{"id":24324,"date":"2009-06-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-23T16:03:19","modified_gmt":"2016-01-23T10:33:19","slug":"malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Malayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Malayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRFA.No. 61 of 2004()\n\n\n1. MALAYIL SREEDHARAN, S\/O.IMBICHAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. MALAYIL SAROJINI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.SAIDALAVI, S\/O.KANNANARI MUHAMMED\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. MALAYIL RAVEENDRAN, S\/O.MALAYIL IMBICHAN\n\n3. MALAYIL AMMUKUTTY, D\/O.IMBICHAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :11\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                 P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.\n                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                 R.F.A. NO. 61\/2004, F.A.O. 143\/2005 &\n                           R.F.A. 584 & 585\/2007\n               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n            DATED THIS, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2009.\n\n                              J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Bhavadasan, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Three suits namely, O.S. Nos. 69\/2000, 285\/2000 & 415\/2001 on the<\/p>\n
file of the IInd Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode were disposed of by a<\/p>\n
common judgment. The court below dismissed O.S. 415\/2001, which was<\/p>\n
one for injunction.   A preliminary decree was passed in O.S. 69\/2000<\/p>\n
which was one for partition and O.S. 285\/2000 was decreed with costs<\/p>\n
enabling the plaintiff in that suit to recover money on the basis of an<\/p>\n
agreement. R.F.A. 61\/2004 is directed against the judgment and decree in<\/p>\n
O.S. 285\/2000 by    Defendants 3 and 4 in that suit.      R.F.A. 584\/2007 is<\/p>\n
directed against the judgment and decree in O.S. 69\/2000 by Defendants<\/p>\n
2,4,5 and 6. R.F.A. 585\/2007 is directed against the decision rendered in<\/p>\n
O.S. 415\/2001 and the appellant is the sole plaintiff in the said suit.<\/p>\n
      2. In the suit for partition, plaintiff claimed that she is the legal heir<\/p>\n
of one Balakrishnan along with the first defendant in the said suit.       The<\/p>\n
R.F.A. 61\/04, RFA 584 & 585\/07 &
\n F.A.O. 143\/2005                       :2:\n<\/p>\n
defendants in the partition suit set up an oral partition and contended that<\/p>\n
Item No.1 of plaint B schedule property was jointly acquired by deceased<\/p>\n
Balakrishnan and the 2nd defendant in the said suit. Item No.2 of plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule was also belonged to Balakrishnan.       Plaintiff disputed the oral<\/p>\n
partition set up by the defendants and claimed right along with the<\/p>\n
defendant in the suit, consequent on the death of Balakrishnan. O.S.<\/p>\n
415\/2001 is a suit filed by the defendant in the partition suit for injunction<\/p>\n
against the plaintiff in the partition suit. That was dismissed by the court<\/p>\n
below. O.S. 285\/2000 was one for return of the balance sale consideration<\/p>\n
with interest. The plaintiff therein alleged that in respect of the property<\/p>\n
owned by Balakrishnan, an agreement for sale was executed by his legally<\/p>\n
constituted power of attorney – the first defendant and the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
advance amount was received by Balakrishnan. That was also decreed. In<\/p>\n
the partition suit, a preliminary decree was passed.<\/p>\n
       3. As far as the partition suit is concerned, even before this Court,<\/p>\n
there is no dispute regarding the shares available to each of the parties and<\/p>\n
the only dispute is regarding the oral partition set up by the defendants in<\/p>\n
the suit for partition. That was found against the defendants. Even before<\/p>\n
this Court, the defendants in the partition suit were unable to justify the<\/p>\n
claim for oral partition.    Before this Court, it is pointed out that the<\/p>\n
R.F.A. 61\/04, RFA 584 & 585\/07 &
\n F.A.O. 143\/2005                       :3:\n<\/p>\n
appellants in R.F.A. 584\/2007 (appeal arising from the partition suit) have<\/p>\n
claimed reservation in respect of the property jointly owned by<\/p>\n
Balakrishnan, the plaintiff and the first defendant and contended that she<\/p>\n
had put up the building standing in the property by spending her own funds<\/p>\n
and that was excluded from the oral partition between Balakrishnan and the<\/p>\n
defendant. The court below has already noticed and refused to accept the<\/p>\n
said contention. But as far as possible, the building situated in the property<\/p>\n
can be alloted to the share of the second defendant in equity. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
in the partition suit admits that half share of the building can be set apart to<\/p>\n
the share of the defendants in the said suit. There is no dispute regarding<\/p>\n
the shares in the movables in the partition suit.\n<\/p>\n
       4. All what is to be done is that as far as possible the portion of the<\/p>\n
property where the building is situated may be allotted to the share of the<\/p>\n
second defendant in the partition suit and on valuation of the building by a<\/p>\n
commissioner, half the value of the building may be paid to the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
the suit. It is pointed out that the plaintiff in the partition suit is entitled to<\/p>\n
1\/6th share of the value of the building. It is made clear that half of the<\/p>\n
value of the building to be shared equally between the other sharers in the<\/p>\n
partition suit.<\/p>\n
\nR.F.A. 61\/04, RFA 584 & 585\/07 &
\n F.A.O. 143\/2005                     :4:\n<\/p>\n
       5. As far as R.F.A. 61\/2004 is concerned, the main contention taken<\/p>\n
is that the agreement based on which recovery of money is sought for, is a<\/p>\n
forged and fabricated one (Ext. B1 document).         The plaintiff in O.S.<\/p>\n
285\/2000 relied on Exts. B1 and B2 documents in support of his contention<\/p>\n
for recovery of advance amount paid by him. Even though it is disputed by<\/p>\n
the contesting defendants, the court below found in favour of the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
that suit. Learned counsel for the appellants was unable to substantiate his<\/p>\n
contention against the finding of the court below in this regard and it is<\/p>\n
only to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
       6. In the light of the decree in O.S. 69\/2000 the court below was<\/p>\n
perfectly justified in dismissing O.S. 415\/2001. No ground is made out to<\/p>\n
interfere with the judgment and decree under appeal.       Therefore, R.F.A.<\/p>\n
585\/2007 stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
              7. F.A.O. 143\/2005 is directed agaisnt the order dated 7.4.2005<\/p>\n
in E.A. 126\/2005 in E..A. 1235\/2004 in E.P. 205\/2003 in O.S. 285\/2000.<\/p>\n
By the said order, the court below reviewed its earlier order dated<\/p>\n
29.1.2005. It appears that the decree was obtained by the first respondent<\/p>\n
against the defendants in O.S. 285\/2000 for return of advance amount<\/p>\n
which is claimed to have been paid to Balakrishnan in pursuance of an<\/p>\n
agreement for sale and that decree was put in execution.          During the<\/p>\n
R.F.A. 61\/04, RFA 584 & 585\/07 &
\n F.A.O. 143\/2005                      :5:\n<\/p>\n
execution proceedings, the appellant before this Court entered appearance<\/p>\n
and filed E.A. 1235\/2004 pointing out that deceased Balakrishnan had<\/p>\n
deposits in various banks and the amount in deposit in O.S. 69\/2000 may<\/p>\n
be called for to O.S. 285\/2000, which was allowed                 On a review<\/p>\n
application filed by Respondents 2 and 3 in the E.P, the said order was<\/p>\n
reviewed as per      order in E.A. 126\/2005 and the court below ordered<\/p>\n
transmission of the amount to the credit of O.S. 69\/2000. In the light of the<\/p>\n
fact that amounts due to late Balakrishnan from various Banks are in court<\/p>\n
deposit nothing more is to be considered by the court below. The         review<\/p>\n
petition has become infructuous and it is only to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n       In the result,\n\n(I)    R.F.A. 858\/2007 is dismissed.\n\n(II)   In R.F.A. 584 of 2007,\n\n       (a)    Preliminary decree passed by the court below is confirmed\n\n              subject to\n\n       (i)    Half share in the building shall be set apart to the second\n\n              defendant in the suit.\n\n<\/pre>\n
       (ii)   If possible, the portion of the property where the building<\/p>\n
              situates may be set apart to the share of second defendant.<\/p>\n
       (iii) If so allotted, share of the plaintiff in the value of the building<\/p>\n
R.F.A. 61\/04, RFA 584 & 585\/07 &
\n F.A.O. 143\/2005                       :6:\n<\/p>\n
              as assessed by the court below shall be paid.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
       (iv)   It is made clear that the share of others in the building shall be<\/p>\n
              equal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (v).   The preliminary decree as regards movables is confirmed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
III.   R.F.A. 61of 2004 stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
IV.    F.A.O. 143 of 2005 is disposed of as infructuous, since the order in<\/p>\n
the review petition before the court below has become infructuous.<\/p>\n
 The appeals are disposed of as above. In the circumstances, there will be<\/p>\n
no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                       P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
KNC\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Malayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RFA.No. 61 of 2004() 1. MALAYIL SREEDHARAN, S\/O.IMBICHAN, … Petitioner 2. MALAYIL SAROJINI, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, Vs 1. K.SAIDALAVI, S\/O.KANNANARI MUHAMMED … Respondent 2. MALAYIL RAVEENDRAN, S\/O.MALAYIL IMBICHAN 3. MALAYIL AMMUKUTTY, D\/O.IMBICHAN, For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED […]<\/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-24324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMalayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 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\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Malayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-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=\"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-23T10:33:19+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Malayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-23T10:33:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1180,\"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\\\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Malayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-23T10:33:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Malayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 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":"Malayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 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\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Malayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-23T10:33:19+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Malayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-23T10:33:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009"},"wordCount":1180,"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\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009","name":"Malayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-23T10:33:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayil-sreedharan-vs-k-saidalavi-on-11-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Malayil Sreedharan vs K.Saidalavi on 11 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\/24324","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=24324"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24324\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}