{"id":35106,"date":"2009-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-01-07T04:34:39","modified_gmt":"2018-01-06T23:04:39","slug":"bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Bhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Bhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 1305 of 2008()\n\n\n1. BHASKARAN NAIR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. BHAGYANATHAN, S\/O.RATNAMMA, VALSALA\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. CHINNAKUTTAN NAIR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :20\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n               K.P. Balachandran, J.\n            --------------------------\n               R.S.A.No.1305 of 2008\n            --------------------------\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    The defendants in O.S.No.530\/97 on the file of<\/p>\n
the Munsiff’s Court, Palakkad are the appellants in<\/p>\n
this  Regular  Second  Appeal  filed   against  the<\/p>\n
concurrent verdicts passed by the courts below in<\/p>\n
favour of the respondent\/plaintiff, who is the<\/p>\n
brother of the first appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    2.    The  suit   O.S.No.530\/97  aforesaid  was<\/p>\n
instituted   by   the    respondent\/plaintiff   for<\/p>\n
declaration and injunction and in the alternative<\/p>\n
for declaration and recovery of possession on the<\/p>\n
strength of his title over the scheduled property<\/p>\n
and the building, inter alia, on the following<\/p>\n
allegations:\n<\/p>\n
    The plaint schedule property, having an extent<\/p>\n
of 99 cents, with a residential building therein<\/p>\n
belong to Madhavikutty Amma, the mother of the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff and and first appellant\/first<\/p>\n
defendant, having been allotted to her share under<\/p>\n
RSA 1305\/08              2<\/span><\/p>\n
Partition Deed No.1433\/72 of SRO, Kadampazhipuram;<\/p>\n
that under Exhibit A1 gift deed dated 28.12.1978<\/p>\n
she gifted the said property in his favour; that<\/p>\n
the gift has been accepted by him and he is in<\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of the scheduled property<\/p>\n
paying building tax and property tax; that as per<\/p>\n
the said gift deed, the donor has reserved her<\/p>\n
right to reside in the property till her death and<\/p>\n
except that right, she has no other right over the<\/p>\n
scheduled property ever after execution of Exhibit<\/p>\n
A1 gift deed; that Madhavikutty Amma was residing<\/p>\n
along with his wife and children in the building in<\/p>\n
the scheduled property till 1995, as he was at<\/p>\n
Andhra Pradesh in connection with his job; that<\/p>\n
while     so, in  1995, the  first  appellant\/first<\/p>\n
defendant threatened his wife and children and they<\/p>\n
had to shift their residence to his wife’s house at<\/p>\n
Agaloor; that thereafter Madhavikutty Amma stayed<\/p>\n
with    her  other  son and  she  passed  away   on<\/p>\n
29.6.1996; that even prior to two years of her<\/p>\n
death, she was very weak and sickly and taking<\/p>\n
RSA 1305\/08                3<\/span><\/p>\n
advantage   of  that   situation and  by  exercising<\/p>\n
fraud, the first appellant\/first defendant managed<\/p>\n
to get Exhibit B2 cancellation deed executed on<\/p>\n
3.8.1995 by Madhavikutty Amma purporting to cancel<\/p>\n
Exhibit A1 gift in his favour and also got a will<\/p>\n
executed on the same day and on 4.8.1995, he got<\/p>\n
executed Exhibit B4 power of attorney in favour of<\/p>\n
the first appellant\/first defendant and on the<\/p>\n
strength of Exhibit B4, he executed Exhibit B9 sale<\/p>\n
deed    in  favour  of  the  second appellant\/second<\/p>\n
defendant, who is his son-in-law, assigning the<\/p>\n
assumed rights of Madhavikutty Amma in favour of<\/p>\n
the     second   appellant\/second  defendant;   that<\/p>\n
Madhavikutty Amma had no right to set aside or<\/p>\n
cancel Exhibit A1 gift deed executed in his favour<\/p>\n
and the appellants\/defendants have not obtained any<\/p>\n
right over the scheduled property based on the<\/p>\n
documents brought into existence by them. On the<\/p>\n
above allegations the respondent\/plaintiff prayed<\/p>\n
for a decree declaring his title and possession<\/p>\n
over the scheduled property and for an injunction<\/p>\n
RSA 1305\/08                4<\/span><\/p>\n
restraining      the    appellants\/defendants    from<\/p>\n
trespassing into the scheduled property and the<\/p>\n
building and later, by amendment, it is submitted,<\/p>\n
a prayer was also incorporated seeking for recovery<\/p>\n
of possession of the scheduled property from the<\/p>\n
appellants\/defendants on the strength of the title<\/p>\n
on   the   allegation  that  they  have  reduced the<\/p>\n
property to their possession forcibly.<\/p>\n
     3.     Appellants\/defendants resisted the suit<\/p>\n
filing written statement contending that though<\/p>\n
Exhibit A1 gift deed was executed by Madhavikutty<\/p>\n
Amma in favour of the respondent\/plaintiff, she<\/p>\n
never intended to part with her possession nor did<\/p>\n
she   transfer   the  property   to the   respondent\/<\/p>\n
plaintiff and possession was not delivered over to<\/p>\n
the    respondent\/plaintiff   and   the   respondent\/<\/p>\n
plaintiff has not accepted the gift; that Exhibit<\/p>\n
A1 is a sham document brought into existence for<\/p>\n
the purpose of showing it as security for availing<\/p>\n
of a loan for the respondent\/plaintiff and Exhibit<\/p>\n
A1 gift deed had not come into force and had never<\/p>\n
RSA 1305\/08                5<\/span><\/p>\n
been acted upon; that later, when the respondent\/<\/p>\n
plaintiff tried to misuse Exhibit A1 document,<\/p>\n
Madhavikutty Amma cancelled the said document by<\/p>\n
Exhibit B2 and the matter was intimated to the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff by registered notice, but the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff    has  not  taken  any   steps<\/p>\n
questioning    the  validity  of  cancellation  deed<\/p>\n
during the life time of Madhavikutty Amma and she<\/p>\n
continued    in  possession  and  enjoyment  of  the<\/p>\n
property    till  her  death; that  the  respondent\/<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s wife or children never resided in the<\/p>\n
scheduled property and they never looked after the<\/p>\n
affairs    of  Madhavikutty  Amma;  that  the  first<\/p>\n
appellant\/first defendant was looking after the<\/p>\n
affairs    of   Madhavikutty  Amma  and  has   spent<\/p>\n
considerable amounts for treating her; that it is<\/p>\n
considering all those aspects that Madhavikutty<\/p>\n
Amma set aside Exhibit A1 gift deed vide Exhibit B2<\/p>\n
and executed Exhibit B3 will in favour of the first<\/p>\n
appellant\/first defendant of her own free will and<\/p>\n
volition and with sound disposing state of mind;<\/p>\n
RSA 1305\/08               6<\/span><\/p>\n
that thereafter on 20.3.1998, Madhavikutty Amma<\/p>\n
executed    sale deed  in   favour  of  the  second<\/p>\n
appellant\/second defendant and sold the property to<\/p>\n
him for a total consideration of Rs.50,000\/-; that<\/p>\n
the second appellant\/second defendant has paid the<\/p>\n
building tax and land tax after purchase of the<\/p>\n
scheduled   property; that   the  second appellant\/<\/p>\n
second defendant is in possession of the scheduled<\/p>\n
property    and the   respondent\/plaintiff  has  no<\/p>\n
possession thereof and even after execution of<\/p>\n
Exhibit A1 gift, Madhavikutty Amma continued in<\/p>\n
possession   of  the  property  and  her  possession<\/p>\n
continued   till  the property  was  put  in  their<\/p>\n
possession; that even if the respondent\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
had any right over the scheduled property by virtue<\/p>\n
of Exhibit A1 gift deed, it is lost by adverse<\/p>\n
possession and limitation; that the respondent\/<\/p>\n
plaintiff   is  not  entitled  to  any  declaration,<\/p>\n
injunction or recovery of possession and that the<\/p>\n
suit has to be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
RSA 1305\/08                7<\/span><\/p>\n
     4.     On the above pleadings, the trial court<\/p>\n
raised necessary issues for trial and considering<\/p>\n
the evidence adduced at trial, which consisted of<\/p>\n
oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and DWs 1 to 6 and<\/p>\n
documentary evidence Exhibits A1 to A15, B1 to B14<\/p>\n
and Exhibits X1 to X4, decreed the suit declaring<\/p>\n
title      of  the   respondent\/plaintiff  over   the<\/p>\n
scheduled property by virtue of Exhibit A1 gift<\/p>\n
deed and directing the appellants\/defendants to<\/p>\n
surrender     vacant  possession  of   the  scheduled<\/p>\n
properties to the respondent\/plaintiff and also<\/p>\n
directed to pay costs to the respondent\/plaintiff.<\/p>\n
The appellants\/defendants filed A.S.No.13\/02 before<\/p>\n
the   District   Court,   Palakkad  and  the  learned<\/p>\n
Additional    District  Judge,  vide  judgment  dated<\/p>\n
6.8.2008,     dismissed   the   appeal   with   costs<\/p>\n
confirming the correctness of the verdict of the<\/p>\n
trial court.     Hence, this Regular Second Appeal by<\/p>\n
the appellants\/defendants assailing the concurrent<\/p>\n
verdicts passed by the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
RSA 1305\/08                8<\/span><\/p>\n
     5. It is vehemently contended before me by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellants that there is<\/p>\n
absolutely no evidence of the respondent\/plaintiff<\/p>\n
having     accepted the gift and come into possession<\/p>\n
of the scheduled property pursuant to Exhibit A1<\/p>\n
gift deed; that the respondent\/plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
shown to have paid the building tax ever after 1978<\/p>\n
till 1994, which suggests that Exhibit A1 gift deed<\/p>\n
has not come into force; that when the gift has not<\/p>\n
come into force, the donor was competent to cancel<\/p>\n
Exhibit     A1   gift  deed   executing  Exhibit   B2<\/p>\n
cancellation     deed   and  that   the   respondent\/<\/p>\n
plaintiff, in the circumstances, should not have<\/p>\n
been granted decree as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
     6. Counsel for the appellants\/defendants has<\/p>\n
placed before me a photostat copy of Exhibit A1<\/p>\n
gift deed for perusal.    The recitals in Exhibits A1<\/p>\n
show that the donor has thereunder relinquished all<\/p>\n
her rights and released possession of the scheduled<\/p>\n
property and the building gifted thereunder to the<\/p>\n
donee, the respondent\/plaintiff and that the donne<\/p>\n
RSA 1305\/08               9<\/span><\/p>\n
is further authorised, from the date of the said<\/p>\n
gift    deed,  to  effect cultivations  therein,  to<\/p>\n
effect mutation in his name and to pay tax and to<\/p>\n
enjoy the property with all rights of alienation.<\/p>\n
As   regards   the  life interest  reserved  in her<\/p>\n
favour, it is further specified that she will not<\/p>\n
be having any right over the scheduled property<\/p>\n
except to have residence in the building in the<\/p>\n
scheduled property and that there is no encumbrance<\/p>\n
or other charges over the property. Even before the<\/p>\n
cancellation admitted to be effected by Exhibit B2<\/p>\n
executed    on  3.8.1995,  it  is   seen  that  the<\/p>\n
respondent\/plaintiff has effected mutation in his<\/p>\n
name    and  was  paying building  tax,  though the<\/p>\n
receipts produced in evidence thereof are only from<\/p>\n
6.1.1992    onwards,  but, however,   that  has   no<\/p>\n
bearing, as the suit is instituted only in 1997 and<\/p>\n
the delay in effecting the mutation will not have<\/p>\n
the effect of gift not coming into force.      After<\/p>\n
having released all the rights, except to have<\/p>\n
residence during her life time, in the building in<\/p>\n
RSA 1305\/08             10<\/span><\/p>\n
the scheduled property, the donor has absolutely no<\/p>\n
other right, as the gift takes effect immediately<\/p>\n
and she has no right thereafter to cancel the said<\/p>\n
gift. Further, it is seen that Exhibit B3 will also<\/p>\n
is got executed on the same day of execution of<\/p>\n
Exhibit B2 on 3.8.1995, wherein, the beneficiary is<\/p>\n
the first appellant\/first defendant and on the very<\/p>\n
next day, namely, on 4.8.1995, Exhibit B4 power of<\/p>\n
attorney    is executed in  favour  of  the   first<\/p>\n
appellant\/first defendant by the donor Madhavikutty<\/p>\n
Amma and on the strength of the said power of<\/p>\n
attorney,    the first  appellant\/first   defendant<\/p>\n
executes Exhibit B9 sale deed in relation to the<\/p>\n
scheduled property in favour of his own son-in-law,<\/p>\n
when Exhibit A1 has come into force, as rightly<\/p>\n
found by the courts below on a proper appreciation<\/p>\n
of the evidence adduced in the case, with which I<\/p>\n
also agree, the donor had no right to cancel the<\/p>\n
said gift deed. There is no merit in the contention<\/p>\n
that Exhibit B2 calcellation deed is valid or that<\/p>\n
on the strength of Exhibit B4, power of attorney,<\/p>\n
RSA 1305\/08             11<\/span><\/p>\n
the first appellant\/first defendant was competent<\/p>\n
to assign the scheduled property in favour of the<\/p>\n
second appellant\/second defendant by Exhibit B9<\/p>\n
sale deed dated 20.3.1997.     The question as to<\/p>\n
whether Exhibit A1 has taken effect is more a<\/p>\n
question    of fact and that  has   been  found  on<\/p>\n
evidence concurrently by both the courts below in<\/p>\n
favour of the respondent\/plaintiff.    There is no<\/p>\n
question of law and much less, any substantial<\/p>\n
question of law, as is attempted to be formulated,<\/p>\n
arising for consideration by this Court in this<\/p>\n
Regular Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     In the circumstances, I dismiss this Regular<\/p>\n
Second Appeal in limine.\n<\/p>\n
20th March, 2009         (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
\ntkv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Bhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 1305 of 2008() 1. BHASKARAN NAIR, … Petitioner 2. BHAGYANATHAN, S\/O.RATNAMMA, VALSALA Vs 1. CHINNAKUTTAN NAIR, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.R.VENKETESH For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN Dated :20\/03\/2009 O […]<\/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-35106","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 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\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-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=\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-06T23:04:39+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\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-06T23:04:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1754,\"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\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Bhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-06T23:04:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 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":"Bhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 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\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-06T23:04:39+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\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-06T23:04:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009"},"wordCount":1754,"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\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009","name":"Bhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-06T23:04:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-nair-vs-chinnakuttan-nair-on-20-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhaskaran Nair vs Chinnakuttan Nair on 20 March, 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\/35106","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=35106"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35106\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35106"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35106"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35106"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}