{"id":37335,"date":"2007-07-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007"},"modified":"2017-08-10T08:15:01","modified_gmt":"2017-08-10T02:45:01","slug":"kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Kuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 83 of 1994()\n\n\n\n1. KUTTAN NAIR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. VASUDEVAN NAIR\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.PRABHA R.MENON\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :02\/07\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n                                ===========================\n\n                                  S.A.  NO. 83   OF 1994\n\n                                ===========================\n\n\n\n                      Dated this the  2nd day of July, 2007\n\n\n\n                                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
        Plaintiffs   in   O.S.80\/1983   on   the   file   of<\/p>\n
Munsiff                    Magistrate                Court,                    Ponnani                 are         the<\/p>\n
appellants.     Respondents   are   the   defendants.     Suit<\/p>\n
was         filed                seeking                  a         decree            for              permanent<\/p>\n
prohibitory injunction in respect of three items of<\/p>\n
property   in   R.S.No.110\/5   of   Edappal   Village.     But<\/p>\n
the dispute was only in respect of thak No.3 of the<\/p>\n
plaint   schedule   properties     having   measurements   of<\/p>\n
24×10=   six   ft.   koles.     According   to   appellants,<\/p>\n
plaint   schedule   properties     including   the   disputed<\/p>\n
property   was   obtained   by   first   appellant   from<\/p>\n
Edappamveettil   tarward   as   per   a   lease   and   jenm<\/p>\n
right                 vests             with              Azhuvancherry                           Mana             and<\/p>\n
Edappamveettil   Tarwad   has   kanam   right   over   the<\/p>\n
property   and   appellants   later     obtained   jenm   right<\/p>\n
from             the            Land         Tribunal                     as          per              order            in<\/p>\n
O.A.7910\/1975   and   also   the     purchase   certificate<\/p>\n
S.A.83\/1994                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
and   they   have   been           in   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
properties.     It   was   contended   that   respondents   1<\/p>\n
and   2   filed   O.S.40\/1979   seeking   a   decree   for<\/p>\n
permanent   prohibitory   injunction   in   respect   of   the<\/p>\n
disputed 20 cents of the property and that suit was<\/p>\n
dismissed and after the dismissal of the suit, they<\/p>\n
attempted   to   trespass   into   the   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
properties   and they have no right to do so and so<\/p>\n
they   are   to   be   restrained   by   permanent   prohibitory<\/p>\n
injunction   and   from   trespassing   into   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule properties.  Respondents resisted the suit<\/p>\n
contending   that   the   disputed   property   is   part   of<\/p>\n
the   properties        belonging   to   them   and   it   was<\/p>\n
obtained   on   oral   lease   from   Edappam   veettil<\/p>\n
Narayani   Amma   and   subsequently   a                purchase<\/p>\n
certificate   was   also   obtained   and   they   are   in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property   and   appellants   are   not<\/p>\n
entitled to the decree sought for.  Learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
framed   the   necessary   issues.   On   the   evidence   of<\/p>\n
Pws.1 and 2, Dws. 1 and 2, Exts.A1 to A12, Exts.B1<\/p>\n
to   B4,   C1   and   C2,   learned   Munsiff   upheld   the   case<\/p>\n
S.A.83\/1994                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
of   the   appellants   and   granted   a   decree   for<\/p>\n
injunction holding that they have established their<\/p>\n
possession   over   the   plaint   schedule   properties<\/p>\n
including   the   disputed   property.                                   Defendants<\/p>\n
challenged   the   decree   and   judgment   before   the   Sub<\/p>\n
Court,  Tirur  in  A.S.36\/1988.    Learned  Sub  Judge  on<\/p>\n
reappreciation   of   evidence,   set   aside   the   findings<\/p>\n
of     learned   Munsiff   and   held   that     appellants   did<\/p>\n
not   establish   their   possession   of   the   disputed<\/p>\n
portion   of   the   plaint   schedule   properties   and<\/p>\n
therefore   they   are   not   entitled   to   the   decree<\/p>\n
granted by the trial court.  The appeal was allowed<\/p>\n
and   the   suit   was   dismissed.     It   is   challenged   in<\/p>\n
the Second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    The  second  appeal  was admitted  formulating<\/p>\n
the following substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
      1) When Ext.A3 judgment in O.S.No.40\/1979 shows<\/p>\n
that   appellants   are   in   possession   of   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property,   should   not   the   first   appellate<\/p>\n
court   draw   a   presumption   under   section   114   of<\/p>\n
Evidence            Act         that         the         appellants         continued<\/p>\n
S.A.83\/1994                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of the plaint schedule property.?\n<\/p>\n
      2)  Whether first appellate court was justified<\/p>\n
in   interfering   with   the   findings   of   the   trial<\/p>\n
court,   when   under   Ext.A2   decree   and   A3   judgment<\/p>\n
respondents   are   found   to   be   not   in   possession   of<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule properties?\n<\/p>\n
      3.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for   appellants<\/p>\n
and respondents were heard.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   Learned   counsel   appearing   for   appellants<\/p>\n
vehemently   argued   that   O.S.40\/1979   was   instituted<\/p>\n
by  respondents  1  and  2  against    appellants  seeking<\/p>\n
a   decree   for   permanent   prohibitory   injunction     in<\/p>\n
respect   of   the   disputed   portion   of   the   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   properties   herein   and   under   Ext.A3<\/p>\n
judgment,   respondents   are   found     not   in   possession<\/p>\n
of the property and the case of the appellants was<\/p>\n
upheld   by   the   court   and   in   such   circumstances,<\/p>\n
appellants   are   presumed   to   continue   in   possession<\/p>\n
of the property till the date of institution of the<\/p>\n
suit   and   if   so,     first   appellate   court   is   not<\/p>\n
justified   in       interfering     with   the   findings   of<\/p>\n
S.A.83\/1994                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
the trial court and  appellants are entitled to the<\/p>\n
decree for injunction.  It was argued that as under<\/p>\n
Ext.A3   judgment   appellants   are   found   to   be   in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property,   respondents   cannot<\/p>\n
claim that they obtained possession of the property<\/p>\n
after   the   dismissal   of   Ext.A3   suit   and   therefore<\/p>\n
first   appellate   court   should   not   have   interfered<\/p>\n
with   the   decree.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for<\/p>\n
respondents   argued   that   first   appellate   court   has<\/p>\n
appreciated   the   facts     and   evidence   in   the   proper<\/p>\n
perspective   and   that   finding   of   fact   cannot   be<\/p>\n
interfered  in  exercise  of  the  powers  of  this  court<\/p>\n
under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     It   is   admitted   case   that   O.S.40\/1979   was<\/p>\n
instituted   by   respondents   1   and   2   against<\/p>\n
appellants seeking a decree for injunction.   It is<\/p>\n
not disputed that  plaint schedule property therein<\/p>\n
takes  in  the  disputed  thak  No.3  of  plaint  schedule<\/p>\n
properties   herein.     As   argued   by   learned   counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for appellants, if there was a finding in<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 judgment, either that the plaintiffs therein<\/p>\n
S.A.83\/1994                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
namely   respondents   1   and   2   herein     are   not   in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   plaint   schedule   property   or   that<\/p>\n
defendants therein namely  appellants herein are in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property,   respondents   are   not<\/p>\n
entitled to raise a contention to the contrary that<\/p>\n
they   are   in   possession   of   the   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property as against the claim for possession raised<\/p>\n
by   appellants.   As   rightly   found   by   the   first<\/p>\n
appellate court, there is no finding in Ext.A3 with<\/p>\n
regard  to  the  possession  of  the  respondents  or  the<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   appellants.          The   decree   for<\/p>\n
injunction   sought   for   in   Ext.A3   suit   was   not   only<\/p>\n
against     appellants   herein   but   also   against     the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   in   O.S.58\/1978.     The   landlord   of   the<\/p>\n
respondents   who   instituted   O.S.58\/1978   admitting<\/p>\n
possession   of     respondents   over   the   entire   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property   therein.   Both   the   suits   were<\/p>\n
jointly   tried.     Ext.A3   judgment   shows   that   learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff   held        that   as   the   landlord   admitted<\/p>\n
possession   of     respondents   herein,     there   was   no<\/p>\n
necessity   to   grant   a   decree   for   injunction   against<\/p>\n
S.A.83\/1994                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
the   plaintiff   in   O.S.58\/1978   as   there   could   be   no<\/p>\n
reasonable   apprehension   of     trespass.   With   regard<\/p>\n
to   the   claim   raised   by   the   appellants   herein,   the<\/p>\n
finding in Ext.A3 reads:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Added   to   this,   from   the<\/p>\n
         available   evidence   there<\/p>\n
         is   much   force   in   the   case<\/p>\n
         put   forwarded   by   the   3rd<\/p>\n
         defendant           in         O.S.40\/79<\/p>\n
         that         portion           of          his<\/p>\n
         property   is   included   in<\/p>\n
         the            schedule                     to<\/p>\n
         O.S.40\/79.     Any   way   I   am<\/p>\n
         not   at   all   convinced   that<\/p>\n
         any   decree   for   injunction<\/p>\n
         in            O.S.40\/79                     is<\/p>\n
         justifiable   in   the   facts<\/p>\n
         and   circumstances   of   the<\/p>\n
         case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
There is no finding that plaintiffs therein are not<\/p>\n
in possession of the disputed 20 cents.   There was<\/p>\n
S.A.83\/1994                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
also   no   finding   that   defendants   therein   were   in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   disputed   20   cents   herein.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore   Ext.A3   cannot   be   used   by   the   appellants<\/p>\n
to strengthen their case.  Their possession was not<\/p>\n
found   by   the   court.   So   also     possession   of   the<\/p>\n
respondents   claimed   was   not     negatived.       If   that<\/p>\n
be   so,   relying   on   Ext.A3   judgment,   appellants   are<\/p>\n
not   entitled   to   contend   that   they   are   entitled   to<\/p>\n
get a decree for injunction.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   Learned Sub Judge relying on Ext.C1 report<\/p>\n
and   C2   plan   as   well   as   Exts.A4   and   A5   reports   and<\/p>\n
plan   in   the   earlier   suit   O.S.40\/1979,   entered   a<\/p>\n
factual   finding   that   appellants   did   not   establish<\/p>\n
their possession of the disputed portion of  plaint<\/p>\n
schedule  property.     That   factual   finding   cannot   be<\/p>\n
interfered   by   reappreciating   the   evidence   in<\/p>\n
exercise  of the powers of this court under section<\/p>\n
100   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure.     In   such<\/p>\n
circumstance,   appellants   are   not   entitled   to   the<\/p>\n
decree for injunction, which was originally granted<\/p>\n
by   the   trial   court   and     set   aside   by   the   first<\/p>\n
S.A.83\/1994                9<\/span><\/p>\n
appellate court.\n<\/p>\n
      The appeal fails and is dismissed.\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
      S.A..NO.83 \/94<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
     2ND JULY,2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 83 of 1994() 1. KUTTAN NAIR … Petitioner Vs 1. VASUDEVAN NAIR … Respondent For Petitioner :SMT.PRABHA R.MENON For Respondent :SRI.P.K.ABOOBACKER The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :02\/07\/2007 O R D E […]<\/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-37335","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 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\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-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=\"2007-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-10T02:45:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\\\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-10T02:45:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1254,\"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\\\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Kuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-10T02:45:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 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":"Kuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 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\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-10T02:45:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-10T02:45:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007"},"wordCount":1254,"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\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007","name":"Kuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-10T02:45:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kuttan-nair-vs-vasudevan-nair-on-2-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kuttan Nair vs Vasudevan Nair on 2 July, 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\/37335","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=37335"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37335\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}