{"id":271313,"date":"2007-09-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007"},"modified":"2016-05-06T14:44:57","modified_gmt":"2016-05-06T09:14:57","slug":"p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"P.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 542 of 1994(F)\n\n\n\n1. P.K.CHERIAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. KORATH ABRAHAM\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :DR.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :05\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n               M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n               ------------------------------------------\n                   S.A .NO.542 OF 1994\n               ------------------------------------------\n\n              Dated      5th September             2007\n\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
           Plaintiff in O.S.168 of 1984 on the file of<\/p>\n
Munsiff court, Haripad        is the appellant. Defendants 1<\/p>\n
to 4 are respondents 1 to 40. On the death of first<\/p>\n
respondent, respondents 6 to 9, his legal heirs and on<\/p>\n
the death of second respondent, respondents 10 to 13<\/p>\n
his legal heirs were impleaded before                       the first<\/p>\n
appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal<\/p>\n
third respondent died. As             his shares were purchased<\/p>\n
by 5th respondent, his legal heirs were not impleaded.<\/p>\n
On  the death of 5th respondent, respondents 14 to 19<\/p>\n
were impleaded    as legal heirs. Appellant instituted<\/p>\n
the suit seeking a decree for fixation of boundary and<\/p>\n
for injunction. Plaint schedule properties along with<\/p>\n
the   remaining   properties           originally         belonged  to<\/p>\n
Edichandy Koruthu and his wife Eleyamma. Under                  Ext.A1<\/p>\n
partition deed properties were divided. Executant No.4<\/p>\n
is  the  appellant.      First       respondent          was executant<\/p>\n
No.1.  Second  respondent          was      executant        No.3  and<\/p>\n
SA 542\/94
\n                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
executant   No.2  was  Koruthu  Varghese,  father  third<\/p>\n
respondent.   Under   Ext.A1   properties  allotted   to<\/p>\n
appellant as item No.4, comprises two items in survey<\/p>\n
No.2609.A\/1 having an extent of 12< cents and 2= cents<\/p>\n
in survey No.2611. Said properties are plaint schedule<\/p>\n
properties. Appellant instituted suit contending that<\/p>\n
because   of  close  relationship  no  fence  was  fixed<\/p>\n
separating properties allotted to the sharers under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 and subsequently respondents joined together and<\/p>\n
attempted to reduce portion of the properties of the<\/p>\n
appellant to their possession and they have no right to<\/p>\n
do so and even though appellant tried to get the<\/p>\n
property measured and boundaries fixed it was objected<\/p>\n
to on the ground  that resurvey proceedings are pending.<\/p>\n
Appellant also contended that in resurvey proceedings<\/p>\n
portions of the properties of appellant       are being<\/p>\n
included in the property of his brothers and he    filed<\/p>\n
appeal before resurvey Assistant Director and it is<\/p>\n
pending.   Appellant  therefore  sought  a   decree  for<\/p>\n
fixation of boundaries of his property and also a<\/p>\n
perpetual   injunction   restraining  respondents   from<\/p>\n
trespassing   into  the  property.     Defendants  filed<\/p>\n
separate written statement contending that appellant did<\/p>\n
SA 542\/94
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
not obtain possession of the property allotted to him<\/p>\n
under Ext.A1 and they are in possession of the property<\/p>\n
and there is no necessity to fix the boundaries and<\/p>\n
therefore suit is to be dismissed. Fifth respondent in<\/p>\n
his      written  statement  contended that     he  is  a<\/p>\n
kudikidappukaran and as per order of Land Tribunal     he<\/p>\n
is in possession of 8 cents and appellant has no right<\/p>\n
over the       said property and therefore suit is to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      Learned    Munsiff   appointed   PW3    as\n\nCommissioner. He submitted     Exts.C1(a) report and C1(b)\n\nplan.      Appellant  filed   objection  contending   that\n\n<\/pre>\n
Commissioner has not measured the property in accordance<\/p>\n
with Ext.A1 partition deed and therefore they are to be<\/p>\n
set aside. Trial court remitted the report back to<\/p>\n
Commissioner. Commissioner submitted Ex.C2 report and C2<\/p>\n
(a) plan. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of Pws.1 to 3,<\/p>\n
DW1, Exts.A1 and A2, B1 to B9 and C1 to C2(a), dismissed<\/p>\n
the suit holding that     appellant is not entitled to the<\/p>\n
decree, as he failed to establish his possession of<\/p>\n
property and report of Commissioner shows that property<\/p>\n
is in the possession of others. Appellant challenged<\/p>\n
decree and judgment before Additional District court,<\/p>\n
SA 542\/94
\n                              4<\/span><\/p>\n
Mavelikara   in  A.S.57   of  1988.   Learned Additional<\/p>\n
District Judge on re-appreciation of evidence confirmed<\/p>\n
the findings of learned Munsiff and dismissed appeal. It<\/p>\n
is challenged in second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        3. Second   appeal   was   admitted   formulating<\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law.<\/p>\n
                1)  In    the   light   of   the
\n           contentions  put   forward   by   the
\n           parties  and  in  the  light  of  the
\n           materials on record, are the courts
\n           below  justified  in   proceeding  to
\n           decide upon the issues involved in
\n           the case without calling for a plan
\n           in  respect   of  the   plaint  items
\n           prepared  on   the   basis   of   the
\n           description of properties in Ext.A1
\n           partition deed with the help of the
\n           original plan?\n<\/p>\n
                2)  On     the     facts     and
\n           circumstances of the case and in the
\n           light of the observations made by the
\n           courts below, are they justified in
\n           rejecting the plaint claim without
\n           granting liberty to plaintiff to file
\n           a fresh suit for declaring his title
\n           and possession over the plaint items
\n           as also for recovery of possession?\n<\/p>\n
        4. Learned counsel appearing for appellant and<\/p>\n
SA 542\/94
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
respondents were heard.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Argument  of  learned  counsel  appearing   for<\/p>\n
appellant is that as suit is for fixation of boundary,<\/p>\n
without     proper  identification of  the   property  suit<\/p>\n
should not have been decided by courts below. It was<\/p>\n
argued that though Ext.C1(a) report and Ext.C1(b) plan<\/p>\n
were remitted back to Commissioner, Commissioner did not<\/p>\n
identify property with reference to Ext.A1 partition<\/p>\n
deed and instead     followed  earlier plan prepared on the<\/p>\n
basis of resurvey plan and in such circumstances, courts<\/p>\n
below     should  not  have  dismissed the  suit.   Learned<\/p>\n
counsel also argued that in any case liberty is to be<\/p>\n
granted to appellant to get the property identified and<\/p>\n
seek a declaration of his title           and recovery of<\/p>\n
possession. It was argued that possession of defendants<\/p>\n
during the pendency of suit      cannot operate as adverse<\/p>\n
possession. Learned counsel appearing for respondents<\/p>\n
pointed out that report of Commissioner establish that<\/p>\n
portion of property claimed by appellant     is not in the<\/p>\n
possession of appellant and still plaint was not got<\/p>\n
amended and courts below found that as appellant     is not<\/p>\n
in possession of the property he is    not entitled to get<\/p>\n
fixation     of boundary and the appeal     is only to be<\/p>\n
SA 542\/94
\n                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
        5. True, when suit is filed for fixation of<\/p>\n
boundary, suit is to be decided only       after proper<\/p>\n
identification of the properties     with reference to<\/p>\n
title deeds. The    grievance of the appellant was that<\/p>\n
Commissioner   did  not  identify    the  property  with<\/p>\n
reference to Ext.A1 partition deed and old plan and<\/p>\n
instead identified the property with reference to the<\/p>\n
possession and that too on the basis of resurvey plan<\/p>\n
which was objected to by plaintiffs. Ordinarily, when<\/p>\n
such suit was decided by courts below without proper<\/p>\n
identification property it should have been interfered.<\/p>\n
But in the nature of facts and circumstances of this<\/p>\n
case, I do not find that it is necessary.<\/p>\n
        6.  When    a suit is filed for fixation of<\/p>\n
boundary, if portion of the plaint schedule property is<\/p>\n
found to be   in the possession of others, no decree for<\/p>\n
fixation of boundary  could be granted without seeking a<\/p>\n
decree for    recovery of possession of that portion of<\/p>\n
property.   By  putting  up  boundary  on  fixation,   a<\/p>\n
plaintiff cannot recover possession of the property from<\/p>\n
the possession of the defendants, without seeking a<\/p>\n
decree for recovery of possession. Suit was framed only<\/p>\n
SA 542\/94
\n                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
for fixation of boundary and for injunction. In such<\/p>\n
circumstances, substantial question of law as formulated<\/p>\n
are not involved. In the  facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case especially when the    property was not identified<\/p>\n
with reference to Ext.A1 partition deed and    old plan,<\/p>\n
interest of justice warrants that appellant is to be<\/p>\n
granted    liberty to file  fresh  suit  for  seeking  a<\/p>\n
declaration of title as well as for fixation of boundary<\/p>\n
and for recovery of possession of the property. It is<\/p>\n
made clear that recovery of possession could only be<\/p>\n
subject to the plea of adverse possession available to<\/p>\n
respondents.\n<\/p>\n
        7. In the result, second appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n
Appellant is at liberty to file fresh suit for declaring<\/p>\n
his title and recovery of possession and fixation of<\/p>\n
boundary. It is made clear that     question of adverse<\/p>\n
possession is left open to be decided in that suit.<\/p>\n
                                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                              JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
uj.\n<\/p>\n
SA 542\/94
\n             8<\/span><\/p>\n
             =============================
\n               M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                      JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n\n              S.A.NO.542 OF 1994\n\n\n\n\n                  5th    September 2007\n\n             ============================\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 542 of 1994(F) 1. P.K.CHERIAN … Petitioner Vs 1. KORATH ABRAHAM … Respondent For Petitioner :DR.P.S.KRISHNA PILLAI For Respondent :SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :05\/09\/2007 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-271313","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007 - 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\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-06T09:14:57+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\\\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-06T09:14:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1241,\"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\\\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007\",\"name\":\"P.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-06T09:14:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"P.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007 - 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\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-06T09:14:57+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\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-06T09:14:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007"},"wordCount":1241,"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\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007","name":"P.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-06T09:14:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-cherian-vs-korath-abraham-on-5-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.K.Cherian vs Korath Abraham on 5 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/271313","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=271313"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271313\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271313"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}