{"id":249020,"date":"2010-09-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-02T20:57:50","modified_gmt":"2017-10-02T15:27:50","slug":"ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ezhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan … on 20 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ezhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan … on 20 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 19042 of 2010(O)\n\n\n1. EZHUVATH RAJAN MENON,\"SREEVALSAM\",\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KAKATT MANAKKAL NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. KAKKATT MANAKKAL SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOOTHIRI\n\n3. EZHUVATH JAYASREE,C\/O.RAGHAVAMARAR,\n\n4. NILAMBUR KOVILAKAM REPRESENTED BY\n\n5. SMT.SULOCHANA AMMA,W\/O.E.P.NARAYANAN\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.C<\/a>HANDRASEKHAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :20\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                    THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n            ====================================\n                     W.P(C) No.19042 of 2010\n            ====================================\n          Dated this the 20th  day of September,    2010\n\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      This Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P3, common order<\/p>\n
passed by the learned Sub Judge, Manjeri to the extent it<\/p>\n
concerned I.A. Nos.2016 and 2091 of 2009 and 338 of 2010.<\/p>\n
Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendant as in the trial<\/p>\n
court for convenience.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 who claimed to be Poojaris of a<\/p>\n
private temple filed the suit for direction to entrust the articles in<\/p>\n
their possession (belonging to the temple)      to the real owner of<\/p>\n
the said temple. Plaintiffs proceeded on the basis that defendant<\/p>\n
Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the temple which belonged to a<\/p>\n
Kovilakam of which defendant Nos.1 and 2 are also members.<\/p>\n
While the suit was pending respondent No.5 who is not a party to<\/p>\n
the proceeding filed I.A. Nos.1468 and 1469 of 2009 to implead<\/p>\n
her as additional defendant No.4 and to appoint her as guardian of<\/p>\n
the Idol. Defendant No.2 on his part filed I.A.No.2016 of 2009 to<\/p>\n
appoint him as guardian of the Idol. In the meantime plaintiffs<\/p>\n
filed I.A. No.2091 of 2009 to appoint a court guardian for the idol.<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.19042 of 2010
\n                                  -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Learned Sub Judge framed an issue as additional No.3 whether<\/p>\n
the temple in question is a public temple. Defendant No.2 filed<\/p>\n
I.A. No.338 of 2010 to delete that issue since according to him no<\/p>\n
such issue arose from the pleadings of the parties. Learned Sub<\/p>\n
Judge considered the applications and disposed of the same by<\/p>\n
Ext.P3, common order; I.A. No.2091 of 2009 was allowed and a<\/p>\n
court guardian was appointed for the Idol. All other applications<\/p>\n
were dismissed. Defendant No.2 is aggrieved by the order on the<\/p>\n
applications first above mentioned.            Plaintiffs have not<\/p>\n
challenged the orders against them.       It is argued by learned<\/p>\n
counsel for defendant No.2 that on the pleadings of parties no<\/p>\n
issue regarding     public nature of the temple arose and hence<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge was wrong in framing an issue regarding that<\/p>\n
as issue No.3.     It is also contended that in the light of the<\/p>\n
pleadings and admitted facts defendant No.2 being the person<\/p>\n
most competent to represent the temple should have been<\/p>\n
appointed as guardian of the Idol. Learned counsel contended<\/p>\n
that finding of the learned Sub Judge that defendant No.2 has<\/p>\n
interest conflicting with that of the temple and Idol is erroneous.<\/p>\n
It is therefore prayed that I.A. Nos.2016 of 2009 and 338 of 2010<\/p>\n
be allowed. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has contended<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.19042 of 2010
\n                                  -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
that even on the face of the plaint averments an issue regarding<\/p>\n
public nature of the temple was required and hence there is no<\/p>\n
reason to delete the issue regarding that. It is contended that<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 was not competent to represent the Idol even on<\/p>\n
the pleadings he has raised in the written statement and hence<\/p>\n
there is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge.<\/p>\n
      3.    I have been taken through the pleadings of parties.<\/p>\n
Exhibit P1 is the copy of the plaint.         Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
respondent No.5 has placed reliance on the averments in<\/p>\n
paragraph 3 of the plaint. What is stated in paragraph 3 is that<\/p>\n
the temple which is in existence from time immemorial belonged<\/p>\n
to  Nilambur Kovilakam (of which defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are<\/p>\n
members) and that           the temple is vested with          Shri<\/p>\n
C.N.Udayavarman Tirumulpad as if it is a family temple and after<\/p>\n
his death it devolved with defendant Nos.1 and 2 as his legal<\/p>\n
heirs. It was pleaded in O.S. No.84 of 2005 (filed by respondent<\/p>\n
No.5 and others) that temple belonged      to the family and it was<\/p>\n
so found. But, later, to manage affairs of the temple defendants<\/p>\n
sought the assistance of the devotees and accordingly a Temple<\/p>\n
Welfare Committee was formed with defendant No.2 as its<\/p>\n
President to assist other defendants.       Defendant No.1 in her<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.19042 of 2010
\n                                -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
written statement claimed that     temple is a family temple and<\/p>\n
that it is not a public temple (obviously in answer to the<\/p>\n
statement in the plaint that    Temple Welfare Committee was<\/p>\n
formed to assist defendant No.2 to manage the temple). She<\/p>\n
claimed that temple is under the ultimate control of herself and<\/p>\n
defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 also raised similar contentions.<\/p>\n
Different was not the contentions raised by defendant No.3 as<\/p>\n
well.  When respondent No.5 filed I.A. Nos.1468 and 1469 of<\/p>\n
2009 she raised certain contentions as to the ownership of the<\/p>\n
temple in denial of    claim made by defendant Nos.1 and 2.<\/p>\n
However, learned Sub Judge has dismissed I.A. Nos.1468 and<\/p>\n
1469 of 2009 and refused to implead respondent No.5 as an<\/p>\n
additional defendant in the suit.    It follows that there is no<\/p>\n
pleadings on the side of respondent No.5 to be taken into account<\/p>\n
for framing issue.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   What remained is only whether from the averments in<\/p>\n
the plant which I have referred to above that to assist defendants<\/p>\n
to manage affairs of the temple a Temple Welfare Committee<\/p>\n
was formed with the assistance of devotees and that defendant<\/p>\n
No.2 is its President, it could be said that temple is public in<\/p>\n
nature. The mere fact that contributions are received from the<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.19042 of 2010
\n                                   -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
devotees and they are permitted to offer worship in the temple<\/p>\n
cannot convert a private temple to a public temple. I am not<\/p>\n
satisfied that there is any plea which required learned Sub Judge<\/p>\n
to frame an issue regarding the public nature of the temple. In<\/p>\n
the circumstances learned Sub Judge was not correct in framing<\/p>\n
issue No.3. That issue has necessarily to go. But I make it clear<\/p>\n
that if any question as to the public nature of the temple   arises<\/p>\n
in the pleadings in future it will be open to the learned Sub Judge<\/p>\n
to consider that and frame appropriate issue then.<\/p>\n
       5.   The next question is whether defendant No.2 should<\/p>\n
be permitted to represent the temple or as the learned Sub Judge<\/p>\n
has done a court guardian should represent the Idol. If there is<\/p>\n
any person competent to represent the Idol as guardian it is not<\/p>\n
necessary to appoint a court guardian. So far respondent No.5 is<\/p>\n
concerned learned Sub Judge has rejected her claim to be<\/p>\n
guardian of    the Idol for the reason that she has an interest<\/p>\n
conflicting with that of temple as revealed from the fact she has<\/p>\n
filed O.S. No.84 of 2005 claiming right         of access through<\/p>\n
properly of temple and that was found against. Respondent No.5<\/p>\n
has not challenged dismissal of I.A. No.1469 of 2009. Hence the<\/p>\n
claim made by respondent No.5 no more survives.<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.19042 of 2010
\n                                  -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
       6.    Coming to the claim of defendant No.2, learned Sub<\/p>\n
Judge has rejected his claim since he was a party in O.S. No.84<\/p>\n
of 2005. It is not very much in dispute that there was a partition<\/p>\n
in the Kovilakam as per which the temple was allotted to the<\/p>\n
share of C.N. Udayavarman Tirumulpad, predecessor-in-interest of<\/p>\n
defendant Nos.1 and 2. Question of acceptability of the partition<\/p>\n
if it arises from pleadings is a matter which learned Sub Judge<\/p>\n
has to decide at the appropriate stage. I stated that it is not<\/p>\n
disputed that temple belonged to the Kovilakam of which<\/p>\n
defendant No.2 is admittedly a member. Only reason on which<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge has disqualified defendant No.2 from being<\/p>\n
guardian of the Idol is that he was a party in O.S. No.84 of 2005<\/p>\n
and thus he has an interest conflicting with that of the Idol. But it<\/p>\n
is pertinent to note that     O.S. No.84 of 20054 was filed by<\/p>\n
respondent No.5 claiming right of access and defendant No.2<\/p>\n
only resisted the claim and ultimately succeeded in his objection<\/p>\n
to the suit.    That does not disentitle       defendant No.2 from<\/p>\n
representing the Idol. It is not shown that he has any interest<\/p>\n
conflicting with to that of the Idol. In that situation and in view of<\/p>\n
the circumstances I have stated above learned Sub Judge should<\/p>\n
have appointed defendant No.2          being      most suitable    to<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.19042 of 2010
\n                                -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
represent the Idol.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   It is pointed out by learned counsel for respondent<\/p>\n
No.5 that even as per the version of defendant No.2 in his written<\/p>\n
statement he is sick and has difficulty to travel. That, I do not<\/p>\n
think would    disentitle him from representing the Idol    as its<\/p>\n
guardian.   If at all any circumstance     arises in future which<\/p>\n
disentitles defendant No.2 from representing the Idol it is open<\/p>\n
to the learned Sub Judge to consider the same then       and pass<\/p>\n
appropriate orders. In the light of    my above discussion the<\/p>\n
common order to the extent it concerned disposal of I.A.<\/p>\n
Nos.2016, 2091 of 2009 and 338 of 2010 cannot be sustained.<\/p>\n
      Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following<\/p>\n
lines:\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   (i)  Exhibit P3, common order dated<\/p>\n
            March 20, 2010 to the extent it concerned I.A.<\/p>\n
            No.2016 and 2091 of 2009 and I.A.No.338 of<\/p>\n
            2010 is set aide.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
                   (ii) Consequently I.A.No.2091 of 2009<\/p>\n
W.P(C) No.19042 of 2010
\n                                  -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
            is dismissed and I.A. No.2016 of 2009 is<\/p>\n
            allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                   (iii) Petitioner-defendant  No.2       is<\/p>\n
            appointed as guardian of the Idol subject to the<\/p>\n
            observations made above as to the right of<\/p>\n
            court to remove him from guardianship if any<\/p>\n
            circumstances warranting that arose in future.<\/p>\n
                   (iv)  I.A. No.338 of 2010 is allowed and<\/p>\n
            issue No.3 whether temple is public in nature<\/p>\n
            is deleted. Learned Sub Judge shall rearrange<\/p>\n
            other issues involved in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                  THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\n
vsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ezhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan … on 20 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 19042 of 2010(O) 1. EZHUVATH RAJAN MENON,”SREEVALSAM”, … Petitioner Vs 1. KAKATT MANAKKAL NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI … Respondent 2. KAKKATT MANAKKAL SUBRAMANIAN NAMBOOTHIRI 3. EZHUVATH JAYASREE,C\/O.RAGHAVAMARAR, 4. NILAMBUR KOVILAKAM REPRESENTED BY 5. […]<\/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-249020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nEzhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan ... on 20 September, 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\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ezhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan ... on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-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=\"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-02T15:27:50+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ezhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan … on 20 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-02T15:27:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1593,\"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\\\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Ezhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan ... on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-02T15:27:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ezhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan … on 20 September, 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":"Ezhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan ... on 20 September, 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\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ezhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan ... on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-02T15:27:50+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ezhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan … on 20 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-02T15:27:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010"},"wordCount":1593,"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\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010","name":"Ezhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan ... on 20 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-02T15:27:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhuvath-rajan-menon-vs-kakatt-manakkal-narayanan-on-20-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ezhuvath Rajan Menon vs Kakatt Manakkal Narayanan … on 20 September, 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\/249020","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=249020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}