{"id":261957,"date":"2010-06-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010"},"modified":"2015-06-18T13:18:55","modified_gmt":"2015-06-18T07:48:55","slug":"baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Baby vs Omana on 9 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Baby vs Omana on 9 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 841 of 1997()\n\n\n\n1. BABY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. OMANA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.RAJEEV\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :09\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                          P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                         S.A. No. 841 of 1997\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n              Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010.\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
          In a suit for redemption, the defendants set up<\/p>\n
a claim of tenancy. The matter was referred to the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal concerned for a decision on the claim of fixity of<\/p>\n
tenure. The Land Tribunal concerned on a consideration<\/p>\n
of the relevant documents came to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
the transaction is a mortgage and not a lease and<\/p>\n
therefore declined fixity of tenure to the defendants.<\/p>\n
The finding of the Land Tribunal was returned to the civil<\/p>\n
court.  The Munsiff’s Court adopted the finding of the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal and held that the defendants are not<\/p>\n
entitled to fixity of tenure and thereafter decreed the suit<\/p>\n
granting value of improvements to the defendants.<\/p>\n
          2. The defendants carried the matter in appeal<\/p>\n
as   A.S.    83       of      1994         before          the        Sub Court,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram. The lower appellate court on an<\/p>\n
S.A.841\/1997.                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
independent consideration of the same documents came to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that the transaction is only a mortgage and<\/p>\n
not a lease as contended by the defendants. Accordingly,<\/p>\n
the decree of the trial court was confirmed. Aggrieved, the<\/p>\n
defendants have come up in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
             3. The following questions of law have been<\/p>\n
formulated in this Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
      “(a) Are not the defendants entitled to fixity of<\/p>\n
      tenure on the basis of Ext.A1 document?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (b)    Whether the courts below were justified in<\/p>\n
      holding that Ext.A1 document was executed as<\/p>\n
      security when the recitals of the said document<\/p>\n
      and intention of the parties clearly spell out<\/p>\n
      tenancy.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      ) Are not the defendants entitled to fixity of<\/p>\n
      tenure in the light of the decision reported in 1975<\/p>\n
      KLT 1.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (d)      Is the     finding  regarding    value   of<\/p>\n
      improvements supported by evidence?”<\/p>\n
S.A.841\/1997.                  3<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             3.   The learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellants contended that the courts below have erred in<\/p>\n
law in construing Ext.A1 document as a mortgage, whereas<\/p>\n
it actually evidences as a transaction of      lease. Though<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 is nomenclatured as ottikuzhikanam, a reading of the<\/p>\n
document will clearly show that the transaction was for<\/p>\n
enjoyment of the property. According to learned counsel,<\/p>\n
the    fact    that the  transferee  is   entitled  to   make<\/p>\n
improvements in the property and construct buildings is a<\/p>\n
clear indication of the fact that the transaction is a lease.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Learned counsel relied on the definition of ‘ottikuzhikanam’<\/p>\n
as contained in Section 2(39A) of the Kerala Land Reforms<\/p>\n
Act and contended that the transaction can only be a lease.<\/p>\n
Considerable reliance was placed on the decision reported in<\/p>\n
Raman Pillay Kesava Pillay v. Kochukunju Sankaran<\/a><\/p>\n
(1972 K.L.T. 589(F.B.))<\/p>\n
             4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
respondents pointed out that a reading of the documents<\/p>\n
will clearly show that the transaction is nothing but a simple<\/p>\n
S.A.841\/1997.                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
mortgage, possession having granted to the transferee. The<\/p>\n
mere fact that the mortgagee is allowed to make<\/p>\n
improvements and also to construct a building does not<\/p>\n
change the character of the transaction. Learned counsel in<\/p>\n
support of his contention relied on the decision reported in<\/p>\n
Vivekanandan v. Sadasivan (1975 K.L.T. 1)<\/p>\n
             5. The issue involved is regarding the construction<\/p>\n
of Ext.A1 document.         Simply because the document is<\/p>\n
nomenclatured as ottikuzhikanam does not lead to the<\/p>\n
conclusion either way, that is it is a mortgage or a lease.<\/p>\n
The well settled principle is that the document has to be<\/p>\n
read as a whole and then a conclusion has to be drawn as to<\/p>\n
whether it is a lease or a mortgage. The distinction between<\/p>\n
a mortgage and a lease is well settled. While the transfer of<\/p>\n
interest in the case of a lease is for enjoyment of the<\/p>\n
property, in the case of mortgage, it is as security for a debt<\/p>\n
incurred by the mortgagor. The relevant portion of Ext.A1<\/p>\n
reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
S.A.841\/1997.                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
             ”\n<\/p>\n
\n
             6. The debt incurred is a sum of Rs.400\/- and the<\/p>\n
extent of property transferred is only 20 cents. One may at<\/p>\n
once notice that the       transaction was of the year 1961.<\/p>\n
Rs.400\/- for 20 cents was a huge amount at that point of<\/p>\n
S.A.841\/1997.                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
time.     The document contains an express provision of<\/p>\n
surrender on payment of the mortgage amount and it is also<\/p>\n
stated that if any building has been put up by the<\/p>\n
mortgagee, he is entitled to remove the same.<\/p>\n
             7.  In the decision reported in Raman Pillay<\/p>\n
Kesava Pillay v. Kochukunju Sankaran<\/a> (1972 K.L.T. 589<\/p>\n
(F.B.)) it was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             “To attract S.2(22) there must be the transfer<\/p>\n
      of an interest in an immovable property to another<\/p>\n
      person for the latter’s enjoyment; to be more<\/p>\n
      precise the purpose of the transfer must be the<\/p>\n
      enjoyment of the property by the transferee. If,<\/p>\n
      on the other hand, the object of the transer is to<\/p>\n
      constitute the concerned property a security for<\/p>\n
      the consideration received by the transferor the<\/p>\n
      resulting    transaction   is  only   a  possessory<\/p>\n
      mortgage, and the subsequent possession or<\/p>\n
      enjoyment of the property by the transferee is<\/p>\n
      only an incident of the transaction and not its<\/p>\n
      purpose.      The question to be considered is<\/p>\n
      whether Exts.P3, P4 and P5 satisfy this crucial<\/p>\n
      test.    It is not possible to spell out from the<\/p>\n
      express provisions of the three deeds any<\/p>\n
S.A.841\/1997.                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
      intention on the part of the parties to create a<\/p>\n
      landlord  tenant    relationship.      The   holding<\/p>\n
      transferred is a paddy land measuring one acre<\/p>\n
      and 36 cents, and within a short span of two years<\/p>\n
      and two months it was subjected to three<\/p>\n
      successive charges.       The total consideration<\/p>\n
      exceeds sircar rupees 1408, which is by no means<\/p>\n
      a small amount considering the purchase value of<\/p>\n
      money as obtained on the dates of the loans.<\/p>\n
      From Ext.P5 it could be seen that the transferee<\/p>\n
      Raman Pillai advanced from his pocket an amount<\/p>\n
      of Rs.373.14 chms, for managing certain        other<\/p>\n
      properties of the transferor Illom.        It is not<\/p>\n
      probable that the Illom could have thought of<\/p>\n
      charging its immovable property for such a<\/p>\n
      comparatively small amount if it was in a position<\/p>\n
      to discharge the debt by ready payment.          The<\/p>\n
      provision in the deeds prohibiting the transferee<\/p>\n
      from; demanding repayment of the advances is<\/p>\n
      ore indicative of the financial strain the transferor<\/p>\n
      was undergoing than as the expression of his<\/p>\n
      intention to assume the role of a generous<\/p>\n
      landlord. Similarly, the reservation of an annual<\/p>\n
      michavaram is not repugnant to the concept of an<\/p>\n
      otti transaction.  Michavaram in such a context<\/p>\n
S.A.841\/1997.                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
      merely represents the balance of the profits of the<\/p>\n
      property to which the owner is entitled, after<\/p>\n
      meeting the interest charges due on the principal<\/p>\n
      advanced. In view of the express terms used in<\/p>\n
      these transactions as well as the attendant<\/p>\n
      circumstances we are satisfied that the transfers<\/p>\n
      in this case were not for the purpose of enjoyment<\/p>\n
      of the property by the transferee, but only for the<\/p>\n
      purpose of securing the advances received under<\/p>\n
      the respective transactions.    It follows that the<\/p>\n
      transaction evidenced by the documents could not<\/p>\n
      be deemed to be kanoms within the meaning of<\/p>\n
      S.2(22).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
In the decision reported in Vivekanandan v. Sadasivan<\/p>\n
(1975 K.L.T. 1) it was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             “In examining such a transaction there are<\/p>\n
      two stages. At the first stage the document must<\/p>\n
      be read as a whole and in its entirely giving due<\/p>\n
      weight to every term in it and the nomenclature of<\/p>\n
      the    document    and    keeping   in   mind   the<\/p>\n
      surrounding circumstances. If on a reading of the<\/p>\n
      document in the manner indicated above, it is<\/p>\n
      evident that there has been a transfer for<\/p>\n
S.A.841\/1997.                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
      enjoyment for rent or other consideration, then<\/p>\n
      the transaction is a lease and no further question<\/p>\n
      arises. Such cases, where it is possible and the<\/p>\n
      first stage, to reach the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
      transaction is a lease, are very rare, and occur but<\/p>\n
      seldom. The expressions “to any extent a lease”<\/p>\n
      or whether “a lease at all…” occurring in<\/p>\n
      paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment in Krishnan<\/p>\n
      Nair v. Sivaraman Nambudiri will be applicable<\/p>\n
      only to those transactions of the kind mentioned<\/p>\n
      above and not to other composite transactions. In<\/p>\n
      the case of ‘other composite transactions’ which<\/p>\n
      are referred to in paragraph 15 of the judgment in<\/p>\n
      Hussain Thangal v. Ali and again in paragraph 10<\/p>\n
      of the judgment in Krishnan Nair v. Sivaraman<\/p>\n
      Nambudiri, that is, transactions other than those<\/p>\n
      where it is evident that the transfer was for<\/p>\n
      employment already referred to , the question<\/p>\n
      whether the transaction evidences a lease or a<\/p>\n
      mortgage will have to be determined by taking<\/p>\n
      into consideration all th factors which are<\/p>\n
      pertinent and by applying the tests detailed in<\/p>\n
      paragraph 6 of the judgment in Hussain Thangal v.<\/p>\n
      Ali, read in the light of the modifications made in<\/p>\n
      paragraph 9 of the judgment in Krishnan Nair v.<\/p>\n
S.A.841\/1997.                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
      Sivaraman Nambudiri in regard to the fourth test,<\/p>\n
      and bearing in mind the observations in paragraph<\/p>\n
      8 of the same judgment in regard to the second<\/p>\n
      test. On applying the procedure indicated above<\/p>\n
      if it is found that the elements of a lease<\/p>\n
      predominate so as to justify the inference that the<\/p>\n
      dominant intention was to transfer the property<\/p>\n
      for enjoyment, the transaction must be held to be<\/p>\n
      a lease. On the other hand, if the predominant<\/p>\n
      elements indicate a transfer by way of security,<\/p>\n
      then the transaction must be held to be a<\/p>\n
      mortgage.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Section 2(39A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act reads as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
               ” “Ottikuzhikanam” means a transfer for<\/p>\n
      consideration by a person to another of any land<\/p>\n
      other than nilam for the enjoyment of that land<\/p>\n
      and for the purpose of making improvements<\/p>\n
      thereon, but shall not include a mortgage within<\/p>\n
      the meaning of the Transfer of Property Act<\/a>,<\/p>\n
      1882.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
S.A.841\/1997.                 11<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             8. A reading of the above provision shows that<\/p>\n
ottikuzhikanam means the transfer of a property for<\/p>\n
consideration for the enjoyment of that land and for the<\/p>\n
purpose of making improvements thereon. That means it<\/p>\n
should have all the characteristics of a lease as known in<\/p>\n
law.    The definition extracted above clearly shows that it<\/p>\n
does not take in a mortgage within the meaning of Transfer<\/p>\n
of Property Act<\/a>. As already noticed, if on a construction of<\/p>\n
the terms of the document one comes to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
the transfer is for the purpose of enjoyment then it is a<\/p>\n
lease. If the purpose of transfer is to hold it ad a debt, the<\/p>\n
transaction is a mortgage. In the case on hand, it has to be<\/p>\n
noticed that there is no provision for payment of any<\/p>\n
premium or rent or interest. True, the mortgagee is allowed<\/p>\n
to make improvements in the property and to construct<\/p>\n
building therein, but they are only incidental to a mortgage.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The dominant purpose is not for enjoyment of the property,<\/p>\n
but as a security for the debt incurred by the mortgagor.<\/p>\n
Viewed from this angle, the decision in Raman Pillay<\/p>\n
S.A.841\/1997.                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
Kesava Pillay’s Case relied on by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellants is of no help to them and does not take a<\/p>\n
different view.\n<\/p>\n
             9. The contention of the defendants in the suit<\/p>\n
that they are entitled to fixity of tenure or kudikidappu were<\/p>\n
found against by the Land Tribunal.       The lower appellate<\/p>\n
court has observed that the mere direction to pay Sirkar tax<\/p>\n
cannot be treated to be “other consideration” in view of the<\/p>\n
decision reported in Kunhamina Umma v. Paru Amma<\/a><\/p>\n
(1971 K.L.T. 163). The lower appellate court has construed<\/p>\n
the document in its entirety and has come to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the purpose of transaction is as a security for the debt<\/p>\n
and the transaction evidences mortgage only. The finding<\/p>\n
arrived at by the courts below seems to be quite appropriate<\/p>\n
and in consonance with the terms of the document.            No<\/p>\n
interference is called for with the finding of the court below.<\/p>\n
             10. It is unfortunate that the defendants thought<\/p>\n
it unnecessary to adduce evidence regarding the value of<\/p>\n
improvements. Therefore the trial court, in the absence of<\/p>\n
S.A.841\/1997.                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
any evidence in that regard, granted a sum of Rs.100\/- as<\/p>\n
value of improvements.       The lower appellate court also<\/p>\n
considered this issue and found that in the absence of any<\/p>\n
evidence the defendants are not entitled to get more<\/p>\n
amount in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
             The result of the above discussion is that the<\/p>\n
Second Appeal is without any merit and it is liable to be<\/p>\n
dismissed. I do so confirming the judgments and decrees of<\/p>\n
the courts below. There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                         P. BHAVADASAN,
\n                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n
sb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Baby vs Omana on 9 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 841 of 1997() 1. BABY … Petitioner Vs 1. OMANA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.SREEDHARAN NAIR For Respondent :SRI.S.RAJEEV The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN Dated :09\/06\/2010 O R D E R P. BHAVADASAN, J. – […]<\/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-261957","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBaby vs Omana on 9 June, 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\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Baby vs Omana on 9 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-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=\"2010-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-18T07:48:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Baby vs Omana on 9 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-18T07:48:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2075,\"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\\\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Baby vs Omana on 9 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-18T07:48:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Baby vs Omana on 9 June, 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":"Baby vs Omana on 9 June, 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\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Baby vs Omana on 9 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-18T07:48:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Baby vs Omana on 9 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-18T07:48:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010"},"wordCount":2075,"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\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010","name":"Baby vs Omana on 9 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-18T07:48:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/baby-vs-omana-on-9-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Baby vs Omana on 9 June, 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\/261957","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=261957"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261957\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}