{"id":263321,"date":"2007-02-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007"},"modified":"2015-01-30T00:42:41","modified_gmt":"2015-01-29T19:12:41","slug":"nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Nellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Nellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 84 of 1993()\n\n\n\n1. NELLIKANDI VALIYA POCKER\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. POTHACHOLA BAVA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI K.K.JAYARAJ\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :14\/02\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n               ===========================\n\n                  S.A.  NO. 84   OF 1993\n\n               ===========================\n\n\n\n      Dated this the 14th  day of February, 2007\n\n\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Plaintiff   in   O.S.6\/88   on   the   file   of   Munsiff<\/p>\n
Court,   Kalpetta   was   the   appellant.     Respondent   was<\/p>\n
the   defendant.     On   the   death   of   the   appellant,<\/p>\n
additional  appellants  2  to  5,  his  legal  heirs  were<\/p>\n
impleaded   in   the   appeal.     Deceased   appellant   filed<\/p>\n
the suit for   recovery of possession of the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   building.     According   to   plaintiff,   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   building   was   rented   out   to   the   respondent<\/p>\n
as per an oral lease on 1.5.70 on a monthly rent of<\/p>\n
Rs.15\/-   and   since   then   respondent   has   been   in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   same   and   it   was   subsequently<\/p>\n
enhanced   to   Rs.30\/-   from   1.2.81   and   respondent<\/p>\n
defaulted   to   pay   the     rent   from   January,   1984   and<\/p>\n
inspite   of   Ext.A1   notice   dated   26.11.86   demanding<\/p>\n
surrender   of   the   building   with   arrears   of   rent,<\/p>\n
respondent   did   not   surrender   or   pay   rent   and<\/p>\n
therefore   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   recovery   of<\/p>\n
S.A.84\/93                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
possession   as   the   tenancy   has   been   terminated   by<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 notice.  Respondent in the written statement<\/p>\n
contended   that   the   building   was   constructed   by   him<\/p>\n
in   1960   and   since   then   he   has   been   in   continuous<\/p>\n
occupation  of  the  building  and  he  was  permitted  by<\/p>\n
the   plaintiff   to   put   up   the   homestead   and   since<\/p>\n
then he has been in possession of the homestead and<\/p>\n
therefore   he   is   a   kudikidappukaran   entitled   to<\/p>\n
protection   under     Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act   and   he<\/p>\n
cannot  be  evicted.    As  the  question  of  kudikidappu<\/p>\n
raised   by   the   respondent   arises   for   consideration<\/p>\n
in   the   suit,   as   he   is   bound   to,   learned   Munsiff<\/p>\n
referred   the   question   to   the   Land   Tribunal   under<\/p>\n
section   125(3)   of   the   Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act.\n<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal after examining the plaintiff and the<\/p>\n
defendant   and   marking   the   documents   rendered   a<\/p>\n
finding           in         R.C.30\/89         that         defendant         is         a<\/p>\n
kudikidappukaran   as   defined   under   the   Kerala   Land<\/p>\n
Reforms   Act.     On   receipt   of   the   finding,   learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff examined plaintiff as PW1, defendant as DW1<\/p>\n
and   marked   Exts.A1   to   A3   on   the   side   of   the<\/p>\n
S.A.84\/93                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff   and   Exts.B1   and   B2   on   the   side   of   the<\/p>\n
defendant.   As the finding of the Land Tribunal is<\/p>\n
binding   on   the   trial   court,   learned   Munsiff<\/p>\n
accepting   the   finding   held   that   as   defendant   is   a<\/p>\n
kudikidappukaran   plaintiff   is   not   entitled   to   the<\/p>\n
decree   for   recovery   of   possession.           Plaintiff<\/p>\n
challenged   the   decree   and   judgment   before   Sub<\/p>\n
Court,   Sultanbathery   in   A.S.45\/91.     Learned   Sub<\/p>\n
Judge   reappreciated   the   evidence,   including   the<\/p>\n
finding   of   the   Land   Tribunal   and   confirming   the<\/p>\n
finding   of   the   Land   Tribunal   dismissed   the   appeal.\n<\/p>\n
It is challenged in this second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     Second   appeal   was   admitted   on   formulating<\/p>\n
the following substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
      (i)  Whether the  respondent  is  entitled for  the<\/p>\n
kudikidappu   right   even   though   the   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
buildings cost of construction was Rs.2,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
      (ii)   Whether   the   question   that   the   building<\/p>\n
No.63   and   the   building   No.IV\/120   is   one   and   the<\/p>\n
same   or   not   has   to   be   proved   by   appellant<\/p>\n
eventhough the respondent puts up such a claim.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.84\/93                                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
On   the   death   of   the   plaintiff   appellant   his   wife<\/p>\n
and          children         were         impleaded         as         additional<\/p>\n
appellants 2 to 9.\n<\/p>\n
       3.  Learned counsel appearing for appellant and<\/p>\n
respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
       4.     The   argument   of   learned   counsel   appearing<\/p>\n
for   appellant   was   that   the   Land   Tribunal   wrongly<\/p>\n
found that respondent has been in possession of the<\/p>\n
disputed   building   before   1970   on   the   basis   of<\/p>\n
Exts.B1  and  B2,  when  respondent  as  DW1  both  before<\/p>\n
the   trial   court   and   before   the   Land   Tribunal<\/p>\n
admitted  that  the  building    in  the  plaint  schedule<\/p>\n
property  is  VI\/120  and  Ext.B1  and  Ext.B2  relate  to<\/p>\n
house   No.VI\/63   and   there   is   no   evidence   to   prove<\/p>\n
that   Exts.B1   and   B2   relate   to   the   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
building   and   therefore     findings   of   courts   below<\/p>\n
are     erroneous.     It   was   also   argued   that   Exts.A2<\/p>\n
and A3 establish that in the Panchayat building tax<\/p>\n
demand   register,   plaintiff   is   shown   as   registered<\/p>\n
owner of the building and it disproves the case of<\/p>\n
respondent   that   he   constructed   the   building   and<\/p>\n
S.A.84\/93                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
therefore it should have been found that respondent<\/p>\n
is   not   a   kudikidappukaran.     Learned   counsel   also<\/p>\n
argued  that    report  of  the  Revenue  Inspector  shows<\/p>\n
that     cost   of   construction   of   the   building   was<\/p>\n
Rs.2000\/-   and   in   such   circumstances,   it   is   not   a<\/p>\n
hut   as   defined   under   the   Kerala   Land   Reforms   Act<\/p>\n
and therefore  courts below should have granted the<\/p>\n
decree for recovery possession.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for   respondent<\/p>\n
argued   that   there   is   no   case   for     plaintiff   that<\/p>\n
defendant   changed   his   residence   from   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   building   at   any   point   of   time   after   he<\/p>\n
started living there and Ext.B2 shows that a ration<\/p>\n
card was issued to the defendant to   that house in<\/p>\n
1980   and   Ext.B1   voters   list   shows   that   defendant<\/p>\n
has   been   residing   in   the   very   same   house   even<\/p>\n
before   1964     and   Ext.B1   establish   that   defendant<\/p>\n
has been residing in that building even before 1964<\/p>\n
and   therefore   the   case   of     plaintiff   that     plaint<\/p>\n
schedule  building  was  granted  on  lease  in  1970  has<\/p>\n
been   disproved   and   the   only   other   case   is   that   of<\/p>\n
S.A.84\/93                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
the   defendant   that   he   was   permitted   to   put   up   the<\/p>\n
homestead   and   he   constructed   the   homestead   in   1960<\/p>\n
and he has been residing therein and that case has<\/p>\n
been   rightly   accepted   by     courts   below   and   in   the<\/p>\n
Second Appeal  evidence cannot be reappreciated and<\/p>\n
therefore   the   appeal   is   only   to   be   dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Learned   counsel   also   argued   that   when   the   case   of<\/p>\n
the   defendant   is   that   he   is   a   kudikidappukaran   as<\/p>\n
he   was   permitted   to   put   up   a   homestead   and   he   put<\/p>\n
up the homestead in 1960,   cost of construction of<\/p>\n
the   hut   assessed   by   the   Revenue   Inspector   on   the<\/p>\n
basis   of   the   case   of   the   plaintiff   that   it   was<\/p>\n
constructed in 1970, cannot be relied on and in any<\/p>\n
event   when   it   is   a   homestead   the   cost   of<\/p>\n
construction   is   not   relevant   or   material   and   no<\/p>\n
substantial   question   of   law   is   involved   and<\/p>\n
therefore  Second Appeal is only  to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     It   is   the   specific   case   of   the   plaintiff<\/p>\n
that   plaint   schedule   building   was   entrusted   to   the<\/p>\n
defendant   as   per   an   oral   lease   in   1970.     The   case<\/p>\n
of   the   defendant   was   that   there   was   no   such<\/p>\n
S.A.84\/93                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
entrustment         and         in         fact         the         building         was<\/p>\n
constructed     by   their   predecessor   as   permitted   by<\/p>\n
the     plaintiff in 1960 and it is a homestead   and<\/p>\n
respondent   has     no   other   house   or   land   where   he<\/p>\n
could   erect   a   homestead   and   therefore   he   is   a<\/p>\n
kudikidappukaran.     The   number   of   the   building   was<\/p>\n
not shown in the plaint.  True, Exts.A2 and A3 show<\/p>\n
that   number of the building   from 1986 onwards is<\/p>\n
IV\/120   of   Muttil   Panchayat.   The   previous   number   of<\/p>\n
the   building   is   not   shown   in   Ext.A3.     Ext.A2   only<\/p>\n
shows that   building tax was paid by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
for  the  plaint  schedule  building  also  for  the  year<\/p>\n
1988-89.  Even according to plaintiff, the building<\/p>\n
was   in   existence   atleast   from   1970.   He   did       not<\/p>\n
make   any   attempt   to   produce   the   previous   building<\/p>\n
tax   assessment   register   extract   to   show   what   was<\/p>\n
the   number   of   the   building   during   1970   or   earlier<\/p>\n
years.     As   rightly   pointed   out   by   learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing   for   respondent,   even   according   to<\/p>\n
plaintiff,   defendant   has   been   residing   in   this<\/p>\n
building from 1970 onwards.  Ext.B2 ration card was<\/p>\n
S.A.84\/93                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
issued to the defendant for  the period 1980-84 and<\/p>\n
it   was   issued   to   building   No.IV\/63.   It   is   on   this<\/p>\n
basis,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   appellant<\/p>\n
argued   that   ration   card   was   in   respect   of   another<\/p>\n
house   and   not   for   the   plaint   schedule   building.\n<\/p>\n
When     plaintiff   has   no   case   that   defendant   was<\/p>\n
residing in another building during 1980-84, it can<\/p>\n
only   be   presumed,   as   has   been   rightly   accepted   by<\/p>\n
courts below, that it was in respect of the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   building.     If   that   be   so,   Ext.B2   shows<\/p>\n
that   the   defendant   was   residing   in   that   house   and<\/p>\n
then   the   house   number   was   IV\/63.     Ext.B1   voters<\/p>\n
list for the year 1964   shows that defendant was a<\/p>\n
voter   of   the   very   same   house.   It   therefore<\/p>\n
conclusively   prove   that   atleast   from   1964   onwards<\/p>\n
defendant   has   been   residing   in   that   house.     When<\/p>\n
there   are   only   two   cases,   one   for   the   plaintiff<\/p>\n
that   the   building   was   entrusted   in   1970   as   per   an<\/p>\n
oral lease, and the other for the defendant that it<\/p>\n
was   constructed   by   him   in   1960   and   it   is   proved<\/p>\n
that   defendant   has   been   residing   therein   even<\/p>\n
S.A.84\/93                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
during   1964,   case   of   the   plaintiff   has   necessarily<\/p>\n
to be disbelieved. Courts below on preponderance of<\/p>\n
probability   accepted   the   case   of   the   defendant.\n<\/p>\n
Exercising the powers under section 100 of the CPC,<\/p>\n
this   court   cannot   interfere   with   that   finding   of<\/p>\n
fact.     If   that   be   so,   it   is   proved   that   the   house<\/p>\n
has   been   constructed   by   the   defendant   in   1960   and<\/p>\n
he has been residing therein since then.\n<\/p>\n
      7.  Then the only question is whether defendant<\/p>\n
is a kudikidappukaran as found by the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
and the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   Sub   section   25   of   Section   2   defines<\/p>\n
“kudikidappukaran”.                          Clause         (a)             deals            with<\/p>\n
homestead   and   clause   (b)   with   hut.     As   per   the<\/p>\n
definition   a   kudikidappukaran   means,   a   person   who<\/p>\n
has   neither   a   homestead   nor   any   land   exceeding   in<\/p>\n
extent         three      cents              in      any      city            or        major<\/p>\n
municipality            or         five            cents         in         any         other<\/p>\n
municipality  or  ten  cents  in  any  panchayat  area  or<\/p>\n
township,   in   possession   either   as   owner   or   as<\/p>\n
tenant, on which   he could erect a homestead.     He<\/p>\n
S.A.84\/93                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
comes   under   clause   (a)if   he     has   been   permitted<\/p>\n
with   or   without   an   obligation   to   pay   rent   by   a<\/p>\n
person in lawful possession of any land to have the<\/p>\n
use   and   occupation   of   a   portion   of   such   land   for<\/p>\n
the   purpose   of   erecting   a   homestead.     He   comes<\/p>\n
under   clause   (b),   if   he     has   been   permitted   by   a<\/p>\n
person   in   lawful   possession   of   any   land   to   occupy<\/p>\n
with   or   without   an   obligation   to   pay   rent,   a   hut<\/p>\n
belonging   to   such   person   and   situate   in   the   said<\/p>\n
land.     Therefore   if   the   defendant   has   neither   a<\/p>\n
homestead   nor   any   land   exceeding   the                               extent<\/p>\n
provided   under   the   section,   in   his   possession<\/p>\n
either as owner or as tenant where he could erect a<\/p>\n
homestead and he has been permitted by a person in<\/p>\n
lawful   possession   of   the   land   to   have   the   use   and<\/p>\n
occupation   of   a   portion   of   such   land   for   the<\/p>\n
purpose           of         erecting          a         homestead          is         a<\/p>\n
kudikidappukaran.     “Homestead”   has   been   defined<\/p>\n
under  Explanation  II  of  sub  section  (25)  as  means,<\/p>\n
unless the context otherwise requires, any dwelling<\/p>\n
house   erected   by   the   person   permitted   to   have   the<\/p>\n
S.A.84\/93                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
use   and   occupation   of   any   land   for   the   purpose   of<\/p>\n
such   erection   and   includes   any   such   dwelling   house<\/p>\n
reconstructed by the kudikidappukaran in accordance<\/p>\n
with   the   provisions   of   Section   79.     The   cost   of<\/p>\n
construction   of   not   exceeding   750\/-   rupees   at   the<\/p>\n
time  of  construction  and  the  yield  of  monthly  rent<\/p>\n
not   exceeding   5\/-   rupees   as   provided   under   sub<\/p>\n
clause (i) and sub clause (ii) of sub clause (a) of<\/p>\n
Explanation   II   is   relevant     only   in   respect   of   a<\/p>\n
hut as contemplated under clause (b) of Sub section<\/p>\n
(25).     Therefore   for   the   reason   that   the   cost   of<\/p>\n
construction   of   homestead   exceeds   Rs.750\/-   and   the<\/p>\n
yield   of   monthly   rent   at   the   time   of   construction<\/p>\n
exceeds   Rs.5\/-   the   claim   cannot   be   disallowed.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore on the basis of the report of the Revenue<\/p>\n
Inspector  estimating      the  cost  of  construction  at<\/p>\n
Rs.2000\/-,   plaintiff   is   not   entitled   to   contend<\/p>\n
that   defendant   is   not   a   kudikidappuran.   Moreover,<\/p>\n
the   cost   of   construction   estimated   by   the   Revenue<\/p>\n
Inspector   was   on   the   basis     that   the   building   was<\/p>\n
constructed   in   1970.          When   the   building   was<\/p>\n
S.A.84\/93                                         12<\/span><\/p>\n
constructed   a   decade   earlier,   the   cost   of<\/p>\n
construction   as   estimated   by   the   Revenue   Inspector<\/p>\n
can   only   be   rejected.     Hence     on   that   basis   ,   it<\/p>\n
cannot            be         held         that          defendant         is         not         a<\/p>\n
kudikidappukaran.                           The   courts   below   rightly<\/p>\n
appreciated the facts  and held that defendant is a<\/p>\n
kudikidappukaran.     I   find   no   reason   to   interfere<\/p>\n
with that findings.\n<\/p>\n
      The   appeal   is   bereft   of   merits   and   it   is<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                           M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR<\/p>\n
                                                                          JUDGE<\/p>\n
tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
     W.P.(C).NO. \/06<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Nellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 84 of 1993() 1. NELLIKANDI VALIYA POCKER … Petitioner Vs 1. POTHACHOLA BAVA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD For Respondent :SRI K.K.JAYARAJ The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :14\/02\/2007 […]<\/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-263321","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-29T19:12:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-29T19:12:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1974,\"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\\\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Nellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-29T19:12:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Nellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-29T19:12:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-29T19:12:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007"},"wordCount":1974,"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\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007","name":"Nellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-29T19:12:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nellikandi-valiya-pocker-vs-pothachola-bava-on-14-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nellikandi Valiya Pocker vs Pothachola Bava on 14 February, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263321","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=263321"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263321\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263321"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263321"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}