{"id":243451,"date":"2010-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010"},"modified":"2014-12-08T00:13:03","modified_gmt":"2014-12-07T18:43:03","slug":"sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP(C).No. 172 of 2010(O)\n\n\n1. SUJATHAN, S\/O.EZHAPILLY APPU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. UNNIKRISHNAN S\/O   -DO-\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SOOSI, W\/O.KUNDUPARAMBIL XAVIER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :03\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                           --------------------------------------\n                             O.P.(C) No.172 of 2010\n                           --------------------------------------\n                   Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2010.\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.741 of 2001 of the court of learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff, Irinjalakuda are the petitioners before me. Respondent, in the year<\/p>\n
2001 instituted a suit for fixation of the southern and western boundary of her<\/p>\n
property and for consequential reliefs. Petitioners while resisting the suit made a<\/p>\n
counter claim for recovery of possession of property described in the counter<\/p>\n
claim as B schedule alleging that the said portion belonged to the petitioners<\/p>\n
and was trespassed upon by the respondent. Though the suit was instituted in<\/p>\n
the year 2001 still the parties are lingering around reports and plans submitted<\/p>\n
by the Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor, there having been remissions<\/p>\n
several times and some of the orders being called in question in this Court also<\/p>\n
in     earlier proceedings.             Challenge now is at the instance of<\/p>\n
petitioners\/defendant Nos.1 and 2to the latest reports and plan submitted by<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.     As per plaint schedule description and the plaint averments<\/p>\n
respondent claimed right, title and possession of 69 = cents in survey No.762\/4<\/p>\n
as per document No.2762 of 1992 and, stated to be bounded by road on the<\/p>\n
north, lane on the east and properties of the petitioners on the south and west.<\/p>\n
OP(C)No.172\/2010<\/p>\n
                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
Petitioners   alleged    that respondent destroyed      existing boundaries on the<\/p>\n
southern and western sides of her property. Petitioners claimed right, title and<\/p>\n
interest over 48 cents in survey No.762\/2 a per document Nos.128 and 1636 of<\/p>\n
1964 and described the said property as A schedule in the counter claim. B<\/p>\n
schedule according to them is part of the A schedule in the counter claim<\/p>\n
allegedly trespassed upon and taken forcible possession by the respondent. B<\/p>\n
schedule in the counter claim is a bit of land having width of 3 = links and length<\/p>\n
of 57.8 links described as situated on the west of property of respondent and, in<\/p>\n
continuation of that bit of land, yet another bit of land having width of one metre<\/p>\n
and length of 12.5 links on the south of property of respondent.<\/p>\n
       3.     Initially the  Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of         a<\/p>\n
surveyor submitted Ext.P4, report and plan.            Respondent requested for<\/p>\n
remission of that report and plan as per Ext.P5 (I.A.No.398 of 2003) and<\/p>\n
rejecting the objection of petitioners that request was allowed as per order dated<\/p>\n
26.11.2004.    Ext.P7 series are the reports and plans submitted after such<\/p>\n
remission. Respondent then filed I.A.No.392 of 2006 (Ext.P8) to set aside<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 series, report and plan. That application was dismissed as per Ext.P10,<\/p>\n
order dated 15.02.2006. While taking evidence in the case learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
passed Ext.P11, order dated 29.03.2006 remitting Ext.P4 and Ext.P7 series,<\/p>\n
reports and plans to the same Commissioner. Respondent challenged that order<\/p>\n
in this Court in W.P.(C) No.20725 of 2006 and Ext.P11, order was set aside as<\/p>\n
per Ext.P12, judgment of this Court to the extent that learned Munsiff was<\/p>\n
OP(C)No.172\/2010<\/p>\n
                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
directed to decide whether       remission should be      to the same Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner or a fresh Commissioner has to be appointed. In the light of that<\/p>\n
direction respondent filed Ext.P13 (I.A.No.1321 of 2007) to appoint a new<\/p>\n
Commissioner (for inspection and report pursuant to order of remission dated<\/p>\n
29.03.2006). That was objected by petitioners as per Ext.P14. But learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff vide order dated 06.10.2007 appointed a new Advocate Commissioner<\/p>\n
for carrying out the work pursuant to order of remission dated 29.03.2006.   That<\/p>\n
Commissioner       submitted Ext.P16, report and Ext.P17 series, plans after<\/p>\n
measurement of the property with the assistance of a Surveyor. Petitioners filed<\/p>\n
Ext.P20 (I.A.No.3814 of 2009) to set aside Ext.P16 and Ext.P17 series. On that<\/p>\n
application, Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor were examined as CW1 and<\/p>\n
CW2. Learned Munsiff dismissed Ext.P20, application as per Ext.P23, order<\/p>\n
which is under challenge in this petition.       Learned counsel for petitioners<\/p>\n
contend that Ext.P16 and Ext.P17 series prima facie are unacceptable for the<\/p>\n
reason that even as per        plaint schedule description, the suit   property is<\/p>\n
bounded by road on the north and lane on the east. But Ext.P17 series show<\/p>\n
that lane is on the west of the suit property which the Advocate Commissioner<\/p>\n
and Surveyor were not able to clarify. According to the learned counsel Ext.P16<\/p>\n
and Ext.P17 series suffer from inherent defect as above stated. A further<\/p>\n
contention that learned counsel advanced is that the order dated 06.10.2007<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Munsiff appointing a new Commissioner is vitiated by<\/p>\n
procedural irregularity in that it amounts to calling for a fresh report and plan<\/p>\n
without setting aside the earlier reports and plans. Learned counsel has placed<\/p>\n
OP(C)No.172\/2010<\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Swami Premananda<\/p>\n
Bharathi v. Swami Yogananda Bharathi<\/a> (1985 KLT 144) where it<\/p>\n
has been held that appointment of a second Commissioner without setting aside<\/p>\n
proceedings and report of the first Commissioner is not legal or proper. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for respondent contends that there is no merit in the objection raised by<\/p>\n
petitioners nor     in the request to set aside Ext.P16 and Ext.P17 series.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel states that it is clear from the evidence of CW2, Surveyor that<\/p>\n
he has not shown any lane on the west of the suit property and what is shown<\/p>\n
like a gap on the west of the suit property is part of property belonging to the<\/p>\n
petitioners. It is contended that the objection based on the decision in Swami<\/p>\n
Premananda Bharathi v. Swami Yogananda Bharathi<\/a> (referred<\/p>\n
supra) has no legs to stand since it is not a case of a fresh report being called for<\/p>\n
but, as part of order remitting Ext.P4 and Ext.P7 series a new Commissioner has<\/p>\n
been appointed in place of Advocate Commissioner who had submitted Ext.P4<\/p>\n
and Ext.P7 series and that being in tune with the judgment of this Court in W.P.<\/p>\n
(C) No.20725 of 2006 cannot be assailed by the petitioners in this proceedings.<\/p>\n
       4.      I shall refer to the second limb of the argument advanced by<\/p>\n
learned counsel for petitioner based on the decision in Swami Premananda<\/p>\n
Bharathi v. Swami Yogananda Bharathi. There,<\/a> it has been held that<\/p>\n
appointment of a second Commissioner without setting aside proceedings and<\/p>\n
report of the first Commissioner is not legal or proper. That decision has to be<\/p>\n
OP(C)No.172\/2010<\/p>\n
                                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
understood on the facts of the case where, in respect of the same matter and<\/p>\n
without setting aside the report of first Commissioner, again a report was called<\/p>\n
for through another Commissioner. The Division Bench said that the procedure<\/p>\n
is illegal since without setting aside the first report the court cannot call for a<\/p>\n
second report on the same facts and materials. This Court has held in K.L.D.<\/p>\n
& M.M. Board Ltd. v. Achuthan (2001 (2) KLT 440)                            that even<\/p>\n
without setting aside the first report it is within the power of court to to appoint a<\/p>\n
second commission to collect more details. Here is a case where as per order<\/p>\n
dated 29.03.2006 (Ext.P11) learned Munsiff while taking evidence in the case<\/p>\n
ordered that Ext.P4 and Ext.P7 series are to be ‘remitted’ to the same<\/p>\n
Commissioner for further report. There could be no doubt that it is within the<\/p>\n
power of court to remit       a report, notwithstanding that none of the parties<\/p>\n
objected to it if for any reason the court is dissatisfied with the proceedings of<\/p>\n
the Commissioner (See Rule 10(3) of               Order XXVI of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure). I must also bear in mind that Ext.P11, order was not challenged by<\/p>\n
petitioners.   Respondent challenged Ext.P11, order only to the extent it<\/p>\n
concerned      appointment of the         same     Commissioner to conduct further<\/p>\n
inspection and submit report following the remission of Ext.P4 and Ext.P7 series.<\/p>\n
What was therefore in issue in W.P.(C) No.20725 of 2006 filed by petitioners<\/p>\n
against Ext.P11, order was only whether              learned Munsiff was justified in<\/p>\n
appointing the same Commissioner (who had submitted Ext.P4 and Ext.P7<\/p>\n
series) or whether in the light of the reports already submitted by the Advocate<\/p>\n
OP(C)No.172\/2010<\/p>\n
                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
Commissioner concerned, learned Munsiff ought to have appointed another<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner to carry out work as per the order of remission dated<\/p>\n
29.03.2006. It was argued before this Court in W.P.(C) No.20725 of 2006 that<\/p>\n
no purpose will be served by deputing the very same Advocate Commissioner<\/p>\n
pursuant to the order of remission dated 29.03.2006. This Court found merit in<\/p>\n
that argument and directed that learned Munsiff shall decide whether it is<\/p>\n
appropriate to appoint a new Commissioner or the               same     Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner has to be appointed. It is thereafter that respondent filed Ext.P13<\/p>\n
(I.A.No.1321 of 2007) to appoint a new Commissioner. That was not for the<\/p>\n
purpose of calling for a fresh report notwithstanding that Ext.P4 and Ext.P7<\/p>\n
series, but as far as I can understand was only to              appoint another<\/p>\n
Commissioner in tune with the observation made by this Court in Ext.P12,<\/p>\n
judgment.     It is accordingly that the present Advocate Commissioner was<\/p>\n
appointed as per order dated 06.10.2007 and it remains that what the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner has done with the assistance of Surveyor is only to carry out the<\/p>\n
direction of learned Munsiff while ordering remission of Ext.P4 and Ext.P7 series<\/p>\n
as per order dated 29.03.2006. I am therefore unable to accept the argument<\/p>\n
that learned Munsiff has called for a fresh report in respect of the same matter<\/p>\n
without setting aside Ext.P4 and Ext.P7 series. In that view of mine, the decision<\/p>\n
in Swami Premananda Bharathi v. Swami Yogananda Bharathi<\/a><\/p>\n
relied  on by learned counsel for petitioners has no application and that<\/p>\n
argument has to fail.\n<\/p>\n
OP(C)No.172\/2010<\/p>\n
                                         7<\/span><\/p>\n
        5.     The next question is whether objection raised by petitioners to<\/p>\n
Ext.P16 and Ext.P17 series is tenable. I referred to the chequered career this<\/p>\n
case had in the matter of reports and plans submitted by Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioners and that a simple suit for fixation of boundary or as claimed by<\/p>\n
petitioners for recovery of possession of B schedule in the counter claim filed in<\/p>\n
the year 2001 still is in the course of consideration of          reports and plans<\/p>\n
submitted by Advocate Commissioner. Of course, lapse of time is no ground to<\/p>\n
reject the objection raised by petitioners if it is otherwise tenable.  I have taken<\/p>\n
through Ext.P16 and Ext.P17 series. Objection raised by petitioners is that while<\/p>\n
in the plaint schedule suit property is described as bounded by road on the west<\/p>\n
and lane on the east, Ext.P17 series give a different picture in that        lane is<\/p>\n
shown as on the west of the suit property which is in contradiction         with the<\/p>\n
boundary description which I have just stated above. Looking at Ext.P7 series it<\/p>\n
may appear to be so. In Ext.P16, paragraph No.2 last, Advocate Commissioner<\/p>\n
has reported that along the east of suit property there is a lane leading to the<\/p>\n
property of petitioners.   What is relied on by learned counsel for petitioners is<\/p>\n
Ext.P17, series (see Ext.P17(a) where a small gap is shown on the western side<\/p>\n
of the property identified as plaint schedule property. In Ext.P7(b) the Surveyor<\/p>\n
has shown a similar small gap on the east of the suit property originating from<\/p>\n
road on the north). Looking at Ext.P17(a) as I stated it may prima facie appear<\/p>\n
that the lane is shown on the west of the suit property but CW2, Surveyor has<\/p>\n
clarified in his evidence that he has not shown any lane on the west of the suit<\/p>\n
property and that what appears like a lane on the west of the suit property is part<\/p>\n
OP(C)No.172\/2010<\/p>\n
                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
of property of petitioners. So far as the northern boundary of the suit property<\/p>\n
is concerned, there is no dispute in that in Ext.P17 series it is shown as the road.<\/p>\n
In the light of clarification given by CW2, Surveyor I do not find merit in the<\/p>\n
objection of petitioners. That objection also has to fail. After all, report and plan<\/p>\n
submitted by Advocate Commissioner is only a piece of evidence. Learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff has to decide the case on evidence of course taking into account the<\/p>\n
reports and plans and other evidence on record, as well.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                 THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                          Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP(C).No. 172 of 2010(O) 1. SUJATHAN, S\/O.EZHAPILLY APPU, … Petitioner 2. UNNIKRISHNAN S\/O -DO- Vs 1. SOOSI, W\/O.KUNDUPARAMBIL XAVIER, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN For Respondent :SRI.P.SREEKUMAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :03\/11\/2010 O R […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-243451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010 - 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\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-07T18:43:03+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-07T18:43:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2066,\"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\\\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Sujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-07T18:43:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Sujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010 - 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\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-07T18:43:03+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-07T18:43:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010"},"wordCount":2066,"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\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010","name":"Sujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-07T18:43:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sujathan-vs-soosi-on-3-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sujathan vs Soosi on 3 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/243451","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=243451"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243451\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}