{"id":32906,"date":"2010-07-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-29T00:40:02","modified_gmt":"2015-05-28T19:10:02","slug":"ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Ratnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ratnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 538 of 1997(E)\n\n\n\n1. RATNAVATHI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. B.YASODHA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :06\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                        HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                         ------------------------\n                         S.A.No.538 Of 1997\n                          ----------------------\n                 Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010.\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The plaintiff in O.S.No.448 of 1990 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Additional Munsiff Court, Kasaragod, is the appellant. Suit was<\/p>\n
filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property. Trial court decreed the suit. In the<\/p>\n
appeal preferred by the defendant, the lower appellate court set<\/p>\n
aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and dismissed<\/p>\n
the suit. Parties are hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
defendant as arrayed in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     2.     Ext.A2 is the agreement dated 10.1.1990. The case of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff is that the defendant had executed Ext.A2 agreement<\/p>\n
agreeing to sell the plaint schedule property.       Plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property is having an extent of 1.67 acres. The consideration<\/p>\n
fixed is Rs.5,000\/-. At the time of execution of the agreement it<\/p>\n
is said that the plaintiff had paid an advance consideration of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,750\/-. It is the plaintiff’s case that at the time of agreement<\/p>\n
defendant delivered possession of the plaint schedule property to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff and that the defendant agreed to execute the sale<\/p>\n
S.A.No.538 Of 1997<\/p>\n
                                 ::2::\n<\/p>\n
deed within three years from the date of agreement on payment<\/p>\n
of balance consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     The defendant denied the execution of the agreement<\/p>\n
for sale and contended that the plaintiff and her husband<\/p>\n
approached her and requested to sell three timber trees standing<\/p>\n
in the plaint schedule property and Ext.A2 agreement was<\/p>\n
executed in that connection. It is also contended that the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property was not delivered to the plaintiff in pursuance<\/p>\n
of Ext.A2 agreement and that she did not receive the<\/p>\n
consideration shown in Ext.A2.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     Plaintiff was examined as PW1. PW2 is the attestor to<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 agreement and PW3 is the scribe who wrote Ext.A2<\/p>\n
agreement.      Plaintiff also produced Ext.A1 assignment order<\/p>\n
passed in favour of the defendant. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked<\/p>\n
on the side of the plaintiff.    The defendant was examined as<\/p>\n
DW1. Exts.B1 to B3 were produced on her side.<\/p>\n
     5.     The trial court appreciated the evidence tendered by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff, her witnesses and DW1. Plaintiff testified before the<\/p>\n
court in terms of the plaint. PW2, who is the attestor, tendered<\/p>\n
evidence stating that the defendant executed Ext.A2 agreement<\/p>\n
S.A.No.538 Of 1997<\/p>\n
                                 ::3::\n<\/p>\n
in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to transfer the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property. The plaintiff testified before the court that she was put<\/p>\n
in possession of the plaint schedule property and that she<\/p>\n
continue to possess and enjoy the plaint schedule property.<\/p>\n
According to PW1 there is no timber trees in the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property except one mango tree and four cashew trees and that<\/p>\n
those trees are even now existing. PW2 deposed that he is one<\/p>\n
of the attestors to Ext.A2; he knew both parties for the last<\/p>\n
several years; and that he had witnessed the execution of Ext.A2<\/p>\n
agreement. PW3, the scribe, testified before the court that he<\/p>\n
had prepared Ext.A2 and it was executed by the parties. The<\/p>\n
trial court held that even though there is a lengthy cross-<\/p>\n
examination of the witnesses nothing has been brought out to<\/p>\n
discredit the deposition of PW1 to PW3 and that their evidence<\/p>\n
are corroborated to each other in respect of execution of Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
Trial court also found that there is no material contradiction of<\/p>\n
evidence by PWs 1 to 3 in respect of execution of Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
      6.   Admittedly, the defendant is an illiterate person. She<\/p>\n
admitted her thump impression in Ext.A2 agreement.             But<\/p>\n
according to her it was obtained by the plaintiff in a different<\/p>\n
S.A.No.538 Of 1997<\/p>\n
                               ::4::\n<\/p>\n
circumstance. As DW1 she testified before the court that she<\/p>\n
agreed to sell three timber trees situated in the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property to one Ram Bhatt, who is the son-in-law of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
and in relation to that transaction she executed Ext.A2<\/p>\n
agreement. Apart from her interested testimony the defendant<\/p>\n
failed to adduce any supporting evidence.     No witnesses were<\/p>\n
examined to prove the different transactions alleged by her.<\/p>\n
DW1 also admitted that she handed over Ext.A1 assignment<\/p>\n
order to the plaintiff at the time of execution of Ext.A2<\/p>\n
agreement.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   The defendant contended that the consideration shown<\/p>\n
in Ext.A2 agreement is a nominal amount; at the time of<\/p>\n
agreement the price of the property was Rs.300\/- per cent. The<\/p>\n
written statement is silent about the value of the property. It is<\/p>\n
not stated that the value shown in Ext.A2 agreement is<\/p>\n
inadequate.    The defendant also did not chose to adduce any<\/p>\n
evidence in order to show that the value shown in Ext.A2<\/p>\n
agreement is inadequate.     Trial court also observed that no<\/p>\n
independent witnesses were examined by the defendant to<\/p>\n
corroborate the contentions raised by the defendant in her<\/p>\n
S.A.No.538 Of 1997<\/p>\n
                               ::5::\n<\/p>\n
written statement as well as while she was examined as DW1. In<\/p>\n
these circumstances, the trial court decreed the suit and directed<\/p>\n
the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
      8.    The lower appellate court reversed the findings of the<\/p>\n
trial court. The lower appellate court held that merely because<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 contains thump impression of the defendant, it cannot be<\/p>\n
held that the defendant has put the same after understanding the<\/p>\n
contents. The lower appellate court observed that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has to prove that the defendant has affixed her thump impression<\/p>\n
in Ext.A2 after understanding its contents properly. PW2, the<\/p>\n
attestor and PW3, the scribe testified before the court that the<\/p>\n
contents of Ext.A2 agreement was read over and explained to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and defendant in Kannada and Tulu. This fact was not<\/p>\n
taken note of by the lower appellate court. The appellate court<\/p>\n
also held that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 do not inspire<\/p>\n
confidence of the court regarding the execution of Ext.A2<\/p>\n
agreement and regarding the affixture of thump impression on<\/p>\n
the proper understanding of what is stated in the document. The<\/p>\n
reasons stated for not relying on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and<\/p>\n
the further conclusion that the contents of Ext.A2 was not<\/p>\n
S.A.No.538 Of 1997<\/p>\n
                                 ::6::\n<\/p>\n
properly explained to the defendant is not supported by evidence.<\/p>\n
It is also not correct to say that the learned Munsiff has not borne<\/p>\n
in mind the provisions governing specific performance of<\/p>\n
contract. The learned Sub Judge reversed the findings of the trial<\/p>\n
court stating the above said reasons and took the view that the<\/p>\n
defendant     had    not    executed     Ext.A2  agreement     after<\/p>\n
understanding its contentions properly and hence there was no<\/p>\n
due execution of agreement for sale.            In the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances discussed above, I find that the reasons and<\/p>\n
conclusions arrived at by the learned Sub Judge cannot be<\/p>\n
upheld.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 order of assignment contains a provision not to alienate<\/p>\n
the property for a period of three years. He also submitted that<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 patta contains a similar provision. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
also brought to my notice Rule 8A of the Kerala Land Assignment<\/p>\n
Rules which prohibits alienation for a period of three years from<\/p>\n
the date of issuance of patta.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Learned counsel also submitted that the conditions<\/p>\n
referred to in Ext.A1 assignment order was neither referred to<\/p>\n
S.A.No.538 Of 1997<\/p>\n
                                  ::7::\n<\/p>\n
nor discussed by both the courts. The extent of property is 1.67<\/p>\n
acres. The learned Sub Judge held that this property is sold for a<\/p>\n
paltry consideration of Rs.5,000\/-; it is highly difficult to assume<\/p>\n
that the defendant has agreed to sell the same for a nominal<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs.5,000\/-; no centage value has been agreed<\/p>\n
upon and no reasonable explanation has been spoken by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff for fixation of the consideration at Rs.5,000\/-. The lower<\/p>\n
appellate court observed that even assuming that Ext.A2<\/p>\n
agreement is lawful, specific performance has to be refused in<\/p>\n
this case in view of the unfair advantage that would result to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.  Learned counsel for the appellant\/plaintiff submitted<\/p>\n
that the written statement does not contain any pleadings to the<\/p>\n
effect that the consideration shown in Ext.A2 agreement is<\/p>\n
inadequate or is a paltry amount. According to him so long as<\/p>\n
there is no pleading regarding the inadequacy of consideration it<\/p>\n
is not open to the defendant to contend that Ext.A2 agreement is<\/p>\n
not acceptable for want of sufficient consideration.         Learned<\/p>\n
counsel also submitted that the adequacy or inadequacy of<\/p>\n
consideration cannot be a ground for refusing the relief of specific<\/p>\n
performance.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.538 Of 1997<\/p>\n
                                ::8::\n<\/p>\n
      11. Taking into consideration of all the facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances which I have discussed in the preceding<\/p>\n
paragraphs, this Court is of the view that re-appreciation of facts,<\/p>\n
evidence and consideration of law on the points referred above is<\/p>\n
necessary.    The lower appellate court shall advert to all the<\/p>\n
questions referred above and also other contentions, if any,<\/p>\n
urged before it by the counsel on both sides.<\/p>\n
      In the result, the appeal is allowed.    The judgment and<\/p>\n
decree passed by the lower appellate court is set aside. The case<\/p>\n
is remanded to the lower appellate court for fresh consideration.<\/p>\n
The lower appellate court shall dispose of the case afresh at an<\/p>\n
early date after issuing notice to the parties. The appellant is<\/p>\n
entitled to refund of the court fee.  There will be no order as to<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                    Judge.\n<\/p>\n
bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ratnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 538 of 1997(E) 1. RATNAVATHI … Petitioner Vs 1. B.YASODHA … Respondent For Petitioner :SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :06\/07\/2010 O R D E R HARUN-UL-RASHID, 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-32906","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRatnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 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\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ratnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-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=\"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-28T19:10:02+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ratnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-28T19:10:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1567,\"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\\\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Ratnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-28T19:10:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ratnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 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":"Ratnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 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\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ratnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-28T19:10:02+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ratnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-28T19:10:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010"},"wordCount":1567,"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\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010","name":"Ratnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-28T19:10:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ratnavathi-vs-b-yasodha-on-6-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ratnavathi vs B.Yasodha on 6 July, 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\/32906","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=32906"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32906\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}