{"id":250080,"date":"2008-02-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008"},"modified":"2018-10-23T22:50:26","modified_gmt":"2018-10-23T17:20:26","slug":"chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Chathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Chathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA No. 759 of 2007()\n\n\n1. CHATHOTH RYRU NAIR, S\/O.T.R.NAIR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. MUNDERI NARAYANIKUTTY AMMA,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. V.MUKUNDAN, S\/O.LATE N.V.NARAYANI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. BALAN, S\/O.MADHAVI, RESIDING AT\n\n3. RAJAN, S\/O.MADHAVI, RESIDING AT\n\n4. PRADEESAN, S\/O.MADHAVI, RESIDING AT\n\n5. SATHI, D\/O.MADHAVI, RESIDING AT\n\n6. RAVI, S\/O.MADHAVI, RESIDING AT\n\n7. PRAKASHAN, S\/O.MADHAVI,\n\n8. YESODHA, D\/O.LATE NARAYANI,\n\n9. SREEDHARAN, S\/O.LATE NARAYANI,\n\n10. BHASKARAN, S\/O.LATE NARAYANI,\n\n11. SANTHA, D\/O.LATE NARAYANI,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :12\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                        M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n                  ===========================\n\n                  R.S.A.  NO. 759    OF 2007\n\n                  ===========================\n\n\n\n      Dated this the 12th day of February, 2008\n\n\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Plaintiffs   in   O.S.353\/1996   on   the   file   of<\/p>\n
Munsiff   Court,   Thalassery   are   the   appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Defendants   are   the   respondents.                                   Appellants<\/p>\n
instituted   the   suit              for   permanent   prohibitory<\/p>\n
injunction              restraining                  respondents                 from<\/p>\n
trespassing   into   the   plaint   schedule   property.     It<\/p>\n
was   contended   that   plaint   A   schedule   property   and<\/p>\n
the   adjacent   plot   originally   belonged   to   Karayi<\/p>\n
Achuthan  and  in  1949  he  assigned  plaint  A  schedule<\/p>\n
property   in   favour   of   first   appellant   and   his<\/p>\n
brother         Krishnan         Nair         for         the         purpose         of<\/p>\n
constructing   a   shop   room   and   plaint   A   schedule<\/p>\n
property   was   in   his   absolute   possession   and<\/p>\n
Krishnan   Nair   gifted   his   right   over     plaint   A<\/p>\n
schedule   property   in   favour   of   first   appellant<\/p>\n
under   a   gift   deed   dated   12.8.1960   and   later   first<\/p>\n
appellant   transferred   all   his   rights   over   plaint   A<\/p>\n
R.S.A.759\/2007                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
schedule   property   measuring   3   cents   with   the   shop<\/p>\n
building  in  favour  of  his  wife  second  appellant  on<\/p>\n
11.8.1989 and plaint A schedule property is thus in<\/p>\n
the   possession   of   second   appellant.            It   was<\/p>\n
contended   that   plaint   B   schedule   property     is   in<\/p>\n
the   possession   of   first   appellant   as   per   Ext.A4<\/p>\n
lease deed dated 5.11.1956 executed between himself<\/p>\n
and   one   Vadavathi   Kunhiraman   and   as   it   was   a<\/p>\n
commercial   lease   for   construction   of   shop   building<\/p>\n
and        construction   was   made   first   appellant   is<\/p>\n
entitled to fixity of tenure.   Respondents 1 and 2<\/p>\n
are   the   legal   heirs   of   Karayi   Achuthan          and<\/p>\n
respondents 3 to 6 are the legal representatives of<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman.  It was contended that respondents have<\/p>\n
no   right   to   plaint   B   schedule   property   and   they<\/p>\n
attempted   to   trespass   into   that   property   and   they<\/p>\n
are   to   be   restrained   by   a   permanent   prohibitory<\/p>\n
injunction.     Respondents   1   and   2   in   their   written<\/p>\n
statement   admitted   that   plaint     schedule   property<\/p>\n
originally   belonged   to   Karayi   Achuthan   and   on   his<\/p>\n
death,   it   devolved   on   his   children             first<\/p>\n
R.S.A.759\/2007                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent             and         her         brothers         Kunhiraman         and<\/p>\n
Damodaran and sister Mathu.    Second respondent is<\/p>\n
the son of first respondent and respondents 3 to 6<\/p>\n
are   the   widow   and   children   of   Kunhiraman.     It   was<\/p>\n
contended   that   the   co-ownership   properties     were<\/p>\n
partitioned   in   1964   and   different   portions   of   the<\/p>\n
properties   were   allotted   to     different   sharers   and<\/p>\n
the property allotted to first respondent is in the<\/p>\n
south which comes up to the road in the west  where<\/p>\n
a   building   was   reconstructed   which   was   allotted   to<\/p>\n
first   appellant   and   there   was   no   tenant   landlord<\/p>\n
relationship   between     appellants   and   respondents<\/p>\n
and   no   rent   was   paid   by   appellants   and   even   if   a<\/p>\n
lease deed  was executed by first appellant, he did<\/p>\n
not construct any building and   is not entitled to<\/p>\n
the protection of Kerala Land Reforms Act.   It was<\/p>\n
contended   that   respondents   are   not   aware   of   the<\/p>\n
lease   deed   allegedly   executed   in   respect   of   plaint<\/p>\n
B  schedule  property  and  in  any  case  appellants  are<\/p>\n
not entitled to the decree sought for.  Respondents<\/p>\n
3   to   7     the   legal   heirs   of   Kunhiraman   filed   a<\/p>\n
R.S.A.759\/2007                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
written   statement   admitting   that   Karayi   Achuthan<\/p>\n
leased  out  some  plots  on  the  western  part  touching<\/p>\n
Thalassery   -Mambaram   public   road   to   third   parties<\/p>\n
for   constructing   shop   building.     Plaint   A   schedule<\/p>\n
is   such   a   plot   permitted   by   Achuthan   to   construct<\/p>\n
shop   building   alone   and   plaint   B   schedule   property<\/p>\n
was   never   in   the   possession   of   first   appellant   or<\/p>\n
Kunhiraman and even if he had given any lease it is<\/p>\n
not legally valid as he has no right to create such<\/p>\n
a   lease   without   the   consent   of   other   co-owners.\n<\/p>\n
After the death of Kunhiraman the entire properties<\/p>\n
of   Karayi   Achuthan   were   partitioned   as   per<\/p>\n
partition   deed   dated   7.4.1964   and   respondents   are<\/p>\n
entitled to plaint B schedule property and it is in<\/p>\n
their possession and appellants are not entitled to<\/p>\n
the decree sought for.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     Learned   Munsiff   on   the   evidence   of   Pws.1<\/p>\n
and   2,   and   Exts.A1   to   A9   and   B1   to   B4,   C1   to   C3<\/p>\n
dismissed   the   suit   holding   that   appellants   did   not<\/p>\n
establish any right or possession to the   plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule   property.           It   was   found   that   though<\/p>\n
R.S.A.759\/2007                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants   are   claiming   right   under   Ext.A4   lease<\/p>\n
deed   executed   in   favour   of   Kunhiraman,   one   of   the<\/p>\n
co-owner,  there  is  no  evidence  to  prove  that  first<\/p>\n
appellant   obtained   possession   of   the   property<\/p>\n
thereunder  or  constructed    a  building  or  was  doing<\/p>\n
any business as alleged and he is not   entitled to<\/p>\n
protection   under                   Section   106   of   Kerala   Land<\/p>\n
Reforms   Act.     Finding   that   appellants   failed   to<\/p>\n
establish their possession of the plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property  and  possession    over  plaint  A  schedule  is<\/p>\n
not   in   dispute,   suit   was   dismissed.     Appellants<\/p>\n
challenged             the         judgment         before         Sub         Court,<\/p>\n
Thalassery   in   A.S.62\/2003.     Learned   Sub   Judge   on<\/p>\n
reappreciation   of   evidence   confirmed   the   findings<\/p>\n
of learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal.  It is<\/p>\n
challenged in the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      3.        Learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for<\/p>\n
appellants was heard.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   The argument of learned senior   counsel is<\/p>\n
that   courts   below   did   not   properly   appreciate   the<\/p>\n
scope   of   the   suit   or   the   evidence   on   record.     It<\/p>\n
R.S.A.759\/2007                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
was   argued   that     suit   is   only   one   for   injunction,<\/p>\n
but   more   importance     was   given   to   the   question<\/p>\n
whether   the   lease   is   protected   as   it   is            a<\/p>\n
commercial  lease    as  provided  under  section  106  of<\/p>\n
the   Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act.     It   was   argued   that<\/p>\n
when     evidence   establish   that   under   Ext.A4,   plaint<\/p>\n
B schedule property was obtained by first appellant<\/p>\n
from   Kunhiraman   in   1956   and   a   building   was<\/p>\n
constructed   therein     as   found   by   the   Commissioner<\/p>\n
at   the   time   of     inspection,   courts   below   should<\/p>\n
have   upheld   the   case   of   appellants   that   it   is   a<\/p>\n
commercial   lease   and     acting   on   the   lease   first<\/p>\n
appellant    constructed  a  building  and    is  entitled<\/p>\n
to   the   protection   of     106   of   Kerala   Land   Reforms<\/p>\n
Act.  It was argued that in any event as appellants<\/p>\n
established   their   possession   of   plaint   B   schedule<\/p>\n
property,  respondents are not entitled to trespass<\/p>\n
into   the   property   and   therefore   a   decree   for<\/p>\n
injunction should have been granted.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     On   hearing   the   learned   counsel,   I   do   not<\/p>\n
find   that   any   substantial   question   of   law   is<\/p>\n
R.S.A.759\/2007                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
involved in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      6. Though suit is one for injunction appellants<\/p>\n
themselves   specifically   pleaded   that   plaint   B<\/p>\n
schedule   property   was   obtained   under   Ext.A4   lease<\/p>\n
deed   and   it   is   a   commercial   lease   enabling     first<\/p>\n
appellant   to   construct   a   building   for   commercial<\/p>\n
purpose   and   acting   on   that   lease   deed,   first<\/p>\n
appellant   constructed   a            building   and        he   is<\/p>\n
protected   by   the   provisions   of   section   106   of<\/p>\n
Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act.     Though   fixity   of   tenure<\/p>\n
was   claimed,     Section   106   of   Kerala   Land   Reforms<\/p>\n
Act     does   not   provide     a   fixity   of   tenure   to   a<\/p>\n
tenant.     Whatever   it   be,   trial   court   and   first<\/p>\n
appellate   court   on   appreciating   the   evidence   found<\/p>\n
that   apart   from   Ext.A4,   there   is   no   evidence   to<\/p>\n
prove that land  was obtained by first appellant on<\/p>\n
lease   and   acting   on   the   lease     a   building   was<\/p>\n
constructed   for   commercial   purpose.     Though   it   was<\/p>\n
contended   by   appellants   that   after   construction   of<\/p>\n
the   building   business   was   being   carried   out,<\/p>\n
appellants   did   not   produce   even   one     receipt   for<\/p>\n
R.S.A.759\/2007                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
payment   of   pattom     as   provided   under     Ext.A4   or<\/p>\n
receipt for payment of building tax or professional<\/p>\n
tax or receipt to prove  that he was doing business<\/p>\n
in         the         building.         Courts         below         on         proper<\/p>\n
appreciation of the evidence found that there is no<\/p>\n
evidence   to   prove   that   first   appellant   constructed<\/p>\n
any   building   in   the   plaint   B   schedule   property.\n<\/p>\n
Courts   below     on   the   evidence   rightly   found   that<\/p>\n
appellants   are   not   entitled   to   the   protection<\/p>\n
provided   under   section   106   of   Kerala   Land   Reforms<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
           7.  Though learned senior counsel argued that a<\/p>\n
decree   for   injunction   should   have   been   granted   as<\/p>\n
the   appellants   are   in   possession   of   plaint   B<\/p>\n
schedule   property,   on   appreciating   the   evidence,<\/p>\n
both   the   trial   court   and   first   appellate   court<\/p>\n
found   that   appellants   did   not   establish   their<\/p>\n
possession of plaint B schedule property.   It is a<\/p>\n
finding   of   fact.                  The   finding   of   the   first<\/p>\n
appellate   court   is   final.     It   cannot   be   said   that<\/p>\n
appreciation   of   evidence   by   the   courts   below   was<\/p>\n
R.S.A.759\/2007                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
perverse   warranting   interference   by   this   court<\/p>\n
court   in   exercise   of   the   powers   under   section   100<\/p>\n
of  Code  of  Civil  Procedure.    In  such  circumstance,<\/p>\n
appeal is dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
                                       M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR<\/p>\n
                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
     W.P.(C).NO. \/06<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Chathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA No. 759 of 2007() 1. CHATHOTH RYRU NAIR, S\/O.T.R.NAIR, … Petitioner 2. MUNDERI NARAYANIKUTTY AMMA, Vs 1. V.MUKUNDAN, S\/O.LATE N.V.NARAYANI, … Respondent 2. BALAN, S\/O.MADHAVI, RESIDING AT 3. RAJAN, S\/O.MADHAVI, RESIDING AT 4. PRADEESAN, […]<\/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-250080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-23T17:20:26+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\\\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-23T17:20:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1346,\"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\\\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Chathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-23T17:20:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-23T17:20:26+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\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-23T17:20:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008"},"wordCount":1346,"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\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008","name":"Chathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-23T17:20:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chathoth-ryru-nair-vs-v-mukundan-on-12-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chathoth Ryru Nair vs V.Mukundan on 12 February, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250080","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=250080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250080\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}