plaintiffs         have  advanced  any demand for<\/p>\n
      partition. It is submitted that the first<\/p>\n
      defendant is the widow of eldest son Raphel<\/p>\n
      that plaintiffs 2 to 8 are L.R.s of Joseph;<\/p>\n
      that plaintiffs 9, 10 and 14 to 17 are L.Rs of<\/p>\n
      Varghese and plaintiffs 18 to 20 are L.Rs of<\/p>\n
      Francis who were all deceased sons of late<\/p>\n
      Vruschy.         The first  plaintiff is the only<\/p>\n
      daughter of Vruschy and she was examined as<\/p>\n
      PW3. She has disputed the existence of will as<\/p>\n
      according to her, Vruschy had told her that<\/p>\n
      she had executed document in her favour. She<\/p>\n
      admitted in cross examination that she has<\/p>\n
      never taken any usufructs from the property<\/p>\n
      nor       has    she  shared  any income from the<\/p>\n
      scheduled property with the defendants though<\/p>\n
      according to her several years back a jack<\/p>\n
      fruit tree was cut and taken by her as it was<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005          -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
      given to her by her mother. She has however<\/p>\n
      denied the signatures seen in Ext.B1 as that<\/p>\n
      of      her      mother. All  the  same,   in  cross<\/p>\n
      examination she said that the first defendant<\/p>\n
      is working in Vimalalayam convent and PW3 used<\/p>\n
      to go to the house of the first defendant and<\/p>\n
      the building in the scheduled property was<\/p>\n
      constructed by the first defendant with the<\/p>\n
      help of Vimalalayam sisters. According to her,<\/p>\n
      there was also a Tharavad house where her<\/p>\n
      father and mother were residing and that was<\/p>\n
      their         Kudikidappu  property.  According   to<\/p>\n
      PW3\/the first plaintiff, her mother used to<\/p>\n
      sign drawing a cross and encircling it and<\/p>\n
      that        aspect   also is   corroborated  by  the<\/p>\n
      testimony of DW2. PW3 also admitted that four<\/p>\n
      cents and house was assigned to the first<\/p>\n
      defendant by her mother. Consequently, PW3<\/p>\n
      limited          her claim for  partition  over  the<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005          -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
      balance seven cents only from out of the<\/p>\n
      plaint schedule property. The admissions so<\/p>\n
      made by PW3 were not attempted to be explained<\/p>\n
      away or clarified in re-examination. It is<\/p>\n
      seen from the judgment of the first appellate<\/p>\n
      court that realising the difficulty with which<\/p>\n
      the defendants were confronted in view of the<\/p>\n
      above evidence, affidavits were caused to be<\/p>\n
      filed by the first plaintiff and the sixth<\/p>\n
      plaintiff who were examined respectively as<\/p>\n
      PW3 and PW1 swearing that during evidence PW3<\/p>\n
      was in an abnormal mental condition as she was<\/p>\n
      a diabetic patient and was suffering from<\/p>\n
      blood pressure and she was examined as a last<\/p>\n
      witness of the day and due to long waiting and<\/p>\n
      strain on her mind she made contradictory<\/p>\n
      statements without any foundation whatsoever<\/p>\n
      and       that    the statements made by  PW3 is<\/p>\n
      erroneous         and against   facts. The  above<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005          -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
      affidavits were filed with the specific view<\/p>\n
      of      explaining    the  admissions  and  contra-<\/p>\n
      dictions brought out in evidence of PW3. As<\/p>\n
      observed         by the first  appellate  court  if<\/p>\n
      actually PW3 was sick and strained she could<\/p>\n
      have requested for time and sought adjournment<\/p>\n
      of the case for her evidence. In fact before<\/p>\n
      examination of PWs.1 and 2 the witness to be<\/p>\n
      examined was PW3 as she was the one who is<\/p>\n
      competent to speak to the facts of the case<\/p>\n
      and not PWs.1 and 2. The affidavits caused to<\/p>\n
      be      filed     by PWs.1  and  3  explaining the<\/p>\n
      mistakes         in cross  examination  cannot  be<\/p>\n
      countenanced        as the   proper  method is   to<\/p>\n
      clarify things in re-examination and that was<\/p>\n
      not resorted to.\n<\/p>\n
              9. As regards the proof of will it has<\/p>\n
      been stated that the first attesting witness<\/p>\n
      Joseph         Mani is  not  examined.  The  second<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005          -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
      attestor DW2 gave evidence in support of the<\/p>\n
      case of the defendants. She is an aged nun and<\/p>\n
      a social worker in Vimalalayam convent at<\/p>\n
      Ernakulam at the relevant time. At the time of<\/p>\n
      tendering evidence she was aged 70 years and<\/p>\n
      was working as mother superior in Mariyalayam<\/p>\n
      convent          at Panangad.  According  to  her,<\/p>\n
      deceased Vruschy was working in Vimalalayam<\/p>\n
      and the first defendant and 18th plaintiff were<\/p>\n
      also       working  there.  She  has  deposed that<\/p>\n
      Ext.B1 was executed by Vruschy in 1969 and it<\/p>\n
      was attested by her and further that the<\/p>\n
      health and mental condition of the testator<\/p>\n
      was good. It is with DW2 that Ext.B1 was<\/p>\n
      entrusted for safe custody and according to<\/p>\n
      DW2 it was only four years back that the<\/p>\n
      document was given to the first defendant.<\/p>\n
      According to DW2, all the children of Vruschy<\/p>\n
      had knowledge of the existence of the will.<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005         -16-<\/span><\/p>\n
      The first appellate court has observed that<\/p>\n
      DW2 is highly educated and is an MSW degree<\/p>\n
      holder and is working as mother superior in a<\/p>\n
      convent. She also knows the first plaintiff<\/p>\n
      and       DW2    is one who   is having love  and<\/p>\n
      affection towards members of the family and<\/p>\n
      deceased Vruschy. The plaintiffs could not<\/p>\n
      attribute any malafides or ill-will in DW2 so<\/p>\n
      as to tender false evidence favouring the<\/p>\n
      defendants. According to DW2, Vruschy put her<\/p>\n
      signature by drawing a cross and encircling it<\/p>\n
      and the shape of the signature of the testator<\/p>\n
      is spoken to as being in that fashion by PW3<\/p>\n
      as well. In view of the relationship DW2<\/p>\n
      maintained         with Vruschy  and  her  family<\/p>\n
      members, it is quite probable that Vruschy<\/p>\n
      preferred DW2 as one of the attestors. There<\/p>\n
      is no merit in the contention that the first<\/p>\n
      defendant was preferred by Vruschy to her own<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005          -17-<\/span><\/p>\n
      son Raphel who is the husband of the first<\/p>\n
      defendant. When Ext.B1 will is executed in<\/p>\n
      favour of the first defendant who is the wife<\/p>\n
      of the eldest son of Vruschy the benefit<\/p>\n
      obviously goes to her son and his children<\/p>\n
      through          the first defendant.  As rightly<\/p>\n
      observed by the first appellate court, there<\/p>\n
      was no reason for the trial court having<\/p>\n
      ignored the evidence of PW3 and DW2 which if<\/p>\n
      properly appreciated would have enabled the<\/p>\n
      court to believe their testimony and to uphold<\/p>\n
      the       genuineness   of  Ext.B1  will. PW1  as<\/p>\n
      observed by the first appellate court is aged<\/p>\n
      only 41 years and obviously he has no direct<\/p>\n
      knowledge about anything which is relevant for<\/p>\n
      adjudication of the matters in issue. Her<\/p>\n
      evidence is only on hearsay and has therefore,<\/p>\n
      only to be discarded except on matters within<\/p>\n
      her direct knowledge when she deposed that the<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005           -18-<\/span><\/p>\n
      first defendant and family were residing in<\/p>\n
      the building ever after its purchase and that<\/p>\n
      Vruschy          and  her husband  were  residing  in<\/p>\n
      another          building.  PW2  is   a   Corporation<\/p>\n
      Councilor. He claims that he was a mediator in<\/p>\n
      the dispute between the plaintiffs and the<\/p>\n
      defendants and according to him, the existence<\/p>\n
      of the will was not told to him. The first<\/p>\n
      appellate          court has  rightly  discarded  his<\/p>\n
      testimony as he is a C.P.M activist whereas<\/p>\n
      DW1 the second defendant is an office bearer<\/p>\n
      of      the      Congress Party  and  obviously   his<\/p>\n
      evidence will be interested and prejudiced.<\/p>\n
              10. The contention advanced before me<\/p>\n
      that the original of the will is not produced<\/p>\n
      but only a photostat copy thereof is produced<\/p>\n
      and       therefore,     it should   not  have   been<\/p>\n
      accepted for adjudicating the genuineness is<\/p>\n
      also not of merit in the circumstances as<\/p>\n
R. S. A. No.130 of 2005       -19-<\/span><\/p>\n
      observed by the first appellate court. The<\/p>\n
      original will was very much available before<\/p>\n
      the trial court in O.S.365\/99 filed by the<\/p>\n
      plaintiffs 18 to 20 and at the time of trial<\/p>\n
      if at all any of the parties wanted to have it<\/p>\n
      brought for consideration in O.S.1380\/99 that<\/p>\n
      could have been called for. The non-probating<\/p>\n
      of the will set up in defence without it<\/p>\n
      having been probated is also no infirmity.<\/p>\n
      There is thus, no merit in this R.S.A and no<\/p>\n
      question of law and much less any substantial<\/p>\n
      question of law arises for consideration in<\/p>\n
      this R.S.A.\n<\/p>\n
              11. In the result, I dismiss this R.S.A<\/p>\n
      in limine refusing admission.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
\n                                                JUDGE
\n      kns\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mary vs Saleena on 24 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 130 of 2005() 1. MARY, W\/O. LATE OUSEPH PETER, AGED 72, … Petitioner 2. K.A.ELIZABETH, W\/O.LATE JOSEPH, 3. T.J.ANTONY, S\/O. LATE JOSEPH, 4. T.J.AUGUSTINE JOHN, 5. T.J.LOURD, D\/O. LATE JOSEPH, AGED 38, 6. T.J.MARY, D\/O. LATE […]<\/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-240685","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMary vs Saleena on 24 June, 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\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mary vs Saleena on 24 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-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=\"2008-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-17T19:45:11+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mary vs Saleena on 24 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-17T19:45:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2777,\"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\\\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Mary vs Saleena on 24 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-17T19:45:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mary vs Saleena on 24 June, 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":"Mary vs Saleena on 24 June, 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\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mary vs Saleena on 24 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-17T19:45:11+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mary vs Saleena on 24 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-17T19:45:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008"},"wordCount":2777,"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\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008","name":"Mary vs Saleena on 24 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-17T19:45:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mary-vs-saleena-on-24-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mary vs Saleena on 24 June, 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\/240685","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=240685"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240685\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}