{"id":260699,"date":"2009-06-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009"},"modified":"2014-03-23T02:27:06","modified_gmt":"2014-03-22T20:57:06","slug":"k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 3748 of 2009(U)\n\n\n1. K.ARAVINDAKSHAN, S\/O.KUMARAN, AGED 51,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. BALAKRISHNA MENON, S\/O.C.KRISHNAN NAIR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :12\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                    S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                        W.P.(C) No.3748 of 2009\n                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                          Dated: 12th June, 2009\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India seeking the following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n
1. To set aside Ext.P6 order in I.A.9132 of 2008 in O.S.No.5 of 2008<\/p>\n
and allow Ext.P3 I.A.No.9132 of 2008 in O.S.No.5 of 2008 of 1st<\/p>\n
Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam.\n<\/p>\n
2. To issue such other writ order or direction as may be necessary in<\/p>\n
the interest of justice.\n<\/p>\n
Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.5\/08 on the file of the Additional<\/p>\n
Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit was filed for a decree of permanent<\/p>\n
prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing<\/p>\n
upon or committing waste and damages or interfering with the<\/p>\n
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint<\/p>\n
property having an extent of 8.361 cents comprising a two storied<\/p>\n
building in Survey Nos.861\/4 and 862 of Elamkulam Village. An<\/p>\n
application for amendment was moved by the plaintiff alleging that<\/p>\n
the property had been trespassed upon by the defendant and reduced<\/p>\n
into his possession after institution of the suit and, therefore, the<\/p>\n
relief of recovery of possession from the defendant has been<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.3748\/09                    – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
warranted. Along with the amendment application, the valuation for<\/p>\n
the amended relief and the court fee payable thereof was also shown<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff. The amendment was resisted by the defendant filing<\/p>\n
objections, mainly contending that the valuation shown was incorrect<\/p>\n
and the property should be valued on its market value as on the date<\/p>\n
of the suit. The learned Sub Judge, after examining the materials<\/p>\n
produced by the plaintiff, arriving at a conclusion that the market<\/p>\n
value given by the plaintiff is incorrect directed for filing a fresh<\/p>\n
valuation statement. Ext.P5 is the valuation statement filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in compliance of the order of the court, in which he has<\/p>\n
shown the centage value of the property at Rs.25,000\/-. Not being<\/p>\n
satisfied with the centage value shown and holding that it is even<\/p>\n
much less than the consideration shown in the sale deed of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, learned Sub Judge formed a conclusion that the valuation of<\/p>\n
the subject matter shown by the plaintiff was incorrect and therefore<\/p>\n
the application for amendment was not allowable. In that view of the<\/p>\n
matter, the valuation for amendment was dismissed. Ext.P6 is copy of<\/p>\n
that order. Ext.P6 order is challenged in the Writ Petition as illegal<\/p>\n
and the petitioner seeks to set aside that order invoking the<\/p>\n
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court.\n<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.3748\/09                   – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
      2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Inviting my attention to<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 order impugned in the Writ Petition, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner submitted that the order is clearly illegal as the amended<\/p>\n
application itself had been dismissed without conducting an enquiry<\/p>\n
as to the correct valuation of the property. If the valuation stated by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff was found unacceptable for any reason whatsoever,<\/p>\n
according to the learned counsel, the court should have conducted an<\/p>\n
enquiry as to what exactly the valuation of the property to determine<\/p>\n
the court fee payable. Without doing so, it is submitted, holding that<\/p>\n
the valuation stated is incorrect, the amendment application itself<\/p>\n
was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge, which is a procedure not<\/p>\n
sanctioned by law. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the respondent contended that no interference with Ext.P6 order is<\/p>\n
warranted as the valuation was not corrected by the plaintiff even<\/p>\n
after an opportunity was extended by the court. In respect of the<\/p>\n
very same subject matter, the defendant had filed another suit as<\/p>\n
O.S.No.1085\/07 for a decree for specific performance and the<\/p>\n
agreement for sale therein was over Rs.33 lakhs which reflected the<\/p>\n
correct market value of the property at the time of institution of the<\/p>\n
suit, according to the learned counsel. Plaintiff should have valued the<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.3748\/09                     – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
property in accordance with the market value and his failure to do so<\/p>\n
even after providing an opportunity entailed the dismissal of the<\/p>\n
amendment application by the court below under Ext.P6 order and it<\/p>\n
is not liable to be interfered with in exercise of the supervisory<\/p>\n
jurisdiction by this court, is the submission of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
       3. The various stages at which the question of sufficiency of<\/p>\n
court fee, as to whether proper fee has been paid, can be considered<\/p>\n
are covered by Sections 12<\/a>, 13<\/a> and 18<\/a> of the Court Fees Act. When a<\/p>\n
suit is instituted in any court other than the High Court before<\/p>\n
ordering the plaint to be registered, the first stage of examination of<\/p>\n
sufficiency of court fee arises for consideration. A decision as to<\/p>\n
whether proper fee has been made on the plaint has to be arrived by<\/p>\n
the court on the allegations contained in the plaint and also on the<\/p>\n
materials covered by the statement, if any, filed under Section 10<\/a> of<\/p>\n
the Court Fees Act. The decision so formed by the court is subject to<\/p>\n
review and correction later as indicated in succeeding sub sections<\/p>\n
(2) and (3) of Section 12<\/a> of the Court Fees Act. The second stage of<\/p>\n
enquiry emerges for consideration if a contention is taken as to the<\/p>\n
insufficiency of court fee by any of the defendants in his written<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.3748\/09                      – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
statement before the first hearing of the suit or before evidence is<\/p>\n
recorded on the merits of the suit claim. If such a plea of insufficiency<\/p>\n
of court fee is raised, it has to be heard and disposed before evidence<\/p>\n
is recorded. In case, a decision is arrived in the suit that proper court<\/p>\n
fee has not been paid, plaintiff shall be given an opportunity to<\/p>\n
amend the suit in accordance with the court’s decision to pay the<\/p>\n
deficit court fee within the time fixed. In the event of noncompliance<\/p>\n
of the order within the time given it will lead to rejection of the plaint<\/p>\n
and such other order as to cost as the court deem fit and proper. The<\/p>\n
third stage arises if any one is added as a defendant after framing of<\/p>\n
issues provided such impleadment is not as a successor or<\/p>\n
representative of interest of a party already on record and who had<\/p>\n
the opportunity to raise the question earlier. Such a person<\/p>\n
impleaded as an additional defendant may with the permission of the<\/p>\n
court raise a plea that proper court fee has not been paid or that the<\/p>\n
fee paid has not been sufficient. Here also the court has to follow the<\/p>\n
procedure indicated earlier and determine the sufficiency of the court<\/p>\n
fee paid before recording the evidence of such additional defendant<\/p>\n
on the merits of the claim.      The above three stages are covered by<\/p>\n
various   sub-sections     under    Section 12 of    the   Court     Fees<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.3748\/09                     – 6 –<\/span><\/p>\n
Act. The 4th stage arises when a party becomes liable to pay<\/p>\n
additional fee by raising of an issue framed in the suit. That is also to<\/p>\n
be resolved following the procedure indicated earlier as covered<\/p>\n
under Section 12<\/a> of the Court Fees Act. The 5th stage emerges in a<\/p>\n
situation where a further enquiry on the sufficiency of the court fee<\/p>\n
by the court is necessitated on receipt of the report of the Court Fee<\/p>\n
Examiner deputed by the High Court under Section 18(1)<\/a> of the Court<\/p>\n
Fees Act. When such a report is received from the Court Fee<\/p>\n
Examiner, after inspecting the records of the suit to examine the<\/p>\n
correctness of the report made and orders passed with respect to the<\/p>\n
sufficiency of the court fee, the court can review an earlier decision<\/p>\n
given by the court on the same question and the decision then<\/p>\n
formed by the court under Section 18(2)<\/a> of the Court Fees Act would<\/p>\n
be final so far as that court is concerned. The determination of the<\/p>\n
sufficiency of the court fee and the decision as to the proper court fee<\/p>\n
paid on the suit claim by the court at whatever stage it had been<\/p>\n
arrived at, is subject to further scrutiny whenever the case comes up<\/p>\n
before a court of appeal. Correctness of any order passed by the<\/p>\n
lower court on the sufficiency of the court fee paid on the plaint or<\/p>\n
any other proceeding can be examined by the court of appeal either<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.3748\/09                   – 7 –<\/span><\/p>\n
of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties when the<\/p>\n
case comes up for its consideration. Such a situation is covered by<\/p>\n
Section 12(4)<\/a> of the Court Fees Act.\n<\/p>\n
       4. I have adverted to the various stages as to when the<\/p>\n
sufficiency of the court fee on a plaint or a proceeding can be<\/p>\n
examined by a court with reference to the relevant provisions under<\/p>\n
the Court Fees Act<\/a> to point out that an enquiry as to whether proper<\/p>\n
court fee on the claim can be proceed only if it forms part of the<\/p>\n
pleadings in the case. When a plaintiff seeks for an amendment of his<\/p>\n
plaint by moving an interlocutory application setting forth the<\/p>\n
proposed amendment it is not proper or correct for the court to<\/p>\n
examine whether the valuation calculated and the court fee on such<\/p>\n
valuation under the proposed amendment are correct and sufficient.<\/p>\n
That stage would arise for consideration only if the amendment is<\/p>\n
allowed and incorporated in the plaint. Any challenge by the<\/p>\n
defendant that the valuation set out in the proposed amendment as<\/p>\n
regards the sufficiency of the court fee can be enquired into only if<\/p>\n
the amendment is allowed and carried out in the plaint and not<\/p>\n
before. In case, by the proposed amendment, a valuation is shown<\/p>\n
which if the amendment is allowed, would take away the suit or<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.3748\/09                    – 8 –<\/span><\/p>\n
proceeding out of the jurisdiction of the court in which the plaint was<\/p>\n
initially filed, then if the amendment is allowed the enquiry on the<\/p>\n
sufficiency of the court court fee can be done only by the competent<\/p>\n
court to which the amended plaint returned is presented. In<\/p>\n
considering the merit of the amendment application, the court is<\/p>\n
concerned only with the question whether the proposed amendment<\/p>\n
is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in<\/p>\n
controversy between the parties. It is not open to the court to<\/p>\n
determine in that enquiry whether the valuation of the suit and<\/p>\n
sufficiency of court fee as shown by the plaintiff in his amendment<\/p>\n
application is correct or not, but, among other circumstances<\/p>\n
presented, it can be looked into only for the purpose whether the<\/p>\n
proposed amendment is bonafide and necessary for resolving the<\/p>\n
controversies arising for adjudication. Any enquiry by the court on<\/p>\n
the amendment application itself as regards the sufficiency of the<\/p>\n
court fee even before the amendment is allowed and carried out in<\/p>\n
the plaint is not at all in consonance with the provisions in Courts<\/p>\n
Fees Act<\/a> as to how sufficiency of the court fee on a suit claim is to be<\/p>\n
determined and further any such course is fraught with          serious<\/p>\n
consequences which may affect the substantive rights of the parties<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.3748\/09                   – 9 –<\/span><\/p>\n
involved in the suit or proceedings. In    K.S.E.B. v C.S.Company<\/p>\n
(1996(2) KLT 532) while considering the effect of an amendment<\/p>\n
under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. which, if allowed, would take<\/p>\n
away from a party which had accrued to him by lapse of time, it has<\/p>\n
been observed that when amendment is to be allowed, the question<\/p>\n
regarding payment of court fee also has to be reconsidered(para 15).<\/p>\n
That was a case where computation of court fee on the basis of the<\/p>\n
amendment demanded under the then existing Court Fees Act<\/a> as on<\/p>\n
the date of institution of the suit, which was long prior to the<\/p>\n
amended provisions made in 1991. In the above decision, the<\/p>\n
principles governing determination of court fee as per the provisions<\/p>\n
of the Court Fees Act<\/a> have not arisen for consideration before this<\/p>\n
court and as such the decision is not an authority to hold that<\/p>\n
determination of court fee has to be reckoned simultaneously with<\/p>\n
the question whether the proposed amendment is allowable or not.<\/p>\n
      5. Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Sub Judge rejecting the<\/p>\n
amendment application moved by the plaintiff solely for the reason<\/p>\n
that the valuation of the subject matter for the purpose of the relief<\/p>\n
shown was not correct, is unsustainable and it is liable to be set<\/p>\n
aside. In the nature of the controversy arising for adjudication in the<\/p>\n
W.P.C.No.3748\/09                     – 10 –<\/span><\/p>\n
suit, proposed amendment made by the plaintiff to have the<\/p>\n
additional relief of recovery of possession is found essential and<\/p>\n
Ext.P3 application for amendment has only to be allowed. So,<\/p>\n
reversing Ext.P6 order, Ext.P3 amendment application is allowed, but<\/p>\n
subject to further enquiry suo moto or on the basis of any challenge<\/p>\n
by the defendant in his additional written statement to the amended<\/p>\n
plaint as regards the valuation shown by the plaintiff and sufficiency<\/p>\n
of proper court fee on the relief claimed. The Writ Petition is disposed<\/p>\n
as above.\n<\/p>\n
\n
srd                          S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 3748 of 2009(U) 1. K.ARAVINDAKSHAN, S\/O.KUMARAN, AGED 51, … Petitioner Vs 1. BALAKRISHNA MENON, S\/O.C.KRISHNAN NAIR, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :12\/06\/2009 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-260699","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009 - 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\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-22T20:57:06+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-22T20:57:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2206,\"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\\\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009\",\"name\":\"K.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-22T20:57:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"K.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009 - 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\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-22T20:57:06+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-22T20:57:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009"},"wordCount":2206,"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\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009","name":"K.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-22T20:57:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-aravindakshan-vs-balakrishna-menon-on-12-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Aravindakshan vs Balakrishna Menon on 12 June, 2009"}]},{"@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\/260699","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=260699"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260699\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}