{"id":268590,"date":"2010-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010"},"modified":"2014-03-19T23:23:19","modified_gmt":"2014-03-19T17:53:19","slug":"parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 756 of 2009()\n\n\n1. PARUKUTTY AMMA, AGED 71 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :27\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                              THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                            --------------------------------------\n                               R.S.A.No.756 of 2009\n                            --------------------------------------\n                     Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010.\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       Respondent       appears       through        standing     counsel     Advocate\n\nK.Gopalakrishna Kurup.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">       2.     Second Appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned Sub<\/p>\n<p>Judge, Ottapalam in A.S.No.95 of 1999 confirming judgment and decree of<\/p>\n<p>learned Munsiff, Ottapalam in O.S. No. 43 of                 1998.  Item No.1 of plaint<\/p>\n<p>schedule is 1.08 acres in survey No.113\/2 which according to the<\/p>\n<p>appellant\/plaintiff is part of a total of 2.03 acres and item No.2 is 92 cents in<\/p>\n<p>survey No.113\/5. According to the appellant, the said properties belonged in<\/p>\n<p>jenm to Vadakkumnadha Devaswom wherefrom Chovvoor mana obtained a<\/p>\n<p>lease as per registered lease deed No.244 of 1925. In that Tarwad there was a<\/p>\n<p>partition as per document No.74 of 1960 and plaint schedule item Nos.1 and 2<\/p>\n<p>were allotted to Arya Antharjanam who assigned it to Chekkutty Rowther as per<\/p>\n<p>assignment deed No.874 of 1966. Husband of appellant said to have acquired<\/p>\n<p>title and possession of the said properties as per Ext.A1, assignment deed<\/p>\n<p>No.2345 of 1975 executed by the said Chekkutty Rowther. After the death of<\/p>\n<p>husband, appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the said properties. It is<\/p>\n<p>her case that item No.2 is possessed by her son-in-law while item No.1 is<\/p>\n<p>possessed by herself where she is running a small bunk shop. It is the claim of<\/p>\n<p>RSA No.756\/2009<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>appellant that herself and husband had mortgaged the said properties to a Co-<\/p>\n<p>operative Bank. Alleging that respondent\/defendant is attempting to trespass<\/p>\n<p>into the said properties she sued for a decree           for permanent prohibitory<\/p>\n<p>injunction to protect her alleged possession.       Respondent     denied title and<\/p>\n<p>possession of the appellant and claimed that as per decree in O.S.No.138 of<\/p>\n<p>1974 it obtained a decree for recovery of possession of certain properties and<\/p>\n<p>filed E.P.No.123 of 1996 against Chekkutty Rowther.           As per order in the<\/p>\n<p>execution petition, the property involved in that case was delivered over to the<\/p>\n<p>respondent on 24.11.1997.        That involved      property comprised in survey<\/p>\n<p>No.113\/2. It is also contended that properties scheduled in the plaint are not<\/p>\n<p>identifiable.  Trial court observed that without proper identification of the<\/p>\n<p>properties which the appellant has not done, title of the appellant cannot be<\/p>\n<p>found. In that circumstances even if the appellant is shown to be in possession<\/p>\n<p>of the suit properties she is not entitled to get a decree for prohibitory injunction.<\/p>\n<p>First appellate court has generally concurred with the above view and confirmed<\/p>\n<p>dismissal of the suit. Hence the Second Appeal urging by way of substantial<\/p>\n<p>question of law whether courts below committed error in holding that injunction<\/p>\n<p>cannot be granted to the appellant inspite of the fact that she proved her<\/p>\n<p>possession and title over the properties. it is contended by learned counsel for<\/p>\n<p>appellant that Exts.C1 and C2 along with Exts.A1 to A4 are sufficient to show<\/p>\n<p>title and possession claimed by the appellant. At any rate, courts below went<\/p>\n<p>RSA No.756\/2009<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>wrong in holding that suit properties are not properly identifiable. Assuming so<\/p>\n<p>courts below should not have entered into a finding regarding title or that Ext.A1<\/p>\n<p>is hit by the rule of lis pendens. Learned standing counsel for respondent has<\/p>\n<p>supported     findings of the courts below and contended that no substantial<\/p>\n<p>question of law is involved.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\n<p id=\"p_2\">       3.       The suit is merely for prohibitory injunction. It is true that being a<\/p>\n<p>suit for injunction what the court is required to decide primarily is the claim of<\/p>\n<p>appellant that she is in possession of the suit properties. But, issue regarding<\/p>\n<p>identify may also crop up in the light of the contentions raised by the respondent.<\/p>\n<p>Ext.A1 is the assignment deed dated 23.12.1975 executed by Chekkutty<\/p>\n<p>Rowther in favour of the appellant concerning the suit properties.            It is not<\/p>\n<p>disputed and Exts.B4 and B5, copy of judgment in O.S.No.138 of 1974 and<\/p>\n<p>appeal arising therefrom show that in respect of the property comprised in survey<\/p>\n<p>No.113\/2, respondent had obtained a decree for recovery of possession from<\/p>\n<p>Chekkutty Rowther , admittedly is the assignor of appellant under Ext.A1.<\/p>\n<p>Exts.B1 and B2 are the copy of amin&#8217;s report and account in the said suit.<\/p>\n<p>Decree was put up into execution by the respondent and delivery of property was<\/p>\n<p>taken on 24.11.1997. Ext.A1, I stated is executed on 23.12.1975 concededly<\/p>\n<p>when O.S.No.138 of 1974 filed by the respondent against assignor of appellant<\/p>\n<p>was pending consideration.       Hence if Ext.A1 concerned         the whole or any<\/p>\n<p>RSA No.756\/2009<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">                                            4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>portion of the property which was the subject matter of O.S.No.138 of 1974<\/p>\n<p>certainly the rule of lis pendens under <a href=\"\/doc\/1634925\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 52<\/a> of the Transfer of Property Act<\/p>\n<p>would apply and hence the title and possession claimed by the appellant would<\/p>\n<p>only be subject to the result of the suit which admittedly ended in a decree in<\/p>\n<p>favour of the respondent and based on which respondent has taken possession<\/p>\n<p>through court. A further fact to be noted is that Exts.B4 and B5 show that the<\/p>\n<p>Land Tribunal found that Arya Antharjanam, assignor of Chekkutty Rowther got<\/p>\n<p>tenancy right only in respect of 86 cents and accordingly Chekkutty Rowther got<\/p>\n<p>title and possession over 86 cents whereas as per Ext.A1, he has purported to<\/p>\n<p>convey 1.08 acres in survey No.113\/2 and 92 cents in survey No.113\/5. It is<\/p>\n<p>pertinent to note that Chekkutty Rowther is tracing title over the said properties<\/p>\n<p>to Arya Antharjanam who is said to have acquired the said properties as per<\/p>\n<p>partition deed No.74 of 1960.        Concededly,       appellant had not got the suit<\/p>\n<p>properties measured with the assistance of surveyor to show that the suit<\/p>\n<p>properties do not form part of any property involved in O.S.No.138 of 1974. It is<\/p>\n<p>in these circumstances that courts below refused to grant relief of injunction in<\/p>\n<p>favour of the appellant.      Having regard to the controversy involved and the<\/p>\n<p>failure of the appellant to take a survey commission for measurement of the suit<\/p>\n<p>properties, I do not find reason to interfere with the finding of courts below that<\/p>\n<p>appellant is not entitled to get the relief of injunction as prayed for.<\/p>\n<p>RSA No.756\/2009<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">       4.     I stated that this is a suit for injunction alone. True that in a suit for<\/p>\n<p>injunction reference can be made to title claimed by the parties but, for the<\/p>\n<p>limited purpose of deciding the issue regarding possession. Such reference is<\/p>\n<p>generally called for in the matter of vacant land where the principle that<\/p>\n<p>possession follows title may have to be applied. Concededly the suit properties<\/p>\n<p>do not come in that category so that a reference to title was not         essential to<\/p>\n<p>prove the claim of possession. Moreover in a suit for injunction if the matter<\/p>\n<p>involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, parties should be<\/p>\n<p>relegated to the remedy of a comprehensive suit for declaration of title. (<a href=\"\/doc\/540361\/\" id=\"a_1\">See<\/p>\n<p>Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy<\/a> (dead) By Lrs. and others<\/p>\n<p>(2008) 4 SCC 594) I must bear in mind that there is no relief of declaration of<\/p>\n<p>title prayed for nor has appellant had paid court fee under Section 27(a) of the<\/p>\n<p>Kerala Court Fees and <a href=\"\/doc\/867444\/\" id=\"a_2\">Suits Valuation Act<\/a>. Therefore an enquiry into title of the<\/p>\n<p>appellant was not called for.       Hence the finding if any entered by the courts<\/p>\n<p>below as to the title claimed by the appellant was not necessary for a decision of<\/p>\n<p>the dispute involved in this case. On facts and circumstances of the case<\/p>\n<p>proper course is to relegate the parties to a comprehensive suit on the title as<\/p>\n<p>the law permits. Issue regarding title is left open for decision.    However on the<\/p>\n<p>facts and circumstances of the case I do not find reason to interfere with the<\/p>\n<p>RSA No.756\/2009<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_4\">                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>dismissal of the suit . On hearing counsel on both sides and going through the<\/p>\n<p>judgment under challenge I do not find any substantial question of law involved<\/p>\n<p>requiring admission of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\n<p id=\"p_5\">       Resultantly without prejudice to the right of the appellant if any to institute<\/p>\n<p>a comprehensive suit on the strength of title claimed by her and seeking<\/p>\n<p>appropriate reliefs as permitted by law, Second Appeal is dismissed in limine.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">       I.A.No.1657 of 2009 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\n<p id=\"p_8\">                                               THOMAS P.JOSEPH,<br \/>\n                                                         Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\n<p>cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 756 of 2009() 1. PARUKUTTY AMMA, AGED 71 YEARS, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) For Respondent :SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP,SC,COCHIN D.B The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH [&hellip;]<\/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-268590","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-19T17:53:19+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-19T17:53:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1355,\"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\\\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-19T17:53:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 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":"Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-19T17:53:19+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-19T17:53:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010"},"wordCount":1355,"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\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010","name":"Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-19T17:53:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parukutty-amma-vs-cochin-devaswom-board-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parukutty Amma vs Cochin Devaswom Board on 27 January, 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\/268590","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=268590"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268590\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268590"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268590"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268590"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}