{"id":268640,"date":"2009-09-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-01T06:32:05","modified_gmt":"2015-05-01T01:02:05","slug":"kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam … vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam … vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 34250 of 2008(B)\n\n\n1. KANDOTH THAMASIKKUM CHATHIALAM VEETTIL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. CHATHIALAM VEETTIL PARVATHI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. CHATHIALAM, VEETTIL KUNHIKRISHNAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :09\/09\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n              S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n                  -------------------------------\n             W.P.(C).NO.34250 OF 2008 (B)\n                -----------------------------------\n       Dated this the 9th day of September, 2009\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The writ petition is filed seeking mainly the following<\/p>\n
relief:\n<\/p>\n
\n
         i. to set aside Ext.P1 order and direct the
\n         learned Munsiff, Nadapuram to allow
\n         Ext.P5 petition;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.85 of 2007 on the<\/p>\n
file of the Munsiff Court, Nadapuram.            Suit is one for<\/p>\n
perpetual prohibitory injunction, and the respondents are the<\/p>\n
defendants.    After the suit came up for trial, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
moved an application for amendment of the plaint to seek<\/p>\n
additional reliefs of mandatory injunction and also a<\/p>\n
declaration that the respondents\/defendants have no right of<\/p>\n
way through her property.      That application was opposed to<\/p>\n
by the defendants by filing objections. The learned Munsiff,<\/p>\n
WPC.34250\/08                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
after hearing both sides, dismissed the application. Propriety<\/p>\n
and correctness of that application is challenged in the writ<\/p>\n
petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this<\/p>\n
Court under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution of India.<\/p>\n
      3.  I heard the learned counsel on both sides.          The<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner\/plaintiff submitted that the<\/p>\n
amendment sought for is essential to resolve the controversies<\/p>\n
involved in the suit and to avoid multiplicity of suits. After the<\/p>\n
institution of the suit, a concrete slab was put over a channel<\/p>\n
to connect the property of the defendants with that of the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/plaintiff, and by way of a decree of mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction, that slab is sought to be removed, and as the<\/p>\n
defendants have raised a contention that they have a right of<\/p>\n
way through the property of the plaintiff, a decree of<\/p>\n
declaration that no such way existed through the plaint<\/p>\n
property is also sought for, submits the counsel. Conceding<\/p>\n
that even in the Commission report collected immediately<\/p>\n
after the filing of the suit and also in the written statement,<\/p>\n
reference is made to the installing of a new concrete slab, as<\/p>\n
WPC.34250\/08                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
indicated above, it is submitted, there was no wilful laches or<\/p>\n
deliberate default on the part of the petitioner\/plaintiff in<\/p>\n
moving for an amendment before the commencement of the<\/p>\n
trial.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents\/defendants submitted that absolute lack of<\/p>\n
diligence on the part of the petitioner\/plaintiff, is borne out by<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances presented in the case in applying<\/p>\n
for the proposed amendment.       Petitioner\/Plaintiff was aware<\/p>\n
of the presence of the slab soon after the filing of the suit, and<\/p>\n
that was specifically stated in the written statement of the<\/p>\n
defendants also, submits the counsel. Inviting my attention to<\/p>\n
the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure,<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the respondents\/defendants submitted<\/p>\n
that in the absence of the party showing that the amendment<\/p>\n
could not have been sought for earlier, the court has no<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to entertain amendment application after the<\/p>\n
commencement of the trial.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      4.  I have perused Ext.P1 order passed by the court<\/p>\n
below taking note of the submissions made by the counsel on<\/p>\n
WPC.34250\/08                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
both sides. The amendment was sought for belatedly, is the<\/p>\n
main reason which persuaded the learned Munsiff to disallow<\/p>\n
the request of the plaintiff for claiming additional reliefs in the<\/p>\n
suit.   The crucial question that has to be looked into in<\/p>\n
examining the merit of the application for amendment is<\/p>\n
whether it is required for resolving the controversies arising<\/p>\n
for adjudication in the suit.     Of course, the impact of the<\/p>\n
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC has also to be taken<\/p>\n
note of in appreciating whether the proposed amendment is<\/p>\n
allowable or not. In analysing the impact of the provision, it<\/p>\n
is also to be looked into what is the prejudice, if any, caused to<\/p>\n
the opposite side if the amendment is allowed. I do not think<\/p>\n
that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC has been brought<\/p>\n
in to deny any amendment that is proposed after the<\/p>\n
commencement of the trial.        However, proviso imposes an<\/p>\n
interdiction that when such an amendment is sought for after<\/p>\n
the commencement of the trial, the party seeking it should<\/p>\n
show that in spite of due diligence, the amendment could not<\/p>\n
be applied for earlier. Of course, in the given facts of the<\/p>\n
case, the petitioner\/plaintiff was fully aware of the existence of<\/p>\n
WPC.34250\/08                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
the concrete slab, which is alleged to have been installed,<\/p>\n
according to her, immediately after the filing of the suit. The<\/p>\n
respondents\/defendants in the written statement also had<\/p>\n
adverted to the presence of the concrete slab, which<\/p>\n
according to them, gave access to the pathway, running<\/p>\n
through the property of the petitioner\/plaintiff. Whether those<\/p>\n
circumstances by themselves would constitute laches on the<\/p>\n
part of the plaintiff in moving an amendment earlier is the<\/p>\n
question that emerges for consideration. It has to be pointed<\/p>\n
out that the pleadings are the handworks of the professionals<\/p>\n
and not of the parties. Any defect in the pleadings very often<\/p>\n
comes to the notice of the party only when the case comes up<\/p>\n
for trial.  Proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC is not intended<\/p>\n
to bar all amendments proposed after the commencement of<\/p>\n
the trial, but, only such amendments which are likely to delay<\/p>\n
and protract the proceedings, and thus prevent the completion<\/p>\n
of the trial once it is commenced. The words “due diligence”<\/p>\n
should receive a liberal interpretation and it cannot be given a<\/p>\n
narrow and limited meaning that any lapse on the part of the<\/p>\n
party in seeking amendment should be subjected to strict<\/p>\n
WPC.34250\/08                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
scrutiny to find out whether that party could have moved that<\/p>\n
application at an earlier point of time. The totality of the facts<\/p>\n
and   circumstances    involved,    the  reliefs  claimed,    the<\/p>\n
amendment proposed, everything have to be taken into<\/p>\n
account by the court in judging the conduct of the party to<\/p>\n
examine whether there was absence of due diligence in<\/p>\n
moving the proposed amendment earlier. So long as there is<\/p>\n
absence of culpable neglect or wilful default, and especially in<\/p>\n
a case where it is shown that the proposed amendment is<\/p>\n
essential to resolve the controversies involved, the court<\/p>\n
should incline to grant the amendment, so that multiplicity of<\/p>\n
proceedings could be avoided.       The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner submitted that petitioner is confining the proposed<\/p>\n
amendment only for seeking the decree of mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction alone for removal of the slab and not pressing the<\/p>\n
other one for the declaration that there is no pathway through<\/p>\n
the property. It is further submitted that no further evidence<\/p>\n
is also necessary by allowing the proposed amendment as the<\/p>\n
particulars furnished in the commission report are sufficient<\/p>\n
to consider the question emerging by that amendment.<\/p>\n
WPC.34250\/08                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
Taking note of the submissions made and making it clear that<\/p>\n
the amendment will be limited to the manner indicated by the<\/p>\n
counsel, and no further opportunity will be provided to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff to take out a commission in the case, I direct the court<\/p>\n
below to allow the amendment of the plaint only in respect of<\/p>\n
the mandatory injunction sought for.              The proposed<\/p>\n
amendment limited as indicated shall be granted subject to<\/p>\n
the payment of costs of Rs.750\/- to the defendants within the<\/p>\n
time fixed by the court below. The defendants shall be given<\/p>\n
opportunity to file additional written statement.             The<\/p>\n
amendment being carried out, both sides will be given<\/p>\n
opportunity to examine parties on that limited question alone.<\/p>\n
Writ petition is disposed in the manner indicated above.<\/p>\n
                            S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
\n                                       JUDGE<\/p>\n
prp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam … vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 34250 of 2008(B) 1. KANDOTH THAMASIKKUM CHATHIALAM VEETTIL … Petitioner Vs 1. CHATHIALAM VEETTIL PARVATHI, … Respondent 2. CHATHIALAM, VEETTIL KUNHIKRISHNAN, For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNAN For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) The Hon’ble […]<\/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-268640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam ... vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009 - 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\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam ... vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-01T01:02:05+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\\\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam … vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-01T01:02:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1254,\"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\\\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Kandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam ... vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-01T01:02:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam … vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Kandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam ... vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009 - 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\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam ... vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-01T01:02:05+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\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam … vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-01T01:02:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009"},"wordCount":1254,"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\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009","name":"Kandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam ... vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-01T01:02:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kandoth-thamasikkum-chathialam-vs-chathialam-veettil-parvathi-on-9-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kandoth Thamasikkum Chathialam … vs Chathialam Veettil Parvathi on 9 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/268640","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=268640"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268640\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}