{"id":258513,"date":"2010-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-05T21:43:47","modified_gmt":"2016-02-05T16:13:47","slug":"jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nFAO.No. 141 of 2010()\n\n\n1. JOSE, AGED 70,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. THOMAS, S\/O.THOTTIAN PAILAN,\n3. ROSSY, W\/O.THOTTIAN VARGHESE,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ANTONY, S\/O.VALATHIPARAMBIL\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :29\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.\n              -------------------------------\n                       F.A.O. NO.141 OF 2010\n              -------------------------------\n             DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
            Defendants in OS.No.291\/2001 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Principal Munsiff’s Court, Irinjalakuda are the appellants.         The<\/p>\n
order of remand passed by the Principal Sub Court, Irinjalakuda in<\/p>\n
A.S.No.37\/2009 is under challenge.\n<\/p>\n
            2. The respondent herein as plaintiff filed the suit for<\/p>\n
perpetual prohibitory injunction. Admittedly, the plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property belongs to the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff’s case that plaint<\/p>\n
B schedule is the way provided to plaint A schedule and other<\/p>\n
items of properties in the partition deed. The parties are near<\/p>\n
relatives. The property was partitioned in the year 1966. The<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s mother and the defendants’ predecessors are parties to the<\/p>\n
partition deed. It is also the plaintiff’s case that B schedule is the<\/p>\n
way ear-marked for       ingress and egress     to plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property and that it starts from the Panchayat road towards east and<\/p>\n
                                 -2-<\/span>
\nFAO.No.141\/2010<\/p>\n
leads to the plaintiff’s property and the property of the defendants<\/p>\n
on the east of the plaint A schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
           3.   The defendants denied the plaint averments and<\/p>\n
contended that the way mentioned in the partition deed ends on the<\/p>\n
property of the 3rd defendant. According to them, access to plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property is possible through the flanges in the properties<\/p>\n
lying on the south, east and north of the plaint A schedule property<\/p>\n
and that the plaintiff as well as the predecessors have been using<\/p>\n
the flanges for access to plaint A schedule property. In short, the<\/p>\n
contention is that the way mentioned in the partition deed does not<\/p>\n
reach plaint A schedule property. The defendants also filed counter<\/p>\n
claim seeking a decree of prohibitory injunction restraining the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and his men from trespassing into the defendants’ property<\/p>\n
or for making a way through their properties<\/p>\n
           4. The trial court as well as the Appellate Court read the<\/p>\n
relevant provisions in the partition deed. The trial court having<\/p>\n
analysed the evidence and considered the contentions raised by<\/p>\n
                                 -3-<\/span>
\nFAO.No.141\/2010<\/p>\n
both sides, held that the plaintiff has not succeeded in proving that<\/p>\n
the 2 kole wide way provided by Ext.A1 extends to plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief<\/p>\n
claimed in the plaint. The trial court also considered the counter<\/p>\n
claim on merits and found that the counter claimants are entitled to<\/p>\n
get a decree of injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, the trial court<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim.<\/p>\n
           5. The plaintiff preferred the appeal. The Lower<\/p>\n
Appellate Court read and interpreted the provision regarding the<\/p>\n
way in Ext.A1 partition deed and found that as per the recitals in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, B schedule pathway starts from the Panchayat road on the<\/p>\n
western side of the entire property and reached the paddy field on<\/p>\n
the east. The paddy field is known as “Mundakan Padam”. On the<\/p>\n
basis of the recitals in Ext.A1, the plaintiff contended before the<\/p>\n
Appellate Court that the terms in Ext.A1 clearly proved that the<\/p>\n
said document is in the nature of express grant. After considering<\/p>\n
the nature of the contentions of both the parties, the Appellate<\/p>\n
                                  -4-<\/span>
\nFAO.No.141\/2010<\/p>\n
Court found that the identity of the pathway is clearly proved.<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 shows that the disputed pathway runs from west to the<\/p>\n
eastern side where the paddy field is situated. The Lower Appellate<\/p>\n
Court also discussed the evidence on the basis of the<\/p>\n
Commissioner’s report and the oral evidence tendered by the parties<\/p>\n
as well. The partition deed produced as Ext.A1 is not disputed by<\/p>\n
either side. Three items, i.e. item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of D schedule in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 are allotted to the plaintiff’s mother. It has come out in<\/p>\n
evidence that item No.3 is paddy field lying on the east of the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property. Defendants are also having paddy fields<\/p>\n
on the eastern side of plaint A schedule property. After reading<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 partition deed, the Appellate Court found that both parties<\/p>\n
are having right to use the plaint B schedule pathway to reach<\/p>\n
Mudakan Padam from the Panchayat road. The findings entered by<\/p>\n
the Lower Appellate Court are in reversal of the findings entered<\/p>\n
by the trial court. The Appellate Court observed that on reading the<\/p>\n
provisions of the way in Ext.A1 as a whole, it can be seen that all<\/p>\n
                                -5-<\/span>
\nFAO.No.141\/2010<\/p>\n
the parties are entitled to use the way which starts from the<\/p>\n
Panchayat way on the western side which reaches the Mundakan<\/p>\n
Padam on the eastern side. The Appellate Court also noted the fact<\/p>\n
that the defendants have admitted in paragraph 6 of the written<\/p>\n
statement that the defendants are going to the Mundakan Padam on<\/p>\n
the eastern side using the beaten track seen by the Commissioner.<\/p>\n
The Appellate Court held that the trial court went in error in<\/p>\n
interpreting Ext.A1 partition deed. The Appellate Court also noted<\/p>\n
that there is mistake in the description of plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property. The western boundary is shown only as C schedule<\/p>\n
parambu. There is no indication in the plaint shedule that the B<\/p>\n
schedule way is there on the western side.       According to the<\/p>\n
defendants, the way ends on the northern boundary of the property<\/p>\n
of the 3rd defendant. In the circumstances, the plaintiff sought for<\/p>\n
amendment of the plaint. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that<\/p>\n
during the pendency of the appeal the way was destroyed by the<\/p>\n
defendants by making a ditch.      This fact was reported by the<\/p>\n
                                 -6-<\/span>
\nFAO.No.141\/2010<\/p>\n
Commissioner in his report dated 4\/6\/2009. Therefore, it has<\/p>\n
become necessary to amend the plaint seeking the relief of<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction to restore the way, which is alleged to have<\/p>\n
been blocked by the respondents as noted by the Commissioner.<\/p>\n
For all these reasons, the Lower Appellate Court found fit to<\/p>\n
remand the case for fresh consideration. Since the judgment and<\/p>\n
decree passed by the trial court in the suit are set aside, the Lower<\/p>\n
Appellate Court also set aside the decree passed by the trial court in<\/p>\n
the counter claim.\n<\/p>\n
           6. After hearing the parties at length, I find that the<\/p>\n
reasons stated by the Lower Appellate Court for re-consideration of<\/p>\n
the suit and the counter claim are justified in all respects. The<\/p>\n
reasons stated for remand, which I have discussed in the preceding<\/p>\n
paragraphs, would show that the Appellate Court had considered<\/p>\n
the controversy in the right perspective and ordered fresh trial. The<\/p>\n
Appellate Court also issued directions to afford opportunity to the<\/p>\n
parties to adduce additional evidence. Since the relief claimed in<\/p>\n
                                 -7-<\/span>
\nFAO.No.141\/2010<\/p>\n
the suit and the counter claim are inter-related, the entire suit as<\/p>\n
well as the counter claim shall have to be re-tried and a decision has<\/p>\n
to be arrived at afresh.     Since the Lower Appellate Court has<\/p>\n
directed the trial court to give opportunity to the plaintiff to amend<\/p>\n
the plaint and also permitted the parties to adduce additional<\/p>\n
evidence, the parties are at liberty to raise all the contentions<\/p>\n
including maintainability of the counter claim. The trial court has<\/p>\n
to consider all the issues and contentions afresh untrammelled by<\/p>\n
any of the findings and conclusions arrived at by the trial court and<\/p>\n
the Lower Appellate Court in the respective judgments.            The<\/p>\n
discussion made above is only for the limited purpose of examining<\/p>\n
the legality of the remand order. Therefore, the trial court shall<\/p>\n
decide all the questions afresh, after affording opportunity to both<\/p>\n
sides.\n<\/p>\n
           In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
The suit shall be decided afresh by the trial court within a period of<\/p>\n
9 months from the date of appearance of the parties.              The<\/p>\n
                               -8-<\/span>
\nFAO.No.141\/2010<\/p>\n
Interlocutory Applications pressed pending suit shall be considered<\/p>\n
on merits. The parties shall appear before the court below on 21st<\/p>\n
December, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                             HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                    Judge.\n<\/p>\n
kcv.\n<\/p>\n
                           True Copy<\/p>\n
                                           P.S. to Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM FAO.No. 141 of 2010() 1. JOSE, AGED 70, … Petitioner 2. THOMAS, S\/O.THOTTIAN PAILAN, 3. ROSSY, W\/O.THOTTIAN VARGHESE, Vs 1. ANTONY, S\/O.VALATHIPARAMBIL … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) For Respondent :SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated […]<\/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-258513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-05T16:13:47+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\\\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-05T16:13:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1326,\"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\\\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Jose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-05T16:13:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-05T16:13:47+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\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-05T16:13:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010"},"wordCount":1326,"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\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010","name":"Jose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-05T16:13:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-antony-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jose vs Antony on 29 November, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258513","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=258513"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258513\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}