{"id":256716,"date":"2007-12-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007"},"modified":"2016-05-29T08:23:01","modified_gmt":"2016-05-29T02:53:01","slug":"augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"Augusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Augusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 865 of 1994()\n\n\n\n1. AUGUSTY JOSEPH\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. KERALA STATE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :04\/12\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                      M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n                    ===========================\n\n                     S.A.  NO. 865    OF 1994\n\n                    ===========================\n\n\n\n       Dated this the 4th day of December, 2007\n\n\n\n                                  JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Plaintiff   in   O.S.146\/1984   on   the   file   of<\/p>\n
Munsiff Court, Vaikom is the appellant.  Defendants<\/p>\n
are   the   respondents.     Second   respondent   is   the<\/p>\n
contractor   and   first   respondent   the   State   ,   third<\/p>\n
respondent     Junior   Engineer   of   P.W.D   and   fourth<\/p>\n
respondent          the         Panchayat            Executive             Officer.\n<\/p>\n
Appellant instituted the suit claiming a decree for<\/p>\n
recovery   of   possession   of   the   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property   and   for   a   mandatory   injunction   for<\/p>\n
restoration          of         the         compound         wall         allegedly<\/p>\n
destroyed   by   respondents   and   permanent   prohibitory<\/p>\n
injunction   from   encroaching   further   into   the<\/p>\n
property   of   the   appellant.     Case   of     appellant   is<\/p>\n
that plaint schedule property is the portion of the<\/p>\n
property   belonging   to   appellant   under   Ext.A1<\/p>\n
purchase certificate and  property having an extent<\/p>\n
of   6   acres   and   10   cents   in   survey   No.371\/2   belong<\/p>\n
S.A.865\/1994                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
to   him   on   tenancy   right   and   its     jenm   right   was<\/p>\n
purchased   as   per   order   in   O.A.654\/1977   from   Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal,  Vaikom.    It  was  contended  that  along  the<\/p>\n
middle   portion   of   entire   property   from   south   to<\/p>\n
north,   appellant   surrendered   a   portion   of   the<\/p>\n
property     for   Peruva-Monippally   road   and   the   road<\/p>\n
on reaching the northern end of the property of the<\/p>\n
appellant   turns   towards   the   west   and   proceeds<\/p>\n
further   and   there   was   a   double   phased   kayyala   on<\/p>\n
the  north     having  a  width   of  5   to  8    feet   and  the<\/p>\n
northern   kayyala   was   having   a   length   of   510   feet<\/p>\n
and on 14.2.1978 while appellant was out of station<\/p>\n
V.K.Bhaskaran,       contractor   under   third   respondent<\/p>\n
without           consent   and   knowledge   of        appellant<\/p>\n
forcibly   dismantled   the   kayyala   and   the   materials<\/p>\n
used   for   the   kayyala   were   destroyed   and   appellant<\/p>\n
sustained a damage of Rs.9,540\/-.  It was contended<\/p>\n
that   to   avoid   multiplicity   of     suit,   he   is   not<\/p>\n
claiming     damages   for   the   same.     It   was   contended<\/p>\n
that respondents have no right to encroach upon the<\/p>\n
remaining   propety   of     appellant   than   the   portion<\/p>\n
S.A.865\/1994                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
surrendered   for   the   purpose   of   the   road   and   as<\/p>\n
portion   of   the   property,   which   is   shown   as   the<\/p>\n
plaint   schedule   property,   was   trespassed   upon   and<\/p>\n
added   to   the   road   after   demolishing   the   compound<\/p>\n
wall,   appellant   is   entitled   to   a   decree   for<\/p>\n
recovery     possession   of   the   same   after   restoring<\/p>\n
the   kayyala   to   its   original   position.       Second<\/p>\n
respondent   contractor   filed   a   written   statement<\/p>\n
contending   that   he   did   not   demolish   any   compound<\/p>\n
wall   and     he   is   an   unnecessary   party   to   the   suit.\n<\/p>\n
Third         respondent         filed         a         written         statement<\/p>\n
contending that the existing way was widened into a<\/p>\n
road   by   utilising   the   land   surrendered   by<\/p>\n
adjoining owners and the respective property owners<\/p>\n
surrendered land to enable   widening of   road to a<\/p>\n
width of 8 meters and in 1972 August itself stones<\/p>\n
were planted showing the surrendered portion of the<\/p>\n
property   and   appellant   did   not   raise   any   objection<\/p>\n
with regard to the alignment and no portion of the<\/p>\n
remaining   property   of     appellant   was   encroached<\/p>\n
upon   and   no   compound   wall   was   demolished   and<\/p>\n
S.A.865\/1994                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore   appellant   is   not   entitled   to   the   decree<\/p>\n
sought for.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     Learned   Munsiff   on   the   evidence   of   Pws.   1<\/p>\n
to   4,   DW1   and   Exts.A1   to   A7,   Exts.B1,     B2   and<\/p>\n
Ext.C1   dismissed   the   suit   holding   that   appellant<\/p>\n
failed   to   establish   that   plaint   schedule   property<\/p>\n
was   encroached   upon   by     respondents   to   form   the<\/p>\n
road   or   that   respondents   demolished   the   double<\/p>\n
faced  kayyala as claimed.  The suit was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Appellant   challenged   the   judgment   before   District<\/p>\n
Court,Kottayam in A.S.350\/1986.  Learned Additional<\/p>\n
District   Judge   on   reappreciation   of   evidence   found<\/p>\n
tht   there   is   no   evidence   to   prove   that   for<\/p>\n
widening   the   road   or   formation   of   the   road,   any<\/p>\n
portion   of   the   property   of     appellant   other   than<\/p>\n
the   surrendered   area   was   trespassed   upon   by<\/p>\n
respondents   or   they   demolished   the   kayyala   and<\/p>\n
appellant is not entitled to the decree sought for.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal   was   dismissed.     It   is   challenged   in   the<\/p>\n
second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    Second  appeal  was  admitted formulating  the<\/p>\n
S.A.865\/1994                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law.<\/p>\n
         1.     Whether   it   is   the   duty   of   the<\/p>\n
         appellant         to         produce         negative<\/p>\n
         evidence to prove   encroachment of<\/p>\n
         the   plaint   schedule   property,   as<\/p>\n
         it   does   not   form   part   of   the<\/p>\n
         surrendered property.\n<\/p>\n
         2.     In   a   case   where     possession<\/p>\n
         and   ownership   of   the   property     is<\/p>\n
         not disputed, whether  appellant is<\/p>\n
         to   prove   the   title                  of   the<\/p>\n
         property again.\n<\/p>\n
         3.     Whether     courts   below   on   the<\/p>\n
         evidence were justified  in holding<\/p>\n
         that   appellant   did   not   establish<\/p>\n
         title   to   the   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
         property.\n<\/p>\n
      4.  Learned counsel appearing for appellant and<\/p>\n
second respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      5.  The argument of the learned counsel is that<\/p>\n
respondents   have   no   case   that   there   is   any<\/p>\n
S.A.865\/1994                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
puramboke land adjoining the property of  appellant<\/p>\n
and their case is also that the road was formed by<\/p>\n
making   use   of     the   surrendered   land   by     appellant<\/p>\n
and   as   Title   of   the   appellant   is   not   disputed   and<\/p>\n
is   proved   by   Ext.A1   and   Ext.C1   report   establish<\/p>\n
that  existing kayyala on the south and west of the<\/p>\n
road   was   demolished   for   widening   the   road     burden<\/p>\n
is on the   respondents to prove that compound wall<\/p>\n
was   existing   in   the   surrendered   portion   of   the<\/p>\n
property   and   on     evidence   it     should   have   been<\/p>\n
found   that   as     appellant   has   title   to   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property, he is entitled to the decree for<\/p>\n
recovery   of   possession.                          Learned   counsel   also<\/p>\n
argued   that   under   Ext.A4   appellant   requested   the<\/p>\n
Panchayat for a copy of the   surrender form       and<\/p>\n
under   Ext.A5   it   was   replied   that     records   are   not<\/p>\n
available            with         the         Panchayat         and         in         such<\/p>\n
circumstance, appellant has established that he did<\/p>\n
not   surrender   the   plaint   schedule   property   and   as<\/p>\n
he has title,  courts below should have granted the<\/p>\n
decree.  Learned counsel finally argued that before<\/p>\n
S.A.865\/1994                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
the   first   appellate   court,   appellant   sought   an<\/p>\n
opportunity   to   prove   the   extent   of              property<\/p>\n
trespassed   upon     over   and   above   the     surrendered<\/p>\n
land and that opportunity should have been  granted<\/p>\n
and   in   the   light   of     the   evidence   of   DW1   and   the<\/p>\n
contentions   in   the   written   statement   that   the<\/p>\n
surrendered land is only having a width of 8 meters<\/p>\n
, opportunity is to be granted to the appellant to<\/p>\n
prove   that   the   existing   road   is   having   more   width<\/p>\n
than   8   metres   and   the     additional   extent   is   the<\/p>\n
trespassed   area     and     appellant   is   entitled   to<\/p>\n
recover   possession   of   the   same   on   the   strength   of<\/p>\n
title and  appeal is to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     Ext.A1   purchase   certificate   obtained   by<\/p>\n
appellant   pursuant   to   the   order   in   O.A.654\/1977<\/p>\n
only   establish   that   jenm   right   over   6   acres   10<\/p>\n
cents    in survey No.371\/2 of Njeezhoor Village was<\/p>\n
assigned   to   the   appellant.   Appellant   also   admitted<\/p>\n
that  property   was   surrendered   for   formation   of   the<\/p>\n
road.     In   the   absence   of   any   documentary   evidence<\/p>\n
to   prove   the   actual   extent   and   description   of   the<\/p>\n
S.A.865\/1994                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
property so surrendered   it is not possible to fix<\/p>\n
the   property   surrendered   by     appellant   for   the<\/p>\n
purpose of the road.  As according to appellant, he<\/p>\n
had   surrendered   a   portion   of   his   property   and<\/p>\n
pursuant  to   the   surrender     originally   existing   way<\/p>\n
was   formed   into   a   road   which   turns   towards   the<\/p>\n
northern   side   splitting   up   his   property   into   two<\/p>\n
plots, it is for him to prove that existing road is<\/p>\n
annexing more land.  The case of  appellant is that<\/p>\n
on the south and west of that road there existed a<\/p>\n
double   faced   stone   compound     wall   constructed   by<\/p>\n
appellant   and   that     portion   of   the   property   where<\/p>\n
the compound  wall was standing was not surrendered<\/p>\n
and   only   the   property   which   lies   further   to   the<\/p>\n
north   and   east   of   the   stone   wall   was   surrendered<\/p>\n
for   forming   the   road   and   respondents   illegally<\/p>\n
demolished     the   compound   wall   and   encroahced   a<\/p>\n
portion   which     was   not   acquired   or   surrendered,<\/p>\n
appellant  is   entitled   to   recovey   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
same.     Courts   below   on   the   evidence   found   that<\/p>\n
there   is   no   material     to   fix   what   exactly   is   the<\/p>\n
S.A.865\/1994                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
property   which   was   originally   surrendered   by<\/p>\n
appellant.     Though   appellant   filed   an   application<\/p>\n
before the Panchayat to get   copy of the surrender<\/p>\n
document,   Ext.A5   shows   that                          records   are   not<\/p>\n
available   with   the   Panchayat.                               There   is   no<\/p>\n
material  available to find out what exactly is the<\/p>\n
description  and   measurement   of     the   property   which<\/p>\n
was         surrendered         by                   appellant         to         enable<\/p>\n
respondents to form the road.\n<\/p>\n
       7.  As the suit is one for declaration of title<\/p>\n
and   recovery   of   possession,   burden   is   on   the<\/p>\n
appellant   to   prove   his   title.                        The   fact   that<\/p>\n
respondents   did   not   establish   the   identity   of   the<\/p>\n
property surrendered will not enable him   to get a<\/p>\n
decree.   Neither     the   failure   of     respondents   to<\/p>\n
prove   the   identity   of   the   property   surrendered   or<\/p>\n
the   failure     to   prove   the   title   to   the   disputed<\/p>\n
portion   of   the   property   will   enable   him   to   the<\/p>\n
decree.     The   question   is   whether   on   the   evidence,<\/p>\n
it   is     possible   to   hold   that     plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property,   which   is   described   as   the   property<\/p>\n
S.A.865\/1994                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
encroached   upon   by   respondents   to   form   the   road,<\/p>\n
was   not   surrendered   by   the   appellant.     Apart   from<\/p>\n
alleging   that     plaint   schedule   property   was   not<\/p>\n
surrendered,   appellant   did   not   specifically   plead<\/p>\n
what exactly was the property surrendered.  Learned<\/p>\n
counsel argued that in the light of the contentions<\/p>\n
raised   in   the   written   statement   that   the   road   was<\/p>\n
formed   after   the   adjoining   owners   surrendered   8<\/p>\n
metres   width   of   land   and   if   the   road   touching   the<\/p>\n
plaint   schedule   property   as   it   now   stands     is<\/p>\n
having a width of more than 8 metres, it could only<\/p>\n
be by encroaching upon the remaining portion of the<\/p>\n
appellant   which   was   not   surrendered.   But                                 no<\/p>\n
evidence  was adduced to prove that   existing width<\/p>\n
of   the   road,   either   on   the   north   or   the   west,   was<\/p>\n
more   than   8   metres.     Ext.C1   report   does   not   give<\/p>\n
any   indication   to   find   out   the   width   of   the   road<\/p>\n
through which it passes through the property of the<\/p>\n
appellant            covered         under         Ext.A1         title         deed.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore   on   the   material   evidence,   it   is   not<\/p>\n
possible   to   hold   that   plaint   schedule   property   is<\/p>\n
S.A.865\/1994                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
part  of the property belonging to   appellant which<\/p>\n
was   not         surrendered   by                    appellant   for   the<\/p>\n
formation of the road.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   It is seen from paragraph 2 of the written<\/p>\n
statement            filed         by          third         respondent         that<\/p>\n
respondents   have   a   specific   case   that   for   the<\/p>\n
formation   of   the   road   8   metres   width   of   land   was<\/p>\n
surrendered  by   the respective owners and the land<\/p>\n
so   surrendered   was   measured   and   stones   were   fixed<\/p>\n
on   either   side   of   the   road   in   1972.     Inspite   of<\/p>\n
that   pleading,   appellant   did   not   make   any   attempt<\/p>\n
to   get   the   Commissioner   identified   the   property<\/p>\n
with   reference   to   the   stones   so     fixed   by   the<\/p>\n
Government   in   August,   1972.     When   no   such   attempt<\/p>\n
was   made   to   identify   the   property   which   was<\/p>\n
surrendered, first appellate court did not grant an<\/p>\n
opportunity, though an order of  remand was sought.\n<\/p>\n
In   the   nature   and   circumstance   of   the   case,   I   do<\/p>\n
not   find   that   it   is   in   the   interest   of   justice   to<\/p>\n
remand   the   suit   at   this   belated   stage,   especially<\/p>\n
when appellant did not make any attempt to get the<\/p>\n
S.A.865\/1994                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
property  identified with reference to the     survey<\/p>\n
stones   fixed by the Government after the land was<\/p>\n
surrendered   by   the   owners,   for   the   formation   of<\/p>\n
road.        The   burden   to   prove   the   identity   of<\/p>\n
property  cannot be shifted to the shoulders of the<\/p>\n
respondents.     If   the   appellant   failed   to   establish<\/p>\n
that    plaint schedule property is not the property<\/p>\n
which   was   surrendered,   he   is   not   entitled   to   the<\/p>\n
decree   sought   for.     On   the   evidence,   courts   below<\/p>\n
rightly found that appellant did not establish that<\/p>\n
plaint   schedule     property   is   a     portion   of   the<\/p>\n
property,     which   was   not   surrendered   by   him     for<\/p>\n
formation   of   the   road.     I   find   no   merit   in   the<\/p>\n
appeal.  Appeal is dismissed. No 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 Augusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 865 of 1994() 1. AUGUSTY JOSEPH … Petitioner Vs 1. KERALA STATE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.SURENDRA MOHAN For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :04\/12\/2007 O R D […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-256716","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAugusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 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\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Augusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-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=\"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-29T02:53:01+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Augusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-29T02:53:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1909,\"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\\\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007\",\"name\":\"Augusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-29T02:53:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Augusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 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":"Augusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 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\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Augusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-29T02:53:01+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Augusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-29T02:53:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007"},"wordCount":1909,"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\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007","name":"Augusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-29T02:53:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/augusty-joseph-vs-kerala-state-on-4-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Augusty Joseph vs Kerala State on 4 December, 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\/256716","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=256716"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/256716\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=256716"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=256716"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=256716"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}