{"id":40437,"date":"2010-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-04-20T10:32:14","modified_gmt":"2017-04-20T05:02:14","slug":"v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"V.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
V.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 478 of 1997()\n\n\n\n1. V.SAINABA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. KSEB\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :09\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n       -------------------------------------------------\n                    S.A.No.478 of 1997\n       -------------------------------------------------\n           Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010\n\n                         JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
         Claim for damages by the plaintiffs, setting<\/p>\n
forth a case that valuable rubber trees in his plantation<\/p>\n
were destroyed by a fire, arising out of the contact of<\/p>\n
loose electric lines drawn through his property by the<\/p>\n
respondent – Kerala State Electricity Board {for short<\/p>\n
“Board”}, after trial was dismissed by the learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff-Magistrate, Mannarghat. Appeal preferred by<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs (A.S.No.71\/91) against the dismissal of<\/p>\n
their suit O.S.No.132\/89 was also unsuccessful as the<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge, Ottapalam concurred with the<\/p>\n
findings of the trial judge for non-suiting them. This<\/p>\n
appeal is preferred against the concurrent decision so<\/p>\n
rendered by the two inferior courts.\n<\/p>\n
         2. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is that on<\/p>\n
14.2.1989 at about 2 P.M., a fire occurred in their<\/p>\n
rubber plantation which emanated from the coming into<\/p>\n
S.A.No.478 of 1997<\/p>\n
                           :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n
\ncontact of live electric lines drawn through their<\/p>\n
property. About 300 rubber trees in their plantation<\/p>\n
wereburnt down completely resulting in a loss of<\/p>\n
Rs.15,000\/- was their case to claim such damages from<\/p>\n
the defendant Board. The lines were sagging and loose<\/p>\n
and there was negligence on the part of the Board in<\/p>\n
maintaining such lines drawn through the property was<\/p>\n
the case to claim the damages.\n<\/p>\n
          3. Resisting the claim, the defendant filed a<\/p>\n
written statement, in which among others, it was<\/p>\n
contended that there was no sagging of the lines and the<\/p>\n
fire which occurred in the property of the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
burning down the trees was not on account of the<\/p>\n
contact of electric lines drawn through that property. It<\/p>\n
was further contended that the case set up by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs as to the cause of fire was totally false, since<\/p>\n
none of the rubber trees situate close to the lines were<\/p>\n
burnt. Negligence imputed against the defendant in the<\/p>\n
S.A.No.478 of 1997<\/p>\n
                           :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nmaintaining of the lines was also stoutly refuted by the<\/p>\n
Board.\n<\/p>\n
         4. In the trial, plaintiffs examined Pws.1 to 5<\/p>\n
and exhibited Exts.A1 to A4 on the side of the defendant,<\/p>\n
a departmental official was examined as DW.1. An<\/p>\n
Advocate    Commissioner      had   conducted     a   local<\/p>\n
inspection and prepared a report, which was exhibited<\/p>\n
as Ext.C1. After appreciating the evidence, the learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff found merit in the defence canvassed by the<\/p>\n
defendant that the cause of the fire had not been<\/p>\n
established as having arisen from the contact of live<\/p>\n
electric lines drawn through the rubber plantation.<\/p>\n
Adverting to the commission report, Ext.C1 and also<\/p>\n
other materials placed before the court, the claim for<\/p>\n
damages     was   found    meritless,   relying   on    the<\/p>\n
circumstance that none of the trees situate close to the<\/p>\n
electric lines were burnt down in the fire. On entering<\/p>\n
such findings, the trial Judge non-suited the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
S.A.No.478 of 1997<\/p>\n
                          :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         5. In appeal, the learned Sub Judge considered<\/p>\n
only one question as to whether there was negligence by<\/p>\n
the officers of the defendant in the causing of the fire.<\/p>\n
The appellate Judge, mainly taking note of the materials<\/p>\n
collected in the report by the Advocate Commissioner<\/p>\n
that as on the date of his inspection, the lines were<\/p>\n
found to be not sagging and also the plaintiffs had no<\/p>\n
case of any new electric post additionally implanted in<\/p>\n
their property to avoid sagging of the lines, which was<\/p>\n
canvassed in trial, found that no interference with the<\/p>\n
conclusion drawn by the trial Judge was warranted. In<\/p>\n
that view of the matter, the appeal was dismissed.<\/p>\n
         6. I heard the counsel on both sides.\n<\/p>\n
         7.   There is total mis-appreciation of the<\/p>\n
evidence, and, in fact, inconsequential and insignificant<\/p>\n
matters were given undue weightage by both the courts<\/p>\n
and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice, is the<\/p>\n
submission of the learned counsel for the appellants to<\/p>\n
S.A.No.478 of 1997<\/p>\n
                             :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nassail the concurrent decision entered by such courts<\/p>\n
dismissing the claim for damages. On the other hand,<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the respondent Board has<\/p>\n
contended that the plaintiffs have failed to establish by<\/p>\n
any materials that the fire had occurred on the cause<\/p>\n
pleaded by them i.e., by the contact of the electric lines<\/p>\n
drawn through their properties, which are stated to<\/p>\n
have been sagging at that point of time. When the<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner visited the property the lines<\/p>\n
were found to be not sagging, and that state of affairs<\/p>\n
should be deemed to have continued even when the fire<\/p>\n
occurred, in the absence of any contra evidence, is the<\/p>\n
further submission of the counsel to contend that no<\/p>\n
interference with the dismissal of the claim for damages<\/p>\n
to the plaintiffs is called for.\n<\/p>\n
         8. Having consideration over the submissions<\/p>\n
made by the counsel with reference to the materials<\/p>\n
tendered in the case, it is seen, both the courts have<\/p>\n
S.A.No.478 of 1997<\/p>\n
                          :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nplaced much reliance on the statement recorded from a<\/p>\n
department official of the respondent, by the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner, at the time of local inspection, in which<\/p>\n
among other things, that official stated that the fire had<\/p>\n
not caused damage to the trees situated on both sides of<\/p>\n
the lines for a distance of 45 metres. First of all, the<\/p>\n
Commissioner had no authority to record the statement<\/p>\n
of the official, which was incorporated as part of his<\/p>\n
report Ext.C1, without any order or direction from the<\/p>\n
court directing him to record the statement of that<\/p>\n
official or any person.    Such being the position, the<\/p>\n
statement of such official recorded by the Commissioner<\/p>\n
deserves only to be ignored as of no consequence. The<\/p>\n
materials tendered in the case would only show that the<\/p>\n
fire did not cause any damage to any of the trees for a<\/p>\n
distance of 15 metres on both sides of the lines. Other<\/p>\n
than the statement of the department official recorded<\/p>\n
by the Advocate Commissioner, there was no material to<\/p>\n
S.A.No.478 of 1997<\/p>\n
                          :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nshow that damage by fire had been caused only to the<\/p>\n
trees situated 45 metres away from the lines. The fact<\/p>\n
that a good number of rubber trees planted in the<\/p>\n
property of the plaintiffs had been damaged by fire is<\/p>\n
not in dispute. It has also come out that, immediately<\/p>\n
after the occurrence of fire, the plaintiffs had filed a<\/p>\n
complaint before the police and PW.4, a police officer<\/p>\n
inspected the spot. True, there is some discrepancy in<\/p>\n
his evidence as regards the location of the trees in the<\/p>\n
property which caught fire. But he had inspected the<\/p>\n
spot, on a complaint from the plaintiffs, soon after the<\/p>\n
occurrence, remain undisputed. It is also an admitted<\/p>\n
fact that two lines; one LT line and above that a HT line<\/p>\n
were drawn through the property of the plaintiffs. The<\/p>\n
Commissioner has noted that the distance between<\/p>\n
these two lines were 15 metres. The Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner has also reported that a new post was<\/p>\n
also seen erected at the time of his local inspection. In<\/p>\n
S.A.No.478 of 1997<\/p>\n
                          :: 8 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nExt.C1 report, he has given particulars of that post as<\/p>\n
well.   One of the plaintiffs examined as PW.1 gave<\/p>\n
evidence that by erecting a new post after the fire,<\/p>\n
sagging of the lines was reduced to a considerable<\/p>\n
extent. The plaintiffs did not have such a case in the<\/p>\n
plaint was the reason taken by the court below to hold<\/p>\n
that there was no erection of new post in the property or<\/p>\n
anywhere near to prevent sagging of the lines. The fire<\/p>\n
caused to the plantation was on account of the contact<\/p>\n
of live electric lines drawn through that property, and<\/p>\n
such lines were then sagging, the case of the plaintiffs,<\/p>\n
is corroborated by the evidence of Pws.2 and 3, two<\/p>\n
neighbours in the locality. PW.4, the police official, who<\/p>\n
inspected the spot, after getting a complaint over the<\/p>\n
fire, also gave evidence supporting the case of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs also examined one retired<\/p>\n
departmental official, an Assistant Executive Engineer<\/p>\n
and he gave evidence that sparks of fire from the<\/p>\n
S.A.No.478 of 1997<\/p>\n
                         :: 9 ::\n<\/p>\n
\ncontact of sagging lines would cause fire to nearby trees<\/p>\n
and, sometimes, even to trees situate at considerable<\/p>\n
distance away. Such sparks need not cause fire to the<\/p>\n
trees underneath, but only to trees situated at a distance<\/p>\n
away, is the evidence of PW.5, a witness who had some<\/p>\n
expertise and experience, regarding the maintenance<\/p>\n
and up-keeping of the electric lines. The defendant has<\/p>\n
examined one departmental official as DW.1.            His<\/p>\n
evidence would show that a notice was received from<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs demanding damages for the fire caused<\/p>\n
imputing that it was on account of the negligence in<\/p>\n
maintaining the electric lines drawn through the<\/p>\n
property. But that notice was not responded. He gave<\/p>\n
an explanation that since there was no departmental<\/p>\n
instructions, reply was not given.      Other than the<\/p>\n
assertion of the defendant, and the evidence of DW.1,<\/p>\n
the departmental official examined on behalf of the<\/p>\n
defendant, there was no contra evidence to challenge<\/p>\n
S.A.No.478 of 1997<\/p>\n
                          :: 10 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthe case of the plaintiffs     that the fire resulting in<\/p>\n
damage to the trees had not arisen by the sagging<\/p>\n
electric lines coming into contact and sparks from such<\/p>\n
contact falling upon the trees.      Some of the trees,<\/p>\n
underneath the lines were not affected by the fire and<\/p>\n
no damage was caused to them, but trees situate some<\/p>\n
distance away were burnt in fire cannot be given<\/p>\n
unmerited consideration since the ground level of the<\/p>\n
property, the blowing of wind, if any, and several other<\/p>\n
factors, including the growth underneath bushes<\/p>\n
surrounding such trees etc., may have relevance why<\/p>\n
the trees situate some distance away alone caught fire.<\/p>\n
Merely because the trees close to the lines were not<\/p>\n
affected by fire, no inference is permissible that the fire<\/p>\n
that occurred was not on account of the sparks from the<\/p>\n
electric lines drawn through the property. When that be<\/p>\n
so, the conclusion drawn by the court below that the<\/p>\n
cause for the fire as alleged had not been proved placing<\/p>\n
S.A.No.478 of 1997<\/p>\n
                         :: 11 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nreliance on inconsequential circumstances cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained.\n<\/p>\n
         The only question to be considered on<\/p>\n
acceptance of the case of the plaintiff for the cause of<\/p>\n
fire, which is proved by the materials tendered, is the<\/p>\n
quantum of damages to be awarded. True, no material<\/p>\n
other than the commission report and the oral evidence<\/p>\n
of the plaintiffs, Pws.1, 2 and 3, are available for<\/p>\n
assessing the damages. It is seen, the evidence let in is<\/p>\n
insufficient to fix the quantum of damages. Plaintiffs<\/p>\n
have contended that nearly 300 rubber trees, aged<\/p>\n
about 4 years, had been damaged in the fire. But in the<\/p>\n
commission report, the number of trees damaged are<\/p>\n
not stated. Though there is no positive and satisfactory<\/p>\n
evidence enabling the court to fix the quantum of<\/p>\n
damages, on the proved facts that rubber trees aged 4<\/p>\n
years and that too a good number of trees have been<\/p>\n
damaged on account of the fire, which is found to have<\/p>\n
S.A.No.478 of 1997<\/p>\n
                         :: 12 ::\n<\/p>\n
\nbeen caused from the sparks which emanated from the<\/p>\n
contact with the sagging electric lines drawn through<\/p>\n
the property,    I find, the plaintiffs  are entitled to<\/p>\n
nominal damages, which I fix at Rs.10,000\/- from the<\/p>\n
defendant.\n<\/p>\n
        In reversal of the decrees of the courts below,<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs are awarded a decree for Rs.10,000\/- with<\/p>\n
proportionate costs. Appeal is partly allowed.<\/p>\n
                                       Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                           (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
\n                                      JUDGE<\/p>\n
sk\/-\n<\/p>\n
           \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n
                     P.S. to Judge.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court V.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 478 of 1997() 1. V.SAINABA … Petitioner Vs 1. KSEB … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :09\/07\/2010 O R D E R S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN ————————————————- […]<\/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-40437","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-20T05:02:14+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-20T05:02:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1895,\"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\\\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010\",\"name\":\"V.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-20T05:02:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"V.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-20T05:02:14+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-20T05:02:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010"},"wordCount":1895,"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\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010","name":"V.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-20T05:02:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-sainaba-vs-kseb-on-9-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Sainaba vs Kseb on 9 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40437","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=40437"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40437\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40437"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40437"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40437"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}