{"id":268013,"date":"2008-06-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2"},"modified":"2015-06-28T05:48:26","modified_gmt":"2015-06-28T00:18:26","slug":"visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Visalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Visalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 834 of 2002(G)\n\n\n1. VISALAKSHY, SHAJI BHAVAN, ELAMKULAM,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SREEDHARAN OF DO. DO.\n3. SARASWATHY, CHARUVILA VEEDU,\n4. VILASINI, OF DO. DO.\n5. ASOKAN, OF DO. DO.\n6. VASANTHARAN, OF DO. DO.\n7. SULOCHANA, OF DO. DO. DO.\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. NADARAJAN, MUNDUM THALACKAL VEEDU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. CHANDRARAJAN, OF DO. DO.\n\n3. THANKAMMA, OF DO. DO.\n\n4. SASIDHARAN, KUNIL VEEDU,\n\n5. RETNAMMA, MURIKAVILASAM, KOTTACKERAM,\n\n6. OMANA, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU,\n\n7. ASOKAN, OF DO. DO.\n\n8. VASANTHA RAJAN, OF DO. DO.\n\n9. VILASINI, OF DO. DO.\n\n10. SULOCHANA, SYAM NIVAS, KOTTAPPURAM,\n\n11. SANTHAKUMARI, BHARGAVAN BHAVAN,\n\n12. SYAMALAKUMARI, AGED 45 YEARS,\n\n13. B.SYAMSUDHA, AGED 23 YEARS, OF DO. DO.\n\n14. B.SYAM, AGED 21 YEARS, OF DO. DO. DO.\n\n15. OMANA, CHARUVILA VEEEDU, KOTTACKERAM,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.PREMCHAND\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :05\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n               K.P. Balachandran, J.\n            ---------------------------\n               S.A.No. 834 of 2002\n            ---------------------------\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    Defendants 5 and 6 and the legal representatives<\/p>\n
of  the   deceased  seventh  defendant,  who   were<\/p>\n
respectively appellants 1 and 2 and additional<\/p>\n
appellants 4 to 9 in A.S.No.171\/96 on the file of<\/p>\n
the District Court, Kollam, filed assailing the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree passed by the trial court, are<\/p>\n
the appellants in this second appeal, assailing the<\/p>\n
concurrent decrees and judgments passed by the<\/p>\n
courts below.\n<\/p>\n
    2. The first respondent, who was the original<\/p>\n
plaintiff, instituted O.S.No.515\/91 on the file of<\/p>\n
the Munsiff’s Court, Paravoor in Kollam District<\/p>\n
for a decree of declaration and partition, inter<\/p>\n
alia  on   the  allegations   that  the   scheduled<\/p>\n
properties of one acre and thirty three cents<\/p>\n
comprised in Sy.No.11062 of Parippally Village with<\/p>\n
the adjoining property of 53 cents belonged to<\/p>\n
Velayudhan Raman; that he executed mortgage in 1103<\/p>\n
SA 834\/01                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
and 1121 M.E.; that the mortgage right later got<\/p>\n
vested   with  Kochappi  Janaki, the  wife  of  the<\/p>\n
seventh defendant and the mother of defendants 5<\/p>\n
and 8 to 13 vide Document No.2233\/1121; that the<\/p>\n
jenmi Velayudhan Raman expired and the jenm right<\/p>\n
devolved   on  his  children  Neelakandan, Kesavan,<\/p>\n
Velu, Padmanabhan and Raghavan, each being entitled<\/p>\n
to 1\/5 share; that while so, on 16.8.1963, the<\/p>\n
mortgagee    Kochappi  Janaki executed  Exhibit  A7<\/p>\n
Release Deed in favour of the children of Raman;<\/p>\n
that as per Exhibit A8, the children of Raman,<\/p>\n
namely, Neelakantan and others, executed sale deed<\/p>\n
in favour of Kochappi Janaki with respect to 53<\/p>\n
cents of property from out of one acre and eighty<\/p>\n
six cents, which stood under mortgage originally;<\/p>\n
that Raman Neelakantan and Raman Kesavan died and<\/p>\n
their    rights  devolved  on their  children  (ten<\/p>\n
children each); that Raman Padmanabhan and Raman<\/p>\n
Raghavan died unmarried and issue less at Singapore<\/p>\n
after the death of Neelakantan and Kesavan; that<\/p>\n
SA 834\/01                3<\/span><\/p>\n
the only surviving brother Raman Velu was the legal<\/p>\n
heir of Raghavan and Padmanabhan; that Raman Velu<\/p>\n
and the legal heirs of late Neelakantan and Kesavan<\/p>\n
were in possession of the scheduled property paying<\/p>\n
tax; that on 11.1.1979, Raman Velu, Neelakantan,<\/p>\n
Dharmarajan   and  Kesavan  Parameswaran   executed<\/p>\n
Exhibit A1 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
relation to the scheduled property and handed over<\/p>\n
Exhibit A7 release deed; that ever thereafter, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is in possession of the said property;<\/p>\n
that he has constructed a shed as a prelude to the<\/p>\n
construction of a house for which the foundation<\/p>\n
has also been put up; that he also made other<\/p>\n
improvements in the property; that Kochappi Janaki,<\/p>\n
her    husband the  seventh  defendant  and   their<\/p>\n
children were not happy with the purchase of the<\/p>\n
property by the plaintiff and they attempted to<\/p>\n
block the pathway to the property and attempted to<\/p>\n
trespass   upon the  scheduled  property  and  that<\/p>\n
thereupon, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.52\/79 against<\/p>\n
SA 834\/01                4<\/span><\/p>\n
defendants 5 to 7 and Kochappi Janaki; that they<\/p>\n
contended  that  they  are  in  possession  of the<\/p>\n
scheduled property on the basis of oral lease; that<\/p>\n
they filed SMP 15\/79 before the Special Tahsildar,<\/p>\n
Kollam, but that was dismissed; that appeal filed<\/p>\n
before the Appellate Authority, Attingal as A.A.No.<\/p>\n
126\/80 was also dismissed; that therefore, the<\/p>\n
fifth defendant cannot contend that she has got<\/p>\n
oral lease of the scheduled property and that claim<\/p>\n
is barred by res judicata and estoppel; that O.S.<\/p>\n
No.52\/79 was dismissed; that the appeal and the<\/p>\n
second appeal filed therefrom were also dismissed,<\/p>\n
but, while disposing of the appeal, the District<\/p>\n
Court directed that the plaintiff may prefer a suit<\/p>\n
for partition and hence the suit.    The plaintiff<\/p>\n
further alleged that five children of deceased<\/p>\n
Velayudhan Raman had 10\/50 share each over the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property and ten children each of<\/p>\n
Neelakantan and Kesavan got 1\/50 share each and<\/p>\n
Raman Velu got 3\/5 share, which is equal to 30\/50,<\/p>\n
SA 834\/01                5<\/span><\/p>\n
including the rights of his brothers Padmanabhan<\/p>\n
and Raghavan, who died unmarried and issue less;<\/p>\n
that as per Exhibit A1 sale deed, he got 30\/50<\/p>\n
share    of Raman Velu  and  1\/50  share  each   of<\/p>\n
Neelakantan Dharmarajan and Kesavan Parameswaran;<\/p>\n
that Kesavan Damodaran and Kesavan Kamalabhai sold<\/p>\n
their 2\/50 share in favour of the plaintiff as per<\/p>\n
Exhibit A2; that Kesavan Yesoda sold her 1\/50 share<\/p>\n
to the plaintiff as per Exhibit A3; that Maniamma,<\/p>\n
Santhakumari and Somaraja and other children of<\/p>\n
Neelakantan also sold their 3\/50 right to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff as per Exhibit A4 sale deed; that Kesavan<\/p>\n
Chandran sold his 1\/50 share to the plaintiff as<\/p>\n
per Exhibit A5; that Bharatharajan, Nalini and<\/p>\n
Leela sold their 1\/50 share each in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff as per Exhibit A6; that Balakrishnan,<\/p>\n
Gopi, Sarada and Sarasamma, the children of Kesavan<\/p>\n
sold their right in favour of the fourth defendant<\/p>\n
and on the basis of that the fourth defendant filed<\/p>\n
O.S.No.433\/80; that defendants 1 to 3 have got 1\/50<\/p>\n
SA 834\/01                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
share each from the scheduled property and the<\/p>\n
remaining 47\/50 share belongs to the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
therefore, the plaintiff’s 47\/50 share has to be<\/p>\n
declared and the property has to be partitioned and<\/p>\n
separate possession of his share has to be allotted<\/p>\n
to him.    It is further prayed that if any portion<\/p>\n
of the property that falls to the share of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   is   found  to  be   in  possession  of<\/p>\n
defendants 4 to 6 and Kochappi Janaki, recovery<\/p>\n
thereof has to be allowed with mesne profits.<\/p>\n
     3.   Defendants 5 to 7 resisted the suit.  All<\/p>\n
other defendants remained ex parte.    Defendants 5<\/p>\n
to 7 contended that all the sale deeds relied on by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff are sham documents and were executed<\/p>\n
without   any  consideration;  that  the  scheduled<\/p>\n
property   is  possessed  by  the  fifth  defendant<\/p>\n
effecting improvements and taking yield from 1963<\/p>\n
onwards continuously and uninterruptedly as per an<\/p>\n
oral lease; that the sixth defendant, being the<\/p>\n
husband   of   the  fifth  defendant, is   also  in<\/p>\n
SA 834\/01                7<\/span><\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of the said property; that<\/p>\n
the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff were got<\/p>\n
executed fraudulently; that the fifth defendant’s<\/p>\n
mother Janaki got possession of the properties<\/p>\n
extending to 1.86 acres, including 53 cents as per<\/p>\n
a mortgage of the year 1121 M.E.; that the said<\/p>\n
mortgage right happened to be redeemed just for<\/p>\n
name sake; that the fifth defendant has continued<\/p>\n
to be in possession as lessee and the original<\/p>\n
landlords never came to possess the property as per<\/p>\n
the release deed; that the plaintiff attempted to<\/p>\n
trespass into the property and put up thatched hut;<\/p>\n
that defendants 5 and 6 made a complaint to the<\/p>\n
police and the police registered case against that;<\/p>\n
that thereupon, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.52\/79<\/p>\n
and that has been dismissed; that the appeal and<\/p>\n
the    second appeal  filed  therefrom  were   also<\/p>\n
dismissed; that possession and enjoyment of the<\/p>\n
properties by defendants 5 and 6 is continuous and<\/p>\n
uninterrupted; that the plaintiff has no right to<\/p>\n
SA 834\/01                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
challenge the rights of the defendants and that the<\/p>\n
suit is barred by res judicata by the decision in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.52\/79.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   The trial court raised necessary issues for<\/p>\n
trial on the basis of the above pleading and<\/p>\n
considering the evidence adduced at trial, which<\/p>\n
consisted of oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and DWs1<\/p>\n
to 4 and documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A17<\/p>\n
and B1 to B5, decreed the suit, declaring that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   is   entitled  to  43\/50  share  in   the<\/p>\n
scheduled    property  and   allowed  partition  and<\/p>\n
separate possession of plaintiff’s share and for<\/p>\n
recovery   thereof   with  mesne  profits  from   the<\/p>\n
contesting respondents.     It was also made clear<\/p>\n
that    the fifth  defendant  is  liable  for   mesne<\/p>\n
profits from the date of the suit, the quantum of<\/p>\n
which will be assessed during the final decree<\/p>\n
proceedings.    It was further made clear that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff shall be entitled to right of way to the<\/p>\n
property that may be allotted to his share and<\/p>\n
SA 834\/01                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
covered     by   Exhibits  A7   and   A8   documents.<\/p>\n
Defendants 5 to 7 were also made liable for the<\/p>\n
cost of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   Aggrieved by the decree of the trial court,<\/p>\n
defendants 5 to 7 filed A.S.No.171\/96 against the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and other defendants in the suit.       The<\/p>\n
seventh defendant, who was the third appellant,<\/p>\n
died     pending  the  said  appeal  and  his   legal<\/p>\n
representatives     were  impleaded   as   additional<\/p>\n
appellants    4  to   9.   Similarly,  the   original<\/p>\n
plaintiff, who was the first respondent, also died<\/p>\n
and his legal representatives were impleaded as<\/p>\n
additional     respondents  13  to  15.   The   first<\/p>\n
appellate court considered the appeal on merits and<\/p>\n
concurring with the findings of the trial court,<\/p>\n
dismissed the said appeal and hence this second<\/p>\n
appeal by the aggrieved appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     6.     When the matter came up for admission<\/p>\n
hearing, the only contention that was advanced<\/p>\n
before     me  by   the  learned  counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
SA 834\/01               10<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants,  assailing   the  concurrent   verdicts<\/p>\n
passed by the courts below is that the courts below<\/p>\n
have negatived the claim of adverse possession<\/p>\n
advanced  by  the  fifth  defendant  assigning  the<\/p>\n
reason that there is no sufficient plea in the<\/p>\n
written statement, which enables a plea of adverse<\/p>\n
possession being urged and considered.    According<\/p>\n
to him, it is pleaded in the written statement that<\/p>\n
right from 1963 onwards, the fifth defendant was in<\/p>\n
absolute and exclusive possession of the scheduled<\/p>\n
property to the knowledge of the plaintiff and that<\/p>\n
the documents relied on by the plaintiff, including<\/p>\n
Exhibit A7 release deed, are sham documents.    All<\/p>\n
the same, counsel for the appellant submits that<\/p>\n
the fifth defendant has no case that Exhibit A7<\/p>\n
release deed is sham or void.  The counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant has passed on to me for perusal a copy of<\/p>\n
the written statement filed jointly by defendants 5<\/p>\n
to 7 wherein, it is contended that on the very date<\/p>\n
of Exhibits A7 and A8, namely, the release deed in<\/p>\n
SA 834\/01                11<\/span><\/p>\n
favour of the landlords executed by Janaki and the<\/p>\n
sale deed executed in favour of Janaki in relation<\/p>\n
to 53 cents from out of the property covered by the<\/p>\n
mortgage, the children of Velayudhan Raman, in whom<\/p>\n
the jenm rights have got vested, had given to the<\/p>\n
fifth defendant the entire scheduled property by<\/p>\n
way of lease and it is ever thereafter that she is<\/p>\n
in   exclusive  possession and  enjoyment  of   the<\/p>\n
property.\n<\/p>\n
     7.   When a contention is raised by the fifth<\/p>\n
defendant that she has come into occupation of the<\/p>\n
property under a lease, it pre-supposes that she<\/p>\n
has no case of her having come into wrongful<\/p>\n
possession of the scheduled property.  A party, who<\/p>\n
sets up a case that he has come into permissive<\/p>\n
possession   of a  property,  cannot  be  heard to<\/p>\n
contend   that his  possession  has  turned  to be<\/p>\n
adverse and that she has perfected title by adverse<\/p>\n
possession and limitation. In fact, in the written<\/p>\n
statement, there is no contention to the effect<\/p>\n
SA 834\/01                12<\/span><\/p>\n
that permissive possession, at any point of time,<\/p>\n
turned to be adverse to the rights of the real<\/p>\n
owners    in  any  manner   whatsoever.  There   is,<\/p>\n
therefore, no merit in the contention that the<\/p>\n
courts   below  were  repelling  the  contention  of<\/p>\n
adverse possession on the ground that there is no<\/p>\n
sufficient pleadings to have such a contention<\/p>\n
considered.   In fact, when permissive possession is<\/p>\n
alleged, that is sufficient ground to repel the<\/p>\n
contention of adverse possession.    No other point<\/p>\n
was urged before me by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants.   There is absolutely no question of law<\/p>\n
and much less, any substantial question of law to<\/p>\n
be considered by this Court in this second appeal.<\/p>\n
     The Second Appeal, in the circumstances, is<\/p>\n
dismissed in limine, refusing admission.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n5th June, 2008            (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)\ntkv\n\nSA 834\/01    13\n\n\n\n\n                 K.P.Balachandran, J.\n\n                ---------------------\n\n                  S.A.No.834 of 2001\n\n                ---------------------\n\n                       JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n                    5th June, 2008\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Visalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 834 of 2002(G) 1. VISALAKSHY, SHAJI BHAVAN, ELAMKULAM, … Petitioner 2. SREEDHARAN OF DO. DO. 3. SARASWATHY, CHARUVILA VEEDU, 4. VILASINI, OF DO. DO. 5. ASOKAN, OF DO. DO. 6. VASANTHARAN, OF DO. DO. 7. SULOCHANA, […]<\/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-268013","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVisalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 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\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Visalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2\" \/>\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=\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-28T00:18:26+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\\\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Visalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-28T00:18:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":1861,\"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\\\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Visalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-28T00:18:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Visalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 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":"Visalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 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\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Visalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-28T00:18:26+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\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Visalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-28T00:18:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2"},"wordCount":1861,"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\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2","name":"Visalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-28T00:18:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/visalakshy-vs-nadarajan-on-5-june-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Visalakshy vs Nadarajan on 5 June, 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\/268013","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=268013"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268013\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268013"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}