{"id":3717,"date":"2007-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007"},"modified":"2015-04-03T01:04:08","modified_gmt":"2015-04-02T19:34:08","slug":"vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Vareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Vareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 392 of 1993()\n\n\n\n1. VAREED.\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. KURIAN.\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.O.JOHN,JOSEPH THOMAS,K.J.ANTONY.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :19\/03\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                      M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n                    ===========================\n\n                      S.A.  NO.392    OF 1993\n\n                    ===========================\n\n\n\n        Dated this the 19th day of March, 2007\n\n\n\n                                   JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Defendants   2,11,   12,   15   and   16   to   18         in<\/p>\n
O.S.392\/84   on   the   file   of   Munsiff   Court,   Chavakkad<\/p>\n
are   the   appellants.       First   respondent   was   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.     On   the     death   of   first   respondent,<\/p>\n
respondents   2   and   3   were   impleaded   as   his   legal<\/p>\n
heirs.     On   the   death   of   first   appellant   other<\/p>\n
appellants were recorded as his legal heirs.  First<\/p>\n
respondent   plaintiff   filed   the   suit   seeking<\/p>\n
recovery   of   possession   of   the   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property.     Plaint   schedule   property   is   building<\/p>\n
No.187\/276   in   R.S.   No.45\/9   of   Brammakulam   Village.\n<\/p>\n
Case   of        plaintiff   was   that   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
building   originally   belonged   to   his   predecessor<\/p>\n
Pulikottil   Tharu   and   it   was   granted   on   rent   to<\/p>\n
Velukutty   under   Ext.A1   registered   rent   deed   dated<\/p>\n
17.3.1923,           and         after         Velukutty         surrendered<\/p>\n
possession  of  the  building,  for  the  purpose  of  his<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
residence,   Kochouseph,   the   predecessor   in   interest<\/p>\n
defendants 1 and 2 obtained it and he was residing<\/p>\n
therein and while so Tharu died and his legal heirs<\/p>\n
divided  the properties under Ext.A2 partition deed<\/p>\n
whereunder   the   property   was   alloted   to   Francis   and<\/p>\n
Kochouseph   was   continuing   as   the   tenant   of   Francis<\/p>\n
after a fresh rental arrangement dated 1.1.1960 and<\/p>\n
he   was   residing   there   with   his   family   and     on   his<\/p>\n
death  his  tenancy    rights  devolved  on  defendants  1<\/p>\n
and 2 the children and on the death of Francis, as<\/p>\n
per Ext.A3 Will executed by Francis, his right over<\/p>\n
the   property   was   bequeathed   in   favour   of   plaintiff<\/p>\n
and   he   has   title   to   the   property.     While   so,<\/p>\n
claiming   that   he   is   a   Kudikidappukaran   and   is<\/p>\n
entitled   to   purchase   kudikidappu   in   respect   of   10<\/p>\n
cents   of   the   property,   first   defendant   filed<\/p>\n
O.A.3760\/1970   before   Land   Tribunal   which   was<\/p>\n
dismissed   on   18.11.1972.     Plaintiff   sent   a   lawyer<\/p>\n
notice   terminating   the   tenancy   demanding   surrender<\/p>\n
of   possession   and   a   reply   was   sent   by   defendants<\/p>\n
contending   that   the   building   was   constructed   by<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
Kochouseph   and   it     is   a   kudikidappu.   The   plea   of<\/p>\n
kudikidappu   is   unsustainable   and   so     plaintiff   is<\/p>\n
entitled to get a decree for recovery of possession<\/p>\n
on   the   strength   of   his   title   with   future   mesne<\/p>\n
profits.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   Defendants   1   and   3   jointly   filed   a   written<\/p>\n
statement   denying   the   lease   set   up   contending   that<\/p>\n
the   building   was   constructed   by   Kochouseph   on   the<\/p>\n
licence   granted   permitting   Kochouseph   to   construct<\/p>\n
a  building  on  the  land  and  licence  is  irreovacable<\/p>\n
and   therefore   plaintiff   is   not   entitled   to   recover<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property.     Defendants   2   and   11<\/p>\n
filed   a   joint   written   statement   contending   that<\/p>\n
Kochouseph was permitted to construct a building by<\/p>\n
Tharu   and   pursuant   to   the   licence   Kochouseph<\/p>\n
constructed   the   building   and   it   is   a   kudikidappu<\/p>\n
and   Kochouseph   had   constructed   a   building   and   was<\/p>\n
residing   therein   and   it   is   a   permanent   structure<\/p>\n
and   amount   was   spent   for   the   construction   and<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not entitled to the decree sought for.\n<\/p>\n
Learned   Munsiff   framed   the   necessary   issues.     As<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                            4<\/span><\/p>\n
kudikidappu            was         claimed         and              question           of<\/p>\n
kudikidappu   raised                   arises   for   consideration,<\/p>\n
learned   Munsiff   referred   that   question   to     Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal   under   section   125(3)   of                              Kerala   Land<\/p>\n
Reforms Act.  Land Tribunal rendered a finding that<\/p>\n
Kochouseph   had   other   properties   where   he   could<\/p>\n
erect   a   hut                 and   therefore   he   is   not   a<\/p>\n
kudikidappukaran and defendants are not entitled to<\/p>\n
kudikidappu   right.     On   receipt   of   the   finding   of<\/p>\n
the Land  Tribunal,  learned Munsiff marked Exts.A1<\/p>\n
to   A8   and   Exts.B1   to   B6   and   accepting   the   finding<\/p>\n
of   the   Land   Tribunal   held   that   defendants   are   not<\/p>\n
entitled   to   kudikidappu   right.     Learned   Munsiff<\/p>\n
also   held   that   defendants   did   not   adduce   any<\/p>\n
evidence   to   prove   that   the   licence   is   irrevocable.\n<\/p>\n
Holding   that   plaintiff   is   entitled   to   recover<\/p>\n
possession   on   the   strength   of   title,   suit   was<\/p>\n
decreed.           Appellants   challenged   the   decree   and<\/p>\n
judgment   before   District   Court,   Thrissur   in<\/p>\n
A.S.311\/1990.                 Learned         District                   Judge         on<\/p>\n
reappreciation of evidence confirmed the decree and<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
judgment   passed   by   the   learned   Munsiff   and<\/p>\n
dismissed   the   appeal.     It   is   challenged   in   the<\/p>\n
Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        3.    The  second  appeal  was admitted  formulating<\/p>\n
the following substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
        1)     Whether     appellants   are   kudikidappukars<\/p>\n
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  Kerala  Land  Reforms<\/p>\n
Act?\n<\/p>\n
        2)   Even if the predecessor in interest of the<\/p>\n
first   appellant   who   constructed   the   homestead   on<\/p>\n
the   basis   of   permission   obtained   from   the   owner<\/p>\n
died   whether   the   irrevocable   licence   is   not<\/p>\n
heritable and if so, whether  plaintiff is entitled<\/p>\n
to the decree for recovery of possession granted by<\/p>\n
courts below?\n<\/p>\n
        4.Learned   counsel   appearing   for   appellants   and<\/p>\n
respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
        5.     Though   defendants   claimed   that   Kochouseph<\/p>\n
the   father   of   defendants   1   and   2   constructed   the<\/p>\n
building   as   permitted   by   Tharu,   the   predecessor   in<\/p>\n
interest   of   the   plaintiff,   and   therefore   it   is   a<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
kudikidappu,   Land   Tribunal   and   first   Appellate<\/p>\n
Court,   on   the   evidence   found   that   defendants   are<\/p>\n
not   entitled   to   kudikidappu   right.                 Though<\/p>\n
appellants   in   the   appeal   memorandum   contended   that<\/p>\n
the   question   of   entitlement   to   kudikidappu   right<\/p>\n
has   to   be   decided   on   the   status   of   the   alleged<\/p>\n
kudikidappukaran   before   1.1.1970,     in   view   of   the<\/p>\n
settled     legal   position   that   a   kudikidappu   can   be<\/p>\n
created   even   after   1.1.1970,     the   said   contention<\/p>\n
will   not   stand.                  Courts   below   found   that<\/p>\n
Kochouseph was having land exceeding two acres.  No<\/p>\n
evidence   was   adduced   to   prove   that   the   said   land<\/p>\n
was not fit enough to erect a homestead.  Therefore<\/p>\n
the   Land   Tribunal   and   the   first   Appellate   Court<\/p>\n
rightly   found   that               appellants   or   the   other<\/p>\n
defendants   are   not   entitled   to   the     kudikidappu<\/p>\n
right.          That   finding   of   the   courts   below   is<\/p>\n
perfectly correct.\n<\/p>\n
      6.           The   main   argument   of   learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for appellants was that the right claimed<\/p>\n
by   defendants   under   section   60(b)   of   Indian<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
Easement   Act   was   not   considered   by   first   Appellate<\/p>\n
Court  and  was  not  properly  considered  by  the  trial<\/p>\n
court and evidence establish that it was Kochouseph<\/p>\n
who   constructed   the   building   which   is   a   permanent<\/p>\n
structure   incurring   expenses   acting   on   the   licence<\/p>\n
and   therefore   licence   is   irrevocable.          It   was<\/p>\n
argued   that   the   right   of   an   irrevocable     licensee<\/p>\n
under   section   60(b)   of   Indian   Easement   Act   is<\/p>\n
heritable, though not alienable and on the death of<\/p>\n
Kochouseph   that   right   devolved   on           his   sons<\/p>\n
defendants 1 and 2 and therefore   plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
entitled to the decree granted by the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
      7.           In   the   written   statement   filed   by<\/p>\n
defendants   including            appellants   the   necessary<\/p>\n
ingredients   to   attract   Section   60(b)   of   Indian<\/p>\n
Eastement Act was pleaded.  It was contended that a<\/p>\n
licence  was  granted  by  the  original  owner  Tharu  in<\/p>\n
favour   of   Kochouseph   permitting   him   to   erect   a<\/p>\n
building.     It   was   also   contended   that   acting   on<\/p>\n
that   licence   a   permanent   building   was   constructed<\/p>\n
incurring expenses.  It was also contended that  on<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
the   death   of   the   original   licensee,   his     rights<\/p>\n
devolved     on   his   children,     first   appellant   and<\/p>\n
first   defendant.     Learned   counsel   relied   on   the<\/p>\n
decision of a learned single Judge of this court in<\/p>\n
Mariam  v. Choolan (1979 KLT 650)  in support of his<\/p>\n
submission.        Learned         counsel         appearing         for<\/p>\n
respondent   argued   that   there   is   no   evidence   to<\/p>\n
prove     the   irrevocability     of   the   licence   and   no<\/p>\n
oral evidence was adduced by   appellants or   other<\/p>\n
defendants   and   they   are   not   entitled   to   claim   the<\/p>\n
benefit   under   section   60(b)   of   the   Act.     It   was<\/p>\n
argued that defendants have no case that there is a<\/p>\n
registered   deed   of   licence   and   therefore   the   claim<\/p>\n
under section 60(b) will not lie.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     A   licence   does   not   create   any   interest   in<\/p>\n
immovable property and therefore on the ground that<\/p>\n
there is no registered deed of licence, respondents<\/p>\n
are not entitled to contend that defendants are not<\/p>\n
entitled   to   the   benefit   conferred   under   section   60<\/p>\n
(b)   of   Indian   Easement   Act.   The     definition   of<\/p>\n
Section 52   makes it clear that a licence does not<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
create   an   interest   in   the   property.     Section   60<\/p>\n
also   does   not   provide   that   the   benefit   could   be<\/p>\n
claimed  only  by  a  licensee  under  a  written  licence<\/p>\n
deed or a registered licence deed.\n<\/p>\n
      9. Section 60(b) provides that a licence may be<\/p>\n
revoked   by   the   grantor   unless   the   licensee   acting<\/p>\n
upon   the   licence   has   executed   a   work   of   permanent<\/p>\n
character   and   incurred   expenses   in   the   execution.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore   when   the   defendants   contended   that<\/p>\n
Kochouseph   was   a   licensee   and   acting   upon   the<\/p>\n
licence   Kochouseph   constructed   a   building   of   a<\/p>\n
permanent   character   incurring   expenses,   it   cannot<\/p>\n
be   said   that   defendants   have     not   pleaded   the<\/p>\n
necessary   ingredients   to   claim   the   benefit   under<\/p>\n
section   60(b)   of   the   Indian   Easement   Act.\n<\/p>\n
Chandrasekhara   Menon,J.   in  Mariam’s   case   (supra)<\/p>\n
had   occasion   to   consider   the   question   whether   a<\/p>\n
person   who   erected   a   house   acting   upon   a   licence,<\/p>\n
who   could   have   otherwise   claimed   kudikidappu,   is   a<\/p>\n
licensee   and   if   so   whether   such   a   licensee   could<\/p>\n
claim   that   it   is   an   irrevocable   licence   and   if   so<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
whether   the   right   is   heritable   on   his   death.     It<\/p>\n
was  held:\n<\/p>\n
                 “According to the petitioners,<\/p>\n
                 the   permission   was   granted   to<\/p>\n
                 the          father             of              the            1st<\/p>\n
                 respondent   to   reside   in   the<\/p>\n
                 premises and it is also stated<\/p>\n
                 before   me   that   permission   had<\/p>\n
                 been              granted                      to              the<\/p>\n
                 respondent’s   father   to   have<\/p>\n
                 the   use   and   occupation   of   the<\/p>\n
                 land         for         the          purpose                  of<\/p>\n
                 erecting a homestead. There is<\/p>\n
                 no   evidence   in   the   case   as   to<\/p>\n
                 when   the   respondent’s   father<\/p>\n
                 died.     If   it   is   a   case   where<\/p>\n
                 the   respondent’s   father   died<\/p>\n
                 after   the   Act,   then   under<\/p>\n
                 section   78   his   right   would<\/p>\n
                 have   devolved   on   his   heirs.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 S.78 says that the rights of a<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                         11<\/span><\/p>\n
                 kudikidappukaran                in         his<\/p>\n
                 kudikidappu shall be heritable<\/p>\n
                 but   not   alienable   except   to<\/p>\n
                 any   person   mentioned   in   sub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 clause   (a)   or   sub-clause   (b)<\/p>\n
                 of   clause   (i)   of   sub   section<\/p>\n
                 (1)   of   S.75.     If   he   had   died<\/p>\n
                 before the Kerala Land Reforms<\/p>\n
                 Act   came   into   force,   he   was   a<\/p>\n
                 kudikidappukaran in the nature<\/p>\n
                 of   the   permission   granted   to<\/p>\n
                 him   under   the   general   law   and<\/p>\n
                 under   the   general   law   the<\/p>\n
                 position              of                   the<\/p>\n
                 kudikidappukaran   is   more   or<\/p>\n
                 less   in   the   nature   of   a<\/p>\n
                 licensee   who   in   pursuance   of<\/p>\n
                 the   licence   had   put   up   a<\/p>\n
                 building   on   a   land.     If   a<\/p>\n
                 building   had   been   put   up   in<\/p>\n
                 pursuance   of   such   licence   the<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
                 licence had become irrevocable<\/p>\n
                 as         between           the               original<\/p>\n
                 parties.     It   is   well   settled<\/p>\n
                 that   the   right   of   such   a<\/p>\n
                 licensee   is   heritable   though<\/p>\n
                 not alienable. (See Amjad Khan<\/p>\n
                 v.         Shufiuddin              Khan              (1925<\/p>\n
                 All.203).     It   is   useful   to<\/p>\n
                 refer   to   Nasirul   Zaman   Khan<\/p>\n
                 v.Azimullah                 (28               All.741),<\/p>\n
                 Motilal   v.   Kabi   Mandar   (19<\/p>\n
                 C.L.J.221),Surnomoyee                                   v.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Chandar   (12   C.L.J.443)   etc.<\/p>\n
                 cases referred to by Katiar in<\/p>\n
                 his   “Law   of   Easements   and<\/p>\n
                 Licenses”   3rd  Edition,   at   page<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                 405.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It   cannot   be   disputed   that   the   right   of   an<\/p>\n
irrevocable   licensee   is   heritable,   though   not<\/p>\n
alienable. If Kochouseph had an irrevocable licence<\/p>\n
as provided under section 60(b), defendants 1 and 2<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                  13<\/span><\/p>\n
are   entitled   to   inherit   that   right   in   which   event<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession of<\/p>\n
the   building.   Unfortunately   this   aspect   was   not<\/p>\n
considered   by   the   courts   below.     The   trial   court<\/p>\n
answered   issue   No.9   framed   on   the   claim   of<\/p>\n
irrevocable   licence   in   two   sentences   stating   that<\/p>\n
no   evidence   was   adduced   to   prove   the   contention.\n<\/p>\n
The   first   Appellate   Court   did   not   consider   the<\/p>\n
question   at   all.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for<\/p>\n
appellants   pointed   out   that   Exts.B2   to   B6   series<\/p>\n
show   that   atleast   from   1963   onwards     building   tax<\/p>\n
was   being   paid   by   Kochouseph   and   the   house   was<\/p>\n
registered     as   owned   by     Kochouseph   and   how   this<\/p>\n
happened   if   the   building   was   constructed   by   Tharu<\/p>\n
as   claimed   by   plaintiff   was   not   explained   and<\/p>\n
therefore it can only be held that the building was<\/p>\n
constructed by Kochouseph acting on the licence and<\/p>\n
therefore   it   is   to   be   held   that   the   licence   is<\/p>\n
irrevocable.\n<\/p>\n
      10. As this question was not considered by the<\/p>\n
trial court on the materials and was not considered<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                               14<\/span><\/p>\n
by   the   first   Appellate   Court   at   all,   interest   of<\/p>\n
justice   warrants   that   this   question   is   to   be<\/p>\n
decided     by   the   trial   court   before   granting   a<\/p>\n
decree   for   recovery   of   possession.   As   no   evidence<\/p>\n
was adduced by either parties on this aspect, it is<\/p>\n
necessary   to   permit   the   parties   to   adduce   further<\/p>\n
evidence also.\n<\/p>\n
           The   appeal   is   therefore   allowed.   The   judgment<\/p>\n
and   decree   passed   by   learned   Munsiff   as   confirmed<\/p>\n
by         learned         District         Judge         are         set         aside.\n<\/p>\n
O.S.392\/1984   is   remanded   back   to   Munsiff   Court,<\/p>\n
Chavakkad   for   deciding   the   question   whether<\/p>\n
Kochouseph   was   lessee   or   a     licensee   and   if   a<\/p>\n
licensee   whether   the   licence   was   irrevocable   under<\/p>\n
section 60(b) of Indian Easement Act.   The parties<\/p>\n
are   entitled   to   adduce   evidence   on   this   question.\n<\/p>\n
Learned   Munsiff   has   to   decide   this   question   in<\/p>\n
accordance   with   law.                      If   it   is   found   that<\/p>\n
Kochouseph   is   an   irrevocable   licensee   and   his<\/p>\n
rights devolved on defendants 1 and 2, plaintiff is<\/p>\n
not   entitled   to   the   decree   for   recovery   of<\/p>\n
S.A.No.392\/93                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
possession.   On the other hand, if on the evidence<\/p>\n
court   finds   that   Kochouseph   was   not   a   licensee   or<\/p>\n
even if a licensee the licence was not irrevocable<\/p>\n
the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of<\/p>\n
the property on the strength of title.  Parties are<\/p>\n
directed   to   appear   before   the   learned   Munsiff   on<\/p>\n
24.5.07.  Send back the records forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
                                       M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR<\/p>\n
                                                   JUDGE<\/p>\n
tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
     I.A.NO.955. \/05<\/p>\n
             IN<\/p>\n
      M.S.A.NO.1\/81<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
         ORDER<\/p>\n
   23RD MARCH, 2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Vareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 392 of 1993() 1. VAREED. … Petitioner Vs 1. KURIAN. … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL For Respondent :SRI.V.O.JOHN,JOSEPH THOMAS,K.J.ANTONY. The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :19\/03\/2007 O R D E R M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3717","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nVareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007 - 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\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-02T19:34:08+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-02T19:34:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2149,\"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\\\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Vareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-02T19:34:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Vareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007 - 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\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-02T19:34:08+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-02T19:34:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007"},"wordCount":2149,"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\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007","name":"Vareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-02T19:34:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vareed-vs-kurian-on-19-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vareed vs Kurian on 19 March, 2007"}]},{"@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\/3717","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=3717"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3717\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3717"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}