{"id":42398,"date":"2008-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008"},"modified":"2014-06-03T14:03:23","modified_gmt":"2014-06-03T08:33:23","slug":"prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Prasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Prasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 29417 of 2007(B)\n\n\n1. PRASANNAKUMARI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. C.S.SUKUMARAN NAIR, T.C.29\/1385,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. L.V.SAVITHRI AMMA, M.P.MANDIRAM,\n\n3. INDIRA DEVI, ELANJIMUTTATHU VEEDU,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.J.HARIKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :29\/07\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n            ===========================\n           W.P.(C) NO.29417     OF 2007\n            ===========================\n\n            Dated this the day of 2007\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    Petitioner  is  the  4th defendant   and  first<\/p>\n
respondent is the third plaintiff in O.S.1094\/1994<\/p>\n
on the file of Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram.<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are no more.  It is submitted by<\/p>\n
both the petitioner and first respondent that there<\/p>\n
are no other legal heirs for plaintiffs 1 and 2 to<\/p>\n
be impleaded. Ext.P4 decree was passed on 11.1.2002<\/p>\n
declaring  right of plaintiffs to plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property.     A  mandatory   injunction   directing<\/p>\n
defendants    to    demolish    the    unauthorised<\/p>\n
construction made in plaint A schedule property and<\/p>\n
recovery  of  possession   of  plaint  A   schedule<\/p>\n
property   after    removing    the    unauthorised<\/p>\n
construction were also granted.    Defendants were<\/p>\n
also restrained from trespassing into plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule  property  or  destroying  the   boundary.<\/p>\n
Plaintiffs were also   allowed to put up compound<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) 29417\/07             2<\/span><\/p>\n
wall     using granite and bricks on the western side<\/p>\n
of plaint A schedule property.       It was an ex parte<\/p>\n
decree.         All the defendants were set ex parte.<\/p>\n
Petitioner       filed Ext.P3 petition to set aside the<\/p>\n
ex parte decree as against her under Rule 13 of<\/p>\n
Order IX of Code of Civil Procedure after condoning<\/p>\n
the delay of three years five months and thirteen<\/p>\n
days in filing the application.           According to<\/p>\n
petitioner, after she received          summons in the<\/p>\n
suit,      she   entrusted  it  to   her  mother  first<\/p>\n
defendant       to contest  the  suit  and  her  mother<\/p>\n
engaged Advocate Parameswara Kaimal and because of<\/p>\n
the    affinity    of  first  defendant  towards  first<\/p>\n
respondent       she  did  not  contest  the  case  and<\/p>\n
petitioner was unaware of that fact and she came to<\/p>\n
know about the decree only on receiving       notice in<\/p>\n
the execution petition and therefore the delay is<\/p>\n
to be condoned and ex parte decree is to be set<\/p>\n
aside.\n<\/p>\n
     2. Learned Munsiff under Ext.P6 order dismissed<\/p>\n
the application.       Petitioner challenged that order<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) 29417\/07             3<\/span><\/p>\n
before District Court in CMA 97\/2006.      Under Ext.P8<\/p>\n
order the appeal was dismissed.         Petitioner has<\/p>\n
filed      this    petition  under   Article   227   of<\/p>\n
Constitution of India challenging Exts.P6 and P8<\/p>\n
orders.\n<\/p>\n
     3.       Learned counsel appearing for petitioner<\/p>\n
and first respondent were heard.\n<\/p>\n
     4.       Learned counsel appearing for petitioner<\/p>\n
argued that after receipt of the summons petitioner<\/p>\n
entrusted her mother the co-defendant       to contest<\/p>\n
the case       and petitioner was under the belief that<\/p>\n
mother is contesting the case and only on receipt<\/p>\n
of the notice in the execution petition, she came<\/p>\n
to know that         suit was decreed ex parte. She<\/p>\n
therefore contended that the ex parte decree is to<\/p>\n
be set aside after condoning the delay.         Learned<\/p>\n
counsel      argued  that  after  Ext.P4  decree  first<\/p>\n
respondent       filed  I.A.20\/2002  on  1.1.2002,   an<\/p>\n
application under Rule 17 of Order VI of Code of<\/p>\n
Civil Procedure to amend the plaint substituting<\/p>\n
item No.2 of the plaint schedule property from 0.5<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) 29417\/07             4<\/span><\/p>\n
cents      to 1.66 cents   and no notice was served on<\/p>\n
the petitioner in the application for amendment and<\/p>\n
therefore learned Munsiff was not justified in<\/p>\n
granting       an  ex   parte  decree  in  respect   of<\/p>\n
additional extent so amended.\n<\/p>\n
     5.      Learned   counsel   appearing  for   first<\/p>\n
respondent       argued that  petitioner  had  filed  a<\/p>\n
vakalath in the suit and did not file a written<\/p>\n
statement or contest the case and after the decree<\/p>\n
in    the      execution  petition    filed  by   first<\/p>\n
respondent       notice was served on the petitioner on<\/p>\n
24.8.2003       and Ext.P3 petition was filed only on<\/p>\n
30.7.2005 and therefore in any case the delay<\/p>\n
cannot be condoned.        Learned counsel argued that<\/p>\n
even if it is found that       plaint was amended after<\/p>\n
the petitioner was        ex parte and notice was not<\/p>\n
served on her, the decree cannot be set aside.<\/p>\n
     6.        Though Ext.P4 is an ex parte decree,<\/p>\n
petitioner is not entitled to file a petition to<\/p>\n
set aside the ex parte decree after a delay of more<\/p>\n
than three years without showing sufficient cause<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) 29417\/07            5<\/span><\/p>\n
to condone the delay of three years five months and<\/p>\n
thirteen days in filing the application.     Ext.R1(a)<\/p>\n
copy of       B Diary shows that  petitioner and first<\/p>\n
defendant had appeared and the suit was posted for<\/p>\n
their written statement, and      as they did not file<\/p>\n
written       statement they  were  set  ex  parte  on<\/p>\n
17.10.1996.       It is thereafter an application for<\/p>\n
appointment       of   a  Commission  was   filed,   a<\/p>\n
Commissioner was appointed.       Subsequently   other<\/p>\n
defendants were also set ex parte.     Ultimately suit<\/p>\n
was posted for evidence.        Then first respondent<\/p>\n
filed I.A.20\/2002 to amend the plaint        which was<\/p>\n
allowed on 2.1.2002.      Later   the suit was decreed<\/p>\n
ex parte on 11.1.2002.      When the records establish<\/p>\n
that petitioner was set ex parte as early as<\/p>\n
17.10.1996 and that too after a vakalath was filed<\/p>\n
on her behalf earlier petitioner has to explain the<\/p>\n
delay in filing the petition from that date.      What<\/p>\n
is   contended      by petitioner  is  only  that  she<\/p>\n
entrusted the matter with her mother who colluded<\/p>\n
with first respondent plaintiff      and allowed first<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) 29417\/07              6<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent to obtain an           ex parte decree and<\/p>\n
petitioner came to know about the decree only on<\/p>\n
getting notice in the          execution petition.    As<\/p>\n
found by the courts below, notice in the execution<\/p>\n
petition was served on the petitioner in August,<\/p>\n
2003 itself.       But the petition to condone the delay<\/p>\n
and to set aside the ex parte decree was filed only<\/p>\n
in July, 2005.         That inordinate delay cannot be<\/p>\n
condoned       on  the  flimsy  grounds  shown  by  the<\/p>\n
petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     7. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner<\/p>\n
argued that when         petitioner was   set ex parte<\/p>\n
item No.2 of the plaint schedule property was only<\/p>\n
one half cent which was subsequently got amended<\/p>\n
and decree is now in respect of 1.66 cents.      It was<\/p>\n
argued that decree holder is only entitled to the<\/p>\n
property       allotted  as  D  schedule  of   Ext.R1(b)<\/p>\n
partition       deed and  by   executing the  ex  parte<\/p>\n
decree petitioner is not entitled to take more than<\/p>\n
what he        is entitled to under the partition deed<\/p>\n
and    before granting a decree an opportunity should<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) 29417\/07            7<\/span><\/p>\n
be granted to the petitioner to get the property<\/p>\n
properly identified.\n<\/p>\n
     8. On going through the orders passed by the<\/p>\n
court below, I do not find any reason to interfere<\/p>\n
with the refusal to set aside the ex parte decree<\/p>\n
or   to        condone   the inordinate  delay.    But<\/p>\n
considering the submission made by the petitioner<\/p>\n
that     item No.2 of the decree schedule property, as<\/p>\n
it now stands is the result of an amendment made<\/p>\n
subsequent to setting       petitioner ex parte in the<\/p>\n
suit and without notice to the petitioner, interest<\/p>\n
of justice will be served if the executing court is<\/p>\n
directed to identify       D and E schedule properties<\/p>\n
allotted to the first respondent and petitioner<\/p>\n
respectively       under  Ext.R1(b)  partition   deed.<\/p>\n
Executing       court shall appoint  a  Commission  to<\/p>\n
identify D and E properties as provided under the<\/p>\n
partition deed and deliver       the property covered<\/p>\n
under D schedule       to   the  decree holder who is<\/p>\n
also entitled to get demolished any unauthorised<\/p>\n
construction       within  the  D  schedule   property<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) 29417\/07            8<\/span><\/p>\n
therein.         Executing court shall   dispose  the<\/p>\n
petition as expeditiously as possible.<\/p>\n
       Writ Petition is disposed of as above.<\/p>\n
                                 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                          JUDGE
\ntpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n
    W.P.(C).NO. \/06\n<\/p>\n
   ———————\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    SEPTEMBER,2006<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Prasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 29417 of 2007(B) 1. PRASANNAKUMARI, … Petitioner Vs 1. C.S.SUKUMARAN NAIR, T.C.29\/1385, … Respondent 2. L.V.SAVITHRI AMMA, M.P.MANDIRAM, 3. INDIRA DEVI, ELANJIMUTTATHU VEEDU, For Petitioner :SRI.J.HARIKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN […]<\/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-42398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 2008 - 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\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-03T08:33:23+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\\\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-03T08:33:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1183,\"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\\\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Prasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-03T08:33:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 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":"Prasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 2008 - 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\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-03T08:33:23+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\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-03T08:33:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008"},"wordCount":1183,"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\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008","name":"Prasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-03T08:33:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prasannakumari-vs-c-s-sukumaran-nair-on-29-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prasannakumari vs C.S.Sukumaran Nair on 29 July, 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\/42398","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=42398"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42398\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}