{"id":271360,"date":"2009-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009"},"modified":"2018-09-28T02:36:37","modified_gmt":"2018-09-27T21:06:37","slug":"rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 668 of 2006()\n\n\n\n1. ROSAMMA JEROME\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. ALEXANDER\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.TKM.UNNITHAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :09\/12\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                   S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                         C.R.P.No.668 of 2006\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                      Dated: 9th December, 2009\n\n                                   ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">      The revision is directed against the order dismissing an<\/p>\n<p>application moved by the petitioner\/decree holder for proceeding<\/p>\n<p>against the respondents\/judgment debtors for violating a decree of<\/p>\n<p>injunction. Petitioner is the plaintiff\/decree holder in O.S.No.390 of<\/p>\n<p>1993 in which a decree of perpetual prohibitory injunction was<\/p>\n<p>granted in her favour and against the respondents\/judgment debtors<\/p>\n<p>from trespassing upon the plaint property having an extent of 7 cents<\/p>\n<p>comprising   a building. The first respondent is the brother of the<\/p>\n<p>petitioner and the second respondent, the wife of the first<\/p>\n<p>respondent. A decree was passed in favour of the petitioner in the<\/p>\n<p>above suit on merits negativing the contention raised by the<\/p>\n<p>defendants that they are in occupation of the building comprised in<\/p>\n<p>the plaint property. From the decree there was no challenge by way<\/p>\n<p>of appeal, and it has become final and conclusive. Alleging that after<\/p>\n<p>the passing of the decree the respondents trespassed upon the<\/p>\n<p>property and occupied the building, petitioner moved an application<\/p>\n<p>under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceed<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">CRP No.668\/06                     &#8211; 2 &#8211;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>against them for violating the injunction, and to get them evicted<\/p>\n<p>from the building. That application was resisted by the respondents<\/p>\n<p>canvassing the same defence taken earlier that they are continuing in<\/p>\n<p>occupation of the building which commenced before the institution of<\/p>\n<p>the suit. An advocate commissioner was deputed by the court for<\/p>\n<p>local inspection, who after such inspection filed a report and a rough<\/p>\n<p>sketch. Petitioner and an advocate commissioner were examined as<\/p>\n<p>witnesses and A1, a letter issued by the District Panchayat Officer,<\/p>\n<p>Alappuzha was exhibited in support of the application. On the side of<\/p>\n<p>the respondents, two witnesses were examined and B1 to B3 were<\/p>\n<p>exhibited. The learned Munsiff, after appreciating the materials<\/p>\n<p>produced, forming an opinion that it is difficult to come to a<\/p>\n<p>conclusion whether the respondents have trespassed into the<\/p>\n<p>property violating the decree, dismissed the application. Propriety and<\/p>\n<p>correctness of that order is challenged in the revision.<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">      2. I heard the counsel on both sides. A preliminary objection<\/p>\n<p>was canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent to contend<\/p>\n<p>that a revision would not lie against the impugned order placing<\/p>\n<p>reliance on <a href=\"\/doc\/213017\/\" id=\"a_1\">Shiv Shakti Co-operative Housing Society v. Swaraj<\/p>\n<p>Developers<\/a> [2003(2) KLT 503(SC)]. I find no merit in the objection.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">CRP No.668\/06                    &#8211; 3 &#8211;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Challenge raised in the revision is against a final order passed in an<\/p>\n<p>application under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/p>\n<p>dismissing an application moved by the decree holder for proceeding<\/p>\n<p>against the judgment debtors imputing violation of the decree of<\/p>\n<p>injunction. That order is final, and amenable to a challenge before<\/p>\n<p>this court by way of a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n<p>Procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">      3. Perusing the impugned order in the revision with reference to<\/p>\n<p>the submissions made by the counsel, I find the learned Munsiff has<\/p>\n<p>misdirected his enquiry without taking note of the binding effect of<\/p>\n<p>the decree on the parties and also the scope and ambit of Order 21<\/p>\n<p>Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Indisputably, a decree of<\/p>\n<p>injunction was passed in the suit in favour of the revision<\/p>\n<p>petitioner\/decree holder in respect of the plaint property having an<\/p>\n<p>extent of 7 cents comprising a building negativing the challenge<\/p>\n<p>raised by the judgment debtors\/defendants that they have occupation<\/p>\n<p>over the building situated in the property. That decree passed on<\/p>\n<p>merits has become final and conclusive without any challenge<\/p>\n<p>whatsoever. The present petition had been filed by the decree holders<\/p>\n<p>setting forth a case that there was a subsequent trespass after the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">CRP No.668\/06                     &#8211; 4 &#8211;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>passing of the decree, and occupation over the building thereof, by<\/p>\n<p>the judgment debtors. That was resisted by the judgment debtors<\/p>\n<p>canvassing the very same challenge advanced to resist the suit claim<\/p>\n<p>in trial that they had possessory right and occupation over the<\/p>\n<p>building even before its institution. In other words, the defence that<\/p>\n<p>was repelled after adjudication by the court was again canvassed in<\/p>\n<p>execution to resist the decree of injunction. Without examining the<\/p>\n<p>question whether such a challenge could be canvassed to resist the<\/p>\n<p>decree, it is seen, the court below proceeded with an enquiry to<\/p>\n<p>assess the merit of that case setforth for resisting the execution of<\/p>\n<p>the decree. In this connection, it is pertinent to take note of the<\/p>\n<p>decision relied by the apex court in <a href=\"\/doc\/867423\/\" id=\"a_1\">P.K.Vijayan v. Kamalakshi<\/p>\n<p>Amma<\/a> (AIR 1994 SC 2145) wherein it has been held that raising of<\/p>\n<p>different pleas at various stages in the pendency of a suit or<\/p>\n<p>proceeding itself is an abuse of process of the court and an omission<\/p>\n<p>to raise all available relevant pleas at the earlier stage when the<\/p>\n<p>action is initiated would constitute constructive res judicata<\/p>\n<p>preventing the raising of the same at a later point of time. The apex<\/p>\n<p>court has observed thus:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>            &#8220;It is a sheer abuse of the process of the Court to<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">CRP No.668\/06                    &#8211; 5 &#8211;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      raise at each successive stages different pleas to protract<\/p>\n<p>      the proceedings or to driver the party to multiplicity of<\/p>\n<p>      proceedings. It would be fair and just that the parties to<\/p>\n<p>      raise all available relevant pleas in the suits or<\/p>\n<p>      proceedings when the action is initiated and the omission<\/p>\n<p>      thereof does constitute constructive res judicata to<\/p>\n<p>      prevent raising of the same at a later point of time<\/p>\n<p>      thereby it must be deemed that they are waived.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_3\">When that be the case in respect of raising of different pleas at<\/p>\n<p>successive stages in a suit or proceeding, what is seen in the present<\/p>\n<p>case is the very same defence canvassed in the suit which had been<\/p>\n<p>repelled after adjudication had been canvassed by the judgment<\/p>\n<p>debtor to resist the decree of injunction granted in favour of the<\/p>\n<p>revision petitioner\/decree holder; and, after enquiry, assessing the<\/p>\n<p>merit of that defence, the court below had expressed its helplessness<\/p>\n<p>and difficulty &#8220;to come to a conclusion that the respondents have<\/p>\n<p>trespassed into the plaint scheduled property violating the decree.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The respondents who are bound by the decree could not have<\/p>\n<p>canvassed the defence which was canvassed in trial and found<\/p>\n<p>against by the court to resist the decree was lost sight of by the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_4\">CRP No.668\/06                     &#8211; 6 &#8211;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>learned Munsiff in appreciating the facts and circumstances presented<\/p>\n<p>in the case. The impugned order is patently erroneous and<\/p>\n<p>unsustainable in law. Setting aside the order, the court below is<\/p>\n<p>directed to pass appropriate orders on the application moved by the<\/p>\n<p>revision petitioner\/decree holder in accordance with law on the<\/p>\n<p>materials already tendered in the proceeding, as expeditiously as<\/p>\n<p>possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of<\/p>\n<p>receipt\/production of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">      Revision is disposed as indicated above.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">srd                           S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 668 of 2006() 1. ROSAMMA JEROME &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. ALEXANDER &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR For Respondent :SRI.TKM.UNNITHAN The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :09\/12\/2009 O R D E R S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. [&hellip;]<\/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-271360","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-27T21:06:37+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-27T21:06:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1147,\"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\\\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-27T21:06:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 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":"Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-27T21:06:37+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-27T21:06:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009"},"wordCount":1147,"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\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009","name":"Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-27T21:06:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rosamma-jerome-vs-alexander-on-9-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rosamma Jerome vs Alexander on 9 December, 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\/271360","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=271360"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271360\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}