{"id":268992,"date":"2009-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-06T08:54:55","modified_gmt":"2018-03-06T03:24:55","slug":"t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"T.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 251 of 1996(E)\n\n\n\n1. T.NARAYANAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. T.NARAYANI AMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :04\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                           --------------------------------------\n                                S.A.No.251 of 1996\n                           --------------------------------------\n                     Dated this the 4th day of March, 2009.\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Claiming title and possession of 1.50 acres in R.S.No.568\/1 of Bedadka<\/p>\n
Village as per Ext.A1, sale deed dated 30.5.1983 executed by one Narayanan<\/p>\n
Nambiar and alleging that appellants\/defendants                  who according to the<\/p>\n
respondent owned property on the western side of the suit property attempted to<\/p>\n
trespass into that property, respondent\/plaintiff sued the appellants for a decree<\/p>\n
of prohibitory injunction.      Respondent           claimed that she has effected<\/p>\n
improvements in the said property by planting cashew plants and raising a<\/p>\n
portion of the property for construction of a house. Appellants denied title and<\/p>\n
possession of the respondent and her predecessors-in-interest. According to<\/p>\n
the appellants, suit property formed part of the 14.25 acres belonging to them<\/p>\n
as per Exts.B1 and B2.         In the court below, the advocate commissioner<\/p>\n
inspected the property with the assistance of the Village Assistant and submitted<\/p>\n
report and plan – Exts.C1 and C1(a), respectively. Learned Munsiff found that<\/p>\n
there is no proper identification of the suit property and that respondent is not<\/p>\n
proved to be in possession thereof. Consequently the suit was dismissed. First<\/p>\n
appellate court however, placing reliance on the evidence of the first<\/p>\n
appellant\/defendant No.1 (DW1) found that there is proper identification of the<\/p>\n
SA No.251\/1996<\/p>\n
                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
suit property, circumstances indicated that respondent is in possession of the<\/p>\n
same and granted decree. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court<\/p>\n
are under challenge in this Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       2.    Substantial questions of law raised for a decision are:-<\/p>\n
             (i)    In a suit for injunction, is not the burden of proving<\/p>\n
possession of the suit property on the date of suit, on the plaintiff? If so has not<\/p>\n
the lower appellate court committed an error of law in casting the burden on the<\/p>\n
defendants.\n<\/p>\n
\n
             (ii)   Is not the finding of the lower appellate court, that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
is in possession of the suit property, based on a wrong construction of Ext.A1<\/p>\n
and Exts.C1 and C1(a)?\n<\/p>\n
\n
             (iii)  Has not the lower appellate court committed an error of law<\/p>\n
in not taking note of the material portions of Exts.C1 and C1(a), while<\/p>\n
considering the question of possession of the suit property?<\/p>\n
SA No.251\/1996<\/p>\n
                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
              (iv)   Is not the finding relating to the possession of the suit<\/p>\n
property entered by the lower appellate court against the admission of PW1<\/p>\n
(respondent\/plaintiff) the report , Ext.C1 and plan Ext.C1(a) submitted by the<\/p>\n
commissioner and the contents of Ext.A1. If so has not the lower appellate court<\/p>\n
committed an error of law in entering such finding.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      3.      It is contended by the learned counsel for appellants that there is<\/p>\n
no proper identification of the suit property with reference to Ext.A1, sale deed of<\/p>\n
the respondent and that the claims made by the respondent in the plaint and in<\/p>\n
her evidence as PW1 stand disproved by             Ext.C1, report of the advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner. Learned counsel contended that even in the objection preferred<\/p>\n
by the respondent to Exts.C1 and C1(a), there is no challenge to the report of<\/p>\n
the advocate commissioner regarding the age of the improvements found in the<\/p>\n
property referred to in Ext.C1(a) as the      suit property or, that the advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner failed to notice the house building put up by the respondent in that<\/p>\n
property. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that it is for the first time in<\/p>\n
the objection to the commissioner’s report that the respondent introduced a case<\/p>\n
that the water chal     on the east of the property identified by the advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner was put up by the appellants immediately before the institution of<\/p>\n
the suit. According to the learned counsel, first appellate court has made heavy<\/p>\n
SA No.251\/1996<\/p>\n
                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
reliance on an inadvertant mistake committed by the first appellant (DW1) in<\/p>\n
the course of cross examination which itself is proved to be incorrect on the facts<\/p>\n
of the case. Learned counsel for respondent in response contended that the<\/p>\n
first appellate court has considered the evidence on record and reached the<\/p>\n
conclusion, there is no error of law or, perverse appreciation of the evidence<\/p>\n
requiring interference in the Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       4.     This being a suit for injunction the court is concerned with the<\/p>\n
possession claimed by the respondent. She claimed title and possession as per<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, sale deed executed by Nayananan Nambiar . She examined PW2, son<\/p>\n
of Narayanan Nambiar who produced Ext.X1, gift deed as per which Narayanan<\/p>\n
Nambiar is said to have acquired right over a larger extent including the suit<\/p>\n
property which according to the respondent was conveyed to her as per Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
PW2 has stated that Ext.A1 executed by his father (Narayanan Nambiar) is<\/p>\n
concerning the property involved in this case. Respondent as PW1 also stated<\/p>\n
so. She stated that she has already put up a house in the suit property which<\/p>\n
she had pointed out to the advocate commissioner at the time of his inspection.<\/p>\n
But ofcourse, Ext.C1 does not make any mention of any such house. There is<\/p>\n
no reason to think that if such a house was there in the suit property at the time<\/p>\n
of inspection the commissioner would have omitted to notice that     and mention<\/p>\n
SA No.251\/1996<\/p>\n
                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
it in Ext.C1. But, for that reason alone, the case of the respondent regarding<\/p>\n
possession cannot be rejected. For, it is seen that the advocate commissioner<\/p>\n
inspected the suit property on 30.4.1989 while the respondent gave evidence as<\/p>\n
PW1 on 19.2.1992. Even according to the respondent (PW1), she is residing in<\/p>\n
the suit property for the last four years (of her examination on 19.2.1992).<\/p>\n
Therefore, it may be a mistake on the part of PW1 in claiming that the house<\/p>\n
was in existence at the time of inspection of the advocate commissioner or, her<\/p>\n
statement was not correct or could even be an exaggeration. It may be that the<\/p>\n
house was put up after inspection by the advocate commissioner. Respondent<\/p>\n
has stated in the plaint that she      raised a portion of the suit property for<\/p>\n
construction of a house.     That raised portion was     noted by the advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner also in Ext.C1. Therefore, it is not as if the respondent came with<\/p>\n
an altogether false case of putting up a house in the suit property at the time of<\/p>\n
her evidence or, the property she referred to as belonging to her and covered by<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 being something other than the suit property.<\/p>\n
       5.    As regards the       improvements found in the suit property,<\/p>\n
respondent stated in the plaint that the cashew plants are aged 1 = – 40 years<\/p>\n
but, the advocate commissioner noted the age of the cashew plants as 7 – 10<\/p>\n
years. No objection has been preferred by the respondent to the age of the<\/p>\n
SA No.251\/1996<\/p>\n
                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
cashew plants reported by the commissioner and hence, the age noted by the<\/p>\n
advocate commissioner though approximate, has to be accepted. Even there,<\/p>\n
one has to bear-in-mind that respondent was stating about the age of the<\/p>\n
cashew plants as on the date of the institution of the suit in the year 1986 as<\/p>\n
1=    – 40 years and the advocate commissioner inspected the property on<\/p>\n
30.4.1989 ie., after three years. Therefore, the age of the some of the cashew<\/p>\n
plants reported by the advocate commissioner as around seven years almost<\/p>\n
tallied with the case set up by the respondent (3 + 1 = years) though, not to the<\/p>\n
extend of the respondent describing the maximum age of the cashew plants as<\/p>\n
40 years. The advocate commissioner noticed a jack fruit tree in the suit<\/p>\n
property having the oldness stated by the respondent in the plaint.<\/p>\n
        6.     So far as the identification of the suit property is concerned, it is<\/p>\n
seen from Ext.C1 that the advocate commissioner identified it with the help of<\/p>\n
both parties who were present and       with the help of the Village Assistant who<\/p>\n
had brought the FMB also. There is no reason to think the FMB brought by the<\/p>\n
Village Assistant was not made use of for identification and, it is pertinent to<\/p>\n
note that the appellants did not challenge the identification of the property by the<\/p>\n
advocate commissioner as shown in Ext.C1(a) [in Ext.C1(a), the suit property is<\/p>\n
shown as plot 568\/1A ].\n<\/p>\n
SA No.251\/1996<\/p>\n
                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
       7.     So far as the northern boundary of the suit property is concerned,<\/p>\n
there is no dispute between       the parties.   Though in the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
respondent had given a different description, the northern boundary reported by<\/p>\n
the advocate commissioner      tallied with the northern boundary described in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1. The southern boundary also tallied. Appellants have no claim over any<\/p>\n
property on the east of the suit property. In effect, the dispute is only regarding<\/p>\n
the western boundary of the suit property. I do not forget that the advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner has reported in paragraph 6 of Ext.C1 that the western and<\/p>\n
eastern boundaries are reported by him as shown by the respondent and that<\/p>\n
so far as the western boundary is concerned the advocate commissioner was<\/p>\n
not able to find any boundary mark. But the commissioner has shown the<\/p>\n
measurement of the western boundary of the suit property as ‘670’ and when the<\/p>\n
first appellant (DW1) was in the box, Ext.C1(a) was handed over to him. He<\/p>\n
admitted that the eastern boundary line of the property belonging to him is the<\/p>\n
(western) boundary line (670) of the suit property.    True, he also referred to a<\/p>\n
stone wall on that boundary line and claimed that he has no property on the<\/p>\n
east of that stone wall but concededly, there is no such stone wall on that<\/p>\n
boundary line.    To that extent a mistake is committed by the first appellant<\/p>\n
(DW1). But he admitted that the appellants do not possess or own any land on<\/p>\n
the east of the said boundary line (western boundary line of the suit property) as<\/p>\n
SA No.251\/1996<\/p>\n
                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
shown by the advocate commissioner. That statement remains. That, taken<\/p>\n
along with the statement in Ext.C1 that the suit property was identified with the<\/p>\n
help of both sides and the Village Assistant who was present with FMB give<\/p>\n
sufficient  indication that the plot marked as 568\/1A in Ext.C1(a) is the suit<\/p>\n
property over which the respondent claimed title and possession as per Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
That precisely is what the appellate court accepted.<\/p>\n
       8.     So far as the claim of possession        is concerned, respondent<\/p>\n
produced Ext.A4 series, receipts for payment of revenue after she acquired the<\/p>\n
property while appellants rest contented by merely producing Exts.B1 and B2 . I<\/p>\n
referred to the evidence of DW1 that appellants do not own or possess any land<\/p>\n
east of the western boundary line shown by the advocate commissioner in<\/p>\n
Ext.C1(a). I also referred to the case of the respondent about the improvements<\/p>\n
in the suit property and her raising a portion of that property for the purpose of<\/p>\n
house construction which stands corroborated         by Ext.C1.     It is in these<\/p>\n
circumstances that the first appellate court concluded that respondent is in<\/p>\n
possession of the suit property. It is not a case of there being no evidence or,<\/p>\n
any perverse appreciation of evidence requiring interference in the Second<\/p>\n
Appeal. As such the contention raised by the appellants cannot succeed. (Since<\/p>\n
SA No.251\/1996<\/p>\n
                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
the depositions of the witnesses do not form part of the case records, I have<\/p>\n
made use of the photocopy of the depositions made available by the counsel for<\/p>\n
the appellants).\n<\/p>\n
\n
      10.    No other point is raised for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
\n
             Resultantly, the Second Appeal fails. It is dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n
             C.M.P.No.631 of 1996 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                               THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                        Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\n
cks<\/p>\n
SA No.251\/1996<\/p>\n
                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
                     Thomas P.Joseph, J.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                     S.A.No.251 of 1996<\/p>\n
                     JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                     4th March, 2009.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 251 of 1996(E) 1. T.NARAYANAN … Petitioner Vs 1. T.NARAYANI AMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI For Respondent :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :04\/03\/2009 O R D E R […]<\/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-268992","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 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\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-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=\"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-06T03:24:55+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\\\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-06T03:24:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1956,\"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\\\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009\",\"name\":\"T.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-06T03:24:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 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":"T.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 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\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-06T03:24:55+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\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-06T03:24:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009"},"wordCount":1956,"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\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009","name":"T.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-06T03:24:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-narayanan-vs-t-narayani-amma-on-4-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Narayanan vs T.Narayani Amma on 4 March, 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\/268992","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=268992"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268992\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268992"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}