{"id":36014,"date":"2010-06-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-17T05:26:49","modified_gmt":"2015-12-16T23:56:49","slug":"a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"A.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
A.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 47 of 1995(D)\n\n\n\n1. A.MOIDU HAJI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. TESSYMOL JOSE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI   (SR)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :08\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\n                                       &\n                   S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.\n                    -------------------------------------------\n                     A.S.Nos.47 & 48 OF 1995\n                    -------------------------------------------\n                  Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010\n\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.These appeals are by the defendant in two suits which were<\/p>\n
  jointly tried and disposed of by the court below.<\/p>\n
2.O.S.121\/90 is filed by the son and O.S.122\/90 is filed by the<\/p>\n
  daughter of PW1. The allegation was that a portion of a<\/p>\n
  rubber plantation belonging to them was destroyed in a fire<\/p>\n
  that occurred on 23.4.1987 and the defendant was<\/p>\n
  responsible for causing that fire. In O.S.121\/90, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
  claims damages of Rs.50,000\/- with interest at 12% and in<\/p>\n
  O.S.122\/90, the plaintiff claims damages of Rs.1,50,000- with<\/p>\n
  interest at 12%. The defendant contested contending that he<\/p>\n
  was not responsible for the fire. However, the occurrence of<\/p>\n
  a fire in the area on the relevant date was not disputed.<\/p>\n
AS.47\/95 & 48\/95<\/p>\n
                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Going by Ext.C2 plan prepared by the Commissioner, we find<\/p>\n
    that there is a large strip of land belonging to one Kunhalan<\/p>\n
    Haji, separating the plaintiffs’ property and the defendant’s<\/p>\n
    property. Such land of Kunhalan Haji also is stated to be<\/p>\n
    damaged. It appears from Ext.C1 report and plan that the<\/p>\n
    land of Kunhalan Haji was not subjected to any particular<\/p>\n
    cultivation barring the availability of 4 coconut trees. The<\/p>\n
    defendant disputed the allegation against him. However, the<\/p>\n
    court below has noted that the defendant having put the<\/p>\n
    plaintiff to proof of the allegations regarding the quantum of<\/p>\n
    compensation, there is no specific denial of the quantum<\/p>\n
    claimed by the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 3.Before the court below, the father of the plaintiffs gave<\/p>\n
    evidence as PW1.          During the course of his cross<\/p>\n
    examination, he stated that he was not available in the station<\/p>\n
    on the date of the incident. He further mentioned the names<\/p>\n
    of three persons who visited him on the day succeeding the<\/p>\n
AS.47\/95 & 48\/95<\/p>\n
                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
    occurrence and informed him of the incident.                PW2<\/p>\n
    Subramanian is one among them.             PW2 speaks of the<\/p>\n
    occurrence by stating that he saw the defendant gathering<\/p>\n
    dry leaves from the defendant’s property which lies to the<\/p>\n
    north-east of Kunhalan Haji’s property. Reading the evidence<\/p>\n
    of PW2, it may be that there could be some confusion as to<\/p>\n
    whether the defendant set fire by lighting the leaves or<\/p>\n
    whether it was a case of his putting the dry leaves on to the<\/p>\n
    fire that was already burning.        Either way, it does not<\/p>\n
    improve the case of the defendant because a contribution to<\/p>\n
    an existing fire is itself sufficient to invite tortious liability<\/p>\n
    and consequential damages, if it is proved that the fire<\/p>\n
    ultimately resulted in loss to the plaintiffs. We may note that<\/p>\n
    Ext.C1 Commissioner’s report speaks of the existence of<\/p>\n
    rubber trees which have been re-planted in the area in<\/p>\n
    question. But the Commissioner’s report does not, by itself,<\/p>\n
    give any data which could be relied on for the purpose of<\/p>\n
    determining the quantum of damages that could be awarded.<\/p>\n
AS.47\/95 & 48\/95<\/p>\n
                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
    We also take note of the fact that PW1 deposed that the<\/p>\n
    cultivation in the land of the plaintiffs were covered by<\/p>\n
    insurance and that the plaintiffs had availed loan for the<\/p>\n
    purpose of the cultivation. No materials relating to those<\/p>\n
    transactions are on record. Leaving apart the instance of<\/p>\n
    insurance, such materials would have thrown light into the<\/p>\n
    actual situation regarding the trees which are allegedly<\/p>\n
    destroyed by fire. We may also note that PW1 has deposed<\/p>\n
    that after the incident, the area was re-planted and the land<\/p>\n
    with the re-planted rubber was sold for Rs.40,000\/-.      We<\/p>\n
    cannot ignore that submission of PW1. We also note that at<\/p>\n
    one stage of his evidence, PW1 stated that the income<\/p>\n
    derived from the property is 2 to 2 = lakhs per year. The<\/p>\n
    plaintiffs have not placed on record any return filed in<\/p>\n
    relation to agricultural income tax or other material which<\/p>\n
    could have been credible evidence regarding the quantum of<\/p>\n
    damages. With this scenario of evidence, we need to examine<\/p>\n
    whether the finding of the court below that the defendant is<\/p>\n
AS.47\/95 & 48\/95<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
    liable, he having generated the fire, stands. We also need to<\/p>\n
    examine whether the finding of the court below regarding the<\/p>\n
    quantum of compensation stands. Adverting to the evidence<\/p>\n
    of PW2, the fact that PW2 had seen the fire is fairly<\/p>\n
    corroborated by the fact that PW1 in his evidence says that<\/p>\n
    PW2 was one of the persons who visited him the next day and<\/p>\n
    informed about the fire.      We also do not find even a<\/p>\n
    suggestion in cross examination that PW2 had any animosity<\/p>\n
    or ill-will towards the defendant so as to speak against him.<\/p>\n
    PW2 is a labourer. He and other persons who are working<\/p>\n
    for one Baby in a rubber plantation were, going by deposition<\/p>\n
    of PW1, there during the lunch recess. The totality of the<\/p>\n
    evidence of PW2 does not persuade us to reverse the finding<\/p>\n
    of the court of first instance rendered by believing the<\/p>\n
    version of PW2 that the defendant was seen putting dry<\/p>\n
    leaves on to the property of Kunhalan Haji, wherein, fire was<\/p>\n
    burning and the defendant was seen running away from his<\/p>\n
    property, when PW2 and his friends came running, seeing the<\/p>\n
AS.47\/95 & 48\/95<\/p>\n
                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
    fire, in an attempt to put it out. Having thus confirmed the<\/p>\n
    finding of the court below that DW1, the defendant, was<\/p>\n
    liable for the incident and the loss caused to the plaintiffs, we<\/p>\n
    have to examine whether the appreciation of evidence by the<\/p>\n
    court below fixing the quantum of damages is proper and in<\/p>\n
    accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 4.The court below may be justified to some extent in saying<\/p>\n
    that there is the absence of specific denial of the plea<\/p>\n
    regarding the quantum of damages since the defendant had<\/p>\n
    put the plaintiffs to strict proof of the pleadings in that<\/p>\n
    regard. But then, awarding damages would be only when the<\/p>\n
    court is satisfied of the fact that the defendant has caused<\/p>\n
    damage and after ascertaining the quantum of damage<\/p>\n
    caused. The damages that would be awarded should have a<\/p>\n
    definite relation to the proved damage. In this view of the<\/p>\n
    matter, we find that the evidence of PW1 regarding the<\/p>\n
    different aspects does not inspire confidence to hold that any<\/p>\n
AS.47\/95 & 48\/95<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
    specific damage calling for award of damages, as has been<\/p>\n
    done by the court below, is proved. Therefore, the only<\/p>\n
    course that is open to the court is to award nominal damages,<\/p>\n
    it having been proved that the fire resulted in some loss or<\/p>\n
    damage to the rubber trees, that is, to the property of the<\/p>\n
    plaintiffs, however, that the materials are insufficient to<\/p>\n
    quantify the damages.        Taking the overall facts and<\/p>\n
    circumstances into consideration and having regard to the<\/p>\n
    pleadings and evidence on record, we also take into<\/p>\n
    consideration the fact that the suit was filed just on the day<\/p>\n
    on which it would have become time barred even taking the<\/p>\n
    allowance of the mid summer holidays. Thereby, the best<\/p>\n
    evidence that could have been brought in was lost. Not even<\/p>\n
    the mahazar of the connected criminal case is brought to the<\/p>\n
    civil court and proved as enjoined by law. The application for<\/p>\n
    issuance of Commission for local inspection was filed and<\/p>\n
    orders obtained and Commissioner deputed only one year<\/p>\n
    after the suit. The Commissioner’s report does not throw any<\/p>\n
AS.47\/95 & 48\/95<\/p>\n
                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
    light regarding the state of affairs immediately following the<\/p>\n
    fire. Obviously therefore, in the absence of materials in that<\/p>\n
    regard, the court can award only nominal damages<\/p>\n
    necessarily on the basis of guess work. With the materials on<\/p>\n
    record, we are of the view that each among the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
    would not be entitled to more than Rs.10,000\/- by way of<\/p>\n
    nominal damages.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 5.In the result,<\/p>\n
         (i) the appeals are partly allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         (ii) the decree passed by the court below in O.S.121\/90 is<\/p>\n
 modified by reducing the damages to Rs.10,000\/-, with interest<\/p>\n
 at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of<\/p>\n
 realisation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         (iii) the decree passed by the court below in O.S.122\/90 is<\/p>\n
 modified by reducing the damages to Rs.10,000\/-, with interest<\/p>\n
AS.47\/95 & 48\/95<\/p>\n
                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
 at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of<\/p>\n
 realisation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         (iv) Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is<\/p>\n
 ordered that the parties will bear their respective costs.<\/p>\n
                                              Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                             THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
\n                                              Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                               Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                   S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
\n                                              Judge.\n<\/p>\n
kkb.11\/06.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court A.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 47 of 1995(D) 1. A.MOIDU HAJI … Petitioner Vs 1. TESSYMOL JOSE … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR) For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated […]<\/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-36014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nA.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-16T23:56:49+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T23:56:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1413,\"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\\\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010\",\"name\":\"A.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-16T23:56:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-16T23:56:49+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T23:56:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010"},"wordCount":1413,"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\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010","name":"A.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-16T23:56:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-moidu-haji-vs-tessymol-jose-on-8-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Moidu Haji vs Tessymol Jose on 8 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36014","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=36014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}