{"id":272468,"date":"2007-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007"},"modified":"2017-02-21T00:55:34","modified_gmt":"2017-02-20T19:25:34","slug":"somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Somakumar vs Nazar on 10 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Somakumar vs Nazar on 10 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRCRev No. 155 of 2007()\n\n\n1. SOMAKUMAR, S\/O.SOMARAJAN,MERCHANT,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. HAREENDRAN, S\/O.SADANANDAN PILLAI,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. NAZAR,S\/O.ALIYARKUNJU, COMPANY EMPLOYEE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n\n Dated :10\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                         K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &\n\n                      T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.\n\n                      -----------------------------------------\n\n                          R.C.R. NO. 155 OF 2007-C\n\n                      -----------------------------------------\n\n                         Dated 10th September, 2007.\n\n                                     ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
Balakrishnan Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n
      The tenants are the revision petitioners. The landlord is the<\/p>\n
respondent. The landlord moved the Rent Controller, claiming eviction of<\/p>\n
the tenants under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings<\/p>\n
(Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The<\/p>\n
landlord owned about 25 cents of land. It is bounded on two sides by roads.<\/p>\n
On the northern side is the national highway and on the southern side, the<\/p>\n
palace road. A line building consisting of five rooms is covering the entire<\/p>\n
southern boundary of the landlord’s plot. The said building abut the palace<\/p>\n
road, as stated earlier. Out of the five rooms, four belonged to the landlord.<\/p>\n
He moved and obtained          building permit for construction of a large<\/p>\n
commercial complex in the said plot. As per the approved plan attached to<\/p>\n
the building permit, the line building owned by him has to be demolished,<\/p>\n
so that there is access from the palace road and area is available for parking<\/p>\n
Rcr 155\/2007                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
vehicles. After obtaining the permit the landlord started construction and<\/p>\n
simultaneously he filed the Rent Control Petition to evict the four tenants<\/p>\n
occupying his rooms. Out of the five rooms, one belongs to a third party.<\/p>\n
During the pendency of the rent control proceedings, two of the tenants<\/p>\n
surrendered the premises in their possession.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    The petitioners herein alone contested the matter. The need<\/p>\n
projected was to get the tenanted rooms and demolish them for the above<\/p>\n
mentioned purpose. Thus, the petition was laid under Section 11(3). The<\/p>\n
tenants contended that the building has got sufficient parking area and also<\/p>\n
access from the northern side from the national highway. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
need projected is without any bona fides. They also contended that since<\/p>\n
one of the rooms belongs to a third party, it is not possible to demolish the<\/p>\n
entire building. Further, they denied the claim made under Section 11(2)(b).<\/p>\n
Apart from the above grounds, an objection to the maintainability of the<\/p>\n
Rent Control Petition was also raised. According to them, the landlord<\/p>\n
should have filed four separate Rent Control Petitions. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the landlord pointed out that there was no such specific contention<\/p>\n
raised in the written objection, except the bald statement that the R.C.P is<\/p>\n
not maintainable. Whatever be that, the Rent Controller considered the<\/p>\n
point and held the same in favour of the landlord. The claim under Section<\/p>\n
Rcr 155\/2007                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
11(2)(b) was rejected and the prayer under Section 11(3) was allowed. The<\/p>\n
tenants appealed. During the pendency of the rent control proceedings, two<\/p>\n
of the rooms, which were surrendered by the tenants, were demolished and<\/p>\n
access was provided to the said building from the palace road also. So, they<\/p>\n
pointed out that the need of the landlord is already satisfied.           The<\/p>\n
contentions raised before the Rent Controller were also reiterated before the<\/p>\n
appellate authority.  The appellate authority affirmed the finding under<\/p>\n
Section 11(3). Hence this revision.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners raised three points<\/p>\n
in this revision. The first point is regarding the mis-joinder of parties. The<\/p>\n
learned counsel pointed out that this point was specifically raised before the<\/p>\n
appellate authority.   But, it was not considered by the said authority.<\/p>\n
Further, relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Jamal v.<\/p>\n
Safia Beevi<\/a> [2005(2) KLT 359 FB], it is submitted that for the reason that a<\/p>\n
single R.C.P was filed for the eviction of four tenants, the same was liable<\/p>\n
to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the<\/p>\n
very same decision to say that the joint petition was maintainable. Going by<\/p>\n
the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the said decision<\/p>\n
and also the provisions under Section 99 of the C.P.C., we feel that unless<\/p>\n
Rcr 155\/2007                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
prejudice is shown, mis-joinder cannot be a ground to interfere with the<\/p>\n
orders of the appellate authority. Going by the revision petition, we find<\/p>\n
that there is no pleading regarding any prejudice caused to the petitioners.<\/p>\n
On a perusal of the materials on record, we find that in all the cases the<\/p>\n
grounds for eviction were the same. The defence of the tenants was also<\/p>\n
identical. The Rent Controller as well as the appellate authority considered<\/p>\n
the common defence put forward by the tenants.         Both the authorities<\/p>\n
separately considered the protection claimed by the petitioners under the<\/p>\n
second proviso to Section 11(3) also. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to<\/p>\n
the petitioners herein by the filing of a single petition. So, we are not<\/p>\n
inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the appellate authority,<\/p>\n
on the ground of mis-joinder of parties.\n<\/p>\n
      4. The second point urged by the learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners was concerning the bona fides of the claim of the landlord.<\/p>\n
Under the said ground, the learned counsel raised three points. Firstly, it is<\/p>\n
submitted that even without the area covered by the tenanted premises, the<\/p>\n
landlord has got sufficient parking space. Secondly, it is pointed out that<\/p>\n
though from the approved building plan it would appear that the entire<\/p>\n
building on the southern side has to be demolished, the same cannot be<\/p>\n
demolished, as a portion of the same belongs to a third party. Lastly, it is<\/p>\n
Rcr 155\/2007                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
pointed out that during the pendency of the rent control proceedings two of<\/p>\n
the rooms were surrendered and they were demolished, providing access to<\/p>\n
the road on the southern side. So, the need of the landlord stood satisfied<\/p>\n
substantially, it is submitted.\n<\/p>\n
      5. The landlord is bound to provide the statutory parking space, as<\/p>\n
provided under the plan attached to the building permit. Even otherwise, if<\/p>\n
the landlord feels that some more parking space is necessary for a huge<\/p>\n
commercial complex, the same can only be treated as a bona fide<\/p>\n
requirement. Even if the landlord cannot demolish the entire building, he is<\/p>\n
bound to demolish that part of the building which belongs to him. So, the<\/p>\n
contention that if he cannot demolish the entire building, he need not<\/p>\n
demolish anything, cannot be accepted. The tenants cannot dictate that the<\/p>\n
landlord should be satisfied with the passage and parking area available<\/p>\n
with the demolition of the two rooms. If he wants the remaining portion of<\/p>\n
his building also, the same will definitely constitute a bona fide need.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the contentions raised by the revision petitioners against the<\/p>\n
need of the landlord are repelled.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The third point urged by the learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners is that the ground raised by the landlord will more appropriately<\/p>\n
lie under Section 11(4)(iv) instead of Section 11(3) of the Act. We think,<\/p>\n
Rcr 155\/2007                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
this is not a ground taken in this Rent Control Revision. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel pointed out that it is specifically pleaded in this revision that the<\/p>\n
need urged by the landlord will not come under Section 11(3). But, the<\/p>\n
requirement of a building for demolition and its use for other purposes has<\/p>\n
been held to be a need under Section 11(3), by several decisions of this<\/p>\n
Court (See Krishna Menon v. District Judge<\/a> – 1988(1) KLT 131 and<\/p>\n
Narayanankutty v. Abiida Abdul Kareem<\/a> – 2002(2) KLT 507). See also<\/p>\n
the recent decision of this Court in R.C.R. No.227\/2004 dated 7.9.2007. In<\/p>\n
view of the above position, the Rent Control Revision fails and it is<\/p>\n
accordingly dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
       7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners prayed for some<\/p>\n
time to vacate the premises. Having regard to the facts of the case three<\/p>\n
months’ time from today is granted, on condition the petitioners file an<\/p>\n
affidavit before the executing court, unconditionally undertaking to vacate<\/p>\n
the premises within three months from today and also agreeing to pay the<\/p>\n
rent till the rooms are vacated. The affidavit in this regard shall be filed<\/p>\n
Rcr 155\/2007                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
within three weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                              K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                              T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Nm\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Somakumar vs Nazar on 10 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RCRev No. 155 of 2007() 1. SOMAKUMAR, S\/O.SOMARAJAN,MERCHANT, … Petitioner 2. HAREENDRAN, S\/O.SADANANDAN PILLAI, Vs 1. NAZAR,S\/O.ALIYARKUNJU, COMPANY EMPLOYEE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR For Respondent :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-272468","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSomakumar vs Nazar on 10 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\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Somakumar vs Nazar on 10 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-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=\"2007-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-20T19:25:34+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\\\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Somakumar vs Nazar on 10 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-20T19:25:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1314,\"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\\\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Somakumar vs Nazar on 10 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-20T19:25:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Somakumar vs Nazar on 10 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":"Somakumar vs Nazar on 10 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\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Somakumar vs Nazar on 10 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-20T19:25:34+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\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Somakumar vs Nazar on 10 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-20T19:25:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007"},"wordCount":1314,"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\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007","name":"Somakumar vs Nazar on 10 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-20T19:25:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/somakumar-vs-nazar-on-10-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Somakumar vs Nazar on 10 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\/272468","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=272468"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272468\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272468"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}