{"id":249703,"date":"2010-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-15T08:22:47","modified_gmt":"2015-05-15T02:52:47","slug":"u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"U.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
U.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRP.No. 884 of 2010()\n\n\n1. U.UDAYABHANU, S\/O. ANJANAVATHI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SAVITHRI, W\/O. RAMAKRISHNAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :13\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                  THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.\n\n                 ----------------------------------------\n\n                       R.P.No.884 of 2010\n\n                  ---------------------------------------\n\n              Dated this 13th day of October, 2010\n\n                               ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
      Review of judgment dated 30-06-2010 in W.P(C).No.7889 of<\/p>\n
2010 is sought on the ground that relevant documents were not<\/p>\n
brought to the notice of this court while disposing of the writ<\/p>\n
petition, this court only considered the legal issues involved and<\/p>\n
not the question whether by the amendment sought for and<\/p>\n
obtained by the respondent there is change of the identity of the<\/p>\n
property itself. Learned counsel for petitioner states that by the<\/p>\n
change in amsom and desom brought about by the amendment vast<\/p>\n
difference has occurred in that, in the resurvey number that is<\/p>\n
brought out by amendment there is a separate and distinct<\/p>\n
property in Pariyapuram amsom and desom which is brought into<\/p>\n
the execution petition by the impugned amendment.            Learned<\/p>\n
counsel has taken me through the descriptions of property in the<\/p>\n
plaint and final decree schedules and descriptions of property<\/p>\n
comprised in R.S.No.34\/1 of Pariyapuram amsom and desom.<\/p>\n
      2.    After several round of litigation this matter is again<\/p>\n
coming before me in the form of review. Respondent and others<\/p>\n
filed O.S.No.44 of 1973 for partition of the properties stated in the<\/p>\n
R.P.No.884 of 2010
\n                                 : 2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
plaint schedule of course, describing the amsom and desom where<\/p>\n
the properties are situate as Rayirimangalam amsom and<\/p>\n
Ernakaranallur desom and the old and resurvey numbers as 26\/3<\/p>\n
and 34\/1. Boundaries of the two items are also given in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule. Petitioner was defendant No.11 in the suit. His father,<\/p>\n
according to respondent was defendant No.30. The court passed<\/p>\n
preliminary and final decrees for partition which was put into<\/p>\n
execution on the request of respondent\/defendant No.12. Several<\/p>\n
obstacles came in the course of litigation as is usually said about<\/p>\n
the process of execution in this country.            Petitioner filed<\/p>\n
E.A.No.328 of 2006 claiming independent right over the decree<\/p>\n
schedule property.     Executing court allowed that application.<\/p>\n
Respondent challenged that order in W.P.(C).No.3347 of 2007 in<\/p>\n
this court.    This court allowed the writ petition observing that<\/p>\n
petitioner cannot put up independent claim over the properties<\/p>\n
since his father, defendant No.30 had not raised any of such<\/p>\n
contention and that claim of petitioner is only under defendant<\/p>\n
No.30. E.A.No.328 of 2006 was dismissed. Further, this court<\/p>\n
directed that plots M1 to M4 (both inclusive) in Ext.C, plan<\/p>\n
appended to the final decree are to be allotted to the<\/p>\n
respondent\/defendant No.12. Respondent was under the hope that<\/p>\n
in the light of the judgment of this court he will be able to reap the<\/p>\n
R.P.No.884 of 2010
\n                                  : 3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
fruits of the litigation. On his request Amin of the court below was<\/p>\n
deputed to effect delivery of plots M1 to M4 in Ext.C5, plan to the<\/p>\n
petitioner. The Amin then learned that there is some discrepancy<\/p>\n
regarding amsom and desom of properties mentioned in the decree<\/p>\n
schedule and sought to be delivered over.       The discrepancy he<\/p>\n
found was that though in the plaint schedule properties are stated<\/p>\n
to be situated in      Rayirimangalam amsom and Ernakaranallur<\/p>\n
desom, at spot it was found to be within Pariyapuram amsom and<\/p>\n
desom. Of course, petitioner has a contention that the Amin had<\/p>\n
not made any report in that way to the executing court. Either<\/p>\n
way, it is not disputed that the executing court called for a report<\/p>\n
from the Tahsildar concerned and the Tahsildar reported that<\/p>\n
change in amsom and desom occurred due to reorganisation of<\/p>\n
Taluks. Based on that report, respondent filed an application to<\/p>\n
amend the execution petition to the extent of correcting amsom and<\/p>\n
desom as reported by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar was examined<\/p>\n
as witness. That application though opposed by petitioner was<\/p>\n
allowed by the executing court which was challenged in this court<\/p>\n
in W.P(C).No.7889 of 2010, petitioner urging that without<\/p>\n
amending the plaint schedule, preliminary and final decree<\/p>\n
schedules there was no question of amending the schedule in the<\/p>\n
execution petition alone, there was no power for the court to<\/p>\n
R.P.No.884 of 2010
\n                                 : 4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
amend the execution petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and even if amendment to<\/p>\n
the execution petition was allowed, that would not solve the<\/p>\n
problem. A contention was also raised in the memorandum of writ<\/p>\n
petition that executing court had not gone through Ext.P2, (in W.P<\/p>\n
(C).No.7889 of 2010), counter statement filed by petitioner to the<\/p>\n
application for execution where an objection was raised that<\/p>\n
amendment if allowed would change identity of the property. This<\/p>\n
court after hearing both sides dismissed the writ petition by<\/p>\n
judgment dated 30-06-2010 which is sought to be reviewed, the<\/p>\n
main ground for review being that the amendment if allowed would<\/p>\n
affect identity of the property which aspect was not considered by<\/p>\n
this court.     It is in this connection that learned counsel for<\/p>\n
petitioner has raised the argument which I have adverted to above.<\/p>\n
      3.     Before going into the question, I must bear in mind the<\/p>\n
scope for review under Order XLVII of Rule I of the Code. A<\/p>\n
review is permissible when from the discovery of a new and<\/p>\n
important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due<\/p>\n
diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by<\/p>\n
him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on<\/p>\n
account some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record,<\/p>\n
or for any other sufficient reason. So far as the last expression<\/p>\n
R.P.No.884 of 2010
\n                                : 5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
“any other sufficient reason” is concerned, binding judicial<\/p>\n
pronouncements inform me that the expression must be read as<\/p>\n
ejusdem generis, general words following the specific words<\/p>\n
mentioned (in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code). Hence “any other<\/p>\n
sufficient reason” referred to in Order XLVII, Rule I of the Code<\/p>\n
must be similar to other grounds mentioned therein. It is also<\/p>\n
stated on numerous occasions by binding authorities that a review<\/p>\n
is not an opportunity for a rehearing or a substitute for an appeal<\/p>\n
and that review court is concerned only with the grounds stated in<\/p>\n
Rule I of Order XLVII of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     The grounds which are now urged in the petition for<\/p>\n
review were raised before the executing court and found against by<\/p>\n
the impugned order which was under challenge in W.P(C).No.7889<\/p>\n
of 2010. I have gone through the memorandum of writ petition in<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.7889 of 2010 and find that challenge was to the legal<\/p>\n
issues involved as to whether it was within the power of executing<\/p>\n
court to order amendment of execution petition under Order VI<\/p>\n
Rule 17 of the Code whether, without amending the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
and preliminary and final decree schedules it was possible for the<\/p>\n
court to allow amendment of the execution petition schedule alone.<\/p>\n
True, there was also a contention that trial court had not gone<\/p>\n
through the contentions raised in (Ext.P2) counter statement to the<\/p>\n
R.P.No.884 of 2010
\n                               : 6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
application for amendment. But, writ petition was argued on the<\/p>\n
premise that there is no dispute regarding identity of property<\/p>\n
which fact I have referred to in the judgment dated 30-06-2010.<\/p>\n
No argument was advanced before me that there is change of<\/p>\n
identity of property on account of amendment permitted by the<\/p>\n
executing court. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner to now<\/p>\n
come up with a review and urge grounds which were not urged<\/p>\n
before me while disposing of W.P(C).No.7889 of 2010. I also stated<\/p>\n
that by the amendment only change brought about is that the<\/p>\n
amsom and desom originally stated in the plaint, preliminary and<\/p>\n
final  decree     schedules as      Rayirimangalam  amsom      and<\/p>\n
Ernakaranallur desom was corrected as Pariyapuram amsom and<\/p>\n
desom which was based on the report and evidence of the Tahsildar<\/p>\n
that the change occurred due to re-organisation of Taluks. I also<\/p>\n
pointed out that there was no change in identity of the property.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for respondent has pointed out that what was<\/p>\n
sought to be corrected by amendment was only amsom and desom<\/p>\n
which is in the form of a clarification in view of the report and<\/p>\n
evidence of Tahsildar and that boundary descriptions in the plaint,<\/p>\n
preliminary and final decree schedules remain as such. In the light<\/p>\n
of that, merely because there was a change in the amsom and<\/p>\n
desom, I pointed out in the judgment sought to be reviewed, was<\/p>\n
R.P.No.884 of 2010
\n                                 : 7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
only in the form of a clarification.   I do not find any merit or<\/p>\n
substance in the application, nor do I find bonafides since every<\/p>\n
attempt was being made to stall the process of execution on one<\/p>\n
ground or other. I must also bear in mind that in respect of the<\/p>\n
same property petitioner had made an independent claim which<\/p>\n
was found against by this court in the judgment in W.P(C).<\/p>\n
No.33447 of 2007.      In the light of the above petitioner cannot<\/p>\n
succeed in this application for review of judgment dated<\/p>\n
30-06-2010 either on point of law or on fact. If the judgment in<\/p>\n
W.P(C).No.33447 of 2007 suffers from any illegality, remedy if any<\/p>\n
is elsewhere.\n<\/p>\n
      This petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                               (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
Sbna\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court U.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RP.No. 884 of 2010() 1. U.UDAYABHANU, S\/O. ANJANAVATHI, … Petitioner Vs 1. SAVITHRI, W\/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :13\/10\/2010 O R D […]<\/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-249703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nU.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 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\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"U.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-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=\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-15T02:52:47+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\\\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"U.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-15T02:52:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1539,\"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\\\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010\",\"name\":\"U.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-15T02:52:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"U.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 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":"U.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 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\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"U.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-15T02:52:47+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\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"U.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-15T02:52:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010"},"wordCount":1539,"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\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010","name":"U.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-15T02:52:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/u-udayabhanu-vs-savithri-on-13-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"U.Udayabhanu vs Savithri on 13 October, 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\/249703","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=249703"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249703\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}