{"id":263334,"date":"2010-06-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-30T23:35:18","modified_gmt":"2019-01-30T18:05:18","slug":"gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 101 of 2010()\n\n\n1. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,AGED 80,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. NABEESA,W\/O.LATE ETTIYATTUKARA MUHAMMED,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :17\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n               PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &\n              C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n    ------------------------------------------------\n             R. C. R. No.101 of 2010\n    ------------------------------------------------\n       Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010\n\n                       ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J<\/p>\n
     Under challenge in this revision filed under<\/p>\n
Section 20 is the judgment of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority confirming the order of<\/p>\n
eviction passed against the revision petitioner by<\/p>\n
the Rent Control Court on the ground under sub<\/p>\n
Section 3 of Section 11. The need projected by<\/p>\n
the respondent\/landlady was that she needs the<\/p>\n
petition schedule building which consists of a hall<\/p>\n
and a storeroom presently under the occupation of<\/p>\n
the revision     petitioner   for conducting hotel<\/p>\n
business for the purpose of doing the very same<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010        -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
      business. The bona fides of the need was stiffly<\/p>\n
      disputed. It was pointed out that the landlady is a<\/p>\n
      Muslim lady who cannot normally be expected to<\/p>\n
      conduct business. It was pointed out further that<\/p>\n
      she had two daughters and a son, all of whom are<\/p>\n
      already married and settled down in life. All the<\/p>\n
      children including the son, it was pointed out are<\/p>\n
      almost permanently settled down in a Gulf<\/p>\n
      country. The benefit of the first and second<\/p>\n
      provisos to sub Section 3 of Section 11 was also<\/p>\n
      claimed by the revision petitioner. Benefit of the<\/p>\n
      first proviso was claimed on the basis of a room<\/p>\n
      situated on the southern side of the petition<\/p>\n
      schedule building which was previously being used<\/p>\n
      for the conduct of Valiakath Footwears.<\/p>\n
             2. Before the Rent Control Court, the<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010       -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
      landlady herself gave evidence as PW1 in support<\/p>\n
      of her claim. Her evidence inspired the Rent<\/p>\n
      Control Court which held that the need is bona<\/p>\n
      fide. Apart from the oral evidence of PW1 before<\/p>\n
      the Rent Control Court, Exts.A1 to A7, B1 and B2,<\/p>\n
      C1 and C1(a) and the oral evidence of RW1 and<\/p>\n
      RW2 came on record. The landlady’s explanation<\/p>\n
      regarding the room where Valiakath Footwear was<\/p>\n
      being conducted previously was that the room no<\/p>\n
      longer belongs to her but was gifted to by her in<\/p>\n
      1998 as per Ext.A2 gift deed to her son. The Rent<\/p>\n
      Control Court relied on Ext.A2 and took the view<\/p>\n
      that since the landlady is not the owner of the<\/p>\n
      building covered by Ext.A2, the first proviso to sub<\/p>\n
      Section 3 of Section 11 cannot have any<\/p>\n
      application. That court also found that the tenant<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
      was unable to prove that he satisfies both the<\/p>\n
      ingredients of the second proviso to sub Section 3<\/p>\n
      of Section 11. That court rather accepted the case<\/p>\n
      of the landlady that the income derived from the<\/p>\n
      business carried on by the tenant in the petition<\/p>\n
      schedule premises was not the only source of the<\/p>\n
      tenant’s livelihood. That court was also not<\/p>\n
      impressed much by Ext.C1 report which was to<\/p>\n
      the effect that buildings are not available in the<\/p>\n
      locality on lease and it was available only by sale<\/p>\n
      or mortgage. The Rent Control Court accordingly<\/p>\n
      ordered eviction under sub Section 3 of Section<\/p>\n
      11.<\/p>\n
             3. Considering the appeal preferred by the<\/p>\n
      revision petitioner, the Appellate Authority re-<\/p>\n
      appraised the evidence. The Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010        -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
      also did not find any reason to disbelieve the<\/p>\n
      version of PW1 that she wants to occupy the<\/p>\n
      petition schedule premises for the purpose of<\/p>\n
      conducting hotel business as the tenant is doing<\/p>\n
      presently. The Appellate Authority not only<\/p>\n
      endorsed the reasoning of the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
      in the context of the first proviso to sub Section 3<\/p>\n
      of Section 11, but also found that even if the room<\/p>\n
      where Valiakath Footwears was being conducted is<\/p>\n
      under the vacant possession of the landlady, then<\/p>\n
      also there was special reason for ordering eviction<\/p>\n
      of the petition schedule building since Valiakath<\/p>\n
      Footwear       room was    not   large  enough    to<\/p>\n
      accommodate       the landlady’s    proposed   hotel<\/p>\n
      business. The Appellate Authority would concur<\/p>\n
      with the conclusions of the Rent Control Court in<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010         -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
      the context of the second proviso to sub Section 3<\/p>\n
      of Section 11 and accordingly, would dismiss the<\/p>\n
      RCA filed by the revision petitioner.<\/p>\n
             4. In this revision filed under Section 20,<\/p>\n
      various grounds have been raised challenging the<\/p>\n
      judgment of the Appellate Authority and the order<\/p>\n
      of the Rent Control Court. Sri.G.Sreekumar<\/p>\n
      Chelur, the learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
      petitioner addressed arguments before us on the<\/p>\n
      basis of grounds raised in the memorandum of<\/p>\n
      revision. The submissions of Sri.Sreekumar were<\/p>\n
      opposed       by  Sri.K.S.Bharathan,  the  learned<\/p>\n
      counsel for the respondent. Sri.Sreekumar drew<\/p>\n
      our attention to the oral evidence given by PW1<\/p>\n
      and would highlight the last five lines in the<\/p>\n
      deposition of PW1 which we extract below:-<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010         -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
                   “]+nIapdnbpsS   sXm+v  Ingt!apdn<\/p>\n
             Hgn*pIn+n ]q+n!nS!pIbmWv. l@Pn<\/p>\n
             ]+nI apdnbpsS ASp\/pE ]q+n!nS!ps<\/p>\n
             apdnbnp tlm+p _nkn\\Jv XpS’mw.<\/p>\n
             ]q+n!nS!ps apdn aI\\v Zm\\w sImSp\/p.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
             5. According to Mr.Sreekumar Ext.A2 gift<\/p>\n
      deed executed by PW1 in favour of her son has<\/p>\n
      never come into effect. The Donee\/son has not<\/p>\n
      visited his home village during the past ten years.<\/p>\n
      It was none other than PW1 who took possession<\/p>\n
      of Valiakath Footwear room back from the tenant<\/p>\n
      then in occupation of that room. That room<\/p>\n
      continues to be under the lock and key of the<\/p>\n
      mother. Sri.Sreekumar argued that when PW1 has<\/p>\n
      conceded in her evidence that she can conduct the<\/p>\n
      proposed hotel business in that room and<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010       -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
      concedes in evidence that she has not taken even<\/p>\n
      the preliminary steps for conducting the proposed<\/p>\n
      hotel business in that room despite that room<\/p>\n
      being in her possession all along, the finding<\/p>\n
      concurrent though it may be, entered by the<\/p>\n
      authorities below that PW1 needs possession of<\/p>\n
      the petition schedule premises bona fide cannot<\/p>\n
      be correct. According to Mr.Sreekumar, even if the<\/p>\n
      first proviso under sub Section 3 of Section 11<\/p>\n
      does not operate in view of Ext.A2, then also the<\/p>\n
      circumstance that PW1 has not utilised the<\/p>\n
      Valiakath Footwear room for conducting the<\/p>\n
      proposed hotel business at least in a small way<\/p>\n
      will very strongly indicate that the need is not<\/p>\n
      bona fide. According to him, first proviso to sub<\/p>\n
      Section 3 does operate since it is crystal clear that<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010        -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
      Ext.A2 gift deed has never been acted upon by the<\/p>\n
      parties     to   the same.   Sri.Sreekumar      would<\/p>\n
      challenge the findings entered by the courts below<\/p>\n
      regarding the tenant’s eligibility for protection of<\/p>\n
      the second proviso. In this context he would read<\/p>\n
      over to us Ext.C1 commission report which is to<\/p>\n
      the effect that other buildings are not available in<\/p>\n
      the locality on lease, but at the most, buildings<\/p>\n
      are available by sale. Availability of suitable<\/p>\n
      buildings as contemplated by the second proviso<\/p>\n
      to sub Section 3 is availability of suitable buildings<\/p>\n
      on lease and not availability of buildings on sale,<\/p>\n
      so argued the learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
      petitioner. Sri.Sreekumar also submitted in the<\/p>\n
      same context that the landlord was unable to<\/p>\n
      adduce any documentary evidence to support the<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010        -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
      landlord’s     contention that    the  tenant  was<\/p>\n
      possessed of immovable properties.         In the<\/p>\n
      absence of documentary evidence, the authorities<\/p>\n
      should have found that the only source of income<\/p>\n
      which the tenant has is the business of Geetha<\/p>\n
      Hotel presently being conducted in the scheduled<\/p>\n
      premises.\n<\/p>\n
             6. As a last plea Sri.Sreekumar submitted<\/p>\n
      that the landlady should be directed to let out<\/p>\n
      Valiakath Footwear room to the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
      on condition that an attractive rent is paid to the<\/p>\n
      landlady and that the scheduled premises are<\/p>\n
      surrendered immediately.\n<\/p>\n
             7. Sri.K.S.Bharathan, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
      the respondent would remind us of the attenuated<\/p>\n
      nature of the present jurisdiction under Section<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010       -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
      20. According to him, there is no illegality,<\/p>\n
      irregularity or impropriety about the judgment of<\/p>\n
      the Rent Control Appellate Authority which is in<\/p>\n
      confirmation of the order of the Rent Control<\/p>\n
      Court finding that the need projected by the<\/p>\n
      landlady is bona fide and that the RCP is not liable<\/p>\n
      to fail by virtue of either the first or second<\/p>\n
      proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. Valiakath<\/p>\n
      Footwear room ceased to be under the ownership<\/p>\n
      of     landlady   seven   years   prior   to    the<\/p>\n
      commencement of RCP. First proviso to sub<\/p>\n
      Section 3 can operate only when the landlady has<\/p>\n
      under her possession her own building. Since<\/p>\n
      ownership of that room is not with the landlady,<\/p>\n
      the     proviso   cannot   apply.   According    to<\/p>\n
      Sri.Bharathan,    landlady  has  not   made     any<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010       -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
      admission in her evidence that she can conduct<\/p>\n
      hotel business in Valiakath Footwear room.<\/p>\n
      According to him, it is in evidence that the<\/p>\n
      relationship between the landlady and her son has<\/p>\n
      become strained after the son got married. This,<\/p>\n
      according to him, is the reason why the son is not<\/p>\n
      even visiting his mother. If the mother were to<\/p>\n
      conduct Hotel business in son’s room, son’s<\/p>\n
      permission will be required. Counsel submitted<\/p>\n
      that at any rate there is no comparison between<\/p>\n
      the Valiakath Footwear room and the petition<\/p>\n
      schedule premises which consisted of a large<\/p>\n
      room and a storeroom.\n<\/p>\n
             8. We have very anxiously considered the<\/p>\n
      rival submissions addressed at the Bar. In fact, in<\/p>\n
      deference to the seriousness with which the<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010         -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
      learned      counsel for   the revision   petitioner<\/p>\n
      highlighted what he described as the admissions<\/p>\n
      made by PW1 in her evidence regarding the<\/p>\n
      availability of Valiakath Footwear room for conduct<\/p>\n
      of hotel business by her, we have reappraised the<\/p>\n
      entire    evidence given by PW1.        On a re-<\/p>\n
      appreciation of PW1’s testimony we do not find<\/p>\n
      any admission made by PW1 to the effect that<\/p>\n
      Valiakath Footwear room is under her vacant<\/p>\n
      possession and that she can conduct hotel<\/p>\n
      business therein. True in the last but one sentence<\/p>\n
      of her deposition, she has stated that hotel<\/p>\n
      business can be conducted in the said room. But<\/p>\n
      in the very next line which significantly is the last<\/p>\n
      line in the evidence what she says is that the said<\/p>\n
      room is handed over to the son thereby indicating<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010        -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
      sufficiently that she is not in a position to conduct<\/p>\n
      business in that room. Evidence of PW1 has to be<\/p>\n
      appreciated as a whole. When it is so done, it will<\/p>\n
      be seen that the landlady’s evidence is to the<\/p>\n
      effect that she no longer maintains very cordial<\/p>\n
      relationship with her son, it may not be easy for<\/p>\n
      her to obtain permission of her son for conducting<\/p>\n
      a hotel business even in a small way in Valiakath<\/p>\n
      Footwear. We have scanned the judgment of the<\/p>\n
      Appellate Authority which under the Statutory<\/p>\n
      scheme is the final court on facts. The appellate<\/p>\n
      authority has found assuming that Valiakath<\/p>\n
      Footwear room is available with the landlady for<\/p>\n
      conducting business that there is no comparison<\/p>\n
      between that room and the petition schedule<\/p>\n
      premises. Going by the sketch prepared by the<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010          -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
      Commissioner, a copy of which is supplied to us<\/p>\n
      by Sri.Sreekumar himself, we are inclined to<\/p>\n
      agree with the Appellate Authority and find that<\/p>\n
      while the petition scheduled rooms are ideally<\/p>\n
      suited for conducting a hotel business Valiakath<\/p>\n
      Footwear room is not so suited.\n<\/p>\n
             9. In this jurisdiction under Section 20, this<\/p>\n
      Court is not expected to substitute the factual<\/p>\n
      conclusions arrived at by the final fact finding<\/p>\n
      authority especially when the same is founded on<\/p>\n
      evidence. We find that the finding entered by the<\/p>\n
      Rent Control Appellate Authority in this case is on<\/p>\n
      the basis of evidence, whether it be regarding the<\/p>\n
      bona fides of the need or regarding the operation<\/p>\n
      of the first proviso or regarding the eligibility of<\/p>\n
      the tenant to the benefit of the second proviso to<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010         -16-<\/span><\/p>\n
      sub Section 3.\n<\/p>\n
             10. As desired by Sri.G.Sreekumar we<\/p>\n
      explored the possibilities of Valiakath Footwear<\/p>\n
      building being let out to the revision petitioner on<\/p>\n
      attractive terms as to rent, but our endeavour was<\/p>\n
      unsuccessful.\n<\/p>\n
             11. The result of the above discussion is that<\/p>\n
      the RCR fails. However, we feel that this is a case<\/p>\n
      where there is justification for granting to the<\/p>\n
      revision petitioner an unusually long period for<\/p>\n
      surrendering the premises.      Hence, even as we<\/p>\n
      confirm the order of eviction and dismiss the RCR,<\/p>\n
      we direct the Execution Court not to order and<\/p>\n
      effect delivery of the petition schedule building till<\/p>\n
      30th June 2011 subject to the following conditions:<\/p>\n
             12. The revision petitioner will file an<\/p>\n
      affidavit before the Execution Court or the Rent<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.101 of 2010        -17-<\/span><\/p>\n
      Control Court, as the case may be, undertaking to<\/p>\n
      give peaceful surrender of the building to the<\/p>\n
      respondent on or before 30th June, 2011. It shall<\/p>\n
      be undertaken further through the same affidavit<\/p>\n
      that arrears of rent if any will be discharged within<\/p>\n
      one month and occupational charges at the<\/p>\n
      current rent rate will also be paid as and when the<\/p>\n
      same falls due. We make it clear that the revision<\/p>\n
      petitioner will be entitled for the benefit of time<\/p>\n
      granted as above only if the affidavit as ordered<\/p>\n
      above is filed on time.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                       PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
\n                                                    JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                       C. K. ABDUL REHIM
\n                                                    JUDGE
\n      kns\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 101 of 2010() 1. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR,AGED 80, … Petitioner Vs 1. NABEESA,W\/O.LATE ETTIYATTUKARA MUHAMMED, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) For Respondent :SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM […]<\/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-263334","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 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\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-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=\"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-30T18:05:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-30T18:05:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2236,\"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\\\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-30T18:05:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 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":"Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 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\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-30T18:05:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-30T18:05:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010"},"wordCount":2236,"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\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010","name":"Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-30T18:05:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-nair-vs-nabeesa-on-17-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gopalakrishnan Nair vs Nabeesa on 17 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\/263334","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=263334"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/263334\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=263334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=263334"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=263334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}