{"id":33837,"date":"2009-08-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009"},"modified":"2014-12-11T21:05:53","modified_gmt":"2014-12-11T15:35:53","slug":"t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"T.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 19929 of 2005(V)\n\n\n1. T.K. SATHYABABU, T.C.2\/3192,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,\n\n3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,\n\n4. THE TALUK TAHSILDAR, TRIVANDRUM.\n\n5. K.V. SARADA, T.C.2\/3240,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :24\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                   V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n        ---------------------------------------------\n          W.P (C).No. 19929 of 2005 - V\n         ---------------------------------------------\n        Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009\n\n                    J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
          The challenge in this writ petition is against<\/p>\n
Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed respectively by the<\/p>\n
Revenue Divisional Officer and the District Collector,<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram.        The case of the petitioner is<\/p>\n
that he had purchased 4.644 cents of property lying in<\/p>\n
Sy.No.1704\/12-1 of Pattom Village as per Ext.P1 Sale<\/p>\n
Deed No.67\/1997 dated 6.1.1994. On the basis of the<\/p>\n
above   sale    deed,    he    approached        the  Village<\/p>\n
Authorities to get registered the Thandapper and<\/p>\n
pattayam in his name and accordingly, appropriate<\/p>\n
endorsement was made in the register and he was<\/p>\n
given Thandaper No.10464. Ext.P2 is the tax receipt<\/p>\n
dated 28.2.1994 issued from the Village Officer,<\/p>\n
Pattom in the name of the petitioner with respect to<\/p>\n
two properties lying in two different survey numbers,<\/p>\n
but having a common Thandaper, i.e., 10464. Ext.P2<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                          :-2-:\n<\/p>\n
would show that an extent of property of 4.644<\/p>\n
cents is lying in Sy.No.1704\/12-1 and an extent of<\/p>\n
4.132 cents of property, in Sy.No.1704\/4-1.<\/p>\n
     2. The specific case of the petitioner is that<\/p>\n
when the petitioner approached the Village Officer<\/p>\n
to remit the tax during the month of January, 2003,<\/p>\n
he was told that the Tahsildar had transferred the<\/p>\n
Thandapper in the name of the fifth respondent,<\/p>\n
with respect to the property covered by Ext.P1.<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner, subsequently, he<\/p>\n
received Ext.P3 letter dated 25.1.2003 from the<\/p>\n
Village Officer informing him that the property,<\/p>\n
lying in Sy.Nos.1704\/12-1 and 1704\/4-1, altogether<\/p>\n
8.776 cents of land covered by the Thandaper<\/p>\n
No.10464 has been registered in the name of the<\/p>\n
fifth respondent by assigning new Thandaper and<\/p>\n
further informed that for the said reason, no tax can<\/p>\n
be received from the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                           :-3-:\n<\/p>\n
     3. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 letter, the petitioner<\/p>\n
preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the Tahsildar. The<\/p>\n
fourth respondent, Tahsildar, after obtaining Ext.P5<\/p>\n
report, without taking any decision on merit upon<\/p>\n
the appeal filed by the petitioner, forwarded the<\/p>\n
same to the Sub Collector, Thiruvanananthapuram<\/p>\n
before    whom       no proceedings  were    pending<\/p>\n
connected with the property.      After hearing the<\/p>\n
petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 order.       As Ext.P7 order was against the<\/p>\n
petitioner, he preferred revision petition before the<\/p>\n
District Collector, who in turn passed Ext.P8 order.<\/p>\n
Thus, the petitioner approached this Court with a<\/p>\n
prayer to quash Exts.P7 and P8 orders and also with<\/p>\n
a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or order or<\/p>\n
direction directing respondents 2 to 4 to retransfer<\/p>\n
the revenue records in the name of the petitioner<\/p>\n
regarding the property involved in Ext.P1 sale deed.<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                            :-4-:\n<\/p>\n
It is also prayed for a direction to respondents 2 to 4<\/p>\n
to cancel the transfer of registry in the name of the<\/p>\n
fifth respondent with respect to 4.644 cents covered<\/p>\n
by Ext.P1 by issuing a writ of mandamus or other<\/p>\n
appropriate order or direction.        Though the writ<\/p>\n
petition was admitted on 4.7.2005, no counter<\/p>\n
affidavit is seen filed so far by the fifth respondent.<\/p>\n
      4.   The second respondent has filed a counter<\/p>\n
affidavit mainly stating that this Court, by judgment<\/p>\n
dated 4.6.2004 in W.P(C) No.33539 of 2003,<\/p>\n
directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to find out<\/p>\n
whether the transfer of registry as per PV 62\/96<\/p>\n
(      ), which was the subject of challenge in<\/p>\n
the appeal, has been effected based on the direction<\/p>\n
of the Civil Court and        if the said contention is<\/p>\n
upheld, according to the respondents, this Court<\/p>\n
held that the appeal would have to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
The counter further says that accordingly, both<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                          :-5-:\n<\/p>\n
parties were called for hearing and perused      the<\/p>\n
alleged PV No.62\/96 and found that the said P.V.<\/p>\n
was in consequence of the judgment of a competent<\/p>\n
civil court. Thus, on the basis of such finding, the<\/p>\n
appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed<\/p>\n
and the District Collector has also dismissed the<\/p>\n
revision petition preferred by the petitioner against<\/p>\n
the order of the R.D.O.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    I have heard Sri.G.S.Raghunath, learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the petitioner and also<\/p>\n
Sri.Balagovindan, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
fifth respondent and also the learned Government<\/p>\n
Pleader.\n<\/p>\n
     6.   Sri.Raghunath, learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the petitioner emphatically submits that on the<\/p>\n
basis of Ext.P1 sale deed, in fact appropriate<\/p>\n
endorsements were made in the revenue records<\/p>\n
and as evidenced by Ext.P2 Tax Receipt, Thandaper<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                          :-6-:\n<\/p>\n
No.10464 was given in the name of the petitioner<\/p>\n
with respect to the property viz., 4.644 cents lying<\/p>\n
in Sy.No.1704\/12-1 of Pattom Village on the basis of<\/p>\n
the sale deed No.67\/1994 dated 6.1.1994. It is the<\/p>\n
above patta and the property covered by the same,<\/p>\n
transferred in the name of the fifth respondent, that<\/p>\n
too without hearing the petitioner and denying the<\/p>\n
opportunity to substantiate his claim.<\/p>\n
     7.    Learned counsel for the petitioner took me<\/p>\n
through Exts.P9,P10 and P11 and also Exts.P1 and<\/p>\n
P13 to show as to how the title and ownership over<\/p>\n
the property, namely 4.644 cents of property in<\/p>\n
Sy.No.1704\/12-1 of Pattom Village is derived.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel, the said property<\/p>\n
is entirely a different and distinct one from that of<\/p>\n
the property of the fifth respondent. But, neither<\/p>\n
the Tahsildar nor the R.D.O. and the Collector<\/p>\n
examined the above aspect and came into an<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                          :-7-:\n<\/p>\n
erroneous conclusion that the fifth respondent got<\/p>\n
title and ownership over the property as per the<\/p>\n
decision of the civil court.    According to learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner, on tracing back the<\/p>\n
transfer that occurred connected with the property<\/p>\n
in question, it can be seen that the petitioner’s right<\/p>\n
over the property can be traced back from the right<\/p>\n
of one Mr.David, who was the 40th defendant in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.59\/1950 and that of the fifth respondent,<\/p>\n
from second defendant in the very same suit. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that the petitioner purchased the above<\/p>\n
extent of property, which was lying as part of 40<\/p>\n
cents of plot, which was identified as plot No.3 in C2<\/p>\n
(C) plan of Ext.P12 (a).        As far as the fifth<\/p>\n
respondent is concerned, the property is having an<\/p>\n
extent of 25 cents shown as Plot No.1 in C2(C) plan.<\/p>\n
Thus, according to the learned counsel, the above<\/p>\n
two properties are distinct and separate, but<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                           :-8-:\n<\/p>\n
because of the arbitrary and illegal act of the official<\/p>\n
respondents,      the  property     purchased    by   the<\/p>\n
petitioner as per Ext.P1 is seen adjusted or shown<\/p>\n
as part of the property of the fifth respondent.<\/p>\n
Therefore, learned counsel submits that Exts.P7 and<\/p>\n
P8 are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the fifth respondent vehemently submits that the<\/p>\n
present attempt of the petitioner is to get over the<\/p>\n
adverse circumstances now prevailed against the<\/p>\n
petitioner on the strength of the civil court<\/p>\n
direction. It is also the contention of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel that if there is any dispute regarding the<\/p>\n
title, possession and ownership of the property, the<\/p>\n
Official respondents have no jurisdiction to settle<\/p>\n
such question in view of the prevailing rules and the<\/p>\n
only course open to the petitioner is to approach the<\/p>\n
civil court to establish his title, possession, right and<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                          :-9-:\n<\/p>\n
ownership over the property and accordingly,<\/p>\n
appropriate changes can be effected in the land<\/p>\n
revenue register as per the provisions of the rules.<\/p>\n
It is also the specific case of the counsel that the<\/p>\n
present claim of the petitioner is not legal or valid,<\/p>\n
as he had trespassed into the property in question<\/p>\n
even after the property was cleared from all<\/p>\n
encumbrances and encroachment in execution of<\/p>\n
the decree passed by the civil court. According to<\/p>\n
the learned counsel, the right of the fifth respondent<\/p>\n
is approved by the civil court and finally, by this<\/p>\n
court in a revision proceedings. Thus, according to<\/p>\n
the counsel for the fifth respondent, the writ<\/p>\n
petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
     9. I have carefully considered the arguments<\/p>\n
advanced by counsel for the contesting parties and<\/p>\n
also the learned Government Pleader. I have also<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                             :-10-:\n<\/p>\n
perused the materials available on record.<\/p>\n
      10.     Considering the particular facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances involved in this case, I am of the view<\/p>\n
that this Court need not enter into the merit or<\/p>\n
demerits of the case put forward by the contesting<\/p>\n
parties and also the arguments advanced by the<\/p>\n
counsel. In the light of Rule 16 of the Transfer of<\/p>\n
Registry Rules, 1966 (for short ‘the Rules’), it is<\/p>\n
crystal clear that the enquiry conducted under the<\/p>\n
above Rule is only summary in nature and the only<\/p>\n
purpose of such enquiry is to arrive at a decision<\/p>\n
for fiscal purposes. The above rule further declares<\/p>\n
that such decision does not affect the legal rights of<\/p>\n
any person in respect of the lands covered by the<\/p>\n
decisions in transfer of registry cases.               In an<\/p>\n
unequivocal language, Rule 16 further declared that<\/p>\n
“the question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication<\/p>\n
by Civil Courts and pattas will be revised from time to time in<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                           :-11-:\n<\/p>\n
accordance with judicial decisions.” In the present case<\/p>\n
also, in Ext.P8, the District Collector has held that<\/p>\n
this property is the subject matter of several<\/p>\n
litigations and accordingly, directed that while the<\/p>\n
present ‘        ‘ is upheld, it is not final and<\/p>\n
shall be subject to further decisions on ownership of<\/p>\n
a competent civil court. So from Ext.P8, it is clear<\/p>\n
that even though the         ‘      ‘ is effected<\/p>\n
finally in favour of the fifth respondent, the same is<\/p>\n
not final, be that as it may, the same will be subject<\/p>\n
to the decision on ownership by a competent civil<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
     11.    As highlighted by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitioner, the grievance is that though originally<\/p>\n
Thandaper No.10464 was given in favour of the<\/p>\n
petitioner on the basis of Ext.P1 sale deed, after<\/p>\n
nine years, the property under the above Thandaper<\/p>\n
is seen transferred in the name of the fifth<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                         :-12-:\n<\/p>\n
respondent by assigning a fresh Thandaper to her.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,<\/p>\n
the same was done under the guise of the civil court<\/p>\n
order or judgment, but without hearing the<\/p>\n
petitioner and without giving an opportunity to the<\/p>\n
petitioner to raise his objection. It is also pointed<\/p>\n
out that even if there is a civil court direction or<\/p>\n
judgment, the same is not with respect to the<\/p>\n
property now in the possession of the petitioner.<\/p>\n
Thus, according to the learned counsel, as a result<\/p>\n
of the above irresponsible, illegal and arbitrary<\/p>\n
approach of the official respondents at the instance<\/p>\n
of the fifth respondent, the valuable property of the<\/p>\n
petitioner is seen transferred in favour of the fifth<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     12.    From the materials available on record<\/p>\n
and in view of the contentions raised by the parties,<\/p>\n
it can be seen that the Thandaper No. 10464 was<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                           :-13-:\n<\/p>\n
given in the name of the petitioner, once, on the<\/p>\n
strength of Ext.P1 sale deed, as evidenced by Ext.P2<\/p>\n
tax receipt. There is no material or record to show<\/p>\n
that the petitioner was given an opportunity of<\/p>\n
being    heard      before  P.V.  62\/96 is   effected.<\/p>\n
Therefore, it can be seen that the Thandaper<\/p>\n
No.10464 given to the petitioner was taken away<\/p>\n
and the property covered by such Thandaper is seen<\/p>\n
transferred or included under the new Thandaper,<\/p>\n
given in the name of the fifth respondent in gross<\/p>\n
violation of the principles of natural justice. When<\/p>\n
the action of the authorities is condemned on the<\/p>\n
ground of denial of natural justice and brought to<\/p>\n
the notice of this Court, this Court cannot shut the<\/p>\n
eyes and ignore the same.         However, by Ext.P8<\/p>\n
order, the District Collector has made clear that the<\/p>\n
‘     ‘ effected as per PV 62\/96 is not final<\/p>\n
and subject to further decision on ownership of a<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                          :-14-:\n<\/p>\n
competent civil court. If that be so, I am of the<\/p>\n
view that the official respondents can be directed to<\/p>\n
reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity to<\/p>\n
the petitioner of being heard and if the final<\/p>\n
outcome is not different from Exts.P7 and P8, no<\/p>\n
further orders from the respondents are necessary.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, if the outcome of the fresh<\/p>\n
enquiry is a different one, the District Collector can<\/p>\n
issue appropriate fresh orders on the basis of such<\/p>\n
finding.   But, such order will also be subject to<\/p>\n
further decision on ownership, title and possession<\/p>\n
of the competent civil court.\n<\/p>\n
           In the result, this writ petition is disposed<\/p>\n
of, directing the second respondent to reconsider<\/p>\n
the matter after having verified and ascertained as<\/p>\n
to whether the property allegedly in the possession<\/p>\n
of   the    petitioner,   namely    4.644     cents   in<\/p>\n
Sy.No.1704\/12-1 of Pattom village is, covered by<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                         :-15-:\n<\/p>\n
the civil court direction, on the basis of which, new<\/p>\n
Thandaper was given in the name of the fifth<\/p>\n
respondent, after giving an opportunity to the<\/p>\n
petitioner and the fifth respondent to present their<\/p>\n
case and also after physical verification of the<\/p>\n
property in the presence of the parties concerned,<\/p>\n
which shall be got executed by the Taluk Tahsildar,<\/p>\n
Trivandrum, the fourth respondent, if necessary<\/p>\n
with the assistance of the survey officials.     It is<\/p>\n
made clear that the final outcome of such enquiry<\/p>\n
and the order, that will be passed by the second<\/p>\n
respondent, of course are not binding upon the civil<\/p>\n
court, connected with any litigation with respect to<\/p>\n
the property in question. The parties are also free<\/p>\n
to challenge such order in any competent court.<\/p>\n
Final order, as directed above, shall be passed by<\/p>\n
the second respondent, as expeditiously as possible,<\/p>\n
at any rate within a period of 45 days from the date<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                         :-16-:\n<\/p>\n
of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which shall be<\/p>\n
produced by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
           The writ petition is disposed of with the<\/p>\n
above direction.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   V.K.Mohanan,
\n                                       Judge<\/p>\n
MBS\/<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                         :-17-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                 V.K.MOHANAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                         —————————————–\n<\/p>\n
—\n<\/p>\n
                                  Crl.R.P.NO. OF 200<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                            ————————————–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        ——\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                    J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                         :-18-:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                               DATED: -2-2008<\/p>\n
WP(C) NO.19929 of 2005<\/p>\n
                         :-19-:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 19929 of 2005(V) 1. T.K. SATHYABABU, T.C.2\/3192, … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE … Respondent 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, 4. THE TALUK TAHSILDAR, TRIVANDRUM. […]<\/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-33837","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009 - 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\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-11T15:35:53+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-11T15:35:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2410,\"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\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009\",\"name\":\"T.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-11T15:35:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"T.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009 - 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\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-11T15:35:53+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-11T15:35:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009"},"wordCount":2410,"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\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009","name":"T.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-11T15:35:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-k-sathyababu-vs-state-of-kerala-on-24-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.K. Sathyababu vs State Of Kerala on 24 August, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/33837","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=33837"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/33837\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=33837"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=33837"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=33837"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}