{"id":39496,"date":"2008-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008"},"modified":"2015-04-06T17:36:37","modified_gmt":"2015-04-06T12:06:37","slug":"parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 841 of 2000(A)\n\n\n\n1. PARVATHY AMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. NARAYANAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.BABU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :01\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>                                                          K.T. SANKARAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<\/p>\n<p>                                                      S.A. No.  841   OF  2000<\/p>\n<p>                                 &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<\/p>\n<p>                                              Dated this the 1st February,  2008<\/p>\n<p>                                                            J  U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>            The plaintiffs   in O.S.No.667 of 1995 on the file of the court of the II Addl. Munsiff,<\/p>\n<p>Thrissur are the appellants in this Second Appeal.   The suit   filed by them    for permanent<\/p>\n<p>prohibitory injunction was dismissed by the  trial court.  On appeal by them as A.S.No. 168<\/p>\n<p>of     1996,   the   District   Court   dismissed   the   appeal.     However,   it   was   observed   that     the<\/p>\n<p>remedy of the plaintiffs  is to sue for   fixation of boundary or such  other reliefs  based  on<\/p>\n<p>the title.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>            2.   The plaint schedule property is having an extent of   39 cents.   On the western<\/p>\n<p>side of the plaint schedule property, the property of the defendants  is situated.  There is a<\/p>\n<p>well  on  the boundary separating    the two  properties  .   According  to the plaintiffs,  the well<\/p>\n<p>belongs    to the plaintiffs    as well as the defendants  and  both of them are entitled  to   take<\/p>\n<p>water from   the well.   According to the defendants, the   well belongs   to them and that the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiffs have no right over the well.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>            3.     The   prayer   in   the   suit   is   for   an   injunction     restraining   the   defendants   from<\/p>\n<p>trespassing   upon   the   plaint   schedule   property,   from   cutting   and   removing   the   trees   and<\/p>\n<p>other   improvements   in   the   property     and   from   constructing     a   compound   wall   or   other<\/p>\n<p>boundary obstructing the user of the well.   The plaintiffs claim title in respect  of an extent of<\/p>\n<p>39 cents as per document No. 4197 of 1950  executed in favour of  Sankaran Ezhuthassan,<\/p>\n<p>the predecessor of  the plaintiffs  .   After  the death  of Sankaran Ezhuthassan,  the plaintiffs<\/p>\n<p>are in  possession of the  property along with two other children of Sankaran Ezhuthassan.<\/p>\n<p>It is alleged in the plaint that the well is situated in the boundary separating the property of<\/p>\n<p>the plaintiffs    and that of  the defendants    and  that the well belongs  to   both the parties  in<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>equal rights.  The plaintiffs also contended that they are  using the well  in question.<\/p>\n<p>         4.  The defendants contended, inter alia,   in the written statement filed by them that<\/p>\n<p>a total extent of 70 cents of  land was assigned in favour of   Krishnan Ezhuthassan.  Out of<\/p>\n<p>the extent of  70  cents, an extent of 23 =  cents was assigned by  Krishnan Ezhuthassan in<\/p>\n<p>favour   of   the   defendants.     Thereafter,     the   rest     of   the   land   on   the   eastern   side   of   the<\/p>\n<p>defendants&#8217; property came to vest  in the possession of the plaintiffs.   The defendants also<\/p>\n<p>contented that out of the total extent of 70 cents, 1\/3  portion came into the possession of the<\/p>\n<p>defendants   and   2\/3   is   in   the   possession   of   the   plaintiffs.     Thus,   the   plaintiffs   are   in<\/p>\n<p>possession of 46 =  cents and defendants are in possession of 23 = cents.  The defendants<\/p>\n<p>also raised a contention that the well is not in the boundary separating the properties of the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiffs  and   the defendants.   According to the defendants, the well belongs  to them and<\/p>\n<p>the plaintiffs have no right over the well.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>         5.     Since   the   suit     was   one   for   permanent   prohibitory   injunction,   apparently,   no<\/p>\n<p>question of title was considered by the courts below.    Issue regarding the title was also not<\/p>\n<p>raised    in  the  suit.    Though  issue  no.2    was  raised  as:  &#8220;In  whose  property,  is  the  well  in<\/p>\n<p>question  situated?&#8221;,   the trial court  has not considered the question of title to the well,  but<\/p>\n<p>proceeded on the basis  of  possession.  It was  held by the trial court that the plaintiffs had<\/p>\n<p>not cared  to get the properties measured with the help of   records  and therefore, they are<\/p>\n<p>not entitled to  get a decree for injunction.   On that finding, the trial court held thus:<\/p>\n<p>         &#8220;Under  these circumstances, the only probable conclusion is that the well<\/p>\n<p>         is lying in the property of the defendants themselves.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\nThis was not a decision on the question of title.  The trial court was  answering the question<\/p>\n<p>of possession and was deciding the question as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to get<\/p>\n<p>injunction.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>         6.  The trial court considered the fact that the  property was measured by the Taluk<\/p>\n<p>Surveyor   who  was  examined  as D.W.2.    He    produced   Ext.X1  file  which  would  indicate<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                            3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>that the property was measured in accordance with the survey records before the suit was<\/p>\n<p>filed   and    the   boundaries  were  shown   to   the  parties.     The   plaintiffs   suppressed  this   fact,<\/p>\n<p>though notice was received by them before conducting the survey.   It was held by the trial<\/p>\n<p>court   that       the   plaintiffs   did   not     approach   the   court     with   clean   hands   and     that   they<\/p>\n<p>suppressed   material facts.  The  equitable relief  of injunction was thus denied to them.<\/p>\n<p>          7.     The   appellate   court   held   that   there   is   no   evidence   to   show   that   there   is     any<\/p>\n<p>specific   boundary demarcating the property  of the plaintiffs and that of the defendants.   It<\/p>\n<p>was held that  though the  plaintiffs claimed  that they have been  taking water from the well<\/p>\n<p>in   question,   there   is   no   reliable   evidence   to   prove   the   same.         It   was   also   held   by   the<\/p>\n<p>appellate court that   though the plaintiffs claimed that the measurements made by D.W.2.,<\/p>\n<p>Taluk   Surveyor     were   incorrect,   no   steps   were   taken   by   them     to   get   the   properties<\/p>\n<p>measured.     Though a Commissioner was appointed, the properties were not measured in<\/p>\n<p>accordance with the survey and no steps were taken  by the plaintiffs to get  a proper report<\/p>\n<p>and a plan.   The appellate court  concluded by holding thus:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>          &#8220;The  remedy of the appellants    is  to sue  for fixation  of boundary  or such<\/p>\n<p>          other reliefs  as the case may be, based  on the title  claimed by them  over<\/p>\n<p>          the disputed portion.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><\/blockquote>\n<p>Evidently, this finding was arrived at by the appellate court  on the basis that in the present<\/p>\n<p>suit for injunction, the question of possession  alone was considered by the trial court .  The<\/p>\n<p>appellate court  left open  the question of title to be decided in a properly constituted suit.  It<\/p>\n<p>cannot be said that the   courts below committed any error of law in dismissing the suit for<\/p>\n<p>injunction.  The courts below considered the  oral and documentary  evidence in detail and<\/p>\n<p>held     that   the   plaintiffs   have   not   established   the   identity   of     the   plaint   schedule   property<\/p>\n<p>correctly and they   have failed to prove possession.   The  relief of injunction was therefore<\/p>\n<p>rightly  declined.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>          8.   Even after noticing that the remedy of the plaintiffs is to file a suit for fixation of<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>boundary or to file  a suit based on title, the appellate court has observed in paragraph 15 of<\/p>\n<p>the judgment thus:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>         &#8220;There   is   also   no   evidence    to   show     that   the   appellants   have   any   right<\/p>\n<p>         over the well in question&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\nThe learned counsel for the appellants  is right in his submission that having relegated the<\/p>\n<p>parties to a properly constituted suit, the appellate court was not justified in making such an<\/p>\n<p>observation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>        In   the   aforesaid   circumstances,   I   am   not   inclined   to   interfere   with   the   concurrent<\/p>\n<p>findings   of   the   courts   below.     The   Second   Appeal   lacks   merit   and   it   is   accordingly<\/p>\n<p>dismissed.   However, the aforesaid observation\/finding  in paragraph No.15 of the judgment<\/p>\n<p>of the appellate court  as regards the right of the plaintiffs over the well shall stand vacated.<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                          K.T. SANKARAN,<\/p>\n<p>                                                                                                                    JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n<p>lk<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>                                                  K.T. SANKARAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                     &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..<\/p>\n<p>                                                  S.A. No. 841 OF 2000<\/p>\n<p>                                      &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;<\/p>\n<p>                                        Dated this the 1st February,  2008<\/p>\n<p>                                                     J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 841 of 2000(A) 1. PARVATHY AMMA &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. NARAYANAN &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU For Respondent :SRI.K.S.BABU The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN Dated :01\/02\/2008 O R D E R K.T. SANKARAN, [&hellip;]<\/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-39496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-06T12:06:37+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-06T12:06:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1202,\"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\\\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-06T12:06:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-06T12:06:37+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-06T12:06:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008"},"wordCount":1202,"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\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008","name":"Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-06T12:06:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parvathy-amma-vs-narayanan-on-1-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parvathy Amma vs Narayanan on 1 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/39496","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=39496"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39496\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39496"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39496"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39496"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}