{"id":251846,"date":"2010-01-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-14T01:24:37","modified_gmt":"2016-03-13T19:54:37","slug":"raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Raveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Raveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 1350 of 2009()\n\n\n1. RAVEENDRAN,AGED 55,S\/O.OLIYIL GOPALAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MUHAMMEDALI,AGED 55,S\/O.THAZHATHETHIL\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :12\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                         R.S.A. No.1350 of 2009\n             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n               Dated this the 12th      day of January, 2010\n\n\n                             J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                             ———————-\n<\/p>\n
\n      Defendant in O.S. No.155 of 1995 of learned Munsiff-<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Pattambi is the appellant before me. He has suffered a<\/p>\n
decree for eviction from the schedule building with damages at the<\/p>\n
rate of Rs.1,500\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    According to the respondent              the schedule building<\/p>\n
belonged to him as per Ext.A1 and as per successive deeds of<\/p>\n
licence (Exts.A2 to A4) appellant was being permitted to             occupy<\/p>\n
the building for his jewellery business subject to the terms and<\/p>\n
conditions stipulated in the said deeds.           Exhibit A4 is the deed of<\/p>\n
licence dated 1.10.1994 as per which appellant was permitted to<\/p>\n
occupy the schedule building for a period of eleven months. On the<\/p>\n
expiry of that period, respondent demanded vacant possession of<\/p>\n
the building which the appellant refused and hence the suit for<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction      and recovery of damages.                 Appellant<\/p>\n
contended that he is a lessee of the building and that at the time of<\/p>\n
the original entrustment he had paid Rs.65,000\/- to the respondent<\/p>\n
by way of rent advance.      Rent was enhanced periodically and the<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.1350 of 2009
\n                                 -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
present rent is Rs.1,500\/- per month. He claimed that since he is a<\/p>\n
lessee of the building he is not liable to be evicted by a mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction as prayed for by the respondent.      Trial court found on<\/p>\n
evidence that the transaction between appellant and respondent is<\/p>\n
a licence and hence on expiry of the period of licence referred to in<\/p>\n
Ext.A4 respondent is entitled to seek eviction of     appellant by a<\/p>\n
decree for        mandatory injunction.      Damages (for use and<\/p>\n
occupation) was allowed at the rate of Rs.1,500\/- per month. First<\/p>\n
appellate court has confirmed that finding and decree. Hence the<\/p>\n
Second Appeal urging by way of substantial question of law whether<\/p>\n
finding of the courts below that Ext.A4 evidenced a licence<\/p>\n
arrangement is legally sustainable? Learned counsel for appellant<\/p>\n
asserted his contention that the transaction, notwithstanding the<\/p>\n
nomenclature of the documents (Ext.A2 to A4) really evidenced a<\/p>\n
lease arrangement. According to the learned counsel endorsements<\/p>\n
on the back of Ext.A2 to A4 obtained from the appellant that he will<\/p>\n
surrender the building on expiry of the period mentioned therein<\/p>\n
would indicate that he is a lessee of the premises with possession.<\/p>\n
Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in New<\/p>\n
Bus stand Shop Owners Assn. v. Corporation of<\/p>\n
Kozhikode<\/a> ([2009] 10 SCC 45). In response it is contended by<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.1350 of 2009
\n                                     -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel for respondent that there is nothing wrong in the<\/p>\n
parties agreeing to enter into licence arrangement and conducting<\/p>\n
themselves accordingly. Learned counsel would argue that going by<\/p>\n
the     terms of Exts.A2 to A4 conclusion inescapable is that<\/p>\n
relationship between the parties is only of a licensor and licensee<\/p>\n
and the period of licence as per Ext.A4 having expired it was well<\/p>\n
within the power of the respondent to seek mandatory injunction<\/p>\n
with damages for use and occupation.\n<\/p>\n
       3.     It is trite law that in interpreting a document emphasis<\/p>\n
need not be given to the nomenclature alone (See Rajappan v.<\/p>\n
Veeraraghava Iyer – 1969 KLT 811). But it is also the cardinal<\/p>\n
principles of interpretation of a deed that the question is not what<\/p>\n
the parties may have intended by executing the deed but what is<\/p>\n
the true meaning of the words used in the deed.             Court has to<\/p>\n
understand the true intent of the deed by the words used in the<\/p>\n
deed (See Narayani Amma v. Narayanan Namboodiri<\/a> –<\/p>\n
1985 KLT 49) and Hathika v. Padmanabhan<\/a> – 1994 [1] KLT<\/p>\n
345). It has been held that when the terms and expressions used in<\/p>\n
the deed are clear, intention of the parties has to be gathered from<\/p>\n
the deed itself and        looking into     surrounding circumstances is<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.1350 of 2009
\n                                  -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
possible only when there is ambiguity in the expressions used in the<\/p>\n
deed.     The Supreme Court in New Bus stand Shop Owners<\/p>\n
Assn. v. Corporation of Kozhikode<\/a> (supra) held that the<\/p>\n
true test to ascertain whether the document is a lease or licence is<\/p>\n
the nature and quality of the occupation. In a tenancy, interest in<\/p>\n
the land passes whereas in the licence it does not.          Exclusive<\/p>\n
possession was        held to be not a decisive test but its absence<\/p>\n
signifies that the agreement is for licence and not for lease.<\/p>\n
       4.     It has been held   by   binding  authorities that even<\/p>\n
exclusive possession is not an indica of a lease arrangement.    (see<\/p>\n
Narayani Amma v. Narayanan Namboodiri and New<\/p>\n
Bus stand Shop Owners Association case (supra). For<\/p>\n
the purpose of convenient enjoyment of the licence it may be<\/p>\n
necessary to give possession of the premises to the licensee.<\/p>\n
Hence the mere fact of the grantee being in possession cannot be<\/p>\n
decisive of the question whether the arrangement is lease or<\/p>\n
licence.\n<\/p>\n
       5.     Exhibits A2 to A4 are the deeds of licence executed<\/p>\n
between the parties in this case. Though in Ext.A9, reply appellant<\/p>\n
has a case that he was forcibly made to sign the documents, there<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.1350 of 2009
\n                                      -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
is no acceptable evidence in that line and instead when examined as<\/p>\n
D.W.1 he has confessed that he has written in his own hand on the<\/p>\n
back of Exts.A2 to A4 that on the expiry of the period of licence he<\/p>\n
will surrender the premises to the respondent.          Courts below also<\/p>\n
found that there is no reason to think that there was any foul-play in<\/p>\n
Exts.A2 to A4 got executed.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     It is specifically stated in Exts.A2 to A4 that permission is<\/p>\n
given to the appellant to use the premises as a licensee for the<\/p>\n
purpose of jewellery business subject to the terms and conditions<\/p>\n
stated therein.       In paragraph 7 of Ext.A4 it is stated that parties<\/p>\n
have meant and understood the transaction not to be a lease<\/p>\n
arrangement but only as conferring a personal privilege on the<\/p>\n
appellant to use the premises for the specific purpose of conducting<\/p>\n
business in jewellery.       It is also stated in Ext.A4 in specific terms<\/p>\n
that possession of the building remained with the respondent and<\/p>\n
that its key was entrusted to the appellant to enable him use the<\/p>\n
building for the purpose he was granted permission to occupy the<\/p>\n
building.    Appellant when examined as D.W.1 had admitted            that<\/p>\n
in Ext.A5, counterfoil of receipt book for payment of (licence) fee<\/p>\n
he has written in his own hand that he has received receipts for<\/p>\n
payment of ‘licence fee’.       A further fact revealed from the evidence<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.1350 of 2009
\n                                  -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
of appellant as D.W.1 is that       he has taken another room for<\/p>\n
business purposes and in respect of that room he has executed a<\/p>\n
‘rent deed’.      Hence it is not as if appellant was unaware of the<\/p>\n
distinction between lease and licence.          Being aware of that<\/p>\n
distinction and with eyes wide open to the terms and conditions<\/p>\n
appellant has executed Exts.A2 to A4.       Courts below found from<\/p>\n
Exts.A2 to A4 that it evidenced a licence arrangement. Law does<\/p>\n
not prohibit parties from entering into a licence arrangement and<\/p>\n
conducting themselves accordingly. I do not find anything to hold<\/p>\n
that notwithstanding the terms and conditions stated in Exts.A2 to<\/p>\n
A4 the real transaction was one of lease and that        Exts.A2 to A4<\/p>\n
were intended as a camouflage to cover up the real transaction. In<\/p>\n
that view I find nothing illegal in the courts below taking the view<\/p>\n
that Exts.A2 to A4 revealed licence arrangement. That is a finding of<\/p>\n
fact entered on the evidence and on proper construction of Exts.A2<\/p>\n
to A4. As such no substantial question of law is involved.<\/p>\n
       7.     It has been held that when the period of licence is<\/p>\n
terminated or it expired by efflux of time it is open to the licensor to<\/p>\n
sue for mandatory injunction within a reasonable time (see Ayssa<\/p>\n
Umma v. Ami – 1990 [1] KLT 98 and Joseph Severance v.<\/p>\n
Benny Mathew<\/a> – 2005 [4] KLT 290 9SC). Respondent has filed<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.1350 of 2009
\n                                   -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the suit within reasonable time on the expiry of the period stated in<\/p>\n
Ext.A4. Decree for damages also does not require interference since<\/p>\n
the amount awarded is the licence fee payable as per Ext.A4.<\/p>\n
       8.     Learned counsel for appellant requested 12 months’ time<\/p>\n
to vacate the premises.       It is submitted by learned counsel that<\/p>\n
appellant is engaged in jewellery business and if, all on a sudden he<\/p>\n
is evicted his business will be doomed.         I have heard learned<\/p>\n
counsel for respondent in this regard.      Having regard to the facts<\/p>\n
and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of<\/p>\n
business appellant is admittedly carrying on in the schedule building<\/p>\n
I am inclined to grant six months’ time from this day to the appellant<\/p>\n
to vacate the premises as per the judgment and decree under<\/p>\n
challenge.\n<\/p>\n
       Resultantly, Second Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed<\/p>\n
in limine. Appellant is granted six months’ time from this day to<\/p>\n
vacate the schedule building subject to the following terms and<\/p>\n
conditions.<\/p>\n
\n
                     (i) Appellant shall deposit in the trial<\/p>\n
             court      arrears of damages at the rate of<\/p>\n
             Rs.1,500\/- per month payable from July, 2009<\/p>\n
             to 31.01.2010 within one month from this day.<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.1350 of 2009
\n                                    -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                     (ii)  Damages payable at the rate of<\/p>\n
             Rs.1,500\/- per month from 01.02.2010 till<\/p>\n
             expiry of the six months referred to above shall<\/p>\n
             be deposited in the same court before the<\/p>\n
             expiry of 10th of the succeeding months.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                     (iii) Appellant shall not induct third<\/p>\n
             parties into possession of the schedule building<\/p>\n
             during the said period of six months.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                     (iv)  Appellant shall vacate the premises<\/p>\n
             on the expiry of the said period of six months<\/p>\n
             without putting forth any claim or objection<\/p>\n
             whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n
                     (v)   Appellant  shall file an affidavit in<\/p>\n
             the trial court within a period of three weeks<\/p>\n
             from this day undertaking to comply with the<\/p>\n
             above terms and conditions.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                          THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\n
vsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Raveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 1350 of 2009() 1. RAVEENDRAN,AGED 55,S\/O.OLIYIL GOPALAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. MUHAMMEDALI,AGED 55,S\/O.THAZHATHETHIL … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) For Respondent :SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :12\/01\/2010 O R D E R THOMAS […]<\/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-251846","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRaveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 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\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-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=\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-13T19:54:37+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-13T19:54:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1675,\"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\\\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Raveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-13T19:54:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 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":"Raveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 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\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-13T19:54:37+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-13T19:54:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010"},"wordCount":1675,"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\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010","name":"Raveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-13T19:54:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raveendran-vs-muhammedali-on-12-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raveendran vs Muhammedali on 12 January, 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\/251846","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=251846"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251846\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251846"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251846"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251846"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}