{"id":262964,"date":"2008-05-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008"},"modified":"2015-09-30T01:39:55","modified_gmt":"2015-09-29T20:09:55","slug":"savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008","title":{"rendered":"Savithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Savithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 33447 of 2007(F)\n\n\n1. SAVITHRI, W\/O. RAMAKRISHNAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. UDAYABHANU, S\/O. RAMACHANDRAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. PADMINI, W\/O. RAMACHANDRAN,\n\n3. DAUGHTER YAMUNA, D\/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN,\n\n4. CHANDRABHANU, S\/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.C<\/a>HANDRASEKHAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :28\/05\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                     M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n                   -----------------------------------------\n                     W.P(C) NO.33447 OF 2007\n                   -----------------------------------------\n             DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2008\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Petitioner is the 12th defendant in O.S.44 of 1973. Ext.P3<\/p>\n
preliminary decree was passed on 20.12.1977 holding that the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule properties are available for partition and they are<\/p>\n
to be divided and shares are to be allotted as stated in the<\/p>\n
preliminary decree. Subsequently Ext.P4 final decree was passed<\/p>\n
on 7.10.2003. As per clause 28 of Ext.P4 final decree plots M1,<\/p>\n
M2, M3 and M4 in Ext.C5 plan were allotted to the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Petitioner filed EP 47 of 2006 for taking delivery of the property<\/p>\n
allotted to her under Ext.P4 final decree. At that stage one of the<\/p>\n
children of Ramachandran, who was 30th defendant in Ext.P3<\/p>\n
preliminary decree, filed a petition before the Executing Court<\/p>\n
contending that as Ramachandran died before passing of the final<\/p>\n
decree and his legal heirs were not impleaded petitioner is not<\/p>\n
entitled to take delivery of the property.                 That petition was<\/p>\n
dismissed. It was challenged before this court in W.P.(C) 23007 of<\/p>\n
2006. Under Ext.P6 judgment this court dismissed that petition<\/p>\n
holding that as per Ext.P4 final decree no share was allotted to<\/p>\n
WP(C) 33447\/07                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
the 30th defendant Ramachandran and therefore his legal heirs<\/p>\n
are not to be impleaded in the final decree and for not impleading<\/p>\n
the legal heirs of Ramachandran executability of the decree<\/p>\n
cannot be challenged. Thereafter the said writ petitioner along<\/p>\n
with his mother filed two applications before the Executing Court<\/p>\n
EA327 of 2006 and 328 of 2006 which are Exts.P1 and P9<\/p>\n
petitions herein (EA327 of 2006 and 328 of 2006). The petitions<\/p>\n
were filed both under Section 47<\/a> and Rule 99 of XXI of Code of<\/p>\n
Civil Procedure. Thereafter the said petitioners approached this<\/p>\n
court for a direction for early disposal of the petitions by filing<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) 22211 of 2007.       Under Ext.P7 judgment this court<\/p>\n
directed the Executing Court to dispose the applications within 6<\/p>\n
months from 19.7.2007. Petitioner herein to whom notice was not<\/p>\n
sent by this court before passing Ext.P7 judgment appeared<\/p>\n
before this court and filed Review Petition 735 of 2007. Under<\/p>\n
Ext.P8 order this court disposed the Review Petition directing the<\/p>\n
Executing    Court   to  conduct    an   enquiry   regarding    the<\/p>\n
maintainability of the applications at the threshold level and find<\/p>\n
whether the petitioners have any right to prefer a claim and if the<\/p>\n
claim is not maintainable to dispose the petitions at the threshold.<\/p>\n
Thereafter Ext.P1 and P9 petitions were heard by the executing<\/p>\n
WP(C) 33447\/07                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
court. Under Ext.P11 order it was found that though petitions<\/p>\n
are not maintainable under Rule 99 of Order XXI of Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure, as the petitioners in the applications are claiming<\/p>\n
under Ramachandran who was the 30th defendant in the suit, they<\/p>\n
are parties to the decree and therefore their claim has to be<\/p>\n
adjudicated under Section 47of<\/a> the Code.         The petitions were<\/p>\n
thereafter posted for enquiry.       Exts.P11 and P12 orders are<\/p>\n
challenged in this petition filed under Article 227<\/a> of Constitution of<\/p>\n
India.\n<\/p>\n
        2.    Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and<\/p>\n
respondents were heard.        Learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioners pointed out that the Ramachandran though was the<\/p>\n
30th defendant in the suit, did not file a written statement and did<\/p>\n
not raise any contention with regard to the availability of the<\/p>\n
plaint  schedule property       for  partition  and under Ext.P3<\/p>\n
preliminary decree and P4 final decree no share was allotted to<\/p>\n
Ramachandran and therefore though he was a former party to<\/p>\n
the suit, he is not a party to the suit as provided under Section 47<\/p>\n
of Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance was placed on the decision of<\/p>\n
a learned Single Judge of this court in Francis v. Joseph Scaria<\/p>\n
(1992(1) KLJ65).        The learned counsel argued that when<\/p>\n
WP(C) 33447\/07                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
respondents are claiming right under Ext.P5 partition deed, which<\/p>\n
came into existence subsequent to the institution of the suit and<\/p>\n
the right claimed by them is the right which was earlier allegedly<\/p>\n
available with Ramachandran, who did not raise any contention in<\/p>\n
the suit cannot challenge the executability of the decree and<\/p>\n
respondents who obtained right subsequent to the suit are not<\/p>\n
entitled to object the executability of the decree by filing a<\/p>\n
petition under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Usha<\/p>\n
Sinha v. Dina Ram and Others<\/a> (2008 SAR Civil 448) argued<\/p>\n
that when respondents are claiming right under one of the<\/p>\n
defendants in the suit, they are not entitled to file any petition<\/p>\n
under rule 99 of Order XXI of Code of Civil Procedure with respect<\/p>\n
to the subject matter of the decree and the Executing Court<\/p>\n
should have held that Ext.P1 and P9 petitions are not<\/p>\n
maintainable either under Section 47<\/a> or Rule 99 of Order XXI of<\/p>\n
Code of Civil Procedure. It was argued that attempt is only to<\/p>\n
protract the delivery by taking out a Commission and a<\/p>\n
comparison of Item No.8 of the Ext.P3 preliminary decree with<\/p>\n
Item No.3 of the A schedule property and Item No.1 of the B<\/p>\n
schedule property of Ext.P5 partition deed relied on by<\/p>\n
WP(C) 33447\/07                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
respondents establish that they are the same property.<\/p>\n
      3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued<\/p>\n
that the property claimed by the respondents under Exts.P1 and<\/p>\n
P9 petitions are not part of any of the property divided under<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 final decree. It was argued that the properties allotted to<\/p>\n
the respondents under Ext.P5 partition deed are different<\/p>\n
properties and under the guise of taking delivery of the property<\/p>\n
allotted to the respondents under Ext.P5, petitioner is not entitled<\/p>\n
to take delivery of the property of the respondents for the reason<\/p>\n
that   respondents are claiming right originally available with<\/p>\n
Ramachandran, the 30th defendant in the suit. It was vehemently<\/p>\n
argued that the right claimed by respondents is not the right<\/p>\n
which was not in respect of the property which was decided by<\/p>\n
the court under Ext.P3 preliminary decree or P4 final decree and<\/p>\n
therefore respondents are entitled to raise objection to the<\/p>\n
execution of the decree in respect of their property and their<\/p>\n
petition is liable to be considered under Rule 99 of Order XXI of<\/p>\n
Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner, respondents are the children of<\/p>\n
Ramachandran who was defendant No.30 in the suit.            Under<\/p>\n
WP(C) 33447\/07                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P1 and P9 petitions filed before the Executing Court<\/p>\n
respondents are claiming right over the parties allotted under<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 partition deed. The right claimed by them is the right<\/p>\n
which was available with Ramachandran. When Ramachandran<\/p>\n
did not dispute the availability of the plaint schedule properties<\/p>\n
claimed in O.S.44 of 1973 and did not raise any claim for any<\/p>\n
portion of the property or that they are not available for partition<\/p>\n
or are to be excluded while dividing, respondents are not entitled<\/p>\n
to claim any right in respect of the plaint schedule properties<\/p>\n
which are directed to be divided under Ext.P3 preliminary decree.<\/p>\n
As Ramachandran cannot dispute the same, respondents who are<\/p>\n
claiming under Ramachandran and that too under Ext.P5 deed<\/p>\n
which came into existence after the suit cannot challenge the<\/p>\n
decree. To that extent respondents are not entitled to dispute the<\/p>\n
executability of the decree under Section 47<\/a> or the Code<\/a> of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure. As held by this court in Francis’s case, for the purpose<\/p>\n
of considering the question whether respondents are parties to<\/p>\n
the decree as contemplated under Section 47<\/a> of the Code the<\/p>\n
question to be decided is whether the right of that party was<\/p>\n
agitated and decided in the suit. If the right was not agitated or<\/p>\n
decided he cannot be treated as a party for the purpose of<\/p>\n
WP(C) 33447\/07                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 47<\/a>.    If that be so, when Ramachandran under whom<\/p>\n
respondents claimed right did not raise any claim in respect of<\/p>\n
any portion of the plaint schedule property, they are claiming the<\/p>\n
right which was with Ramachandran, they are not entitled to raise<\/p>\n
objection based on Section 47<\/a>.       Therefore in any view of the<\/p>\n
matter the petitions are not maintainable under Section 47 of the<\/p>\n
Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Then the question is whether the petitions are<\/p>\n
maintainable under Rule 99 of Order XXI of Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure.     When      respondents are claiming right under<\/p>\n
defendant No.30 who was a party to the suit and that too based<\/p>\n
on a transfer effected subsequent to the date of instituting the<\/p>\n
suit, respondents are not entitled to file a petition under Rule 99<\/p>\n
of Order XXI. True if the properties claimed by them are not any<\/p>\n
part of the decree schedule property, being third parties they are<\/p>\n
entitled to dispute the execution of the decree and taking delivery<\/p>\n
of the property in respect of that property. But they cannot object<\/p>\n
to the decree holder taking delivery of the property allotted to her<\/p>\n
under Ext.P4 final decree. As stated earlier under Clause No.28<\/p>\n
of Ext.P4 final decree plots M1, M2, M3 and M4 in Ext.C5 plan<\/p>\n
are allotted to the petitioner. As respondents are claiming under<\/p>\n
WP(C) 33447\/07                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
the defendant No.30 in the suit, they cannot dispute the right of<\/p>\n
the petitioner from taking delivery of plots M1, M2, M3 and M4 as<\/p>\n
shown in Ext.C5 plan. Even if any portion of this property are<\/p>\n
covered under Ext.P5 partition deed, respondents are not entitled<\/p>\n
to cause any objection to the delivery.      Therefore there is no<\/p>\n
necessity to further considering Ext.P1 and P9 applications by<\/p>\n
Executing Court. Exts.P11 and P12 orders are set aside. Ext.P1<\/p>\n
and P9 petitions stand dismissed. Executing Court is directed to<\/p>\n
deliver plots M1, M2, M3 and M4 in Ext.C5 plan of Ext.P4 final<\/p>\n
decree after identifying the properties as shown in C5 plan.<\/p>\n
                                M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                             JUDGE<\/p>\n
Okb\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Savithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 33447 of 2007(F) 1. SAVITHRI, W\/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. UDAYABHANU, S\/O. RAMACHANDRAN, … Respondent 2. PADMINI, W\/O. RAMACHANDRAN, 3. DAUGHTER YAMUNA, D\/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN, 4. CHANDRABHANU, S\/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN, For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNAN For Respondent […]<\/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-262964","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSavithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008 - 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\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Savithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-09-29T20:09:55+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Savithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-29T20:09:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1632,\"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\\\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008\",\"name\":\"Savithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-09-29T20:09:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Savithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Savithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008 - 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\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Savithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-09-29T20:09:55+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Savithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-29T20:09:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008"},"wordCount":1632,"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\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008","name":"Savithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-09-29T20:09:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/savithri-vs-udayabhanu-on-28-may-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Savithri vs Udayabhanu on 28 May, 2008"}]},{"@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\/262964","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=262964"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262964\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262964"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262964"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262964"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}