{"id":269897,"date":"2010-05-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-30T06:37:11","modified_gmt":"2016-08-30T01:07:11","slug":"k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 387 of 1998()\n\n\n\n1. K.MOHAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. K.NALINI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :24\/05\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                    A.S. NO. 387 OF 1998\n                 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n              Dated this the 24th day of May 2010.\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
    This appeal is preferred against the judgment and<\/p>\n
decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod in<\/p>\n
O.S.124\/94. The suit is one for cancellation of a gift deed<\/p>\n
and for recovery of possession after removing the<\/p>\n
unauthorized construction.      The original plaintiff is the<\/p>\n
executant of the gift deed. It is averred that she has not<\/p>\n
executed any gift deed on her own volition and the first<\/p>\n
defendant and her husband had played a fraud and mis-<\/p>\n
representation on the original plaintiff and thus a<\/p>\n
document was executed and registered on 16.4.78. It is<\/p>\n
submitted that the original plaintiff was illiterate, unable<\/p>\n
to understand the consequences of her action and<\/p>\n
therefore the document is liable to be set aside. It is<\/p>\n
contended that when the original plaintiff came to attend<\/p>\n
a marriage the first defendant requested her that an<\/p>\n
A.S. 387 OF 1998
\n                                 -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
authorisation letter is necessary for managing the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property and therefore she had affixed her<\/p>\n
thumb impression to such a letter and therefore she has<\/p>\n
not executed the gift deed. It is also contended that only<\/p>\n
in the year 1991 she came to know about the execution<\/p>\n
of the gift deed and thereafter has filed a suit.<\/p>\n
      2.    On the other hand the only defendant at the<\/p>\n
institution of the suit would contend that the gift deed is<\/p>\n
executed by the mother on her own volition and free will<\/p>\n
and the first defendant has accepted the gift and in<\/p>\n
pursuance of the same had made a construction on the<\/p>\n
property and therefore there are no grounds to set aside<\/p>\n
the document.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    In the trial court PWs.1 and 2 and DWs.1 and 2<\/p>\n
were examined and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B8 were<\/p>\n
marked.     During the pendency of the trial the original<\/p>\n
plaintiff died and her legal representatives are impleaded<\/p>\n
as    supplemental       2nd   plaintiff and  supplemental<\/p>\n
A.S. 387 OF 1998
\n                             -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
defendants 3 to 5.          The points that arise       for<\/p>\n
determination in the appeal are, (1) Whether there are<\/p>\n
circumstances to set aside Ext.B1 document? and (2) Is<\/p>\n
there anything to interfere with the finding rendered by<\/p>\n
the lower Court?\n<\/p>\n
      Points 1 and 2:\n<\/p>\n
      4.    These points are answered together for the<\/p>\n
sake of convenience.         Admittedly the relationship<\/p>\n
between the original parties is that of a daughter and<\/p>\n
mother. The case of the mother is that the daughter got<\/p>\n
document executed under the pretext of an authorisation<\/p>\n
document and therefore the document is vitiated by<\/p>\n
fraud and mis-representation.        On the contra the<\/p>\n
daughter would contend that the mother had understood<\/p>\n
the contents of the document and she had voluntarily<\/p>\n
executed the gift deed on her own volition and free will<\/p>\n
and so it does not call for any setting aside. The original<\/p>\n
defendant has also got a case that really the mother has<\/p>\n
A.S. 387 OF 1998
\n                              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
not understood the suit and it is the supplemental 2nd<\/p>\n
plaintiff who is behind the screen. Now whatever it may<\/p>\n
be when the matter reached the stage of trial the mother<\/p>\n
was not alive and so the fight was between the 2nd<\/p>\n
plaintiff and the first defendant.        The 2nd plaintiff<\/p>\n
admittedly is the eldest son of the original plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
first defendant is the daughter and defendants 2 to 5 are<\/p>\n
also other children of deceased Leela, the original<\/p>\n
plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    So far as the execution of the document is<\/p>\n
concerned it is submitted that a document has been got<\/p>\n
registered.     The signature in the document therefore<\/p>\n
cannot be put into dispute. But I am conscious of the fact<\/p>\n
that when a document is alleged to be executed by an illiterate<\/p>\n
woman, the person who claims benefit under the<\/p>\n
document under law has an obligation to prove that the<\/p>\n
person who executed the document was aware of the<\/p>\n
contents of the document and she had voluntarily<\/p>\n
executed the same.           So this depends upon the<\/p>\n
A.S. 387 OF 1998
\n                                -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
appreciation of the evidence and the subsequent conduct<\/p>\n
of the parties. Now I will refer to the evidence available in<\/p>\n
the matter.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    PW1 and DW1 are the two rival claimants. The<\/p>\n
evidence of PW1, (i.e. the supplemental 2nd plaintiff)<\/p>\n
would at least reveal one fact that according to him he<\/p>\n
was also available when the document was executed. The<\/p>\n
2nd plaintiff and the other two sons of the original plaintiff<\/p>\n
were available on the spot at the time of the execution of<\/p>\n
the document.      It is too far-fetched to think that a lady<\/p>\n
namely first defendant would have been in a position to<\/p>\n
over power them without permitting them to look into the<\/p>\n
contents of the documents. One of the brothers namely<\/p>\n
Sreedharan is an attesting witness to the document. 2nd<\/p>\n
attesting witness is another brother. Sreedharan as DW2<\/p>\n
has very clearly deposed that he along with his brother<\/p>\n
had come all the way from Mangalore for the purpose of<\/p>\n
standing as a witness to the document and at the time of<\/p>\n
A.S. 387 OF 1998
\n                                -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
the execution of the document mother was capable of<\/p>\n
understanding the consequences of her action and<\/p>\n
according to him she had put her signature or thumb<\/p>\n
impression only after understanding the contents of the<\/p>\n
document.       It is also deposed by him that a scribe has<\/p>\n
read over the document and the mother has agreed for<\/p>\n
the same and that had led to the writing of the original of<\/p>\n
the document and subsequent act of registration. The 2nd<\/p>\n
plaintiff would submit that he was available in the house<\/p>\n
when the document was registered.           If he had any<\/p>\n
apprehension in the mind certainly he would have raised<\/p>\n
the same and certainly would not have kept quiet or<\/p>\n
allowed the mother to keep quiet for a long period of 13<\/p>\n
years to initiate any action. It has to be stated that fraud<\/p>\n
cannot be inferred from conjectures and surmises. What<\/p>\n
is a fraudulent action has to be proved.       Similarly the<\/p>\n
undue influence or mis-representation are also matters<\/p>\n
which has to be specifically pleaded and proved. In order<\/p>\n
A.S. 387 OF 1998
\n                             -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
to prove undue influence one should prove that one party<\/p>\n
was in a position to dominate the will of other party by<\/p>\n
virtue of the position and get the document executed.<\/p>\n
Admittedly the mother was not residing with the first<\/p>\n
defendant and therefore the question of any domination<\/p>\n
does not arise. So far as mis-representation is concerned<\/p>\n
it has to be stated even according to the 2nd plaintiff the<\/p>\n
first defendant and the mother were living together in the<\/p>\n
property prior to the execution of the document.       The<\/p>\n
mother had understood the daughter and even according<\/p>\n
to the 2nd plaintiff besides mother three other children<\/p>\n
were available at the time of the registration of the<\/p>\n
document. Men may lie but circumstances will never lie.<\/p>\n
The two brothers who have got equal interest in the<\/p>\n
mother had chosen to be the witness to the gift deed and<\/p>\n
out of them one has mounted the box and had given<\/p>\n
clear and cogent evidence regarding the execution and<\/p>\n
understanding of the document by the mother.          Why<\/p>\n
A.S. 387 OF 1998
\n                              -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
should he perjure and it is also interesting to note there is<\/p>\n
no case for the supplemental 2nd plaintiff that the other<\/p>\n
brothers have been won over by the 2nd defendant so as<\/p>\n
to give evidence against him. So the evidence of DW1<\/p>\n
and DW2 would clearly and convincingly establish about<\/p>\n
the mental faculty of the mother, her execution of the<\/p>\n
documents, the acceptance of the gift etc. The fraud and<\/p>\n
the     alleged   mis-representation    does    not   stand<\/p>\n
established at all.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    It is also to be held just because the first<\/p>\n
defendant’s husband happened to be a Registrar, all the<\/p>\n
officers working in the Department will support him.<\/p>\n
There is always a presumption u\/s 114 of the Evidence<\/p>\n
Act<\/a> and when a statutory act is done by a person in his<\/p>\n
official capacity that he does follow the procedure to be<\/p>\n
followed and then only do the act.         So it has to be<\/p>\n
presumed that the person who had registered the<\/p>\n
document was totally aware of the act which he was<\/p>\n
A.S. 387 OF 1998
\n                              -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
performing and therefore it has to be also viewed in<\/p>\n
favour of the first defendant.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    Now regarding the conduct of the parties. Had<\/p>\n
it only be an authorisation registered in 1978 under no<\/p>\n
stretch of imagination one can expect the persons to<\/p>\n
keep quiet till 1991. It has also to be stated that on the<\/p>\n
strength of the document the first defendant has moved<\/p>\n
in the right direction and had obtained a permit and<\/p>\n
constructed a building, had changed the mutation in her<\/p>\n
name and also the building tax assessment changed in<\/p>\n
her name. Therefore she has acted upon on the basis of<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 document. Though the 2nd plaintiff would contend<\/p>\n
that the mother had paid tax up to 1981 or 1985 not even<\/p>\n
a scrap of paper is forthcoming to establish the same. So<\/p>\n
it has to be held that the evidence of DW1 and DW2 is<\/p>\n
fully supported and corroborated by the subsequent<\/p>\n
conduct of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
A.S. 387 OF 1998
\n                             -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
      9.    So far as the mother is concerned her capacity<\/p>\n
to understand is established and therefore there is<\/p>\n
nothing to prove regarding the inability element to her at<\/p>\n
the time of the execution of the document. Therefore<\/p>\n
from the materials available the Court below has rightly<\/p>\n
found out that the original plaintiff namely Leela had<\/p>\n
executed Ext.B1 fully understanding the contents of the<\/p>\n
same and had voluntarily gifted the property which has<\/p>\n
been accepted by the first defendant. Therefore there<\/p>\n
are no grounds to set aside the findings of the Court<\/p>\n
below. Hence the appeal fails and the same is dismissed<\/p>\n
but without costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                              M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
ul\/-\n<\/p>\n
A.S. 387 OF 1998
\n                    -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
                         M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                        = = = = = = = = = =
\n                        A.S. No. 387 OF 1998
\n                      = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
                          J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
                          24th May, 2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 387 of 1998() 1. K.MOHAN … Petitioner Vs 1. K.NALINI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.RAJENDRAN For Respondent :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :24\/05\/2010 O R D E R M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = […]<\/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-269897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-05-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-30T01:07:11+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-30T01:07:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1659,\"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\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010\",\"name\":\"K.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-30T01:07:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"K.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-30T01:07:11+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-30T01:07:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010"},"wordCount":1659,"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\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010","name":"K.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-30T01:07:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-mohan-vs-k-nalini-on-24-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Mohan vs K.Nalini on 24 May, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/269897","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=269897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}