{"id":253371,"date":"2007-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007"},"modified":"2018-07-14T02:57:55","modified_gmt":"2018-07-13T21:27:55","slug":"krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Krishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias … on 30 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Krishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias … on 30 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA No. 406 of 2003(F)\n\n\n1. KRISHNAMMA, CHARUMOODU VELIYATHU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SAI SURESH, CHARUMMOODU VELIYATHU,\n3. SUKANYA, CHARUMMOODU VELIYATHU,\n4. VIJALEKSHMI, CHARUMMOODU VELIYATHU,\n5. NISHA CHANDRAN, CHARUMMOODU VELIYATHU,\n6. NIDHIN CHANDRAN (MINOR)\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. NEELALOHITHA ALIAS BHADMAKANCHANA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. NEELALOHITHAN ALIAS NEELAMBARAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.S.RAMESH KUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :30\/01\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                           M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n                         ===========================\n\n                          R.S.A. NO.406    OF 2003\n\n                         ===========================\n\n\n\n            Dated this the 30th  day of January, 2007\n\n\n\n                                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Respondents     are   plaintiffs   and   appellants   the<\/p>\n
legal heirs of deceased defendant in O.S.1798\/85 on<\/p>\n
the         file         of         I         Additional         Munsiff         Court,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram.     Defendant   was   originally   the<\/p>\n
second   defendant.   First   defendant   was     mother   of<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2 and third defendant  alleged to<\/p>\n
be   the   adopted   daughter   of   deceased   Pankajakshy.\n<\/p>\n
The   suit   was   originally   filed   for   redemption   and<\/p>\n
partition. Subsequently  plaint was got amended and<\/p>\n
original   defendants   1   and   3   were   deleted   and   the<\/p>\n
claim   for     partition   was   relinquished.     The   suit<\/p>\n
after   amendment   is   only   for   redemption   of   Ext.A2<\/p>\n
mortgage     and   recovery   of   possession.       Case   of<\/p>\n
respondents     was   that   2   =   cents   of     plaint   A<\/p>\n
schedule   property   was   mortgaged   by   deceased<\/p>\n
Krishnan   Neelakantan   in   favour   of   Bhagavathy<\/p>\n
Meenakshi   as   per   Ext.A2   mortgage   deed   on   17-3-1958<\/p>\n
R.S.A.406\/03                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
for   Rs.300\/-   and   the            mortgage   right   was<\/p>\n
subsequently   assigned   in   favour   of   deceased<\/p>\n
defendant   and   respondents     are   entitled   to   redeem<\/p>\n
the   mortgage.   Deceased     defendant   in   his   written<\/p>\n
statement   contended   that   the   property   originally<\/p>\n
belonged   to   Keezhpurassery   tarwad   and   Krishnan<\/p>\n
Neelakantan   and   his   sister   Pankajakshy   had   only<\/p>\n
1\/4th    share   being   members   of   one   among   the   four<\/p>\n
thavazhies and Pankajakshy had executed a gift deed<\/p>\n
in favour of her adopted daughter Santhakumari, who<\/p>\n
was   the   original   third   defendant,   and   though   the<\/p>\n
gift   deed   was   cancelled   as   per   the   decree   in<\/p>\n
O.S.687\/62,   Santhakumari   filed   O.S.319\/74   for<\/p>\n
cancellation   of   the   decree   alleging   that   it   was<\/p>\n
obtained   by   fraud   and   that   suit   was   decreed   and<\/p>\n
mortgagee Bhagavathy  Meenakshy  released her right<\/p>\n
in favour of the defendant, who has jenm right over<\/p>\n
10.75   cents   of   plaint   A   schedule   property   and<\/p>\n
therefore   respondents     are   not   entitled   to     the<\/p>\n
decree for redemption sought for.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   Learned   Munsiff   after   framing   necessary<\/p>\n
issues, recording that no oral evidence was adduced<\/p>\n
and   marking        Ext.A1   and   A2        on   the   side   of<\/p>\n
R.S.A.406\/03                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
respondents     granted   a   decree   for   redemption   of<\/p>\n
Ext.A2   mortgage   and   directed   them   to   deposit   the<\/p>\n
mortgage money   of Rs.300\/- due to the appellants,<\/p>\n
as  the  legal  heirs  of  deceased  defendant  apply  for<\/p>\n
passing a final decree.  That   decree and judgment<\/p>\n
was         challenged         before         District         Court,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram in A.S.61\/95. Learned Additional<\/p>\n
District   Judge   on   appreciation   of   evidence,<\/p>\n
confirmed   the   decree   and   dismissed   the   appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Second   appeal   was   filed   challenging   the   decree   and<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n
       3.  Second appeal  was  admitted  on the  following<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
       1)     Have   the   courts   below   acted   in   accordance<\/p>\n
with law in construing and interpreting Ext.A1?\n<\/p>\n
       2)     What   is   the   legal   effect   of   Ext.B1   vis-a-\n<\/p>\n
vis Ext.A1?\n<\/p>\n
       3)   What is the right of the 2nd  defendant over<\/p>\n
the   property   in   accordance   with   law?   Is   it   as   a<\/p>\n
sharer   of   the   equity   redemption   or   only   as   an<\/p>\n
assignee mortgage?\n<\/p>\n
       2. Learned counsel appearing for appellants and<\/p>\n
respondents  were heard.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.406\/03                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
       3.     The   argument   of   learned   counsel   appearing<\/p>\n
for   appellants   was   that     Ext.A1   partition   deed<\/p>\n
itself   establish   that     plaint   A   schedule   property<\/p>\n
originally   belonged   to   Keezhpurassery   tarwad   and<\/p>\n
the   tarwad   has   four   thavazhies   and   each   thavazhy<\/p>\n
had   1\/4th  right   and   though   in   Ext.A2   mortgage   deed<\/p>\n
executed   by   Neelakantan   and   the   mortgagor   has<\/p>\n
stated that he has absolute right over 21 = cents,<\/p>\n
which   was   mortgaged   thereunder,   he   had   only   1\/4th<\/p>\n
right.     It   was   also   argued   that   though   it   was<\/p>\n
contended   that   on   the   death   of   Pankajakshy<\/p>\n
issuless,   her   right   also   devolved   on   Neelakantan,<\/p>\n
Pankajakshy had an adopted daughter in whose favour<\/p>\n
a   gift   deed   was   executed   by   deceased   Pankajakshy<\/p>\n
which   was   sought   to   be   cancelled   by   instituting<\/p>\n
O.S.687\/62  and  though  a  decree  was  granted  in  that<\/p>\n
suit,   Santhakumari   the     adopted     daughter   in   turn<\/p>\n
instituted O.S.319\/74 and got that decree set aside<\/p>\n
establishing   that   the     decree   in   O.S.687\/62   was<\/p>\n
obtained   by   fraud   and   therefore   Pankajakshy   also<\/p>\n
has         right         over         the         properties         claimed         by<\/p>\n
Neelakantan.                It   was   also   argued   that   though<\/p>\n
Bhagavathy   Meenakshy,   the   mortgagee   under   Ext.A2,<\/p>\n
R.S.A.406\/03                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
has         been           in         possession              of         the         property,<\/p>\n
subsequently   admitting   the   right   of   defendant   over<\/p>\n
10   >   cents   of   the   property,   released   her   right   in<\/p>\n
favour of deceased defendant and therefore deceased<\/p>\n
defendant   was   not   an   assignee   mortgagee   but   got<\/p>\n
released the mortgage right as he has  the right of<\/p>\n
equity   of   redemption     and   therefore   respondents<\/p>\n
are   not   entitled   to   the   decree   sought   for.     The<\/p>\n
argument             of          learned              counsel            appearing           for<\/p>\n
appellants   was   that   courts   below   did   not   properly<\/p>\n
appreciate   the   contentions   raised   by     appellants<\/p>\n
and in the light of Ext.B1 and Ext.A2, it is to be<\/p>\n
held   that   respondents   1   and   2   are   not   entitled   to<\/p>\n
the decree for redemption.\n<\/p>\n
       4.  Learned counsel appearing for respondents 1<\/p>\n
and 2 argued that Ext.A2 mortgage by Neelakantan in<\/p>\n
favour   of   Bhagavathy   Meenakshy   is   admitted   by<\/p>\n
deceased defendant and appellants and that mortgage<\/p>\n
right   of   Meenakshy   was   assigned   under   Ext.B1   and<\/p>\n
deceased   defendant   is   only   an   assignee   mortgagee<\/p>\n
and  respondents    being  the  legal  heirs  of  deceased<\/p>\n
mortgagor   are   entitled   to   redeem   that   mortgage   and<\/p>\n
therefore  there  is  no  reason  to  interfere  with  the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.406\/03                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
decree   for   redemption   granted   by   the   trial   court<\/p>\n
and confirmed by appellate court and no substantial<\/p>\n
question of law is involved.\n<\/p>\n
      5.          Appellants   are   not   disputing   Ext.A2<\/p>\n
mortgage.           Under   Ext.A2,   Krishnan   Neelakantan<\/p>\n
created   a   mortgage   over   21   =   cents   of   plaint   A<\/p>\n
schedule   property.     Ext.A2   shows   that   before   the<\/p>\n
said   mortgage   some   of   the   coconut   trees   were<\/p>\n
mortgaged   in   favour   of   Krishna   Panicker   and   Ext.A2<\/p>\n
mortgage   was   created   thereafter   in   favour   of<\/p>\n
Meenakshy.  Ext.B2 shows that Bhagavathy Meenakshy,<\/p>\n
the   mortgagee   under   Ext.A2,   got   assigned   the<\/p>\n
mortgage   right   of   Krishna   Panicker.             Therefore<\/p>\n
apart   from   Ext.A2   mortgage   Meenakshy   also   obtained<\/p>\n
the   mortgage   right   of   Krishna   Panicker   in   respect<\/p>\n
of   coconut   trees.          Ext.B1   establish   that   the<\/p>\n
mortgagee Meenakshy transferred her right in favour<\/p>\n
of defendant under the said document.  The argument<\/p>\n
of   learned   counsel   appearing   for   appellants   was<\/p>\n
that   in   Ext.B1,   it   has   been   stated   that   the<\/p>\n
property   originally   belonged   to   the     tarwad   and<\/p>\n
there   was   a   partition   in   the   tarwad   in     1105   M.E.\n<\/p>\n
and   thereafter   there   were   two     partitions   on   1121<\/p>\n
R.S.A.406\/03                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
M.E. and 1122 M.E. and  deceased defendant obtained<\/p>\n
10>   cents   of   right   over   the   property   and   the<\/p>\n
mortgagee  released the mortgage right in favour of<\/p>\n
deceased             defendant         and         therefore         the         right<\/p>\n
transferred   under   Ext.B1   is   not   an   assignment   of<\/p>\n
the  mortgage  right  but  was  releasing    the  mortgage<\/p>\n
right in favour of the deceased defendant as he has<\/p>\n
the   right   of   equity   of   redemption.     It   is   on   that<\/p>\n
basis   the   substantial   questions   of   law   namely   the<\/p>\n
legal effect of Ext.B1 vis-a-vis Ext.A1 was framed.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   Ext.A1   partition   deed   shows   that   property<\/p>\n
originally   belonged   to   Keezhpurassery   tarwad   which<\/p>\n
consisted   of   four   thavazhies   and   thavazhies   were<\/p>\n
separated  as per a partition deed in 1109 M.E. The<\/p>\n
properties   were   thereafter   divided   under   Ext.A1.21<\/p>\n
=   cents,   which   was   mortgaged   under   Ext.P2   was<\/p>\n
allotted     to   the   thavazhi   of   Krishnan   Neelakantan<\/p>\n
and   others.     It   was   on   the   strength   of   the   right<\/p>\n
derived   under   Ext.A1,   the   property   was     mortgaged<\/p>\n
under   Ext.A2.     Deceased   defendant   or   appellants<\/p>\n
have   no   right     of   equity   of   redemption   of   Ext.A2<\/p>\n
mortgage,   which   vested   with   Krishnan     Neelakantan.\n<\/p>\n
It   was   never   transferred   to     deceased   defendant.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.406\/03                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
Appellants   case   was   only   that   deceased   defendant<\/p>\n
had   1\/4th        right          over                the   plaint   A   schedule<\/p>\n
property     and   that     1\/4th  right   would   come   to   10><\/p>\n
cents  and  therefore  they  have  jenm  right  over  that<\/p>\n
property   and   under   Ext.B1   the   mortgagee     released<\/p>\n
the         mortgage           right           in          favour         of         deceased<\/p>\n
defendant.  The question whether deceased defendant<\/p>\n
or   the   appellants   being   his   legal   heirs,   have<\/p>\n
independent            right   over   the   plaint   A   schedule<\/p>\n
property   is   not   to   be     decided   in   the   suit.     The<\/p>\n
suit   is   only   for       redemption   of   Ext.A2   mortgage.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.A2            mortgage           was             created              by         deceased<\/p>\n
Neelakantan.    So  long  as  the  deceased  defendant  or<\/p>\n
appellants have no     case that the right of equity<\/p>\n
of   redemption   of   Neelakantan   vested   even   a<\/p>\n
fractionally              right                on          deceased             defendant,<\/p>\n
deceased   defendant   or   appellants   are   not   entitled<\/p>\n
to contend that they have got a right  of equity of<\/p>\n
redemption   of   Ext.A2   mortgage.     Therefore   even   if<\/p>\n
it is stated in Ext.B1 that  the mortgage right was<\/p>\n
was   released   in   favour   of   deceased   defendant,   it<\/p>\n
could only be a  transfer of the right of mortgagee<\/p>\n
by   Bhagavathy   Meenakshy   under   Ext.A2.     If   that   be<\/p>\n
R.S.A.406\/03                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
so,   under   Ext.B1   deceased   defendant   could   only<\/p>\n
claim   the   mortgage   right,   which   originally   vested<\/p>\n
with Meenakshy under Ext.A2.  Being the legal heirs<\/p>\n
of   the   deceased   mortgagor   Neelakantan,   respondents<\/p>\n
are entitled to redeem the mortgage.  I do not find<\/p>\n
any   error   committed   by   the   courts   below   either   in<\/p>\n
construing   or   interpreting   Ext.A1   or   the   legal<\/p>\n
effect   of   Ext.B1   as   canvassed   in   the   appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Courts   below   rightly   granted   a   decree   for<\/p>\n
redemption   of   Ext.A2   mortgage,   on   deposit   of   the<\/p>\n
mortgage   money.         Appellants   have   to   work   out<\/p>\n
their  independent  right,  if  any,  over  the  plaint  A<\/p>\n
schedule   properties   in   a     separate   suit.     Though<\/p>\n
appellants        produced   documents   as   additional<\/p>\n
evidence,   in   the   Second   Appeal   they   are   not<\/p>\n
relevant or necessary to dispose the Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
As   the   documents   are   not   marked,     appellants   are<\/p>\n
entitled to take them back.\n<\/p>\n
      Second Appeal dismissed but without cost.\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 Krishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias … on 30 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA No. 406 of 2003(F) 1. KRISHNAMMA, CHARUMOODU VELIYATHU, … Petitioner 2. SAI SURESH, CHARUMMOODU VELIYATHU, 3. SUKANYA, CHARUMMOODU VELIYATHU, 4. VIJALEKSHMI, CHARUMMOODU VELIYATHU, 5. NISHA CHANDRAN, CHARUMMOODU VELIYATHU, 6. NIDHIN CHANDRAN (MINOR) Vs 1. […]<\/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-253371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias ... on 30 January, 2007 - 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\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias ... on 30 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-13T21:27:55+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\\\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias … on 30 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-13T21:27:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1551,\"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\\\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Krishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias ... on 30 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-13T21:27:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias … on 30 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Krishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias ... on 30 January, 2007 - 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\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias ... on 30 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-13T21:27:55+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\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias … on 30 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-13T21:27:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007"},"wordCount":1551,"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\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007","name":"Krishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias ... on 30 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-13T21:27:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnamma-vs-neelalohitha-alias-on-30-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishnamma vs Neelalohitha Alias … on 30 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/253371","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=253371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/253371\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=253371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=253371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=253371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}