{"id":31410,"date":"2010-06-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-02T11:04:14","modified_gmt":"2016-06-02T05:34:14","slug":"pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Pushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Pushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 173 of 2001(E)\n\n\n\n1. PUSHPAVATHY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. ANIRUDHAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.S.KALKURA\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :25\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n                  ...........................................\n                        A.S.NO.173 OF 2001\n                  .............................................\n             Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010.\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     This is an appeal preferred by the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.377\/1996 on the file of the                     Subordinate     Judge’s<\/p>\n
Court,  Nedumangad           against         the       judgment and decree<\/p>\n
dismissing a suit for partition.            The brief facts necessary for<\/p>\n
the disposal of the appeal are stated as follows:<\/p>\n
     2. Admittedly the plaint schedule property belonged to<\/p>\n
one   Sidhardhan.        It is also admitted                   that Sidhardhan<\/p>\n
committed suicide.        At the time of death of Sidhardhan, he<\/p>\n
did not have wife and children or his mother.                         But was<\/p>\n
survived by his sister – the plaintiff, Soman -D1, Viswanathan<\/p>\n
D2 and Anirudhan D3.           During the pendency, Soman died<\/p>\n
and his legal representatives are impleaded as D6 and D7,<\/p>\n
Viswanathan (D2) died and his legal representative is<\/p>\n
impleaded as D8. It is the case of the plaintiff that on the<\/p>\n
death of Sidhardhan as per the provisions of the Hindu<\/p>\n
Succession Act, the property had devolved upon her and D1<\/p>\n
to D3 and therefore she is entitled one out of three shares<\/p>\n
                              : 2 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.173 OF 2001<\/p>\n
in the plaint schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
     3. On the other hand, the defendants would contend<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff does not have any right in the property of<\/p>\n
deceased Sidhardhan for the reason that before the death of<\/p>\n
Sidhardhan, he had executed a Will which is marked as<\/p>\n
Ext.B10 whereby the plaintiff is not entitled to any share<\/p>\n
over the property.      It is also   their case that   before<\/p>\n
Sidhardhan committed suicide, he had written a note in<\/p>\n
which also he had made mention to disinherit the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Before considering the validity of the Will also,         the<\/p>\n
question to be considered is whether deceased Sidhardhan<\/p>\n
had other    legal    representatives. It is   submitted that<\/p>\n
Sidhardhan did have another brother, who had died before<\/p>\n
him. But as per     Schedule 2 of the Hindu Succession Act<\/p>\n
when brother and sister are alive, they take it together and<\/p>\n
exclude the brother’s children. Therefore there cannot be<\/p>\n
any dispute that if the Will is not there, the property would<\/p>\n
belong to the plaintiff and D1 to D3 equally.<\/p>\n
     4. Now about the Will. This unfortunate man lost his<\/p>\n
wife and child and ultimately he also committed suicide and<\/p>\n
                             : 3 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.173 OF 2001<\/p>\n
the    so  called  kith and    kin are now fighting for his<\/p>\n
properties. This shows the way in which the moral standard<\/p>\n
has come down.\n<\/p>\n
     5. Ext.B10 is an unregistered Will. I am conscious of<\/p>\n
the fact that a Will need not be registered. A perusal of the<\/p>\n
Will would show that in the last sentence of the Will, name<\/p>\n
Sidhardhan is written and it is signed.    The two attesting<\/p>\n
witnesses   to the   document are (1) Nadarajan who is an<\/p>\n
Assistant in LIC of India and (2) one Sukumara Panicker.<\/p>\n
Will is to be proved as contemplated under Section 63 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Succession Act. Under Section 63(c) of the Indian<\/p>\n
Succession Act a Will has to be attested by two or more<\/p>\n
witnesses each of whom has seen the testator sign    or affix<\/p>\n
his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the<\/p>\n
Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator or<\/p>\n
has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment<\/p>\n
of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other<\/p>\n
person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the<\/p>\n
presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that<\/p>\n
more than one witness be present at the same time, and no<\/p>\n
                              : 4 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.173 OF 2001<\/p>\n
particular form of attestation shall be necessary.      So, the<\/p>\n
section mandates that     affixing of the signature      by the<\/p>\n
testator has been witnessed by two or more witnesses. It is<\/p>\n
also an imperative stipulation that each of the witnesses shall<\/p>\n
sign   in the presence of the testator. So it is necessary that<\/p>\n
there must be evidence to speak that testator had affixed<\/p>\n
his signature   and that    the testator had seen both the<\/p>\n
attesting witnesses affixing their signature in the Will.<\/p>\n
     6. The learned counsel for the appellant has brought to<\/p>\n
my notice a decision of the Supreme Court of India reported in<\/p>\n
Janaki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam (AIR<\/a><\/p>\n
2003 SC 761). In that decision, it has been specifically stated<\/p>\n
that at least one attesting witness has to be called for<\/p>\n
proving     due   execution of the Will as envisaged under<\/p>\n
Section 63. But what is significant and to be noted is that<\/p>\n
one attesting witness examined should be in a position to<\/p>\n
prove the execution of the Will.\n<\/p>\n
     7. The other decision referred to is the one reported in<\/p>\n
Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam<\/p>\n
Joykumar Singh<\/a> (2009 (4) SCC 780). In that case also the<\/p>\n
                             : 5 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.173 OF 2001<\/p>\n
Supreme Court has made it very clear that attesting witness<\/p>\n
should speak not only about testator’s signature or affixing<\/p>\n
his mark to the Will but also that each of the witnesses had<\/p>\n
signed the Will in the presence of the testator. It is in this<\/p>\n
background one has to      analyse the materials before    the<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
     8. DW2 is the attesting witness.       Unfortunately not<\/p>\n
even a single question is seen put in the chief examination<\/p>\n
regarding statutory compliance of Section 63 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Succession Act.   What he    says in the chief examination is<\/p>\n
that he had signed the Will and he        had seen the    said<\/p>\n
Sidhardhan    affixing his signature.    Not even     a single<\/p>\n
question is put     regarding     the other witness     or the<\/p>\n
attestation or seeing the     signature by this witness. No<\/p>\n
evidence is adduced in this case to establish that DW2 had<\/p>\n
seen the attesting witness   affixing his signature in front of<\/p>\n
the testator. It might not have been a requirement, had the<\/p>\n
second attesting witness    been examined.       The learned<\/p>\n
counsel would contend that the second attesting witness is<\/p>\n
dead     but,  according     to him, it is only   a hear say<\/p>\n
                               : 6 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.173 OF 2001<\/p>\n
information. Even if it is assumed that the said Nadarajan<\/p>\n
is dead, it is all the more responsibility of the propounder<\/p>\n
of the Will to prove the attestation of the Will in accordance<\/p>\n
with Section 63 of the      Indian Succession Act.    There is<\/p>\n
absolutely no evidence with respect to the mandate required<\/p>\n
under Section 63 of the India Succession Act. Therefore,<\/p>\n
when the attestation of the Will by the second attesting<\/p>\n
witnesses is not proved before the court, it becomes a<\/p>\n
document which cannot be taken as       validly proved in order<\/p>\n
to enter into a finding on the basis of the same.<\/p>\n
      9. The learned counsel would contend that in some<\/p>\n
other proceedings     this Will had been produced and       the<\/p>\n
present plaintiff has been impleaded as a party and she did<\/p>\n
not contest the case.      It is a suit for realisation of the<\/p>\n
money due to Sidhardhan. So far as the present plaintiff is<\/p>\n
concerned, one could not say that she had contested the case<\/p>\n
or admitted the execution of the Will or in other words<\/p>\n
there was no admission by the plaintiff regarding the<\/p>\n
genuineness of the Will in the previous proceedings and she<\/p>\n
had not also consented to the correctness of the Will in the<\/p>\n
                              : 7 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.173 OF 2001<\/p>\n
said proceedings.    Therefore     I need not   go  into other<\/p>\n
questions like the surrounding circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
and clouding of suspicion on the genuineness of the Will<\/p>\n
since   attestation is not properly proved as     contemplated<\/p>\n
under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. A propounder<\/p>\n
cannot claim right under the said document Ext.B10.      Then<\/p>\n
the next question is regarding the some writings rendered<\/p>\n
by Sidhardhan before he committing suicide. He had written<\/p>\n
2-3 pages and there is a recital in that writing to exclude<\/p>\n
the sister from     inheriting     any property.   One cannot<\/p>\n
characterise it as a Will or codicil because both requires<\/p>\n
attestation and therefore    that    document    is not legally<\/p>\n
sufficient to throw away the right of the plaintiff over the<\/p>\n
property.\n<\/p>\n
     10. The learned     counsel for the    defendants in the<\/p>\n
belated stage contended that the suit is bad for non-jointer of<\/p>\n
parties. (1) On account of non impleadment of the heirs of<\/p>\n
the deceased brother and (2) non impleadment of the legal<\/p>\n
representatives of D1 and D2.       So far as the predeceased<\/p>\n
brother is concerned since the brother had predeceased<\/p>\n
                               : 8 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.173 OF 2001<\/p>\n
Sidhardhan, they do not get any right over the property. So<\/p>\n
far as    the legal   representatives of   D1 and      D2   are<\/p>\n
concerned, certainly they are entitled to get right over the<\/p>\n
property and when the impleading petition was filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, the   contesting defendants     did not raise    any<\/p>\n
contention regarding the non joinder and it is also found that<\/p>\n
the issue regarding non joinder is not raised.      At any rate,<\/p>\n
the right of the said brothers can be allotted to the person<\/p>\n
who is in the party array and if        there are other legal<\/p>\n
representatives, they will be entitled to derive from the said<\/p>\n
persons. As the litigation had started in the year 1996,<\/p>\n
there may shall not be further prolongation.<\/p>\n
       11. From these discussions, I find that the finding of<\/p>\n
the trial court upholding the validity of Ext.A10 is to be set<\/p>\n
aside and I do so and the plaintiff is entitled to share as<\/p>\n
legal heir of Sidhardhan. Therefore the judgment and decree<\/p>\n
of the trial court are set aside and the appeal is allowed and<\/p>\n
a preliminary decree for partition is passed as follows:<\/p>\n
     (1). The plaint schedule properties be divided into 4<\/p>\n
equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff. (2)<\/p>\n
                              : 9 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.173 OF 2001<\/p>\n
Defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to get one share each and<\/p>\n
as D1 and D2 are dead and it is submitted that some of the<\/p>\n
legal representatives are on the party array, the share due to<\/p>\n
D1 and D2 be alloted to the parties who is before the court<\/p>\n
from whom if there are any other legal representatives, they<\/p>\n
can claim their right. (3) it is also made clear that if there<\/p>\n
are any equity requires consideration that has become<\/p>\n
necessary on account of construction of any building by the<\/p>\n
defendants,   let it be     considered in the final decree<\/p>\n
proceedings. Amicable settlement can be tried between the<\/p>\n
parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
cl<\/p>\n
                      : 10 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.173 OF 2001<\/p>\n
                         M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                         …………………………………….
\n                         A.S.NO.173 OF 2001
\n                         ………………………………………
\n                           25th day of June, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
                         J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Pushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 173 of 2001(E) 1. PUSHPAVATHY … Petitioner Vs 1. ANIRUDHAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.R.S.KALKURA For Respondent :SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :25\/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-31410","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 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\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-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=\"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-02T05:34:14+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-02T05:34:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1707,\"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\\\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Pushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-02T05:34:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 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":"Pushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 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\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-02T05:34:14+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-02T05:34:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010"},"wordCount":1707,"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\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010","name":"Pushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-02T05:34:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pushpavathy-vs-anirudhan-on-25-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pushpavathy vs Anirudhan on 25 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\/31410","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=31410"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31410\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31410"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=31410"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=31410"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}