{"id":271212,"date":"2010-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-06T09:06:20","modified_gmt":"2018-05-06T03:36:20","slug":"marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Marolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Marolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev..No. 118 of 2010()\n\n\n1. MAROLLI KRISHNAN, S\/O.KANARAKUTTY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.T.YUSUF, S\/O.ABDU RAHIMAN HAJI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.R.SUDHISH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :30\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n               PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &\n              C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n    ------------------------------------------------\n              R. C. R. No.118 of 2010\n    ------------------------------------------------\n      Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010\n\n                       ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J<\/p>\n
       The tenant is in revision. The landlord<\/p>\n
sought to evict him on the ground of arrears of<\/p>\n
rent and on the ground of bona fide need for own<\/p>\n
occupation under Section 11(3). It is conceded by<\/p>\n
both sides that in this revision we need be<\/p>\n
concerned only with the order of eviction<\/p>\n
concurrently passed against the revision petitioner<\/p>\n
on the ground under sub Section 3 of Section 11.<\/p>\n
The need projected by the landlord was that the<\/p>\n
landlord is presently conducting business in a<\/p>\n
building belonging to the landlord’s brother one<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010         -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
      Sri.P.T.Mohammed and that Sri.P.T.Mohammed<\/p>\n
      has     requested  the   landlord   to  vacate   the<\/p>\n
      premises. The landlord does not have any other<\/p>\n
      building owned by him in his possession than the<\/p>\n
      petition schedule building and hence the landlord<\/p>\n
      is in need of the petition schedule building. Bona<\/p>\n
      fides of the claim was disputed by the revision<\/p>\n
      petitioner who contended that the real motive<\/p>\n
      behind instituting the RCP is to extract higher<\/p>\n
      rent. It was also contended that the RCP was<\/p>\n
      liable to fail by virtue of the first proviso to sub<\/p>\n
      Section 3 of Section 11 since the landlord was<\/p>\n
      having possession of four other rooms having<\/p>\n
      Door Nos.T.P.10\/398, 10\/399, 10\/400 and 9\/562.<\/p>\n
      It was further contended that at any rate, the<\/p>\n
      tenant was entitled to the protection of the second<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
      proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11. The Rent<\/p>\n
      Control Court enquired into the RCP and at trial<\/p>\n
      the evidence consisted of the oral evidence of the<\/p>\n
      landlord as PW1 and that of the tenant as RW1.<\/p>\n
      The documentary evidence consisted of Exts.A1 to<\/p>\n
      A5, B1 to B3 apart from Ext.C1 Commissioner’s<\/p>\n
      Report and Ext.C2 Commissioner’s Plan. The<\/p>\n
      learned Rent Control Court on evaluating the<\/p>\n
      evidence came to the conclusion that the oral<\/p>\n
      evidence of PW1 was inspiring and would hold that<\/p>\n
      the need was bona fide. As regards the first<\/p>\n
      proviso to sub Section 3 of Section 11 that court<\/p>\n
      found that the tenant was unsuccessful in<\/p>\n
      adducing any evidence to show that the landlord<\/p>\n
      was in possession of any of the four rooms.<\/p>\n
      Coming to the question whether the tenant is<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010        -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
      entitled to the protection of the second proviso it<\/p>\n
      was held that since the tenant’s evidence was that<\/p>\n
      he is getting Rs.200\/- per mensem from the<\/p>\n
      tailoring work carried on by him in the petition<\/p>\n
      schedule building. It was apparent that the<\/p>\n
      landlord was depending on other sources also<\/p>\n
      including the salary of his son who was a<\/p>\n
      Government employee. Taking that view of the<\/p>\n
      matter it was held that the first limb of the second<\/p>\n
      proviso was not satisfied. On the basis of that<\/p>\n
      finding it was held that the tenant is not entitled<\/p>\n
      to the protection of the second proviso at all.<\/p>\n
             2. The Appellate Authority considered the<\/p>\n
      appeal preferred by the revision petitioner,<\/p>\n
      reappraised the evidence and concurred with all<\/p>\n
      the conclusions of the Rent Control Court.<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010          -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
      Accordingly, order of eviction was confirmed and<\/p>\n
      RCA was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             3. In this revision under Section 20 various<\/p>\n
      grounds      have    been   raised  challenging  the<\/p>\n
      judgment         of    the    Appellate    Authority.<\/p>\n
      Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
      revision     petitioner  addressed   strenuous  and<\/p>\n
      persuasive arguments before us on the basis of all<\/p>\n
      those      grounds.     All   the  submissions     of<\/p>\n
      Sri.Madhavanunni were resisted by Advocate<\/p>\n
      Sri.R.Sudhish       for   the   respondent\/landlord.<\/p>\n
      Sri.Madhavanunni submitted that the revision<\/p>\n
      petitioner is prepared to offer very attractive hike<\/p>\n
      in the rent which is presently paid by him. But<\/p>\n
      Sri.Sudhish submitted that since the need is an<\/p>\n
      extremely bona fide one, the landlord is not<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010          -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
      willing to allow the tenant to continue as a tenant<\/p>\n
      in the building even if an attractive rent is offered.<\/p>\n
      Sri.Madhavanunni would then request for grant of<\/p>\n
      one year’s time. This request is also opposed by<\/p>\n
      Sri.Sudhish.\n<\/p>\n
             4. We have very anxiously considered the<\/p>\n
      rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have<\/p>\n
      scanned the judgment of the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
      as well as the order of the Rent Control Court<\/p>\n
      which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority.<\/p>\n
      Under the scheme of the Rent Control Act, the<\/p>\n
      final fact finding court is the Rent Control<\/p>\n
      Appellate Authority. When the findings entered by<\/p>\n
      the Appellate Authority are reasonable and are<\/p>\n
      founded on evidence this Court will not be<\/p>\n
      justified in interfering with those finding within the<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010        -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
      contours of this Court’s jurisdiction under Section<\/p>\n
      20. Having scanned the judgment of the Appellate<\/p>\n
      Authority, we find that the finding entered therein<\/p>\n
      confirming similar finding entered by the Rent<\/p>\n
      Control Court that the need is bona fide is founded<\/p>\n
      on very convincing oral evidence given by PW1.<\/p>\n
             5. The same is the position regarding the<\/p>\n
      finding that the RCP is not liable to fail by virtue of<\/p>\n
      the first proviso. Though the tenant contended<\/p>\n
      that the landlord was having vacant possession of<\/p>\n
      as many as four rooms he was unsuccessful in<\/p>\n
      adducing any evidence to show that the landlord<\/p>\n
      was having possession of at least room No.9\/562<\/p>\n
      which was admitted by the landlord to be owned<\/p>\n
      by him. Though a commission was taken out, the<\/p>\n
      Commissioner was never taken to room No.9\/562<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010        -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
      at all. We do not find any infirmity about the<\/p>\n
      finding of the Appellate Authority that the tenant<\/p>\n
      is not entitled to the protection of the second<\/p>\n
      proviso. The finding that the revision petitioner is<\/p>\n
      getting Rs.200\/- per mensem from the tailoring<\/p>\n
      work carried on by him in the petition schedule<\/p>\n
      building and the landlord was depending on other<\/p>\n
      sources also including the salary of his son who is<\/p>\n
      a Government employee is a reasonable finding.<\/p>\n
      We do not find any warrant for interference.<\/p>\n
             6. The result of the RCR is therefore, as<\/p>\n
      follows:-\n<\/p>\n
             The RCR has to fail and will stand dismissed.<\/p>\n
      However, we feel that notwithstanding opposition<\/p>\n
      of Sri.Sudhish, the revision petitioner can be<\/p>\n
      granted time till 31\/01\/11 to surrender the<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010       -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
      premises subject to certain conditions. Hence,<\/p>\n
      even as we dismiss the RCR without any order as<\/p>\n
      to costs we direct the execution court not to order<\/p>\n
      and effect delivery of the building in question till<\/p>\n
      31\/01\/11 subject to the following conditions:-<\/p>\n
             1) The revision petitioner shall file an<\/p>\n
      affidavit containing an undertaking to the effect<\/p>\n
      before the execution court or the Rent Control<\/p>\n
      Court, as the case may be, within ten days from<\/p>\n
      today that he will give peaceful surrender of the<\/p>\n
      building in question to the respondent on or<\/p>\n
      before 31\/01\/11. It shall also be undertaken<\/p>\n
      through the same affidavit that arrears of rent, if<\/p>\n
      any will be discharged within one month and that<\/p>\n
      occupational charges at the current rent rate will<\/p>\n
      also be paid without fail till he surrenders the<\/p>\n
R. C. R. No.118 of 2010        -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
      building. We make it clear that unless the affidavit<\/p>\n
      as ordered above is filed on time, the revision<\/p>\n
      petitioner will not get the benefit of time granted<\/p>\n
      as above.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                    PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
\n                                                  JUDGE<\/p>\n
                                     C. K. ABDUL REHIM
\n                                                  JUDGE
\n      kns\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Marolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev..No. 118 of 2010() 1. MAROLLI KRISHNAN, S\/O.KANARAKUTTY … Petitioner Vs 1. P.T.YUSUF, S\/O.ABDU RAHIMAN HAJI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI For Respondent :SRI.R.SUDHISH The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM […]<\/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-271212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMarolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 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\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Marolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-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=\"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-06T03:36:20+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\\\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Marolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-06T03:36:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1232,\"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\\\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Marolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-06T03:36:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Marolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 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":"Marolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 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\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Marolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-06T03:36:20+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\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Marolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-06T03:36:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010"},"wordCount":1232,"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\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010","name":"Marolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-06T03:36:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/marolli-krishnan-vs-p-t-yusuf-on-30-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Marolli Krishnan vs P.T.Yusuf on 30 June, 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\/271212","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=271212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271212\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}