{"id":27252,"date":"2010-06-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-03T05:34:30","modified_gmt":"2018-11-03T00:04:30","slug":"preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Preman vs Vasanthi on 23 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Preman vs Vasanthi on 23 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 181 of 2000(B)\n\n\n\n1. PREMAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. VASANTHI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.V.ANANTHAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :23\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                   M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                  A.S. NO. 181 OF 2000\n               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n           Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010.\n\n                     J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
    This  appeal      is    preferred        against  the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree passed by the First Addl.<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam in O.S.242\/96.           The<\/p>\n
suit is one for partition with respect to three<\/p>\n
schedules  of  property.           A   schedule   is  the<\/p>\n
property which jointly belonged to Pushpavally,<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and Rameshan.           B schedule is the<\/p>\n
property which belonged to the husband of the<\/p>\n
first defendant namely Rameshan.            C schedule is<\/p>\n
the money which the first defendant has got on<\/p>\n
the death of Rameshan from his office namely the<\/p>\n
Cochin Port Trust.         It is the case of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs that on the death of Rameshan and<\/p>\n
after the death of the mother, the properties<\/p>\n
are liable to be divided and thereafter she is<\/p>\n
claiming right over the property of Rameshan as<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                          -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
well as over the property of the mother of which<\/p>\n
the widow and children of a predeceased son is<\/p>\n
entitled to get share.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   So far as the B schedule is concerned it<\/p>\n
is contended that the mother’s share which is<\/p>\n
1\/4th would equally devolve upon the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
Santha and the defendants and so such a share is<\/p>\n
also to be worked out.        C schedule also is<\/p>\n
claimed in the same fashion.     On the other hand<\/p>\n
the defendants would contend that the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule      property that  is   described  in   A<\/p>\n
schedule also belongs to them as the legal<\/p>\n
representatives of Rameshan as well as the legal<\/p>\n
representative of the mother of Rameshan namely<\/p>\n
Pushpavally.       In B schedule also they would<\/p>\n
contend besides getting absolute 3\/4th right over<\/p>\n
the property as the legal representatives of<\/p>\n
Rameshan they are also entitled to the share of<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                           -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
the property which devolved upon Pushpavally as<\/p>\n
the legal representatives of deceased Rameshan.<\/p>\n
In C schedule also it is the contention.<\/p>\n
      3.   Now in the plaint there is a specific<\/p>\n
contention      that   Santha,  the   sister,   had<\/p>\n
relinquished her 1\/4th right in the property and<\/p>\n
further the mother had executed a Will in favour<\/p>\n
of the first plaintiff whereby her share as well<\/p>\n
as     the    share  obtained  by   her  as   legal<\/p>\n
representative of her deceased son Rameshan had<\/p>\n
been     bequeathed   in   favour  of   the   first<\/p>\n
plaintiff.      With respect to B schedule also the<\/p>\n
plaintiff claims right over the property which<\/p>\n
the    mother   had  obtained  and  that  had  been<\/p>\n
bequeathed by virtue of the Will.     In C schedule<\/p>\n
also the same is the contention.          Therefore<\/p>\n
everything depends upon the acceptability of the<\/p>\n
Will which is executed by Pushpavally in favour<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                           -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
of the first plaintiff.       The defendants 1 to 3<\/p>\n
would contend that Pushpavally could not have<\/p>\n
executed such a Will on her own volition and<\/p>\n
free consent and further it is the outcome of<\/p>\n
undue influence, coercion, fraud etc. played on<\/p>\n
Pushpavally and therefore that document will<\/p>\n
never confer any right on the first plaintiff<\/p>\n
with respect to the right of Pushpavally and so<\/p>\n
that has to be ignored and partition has to be<\/p>\n
effected.       So the whole question depends upon<\/p>\n
the acceptability of the Will.     Now the evidence<\/p>\n
tendered in support of the Will is the oral<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs.1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   PW1 is the propounder of the Will.    He<\/p>\n
is an employee in the Sub Registrar office.      He<\/p>\n
would depose that the mother had executed the<\/p>\n
Will in his favour and therefore he is entitled<\/p>\n
to the right.        He is not a witness to the<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
document.       PW2 is one Maya.   She is a relative<\/p>\n
of    the    plaintiff   and   defendants  1  to  3.<\/p>\n
According       to  her  Pushpavally   came  to  her<\/p>\n
residence and told her that she is executing a<\/p>\n
Will    in    favour  of  the  first   plaintiff and<\/p>\n
thereafter they had gone to the Registrar’s<\/p>\n
office and Pushpavally had seen the attesting<\/p>\n
witnesses affixing her signature and she has<\/p>\n
seen Pushpavally affixing her signature.         She<\/p>\n
had     also    spoken about   the  other   attesting<\/p>\n
witnesses putting the signatures in the Will and<\/p>\n
she would further depose that Pushpavaly also<\/p>\n
had seen the attesting witnesses affixing her<\/p>\n
signature in the Will.         She has also deposed<\/p>\n
that Pushpavally was mentally in a fit state of<\/p>\n
condition to execute the Will.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   In the cross examination it is brought<\/p>\n
out that there was some ailment for Pushpavally<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                          -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
at a later point of time and ultimately she was<\/p>\n
treated in the Medical Trust Hospital.       It is<\/p>\n
deposed by her, on the date of execution of the<\/p>\n
Will, Pushpavally came to her residence and<\/p>\n
requested her to witness the Will.        They had<\/p>\n
gone     together  to  scribe’s   office  and   the<\/p>\n
document was written and it was read over to the<\/p>\n
executant and thereafter only signatures had<\/p>\n
been put.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   Now the evidence of PW2 is challenged by<\/p>\n
the other side mainly on two points namely that<\/p>\n
she    had    only seen Pushpavally  affixing   two<\/p>\n
signatures and PW2 had stated that nobody else<\/p>\n
was there at the time of the execution of the<\/p>\n
Will whereas PW3 has deposed about the persons<\/p>\n
in his office. Now it has to be remembered that<\/p>\n
the defendants are challenging the Will only on<\/p>\n
the ground of undue influence, coercion and not<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                           -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
on the basis of lack of execution or that<\/p>\n
Pushpavally was not in a fit state of mind to<\/p>\n
execute the Will.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   PW3 is a person who has identified the<\/p>\n
signature of Pushpavally before the Registrar.<\/p>\n
He knows Pushpavally. He had deposed before<\/p>\n
Court regarding the signature put by Pushpavally<\/p>\n
before the Registrar and has identified her as<\/p>\n
Pushpavally.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   I    also refer to  the endorsement in<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 which reveals that executant has admitted<\/p>\n
the execution of the document and she had been<\/p>\n
identified and the document has been registered.<\/p>\n
It has been registered from the Registrar’s<\/p>\n
office.\n<\/p>\n
      9.   DW1, who is challenging the Will would<\/p>\n
assert    that    the Will  has been executed  by<\/p>\n
compulsion, fear and so on and the reason for<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                           -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
stating so, according to her, is that PW1 had<\/p>\n
equal love and affection for her husband as<\/p>\n
well.      The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 does not<\/p>\n
suffer from any infirmity at all. They had<\/p>\n
spoken about the execution of the Will, the<\/p>\n
presence of the attesting witnesses, the mental<\/p>\n
capacity      of  Pushpavally  and   therefore the<\/p>\n
evidence is sufficient u\/s 63 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Evidence Act regarding the proof of execution of<\/p>\n
the Will.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Now    the   two  other   points  to  be<\/p>\n
considered are, one is whether there is any<\/p>\n
suspicious       circumstances   surroundings  the<\/p>\n
execution of the Will and the other is whether<\/p>\n
coercion or undue influence is used for the<\/p>\n
preparation      of   the   Will.  The   suspicious<\/p>\n
circumstance projected surrounding the execution<\/p>\n
of the Will is that the first defendant and her<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                           -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
children      were  excluded  from  inheriting  any<\/p>\n
property.      It  is  brought  out that   PW1  was<\/p>\n
residing       with  Rameshan.  According  to   the<\/p>\n
defendant it was till the death of Rameshan and<\/p>\n
thereafter she was taken by the plaintiff.       It<\/p>\n
is    seen     from the   plaint itself  that   the<\/p>\n
relatives of the first defendant has started<\/p>\n
living in the house where Rameshan lived and<\/p>\n
therefore it is nothing but natural a mother<\/p>\n
would like to join her son who is also well<\/p>\n
placed in life.      It can be seen that Pushpavaly<\/p>\n
was not a patient who was bed ridden.     She was a<\/p>\n
heart patient from 1983 onwards. She continued<\/p>\n
treatment and ultimately breathed her last on<\/p>\n
18.11.93 on account of her heart problem.       The<\/p>\n
Will is executed on 25.9.93. Except the fact<\/p>\n
that she is a heart patient no other materials<\/p>\n
are available before Court to show that she was<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                            -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
a    person     not  capable   of understanding the<\/p>\n
consequences of her action and that she did not<\/p>\n
have     the    mental   capacity  to  execute  the<\/p>\n
document.       Therefore repeated use of the word<\/p>\n
‘suspicious       circumstances’  will  not   be a<\/p>\n
substitute for proof.\n<\/p>\n
      11. Now the next question is regarding undue<\/p>\n
influence and coercion. It is a settled position<\/p>\n
of law that when the contract is challenged and<\/p>\n
said to be vitiated on the grounds mentioned<\/p>\n
under the provisions of the Contract Act the<\/p>\n
person who makes such allegations are expected<\/p>\n
to prove the same.       But u\/s 16 (2) and (3) of<\/p>\n
the Act when it is established that the person<\/p>\n
who had executed the will was in a position<\/p>\n
whereby the person exercising the influence was<\/p>\n
able to dominate the will of other person to his<\/p>\n
unfair advantage and that the said person was of<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                           -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
a weak health, feeble minded then the person who<\/p>\n
sets up the document should have to prove the<\/p>\n
same.     So the first aspect is whether there is<\/p>\n
any    undue    influence at   all.    Any sort   of<\/p>\n
influence is not undue influence.      For example a<\/p>\n
child living with parents and parents executing<\/p>\n
documents in favour of the children because they<\/p>\n
live together, one cannot say that children were<\/p>\n
in a position to dominate the will of the<\/p>\n
parents. Similarly unless one is able to impress<\/p>\n
upon the Court to think by making use of that an<\/p>\n
unfair advantage was obtained, then only one can<\/p>\n
say that there is undue influence.          So just<\/p>\n
because a will is executed in favour of one<\/p>\n
child excluding the other one shall not jump to<\/p>\n
the     conclusion    of  undue    influence.   Here<\/p>\n
plaintiff has looked after his mother who was<\/p>\n
suffering from heart disease.      I do not find any<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                           -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
peculiar circumstances to warrant a presumption<\/p>\n
regarding undue influence.      There is nothing to<\/p>\n
show that Pushpavally was having only a weak and<\/p>\n
feeble mind and she was not able to understand<\/p>\n
the consequences of her action.     So there cannot<\/p>\n
be any deemed domination of the Will as provided<\/p>\n
u\/s 16(2) of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
       12.      The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India<\/p>\n
in the decision reported in Subhas Chandra Das<\/p>\n
Mushib v. Ganga Prasad Das Mushib<\/a> (1967 KHC 591)<\/p>\n
had made it explicitly clear that when one<\/p>\n
pleads undue influence the party has to plead<\/p>\n
the precise nature of the influence exercised,<\/p>\n
the manner of use of the influence and the<\/p>\n
unfair advantage obtained by the other.<\/p>\n
      13. So far as this case is concerned except<\/p>\n
the three limbs the first two limbs are not<\/p>\n
available in the pleadings even.     It has also to<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                          -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
be stated the case law had been discussed and<\/p>\n
principles have been clearly laid down in the<\/p>\n
latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
reported in Savithry v. Karthyayani Amma (2007<\/p>\n
(4) KLT       811(SC). In that decision the Court<\/p>\n
has stated how a will has to be proved when the<\/p>\n
‘Will’ can be said to be vitiated by undue<\/p>\n
influence etc. In paragraphs 14 and 15 of the<\/p>\n
judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that<\/p>\n
the burden of proving the allegation of coercion<\/p>\n
is on the person who alleges the same.      I am<\/p>\n
conscious of the fact that when ingredients u\/s<\/p>\n
16(2) and (3) are established the burden may<\/p>\n
shift on the propounder.        As stated by me<\/p>\n
earlier except the repeated use of the word<\/p>\n
‘undue influence’ nothing is forthcoming before<\/p>\n
this Court to establish the same. Therefore from<\/p>\n
these    discussions   I think  the  evidence is<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                           -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
sufficient to hold that Pushpavally was in a fit<\/p>\n
state    of    mind  capable   of understanding the<\/p>\n
consequences of her action and had executed<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 and it is proved by the evidence of PWs.<\/p>\n
1 to 3 and there is nothing to show that she was<\/p>\n
dominated by the plaintiff in order to create a<\/p>\n
will.     So I hold that Ext.A2 will is properly<\/p>\n
proved and it is not vitiated by fraud or<\/p>\n
coercion        and  there     are  no    suspicious<\/p>\n
circumstances surrounding the execution of the<\/p>\n
Will.    Learned Subordinate Judge had really cast<\/p>\n
the     burden     wrongly   without  looking   the<\/p>\n
conditions attached to S.16(2) and (3) of the<\/p>\n
Contract Act and therefore it has committed the<\/p>\n
error. So I find that Ext.A2 Will is valid.<\/p>\n
      14. Now let me decide on the shares.        A<\/p>\n
schedule      property   belonged  to   Pushpavally,<\/p>\n
Remashan, Preman and Santha and each entitled to<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                           -15-<\/span><\/p>\n
1\/4 shares.        By virtue of a surrender deed<\/p>\n
Santha’s right had devolved upon Preman.         So<\/p>\n
also by virtue of the Will Pushpavally’s right<\/p>\n
also had devolved upon him making 3 out of 4<\/p>\n
shares.      Rameshan’s one out of 4 shares would<\/p>\n
devolve upon the mother and defendants 1 to 3<\/p>\n
equally, i.e. 1\/16 shares each.        Pushpavally’s<\/p>\n
share(mother) would go to 1st plaintiff by virtue<\/p>\n
of the Will.      So if plaint A schedule is divided<\/p>\n
into 16 equal shares, 1st plaintiff would be<\/p>\n
entitled to 13 such shares and defendants 1 to<\/p>\n
3, one such share each.\n<\/p>\n
      15. B     schedule  exclusively   belongs  to<\/p>\n
Rameshan and on Rameshan’s death that property<\/p>\n
had devolved upon his wife, two children and<\/p>\n
Pushpavally. By virtue of Ext.A2 executed by<\/p>\n
Pushpavally’s right in Rameshan’s property goes<\/p>\n
to the first plaintiff. So if the plaint B<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                        -16-<\/span><\/p>\n
schedule properties are divided into four equal<\/p>\n
shares, one such share will go to the first<\/p>\n
plaintiff and 3\/4 shares will be allotted to<\/p>\n
defendants 1 to 3 together.        So far as C<\/p>\n
schedule is concerned this Court persuaded the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the plaintiff not to proceed<\/p>\n
for the reason it is a benefit obtained on the<\/p>\n
death of the husband.       Therefore he is not<\/p>\n
pressing for that so I delete C schedule from<\/p>\n
partition.\n<\/p>\n
      16. Therefore the appeal is allowed and a<\/p>\n
preliminary decree for partition is passed as<\/p>\n
follows.\n<\/p>\n
      (1) A schedule property be divided into 16<\/p>\n
equal shares and allot 13 such shares to the<\/p>\n
first plaintiff and three such shares jointly to<\/p>\n
defendants 1 to 3.\n<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                          -17-<\/span><\/p>\n
      (2) Plaint B schedule property be divided<\/p>\n
into 4 equal shares and to allot one such share<\/p>\n
to the first plaintiff and three such shares to<\/p>\n
the defendants 1 to 3 together.     Shares of D1 to<\/p>\n
D3 in A and B schedule be allotted subject to<\/p>\n
payment of Court fee.\n<\/p>\n
      (3)    Considering the extent involved there<\/p>\n
will not be any direction for any of the parties<\/p>\n
to give mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n
      (4)     Parties are at liberty to apply for<\/p>\n
final decree.\n<\/p>\n
      (5) Partition of C schedule is not allowed.<\/p>\n
                               M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
ul\/-\n<\/p>\n
A.S. 181 OF 2000
\n                    -18-<\/span><\/p>\n
                         M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                        = = = = = = = = = =
\n                        A.S. No. 181 OF 2000
\n                      = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
                          J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
                          23rd June, 2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Preman vs Vasanthi on 23 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 181 of 2000(B) 1. PREMAN … Petitioner Vs 1. VASANTHI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) For Respondent :SRI.T.V.ANANTHAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :23\/06\/2010 O R D E R M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27252","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPreman vs Vasanthi on 23 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\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Preman vs Vasanthi on 23 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-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=\"2010-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-03T00:04:30+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Preman vs Vasanthi on 23 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-03T00:04:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2391,\"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\\\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Preman vs Vasanthi on 23 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-03T00:04:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Preman vs Vasanthi on 23 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":"Preman vs Vasanthi on 23 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\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Preman vs Vasanthi on 23 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-03T00:04:30+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Preman vs Vasanthi on 23 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-03T00:04:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010"},"wordCount":2391,"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\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010","name":"Preman vs Vasanthi on 23 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-03T00:04:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/preman-vs-vasanthi-on-23-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Preman vs Vasanthi on 23 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\/27252","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=27252"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27252\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27252"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27252"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27252"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}