{"id":256569,"date":"1975-12-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1975-12-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975"},"modified":"2017-01-26T00:28:51","modified_gmt":"2017-01-25T18:58:51","slug":"mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975","title":{"rendered":"Mahammadunni&#8217;S Son Kappatta &#8230; vs Kunhoosa&#8217;S Son Ampalath Veettil &#8230; on 2 December, 1975"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mahammadunni&#8217;S Son Kappatta &#8230; vs Kunhoosa&#8217;S Son Ampalath Veettil &#8230; on 2 December, 1975<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR  224, 1976 SCR  (2) 858<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Ray<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj)<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           PETITIONER:\nMAHAMMADUNNI'S SON KAPPATTA KATHOKANDATH BAVA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nKUNHOOSA'S SON AMPALATH VEETTIL KUNNATHODATH MAHAMMADUNNI &amp;O\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT02\/12\/1975\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N. (CJ)\nBEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH\nSARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH\nSHINGAL, P.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1976 AIR  224\t\t  1976 SCR  (2) 858\n 1976 SCC  (1) 359\n\n\nACT:\n     Partition\tsuit-Proof   of\t marriage-Lucid\t  interval-A\nperson adjudged\t insane whether\t continues  to\tbe  so\ttill\nproved to the contrary.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The plaintiff  who is son of defendant No. 3's mother's\nbrother filed  a suit  for  partition  of  properties  which\nbelonged to  the mother\t and  father  of  defendant  No.  3.\nDefendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of brothers of defendant\nNo. 3's\t mother. Defendant No. 4 is the son of defindant No.\n3's father's  brother.\tDefendant  No.\t3  died\t during\t the\npendency of  the suit. Thereafter, defendant No. 1 filed his\nadditional written  statement and  claimed half share in the\nproperty of defendant No. 3 on the ground that defendant No.\n3 married defendant No. 1 after the suit was instituted.\n     The Trial\tCourt allotted\tdifferent shares  to various\ndefendants in  the properties  left by\tdefendants  No.\t 3's\nmother and  father which are no longer in dispute. The trial\nCourt found  that defendant  No. 4 alone was entitled to the\nshare of  defendant No. 3 on the ground that the marriage of\ndefendant No.  3 with  defendant No.  1 was  not proved. The\ntrial Court  also found\t that defendant\t No. 3\twas mentally\nunsound to enter into any marriage.\n     On appeal, the High Court held that defendant No. 1 was\nmarried to  defendant No.  3 and  defendant No.\t 3 was\tin a\nlucid interval at the time of marriage.\n     On an  appeal by certificate to this Court, the counsel\nfor the\t appellant contended:  (1) that\t the finding  of the\nHigh Court both with regard to the fact of marriage and that\nthe  marriage  took  place  during  a  lucid  interval\twere\nerroneous; (2) that defendant No. 3 was not a sane person as\nis clear first from an order declaring defendant No. 3 to be\na person  of unsound  mind,  whereby  defendant\t No.  4\t was\nappointed guardian  of the  property of\t defendant No. 3 and\ndefendant No.  1 was  appointed guardian  of the  person  of\ndefendant No.  3 Secondly the application of defendant No. 3\nto be  declared herself\t as  a\tperson\tof  sound  mind\t was\nrejected by the District Judge. Thirdly, in the present suit\ndefendant No.  3 was  impleaded as a person of unsound mind;\nand (3) that once a person is adjudged insane it is presumed\nthat state  of unound ess would continue until proved to the\ncontrary.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD :  (1) The   documents relied on by the applellant\ndo not\trule out lucid interval at the time of marriage. The\nHigh Court  relied on the evidence of D.W. 4, a teacher, who\nattended the  marriage. He deposed that defendant No. 3 gave\nher consent to the marriage and was in her lucit interval at\nthat time. The High Court rightly found that defendant No. 3\ngave her  consellt to  the marriage  and was  in  her  lucid\ninteral. The  conclusion of  the  High\tCourt  on  both\t the\nquestions is based on evidence and is correct. [860E-H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1268 of<br \/>\n1970.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">     From the Judgment and order dated 17th July 1969 of the<br \/>\nKerala High Court in A.S. No. 217 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">859<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">     T. S.  Krishnamoorthy Iyer,  N. Sudhakaran\t and  P.  K.<br \/>\nPillai for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">     A. S. Nambiyar for Respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">     (Appeal set  down ex-parte against respondents 1 and 5-<br \/>\n21 Respondent 4 expired : Name of respondent 3 deleted).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     RAY, C.J.\tThis is\t an appeal  by certificate  from the<br \/>\njudgment dated 17 July 1969 of the High Court of Kerala.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">     The question in this appeal is whether defendants No. 1<br \/>\nand 4 are each entitled to share in the property allotted to<br \/>\ndefendant No.  3 in  a partition  decree. Defendant No. 4 is<br \/>\nthe appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">     This appeal  arises out  of a  suit  instituted  on  19<br \/>\nNovember,  1957\t for  partition\t of  properties.  Properties<br \/>\nmentioned in  Schedule A and B to the plaint belonged to the<br \/>\nmother of  defendant No. 3. Properties mentioned in Schedule<br \/>\nC to  the plaint were joint properties of the father and the<br \/>\nmother of defendant No. 3.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">     The plaintiff  and defendant  No. 2 are the sons of one<br \/>\nof the\tbrothers of the mother of defendant No. 3. Defendant<br \/>\nNo. 1  is the  son of  another\tbrother\t of  the  mother  of<br \/>\ndefendant No. 3. Defendant No. 4 is the son of defendant No.<br \/>\n3&#8217;s father&#8217;s brother.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">     Defendant No.  3 died  during the pendency of the suit.<br \/>\nThereafter defendant  No. 1  filed  his\t additional  written<br \/>\nstatement  and\t claimed  half\tshare  in  the\tproperty  of<br \/>\ndefendant No.  3 on  the ground\t that defendant\t No.  1\t had<br \/>\nmarried defendant No. 3 on 30 August, 1959.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">     The Trial\tCourt allotted to defendant No. 33\/6th share<br \/>\nin properties  mentioned in  Schedules A  and to the plaint.<br \/>\nThe plaintiff  and Defendant  No. 1 and defendant No. 2 were<br \/>\neach given 1\/6th share in properties in Schedules A and B to<br \/>\nthe plaint. With regard to Schedule properties the plaintiff<br \/>\nand defendant  No. 1  and defendant  No. 2  were each  given<br \/>\n9\/96th share and defendant No. 3 was given 51\/96th share and<br \/>\ndefendant No. 4 was given 18\/96th share.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">     The Trial\tCourt found  that defendant  No. 4 was alone<br \/>\nentitled to  the share of defendant No. 3 on the ground that<br \/>\nmarriage of  defendant No.  3 with  defendant No.  1 was not<br \/>\nproved. The  Trial Court also found that defendant No. 3 was<br \/>\nmentally unsound to enter into any marriage.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">     Defendant No. 1 preferred an appeal. The High Court set<br \/>\naside  the  judgment  of  the  Trial  Court  and  held\tthat<br \/>\ndefendant No. 1 was married to defendant No. 3 and defendant<br \/>\nNo. 3 was in a lucid interval at the time of marriage.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">     Counsel for the appellant defendant No. 4 impeached the<br \/>\nfinding of  the High  Court both  with regard to the fact of<br \/>\nmarriage and the finding that defendant No. 3 was married in<br \/>\na lucid interval.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">860<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">     Defendant No. 4 relied on three documents in support of<br \/>\nthe submission that defendant No. 3 was not a sane person to<br \/>\nenter into marriage with defendant No. 1. The first document<br \/>\nis Exhibit  B-34 which\tis an  order dated  8 November, 1958<br \/>\ndeclaring defendant No. 3 to be a person of unsound mind. In<br \/>\nthat order  defendant No.  4 was  appointed guardian  of the<br \/>\nproperty  of  defendant\t No.  3\t and  defendant\t No.  1\t was<br \/>\nappointed guardian  of the  person of  defendant No.  3. The<br \/>\nsecond document\t is Exhibit  B-8 dated 7 September 1959. The<br \/>\nappellant submitted that on 7 September 1959 defendant No. 3<br \/>\nwanted to get herself declared as a person of sound mind. By<br \/>\nan order  dated 5  February  1960  being  Exhibit  B-31\t the<br \/>\nDistrict Judge dismissed the application of defendant No. 3.<br \/>\nThe third document on which the appellant relied is the suit<br \/>\nin this\t appeal where  defendant No.  3 on 19 November, 1957<br \/>\nwas impleaded as a person of unsound mind.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">     The  appellant  contended\tthat  though  Exhibit  B-34,<br \/>\nnamely, order  dated 8 November 1958 declaring defendant No.<br \/>\n3 as  a person of unsound mind was not a judgment in rem but<br \/>\nit was\ta judgment  interparties and it would, therefore, be<br \/>\nadmissible under <a href=\"\/doc\/1067003\/\" id=\"a_1\">sections 11<\/a> and <a href=\"\/doc\/808094\/\" id=\"a_1\">13<\/a> of the Evidence Act. The<br \/>\nappellant also\tcontended relying on the decision in <a href=\"\/doc\/1459267\/\" id=\"a_2\">Amanchi<br \/>\nSeshamma v.  Amanchi Padmanabha Rao<\/a>(1) that once a person is<br \/>\nadjudged insane\t it is\tpresumed that  state of\t unsoundness<br \/>\nwill continue until proved to the contrary.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">     Counsel for  the appellant therefore contended that the<br \/>\nconclusion of  the High\t Court that defendant No. 3 was in a<br \/>\nlucid interval\tat the\ttime of\t marriage  was\tagainst\t the<br \/>\noverwhelming documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">     The documents  relied on  by the  appellant do not rule<br \/>\nout lucid  interval at\tthe time  of marriage  on 30  August<br \/>\n1959. The  High Court  relied on  the evidence of D.W. 4 who<br \/>\nattended the  marriage. D.W.  4 was  a teacher. His evidence<br \/>\nwas that defendant No. 3 at the time of marriage talked with<br \/>\nMusaliar. His  further evidence\t was  that  Musaliar  called<br \/>\ndefendant No.  3 and  she went near him and told him that he<br \/>\nwas being  authorised by  her to  give her  in\tmarriage  to<br \/>\ndefendant No. 1. The High Court rightly found that defendant<br \/>\nNo. 3  gave her consent to the marriage and was in her lucid<br \/>\ninterval.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">     The High  Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court<br \/>\nand held that the marriage took place. The High Court relied<br \/>\non the\toral evidence  and found  that marriage\t in fact was<br \/>\nheld. The conclusion of the High Court on both the questions<br \/>\nis correct.  The appeal\t is therefore dismissed. No order as<br \/>\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">P.H.P.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">861<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mahammadunni&#8217;S Son Kappatta &#8230; vs Kunhoosa&#8217;S Son Ampalath Veettil &#8230; on 2 December, 1975 Equivalent citations: 1976 AIR 224, 1976 SCR (2) 858 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. (Cj) PETITIONER: MAHAMMADUNNI&#8217;S SON KAPPATTA KATHOKANDATH BAVA Vs. RESPONDENT: KUNHOOSA&#8217;S SON AMPALATH VEETTIL KUNNATHODATH MAHAMMADUNNI &amp;O DATE OF JUDGMENT02\/12\/1975 BENCH: RAY, A.N. [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-256569","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mahammadunni&#039;S Son Kappatta ... vs Kunhoosa&#039;S Son Ampalath Veettil ... on 2 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahammadunni&#039;S Son Kappatta ... vs Kunhoosa&#039;S Son Ampalath Veettil ... on 2 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1975-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-25T18:58:51+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\\\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahammadunni&#8217;S Son Kappatta &#8230; vs Kunhoosa&#8217;S Son Ampalath Veettil &#8230; on 2 December, 1975\",\"datePublished\":\"1975-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-25T18:58:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975\"},\"wordCount\":902,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975\",\"name\":\"Mahammadunni'S Son Kappatta ... vs Kunhoosa'S Son Ampalath Veettil ... on 2 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1975-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-25T18:58:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahammadunni&#8217;S Son Kappatta &#8230; vs Kunhoosa&#8217;S Son Ampalath Veettil &#8230; on 2 December, 1975\"}]},{\"@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":"Mahammadunni'S Son Kappatta ... vs Kunhoosa'S Son Ampalath Veettil ... on 2 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahammadunni'S Son Kappatta ... vs Kunhoosa'S Son Ampalath Veettil ... on 2 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1975-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-25T18:58:51+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\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahammadunni&#8217;S Son Kappatta &#8230; vs Kunhoosa&#8217;S Son Ampalath Veettil &#8230; on 2 December, 1975","datePublished":"1975-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-25T18:58:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975"},"wordCount":902,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975","name":"Mahammadunni'S Son Kappatta ... vs Kunhoosa'S Son Ampalath Veettil ... on 2 December, 1975 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1975-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-25T18:58:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahammadunnis-son-kappatta-vs-kunhoosas-son-ampalath-veettil-on-2-december-1975#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahammadunni&#8217;S Son Kappatta &#8230; vs Kunhoosa&#8217;S Son Ampalath Veettil &#8230; on 2 December, 1975"}]},{"@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\/256569","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=256569"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256569\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256569"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}