{"id":33016,"date":"2010-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-30T23:38:01","modified_gmt":"2019-03-30T18:08:01","slug":"kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Kunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 1023 of 2000(H)\n\n\n\n1. KUNJAN MADHAVI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. GOWRI KATHAMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.V.MATHEW\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :08\/04\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n              S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n           ---------------------------------------\n                  C.R.P.No.1023 of 2000\n           ---------------------------------------\n           Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010\n\n                        O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
           Concurrent decision rendered by the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal and the Appellate Authority negativing the<\/p>\n
claim of tenancy canvassed by the predecessor of the<\/p>\n
revision petitioners viz., one Kannan Kunjan, is<\/p>\n
impeached in this revision filed under Section 103 of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Land Reforms Act {for short “the Act”}.<\/p>\n
           2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of<\/p>\n
the revision may be summed up thus:\n<\/p>\n
           The applicant Kannan Kunjan filed an<\/p>\n
application before the Land Tribunal, Alappuzha<\/p>\n
seeking assignment of 82 cents of land in Survey<\/p>\n
No.94\/4B of Mararikulam South Village under Section<\/p>\n
72B of the Act. Claim of tenancy was set up not on the<\/p>\n
basis of any document, but on oral tenancy from the<\/p>\n
landlords, the respondents in that application. After<\/p>\n
enquiry, the Land Tribunal upheld the claim of the<\/p>\n
applicant by order dated 22.6.1973. A third party viz.,<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.1023 of 2000<\/p>\n
                         :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n
Kangan Angan filed an appeal a few years later as<\/p>\n
A.A.No.82\/79 before the Appellate Authority contending<\/p>\n
that he has got tenancy right over 28 cents of land in<\/p>\n
the property ordered to be assigned in favour of the<\/p>\n
applicant recognising his tenancy right over that<\/p>\n
property.   The appeal was allowed by the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority and the case was remitted to the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal to consider whether the rival claimant had any<\/p>\n
right over the 28 cents of land as claimed by him.<\/p>\n
           3. The Land Tribunal, on retrial, impleading<\/p>\n
the above appellant as a rival claimant, held that he has<\/p>\n
not established any right of tenancy, and the<\/p>\n
petitioners, the legal representatives of the original<\/p>\n
applicant, were in possession of the entire 82 cents.<\/p>\n
That order of the Land Tribunal was again challenged<\/p>\n
by way of an appeal by the rival claimant.        At this<\/p>\n
juncture, it has to be taken note that the appeal was<\/p>\n
preferred only by the rival claimant, who set up a right<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.1023 of 2000<\/p>\n
                          :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
over 28 cents of land out of the 82 cents ordered to be<\/p>\n
assigned in favour of the original applicant Kannan<\/p>\n
Kunjan. The finding entered by the Land Tribunal that<\/p>\n
possession of the entire property is in favour of the<\/p>\n
legal representatives of the original applicant in the<\/p>\n
original application and the rival claimant has not<\/p>\n
substantiated the claim in respect of the 28 cents of<\/p>\n
land as put forward by him as held by the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
was upheld by the Appellate Authority. However, the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority instead of dismissing the appeal,<\/p>\n
proceeded to remand the application to the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal for fresh consideration as it was not satisfied<\/p>\n
that the additional applicants before the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
had established the relationship of landlord and tenant<\/p>\n
between their predecessor and the owner of the land.<\/p>\n
          4.    Though that order of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority was challenged by the additional applicants<\/p>\n
filing an original petition before this court, this court<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.1023 of 2000<\/p>\n
                          :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n
declined to interfere with the order and dismissed that<\/p>\n
original petition. While the Land Tribunal considered<\/p>\n
the matter afresh in the light of the remission ordered<\/p>\n
by the Appellate Authority, it ordered for a fresh<\/p>\n
enquiry by the Revenue Officer for the purpose of<\/p>\n
examining the claim of the rival claimant over the 28<\/p>\n
cents as well in the 82 cents of land in respect of which<\/p>\n
tenancy claim was canvassed by the additional<\/p>\n
applicants.   That order was challenged by filing an<\/p>\n
original petition by the additional applicants before this<\/p>\n
court as O.P.No.1451\/95. This court after hearing the<\/p>\n
parties disposed of that original petition by judgment<\/p>\n
dated 13.10.1995.     The order of the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
directing fresh enquiry by the Revenue Inspector was<\/p>\n
quashed by this court holding that the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
had no jurisdiction to proceed against the order of the<\/p>\n
remand and it has to confine its enquiry within the<\/p>\n
limits specified in the remand order. In the remand<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.1023 of 2000<\/p>\n
                          :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n
order passed by the Appellate Authority, the only<\/p>\n
question that required to be looked into was the claim<\/p>\n
of tenancy raised by the predecessor of the additional<\/p>\n
applicants Kannan Kunjan and not with respect to any<\/p>\n
portion of the land raised by the rival claimant which<\/p>\n
had   been    repelled   by   the  Appellate    Authority<\/p>\n
concurring with the decision rendered by the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal in its earlier order. This court made it clear<\/p>\n
that in view of the remand order, it was not open to the<\/p>\n
rival claimant to take up before the Land Tribunal, his<\/p>\n
claim regarding the 28 cents which was found against<\/p>\n
by the Land Tribunal and confirmed by the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority.   In the above judgment rendered in the<\/p>\n
original petition this court directed the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
to consider whether the additional applicants in the<\/p>\n
original petition have established their claim of tenancy<\/p>\n
in respect of 82 cents of land as against the land owner.<\/p>\n
In considering that question, it was further observed<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.1023 of 2000<\/p>\n
                         :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
that the claim set up by the rival claimant has no<\/p>\n
relevance as the same has been negatived earlier by the<\/p>\n
two authorities concurrently. It was made clear that<\/p>\n
the rival claimant cannot take up his claim before the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal to resist the claim of tenancy canvassed<\/p>\n
by the additional applicants over the property. In other<\/p>\n
words, this court commanded the Tribunal to confine its<\/p>\n
enquiry on the question whether the additional<\/p>\n
applicants, the legal representatives of Kannan Kunjan,<\/p>\n
have established their claim of tenancy as against the<\/p>\n
owner of the land, in accordance with the directions<\/p>\n
given in the remand order by the Appellate Authority.<\/p>\n
Strangely enough, in the enquiry conducted by the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal, as seen from the impugned order dated<\/p>\n
30.4.1988 passed     by that Tribunal, overlooking the<\/p>\n
specific directions given by this court in the judgment<\/p>\n
referred to above, some observations and findings made<\/p>\n
in the judgment rendered by the Appellate Authority at<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.1023 of 2000<\/p>\n
                         :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n
the instance i.e. A.A.No.264\/79 dated 28.3.1979 were<\/p>\n
given too much significance to negative the claim of<\/p>\n
tenancy over the land canvassed by the additional<\/p>\n
applicants.  The entire approach taken by the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal in appreciating the claim of the additional<\/p>\n
applicants, it is seen, was against the specific<\/p>\n
mandatory directions issued by this court in the<\/p>\n
judgment rendered in the original petition referred to<\/p>\n
above. It is noticed, the Appellate Authority also fell in<\/p>\n
error, as seen from its judgment where it has formed a<\/p>\n
conclusion that when this court has turned down the<\/p>\n
challenge against the previous judgment of that<\/p>\n
authority it has concluded that the applicant has not<\/p>\n
proved his tenancy claim.     Previously, the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority had disposed the appeal remitting the case<\/p>\n
expressing a view that the tenancy has not been proved.<\/p>\n
Challenge against that finding was turned down by this<\/p>\n
court has been given unmerited consideration by the<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.1023 of 2000<\/p>\n
                          :: 8 ::\n<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority to negative the claim of tenancy<\/p>\n
canvassed by the additional applicants ignoring the fact<\/p>\n
that the previous appeal was disposed remitting the<\/p>\n
matter for fresh consideration. Whatever be the views<\/p>\n
expressed in the previous judgment of the appellate<\/p>\n
authority, that tenancy has not been proved, and the<\/p>\n
challenge against that finding negatived by this court,<\/p>\n
were not material as after remand and fresh decision<\/p>\n
entered by the Tribunal, the Appellate Authority was<\/p>\n
expected to examine the materials with reference to the<\/p>\n
order passed by the Tribunal to enter a finding whether<\/p>\n
the additional applicants have succeeded in proving<\/p>\n
that their predecessor had tenancy right over the<\/p>\n
property. It is interesting to note that the challenge<\/p>\n
against the claim of tenancy canvassed by the<\/p>\n
additional applicants is resisted not by the landlord, but<\/p>\n
by the rival claimant whose claim had already been<\/p>\n
negatived by the orders previously passed by the<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.1023 of 2000<\/p>\n
                           :: 9 ::\n<\/p>\n
authorities and that rejection became final as confirmed<\/p>\n
by this court more than once. Without looking into any<\/p>\n
of those aspects, it is seen, both the authorities have<\/p>\n
negatived the claim of tenancy claimed by the<\/p>\n
additional applicants, the revision petitioners. In fact,<\/p>\n
some observations of the Appellate Authority in its<\/p>\n
previous judgment which could not have been given<\/p>\n
much merit were relied upon by the Land Tribunal,<\/p>\n
rather than the evidence let in the case, to conclude<\/p>\n
that the tenancy claimed was not proved. The enquiry<\/p>\n
conducted over the claim canvassed by the additional<\/p>\n
applicants was against the specific direction given by<\/p>\n
this court and also ignoring the materials produced in<\/p>\n
the case.     The judgment passed by the appellate<\/p>\n
authority is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
           5.     Setting aside the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Appellate Authority, that authority is directed to<\/p>\n
dispose the appeal afresh on its merits considering the<\/p>\n
C.R.P.No.1023 of 2000<\/p>\n
                         :: 10 ::\n<\/p>\n
challenges canvassed against the order of the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal negativing the claim of tenancy claimed by the<\/p>\n
additional applicants over the land covered by the<\/p>\n
proceedings in accordance with law, taking note of the<\/p>\n
observations made by this court in the judgment in<\/p>\n
O.P.No.1451\/95 dated 13.10.1995 and also in the<\/p>\n
present judgment and in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
          Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as<\/p>\n
indicated above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                             (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
\n                                         JUDGE
\nsk\/-\n<\/p>\n
                 \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 1023 of 2000(H) 1. KUNJAN MADHAVI … Petitioner Vs 1. GOWRI KATHAMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.MATHEW For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :08\/04\/2010 O R D E R S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, […]<\/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-33016","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 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\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-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=\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-30T18:08:01+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\\\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-30T18:08:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1523,\"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\\\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Kunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-30T18:08:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 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":"Kunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 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\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-30T18:08:01+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\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-30T18:08:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010"},"wordCount":1523,"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\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010","name":"Kunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-30T18:08:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunjan-madhavi-vs-gowri-kathamma-on-8-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kunjan Madhavi vs Gowri Kathamma on 8 April, 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\/33016","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=33016"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33016\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33016"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33016"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33016"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}