{"id":50677,"date":"2008-02-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008"},"modified":"2016-06-07T20:30:57","modified_gmt":"2016-06-07T15:00:57","slug":"ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1396-1397 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nRamakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMuhammed Kunju &amp; Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/02\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P. SATHASIVAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tChallenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a<br \/>\nDivision Bench of the Kerala High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tBackground facts need to be noted in some detail.<br \/>\nTwo suits were filed for specific performance of agreement<br \/>\nto sell the suit properties.  Appellant No.1 is the plaintiff in OS<br \/>\nNo. 11 of 1997 which was filed in the Sub Court Mavelikara on<br \/>\n23.2.1987.  Appellant No. 2 is the plaintiff in OS No. 17 of<br \/>\n1987 which was filed on 28.2.1987. The three defendants were<br \/>\ncommon to both the suits.  Defendant no.1 is defendant No.2&#8217;s<br \/>\nbrother&#8217;s son and defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  Defendant No. 3 obtained the property mentioned in the<br \/>\ntwo suits under an exchange of properties between her and<br \/>\nher husband i.e. defendant no.2.  She mortgaged the<br \/>\nproperties to the Kerala Financial Corporation Limited.<br \/>\nSometime in 1970 defendant No.3 executed a Power of<br \/>\nAttorney in favour of her husband-defendant No.2 authorising<br \/>\nhim to deal with the property.  On 17.5.1974 defendant No.2<br \/>\nsold portions of the property to defendant No.1 acting on the<br \/>\npower conferred by the power of attorney vide Exhs. A 8 and A\n<\/p>\n<p>18.  Subsequently on 12.8.1974, defendant No.3 cancelled the<br \/>\npower of attorney.  In 1979 the defendant No.1 executed a<br \/>\npower of attorney authorising defendant No. 2 to deal with the<br \/>\nproperty.  On the basis of such power of Attorney he entered<br \/>\ninto an agreement with appellant No. 2 on 6.8.1979 to sell 3.5.<br \/>\ncents of the property and the structures for a price of<br \/>\nRs.32,000\/-.  An advance of Rs.10,000\/- was paid.   Appellant<br \/>\nNo. 2 was then the tenant of the possession of the structure<br \/>\nand had paid Rs.7,000\/- as security.  It was agreed that the<br \/>\namount shall be adjusted against part payment of the price<br \/>\nfixed and appellant No. 2 was to pay Rs.15,000\/- as the<br \/>\nbalance consideration. The agreement indicated that<br \/>\npossession was delivered to appellant No.2.\n<\/p>\n<p>On 20.8.1979 defendant No.2 as power of attorney holder<br \/>\nentered into an agreement to sell 7.5 cents of property with<br \/>\nstructures to appellant No. 1 for consideration of Rs. 43,500\/-,<br \/>\nout of which Rs.27,000\/- was paid as advance.  Appellant No.<br \/>\n1 was already in possession of the structure as tenant.  The<br \/>\nterms of the agreement i.e. Exh.A1 are similar to those as Exh.<br \/>\nA14.  Since defendant no.3 did not discharge the dues to the<br \/>\nFinancial Corporation, recovery proceedings were started and<br \/>\nthe rent payable by the appellant was attached.  It appears<br \/>\nthereafter there was a dissension amongst the defendants and<br \/>\nDefendant No.3 filed a suit (OS No. 42 of 1982) challenging the<br \/>\nsales made by Defendant No. 2 to defendant No. 1.  The<br \/>\nappellants were not parties to the said suit.   Defendant No. 1<br \/>\ntook the stand that the sales in favour of defendant No. 2 as<br \/>\npower of attorney holder was valid and defendant No. 3 was<br \/>\nnot entitled to the relief prayed.  Thereafter the dispute was<br \/>\nsettled recognizing the rights of defendant No.3.  She<br \/>\nundertook to honour all commitments made by defendant no.<br \/>\n2 in respect of the property.   In 1986 appellants called upon<br \/>\nthe defendants to execute the sale deed in their favour.  A<br \/>\nreply was given on 13.11.1986 refusing to execute the sale<br \/>\ndeeds.  Two suits were filed, as noted above, for specific<br \/>\nperformance.  There were clear averments to the effect that the<br \/>\nappellants were and are always ready and willing to perform<br \/>\ntheir part of the agreement.  The defendants 1 and 3 contested<br \/>\nthe proceedings.  It was their stand that the agreements sued<br \/>\non, namely Exhs. A 1 and A19 are not valid and binding on<br \/>\nthe defendant.  A plea of limitation was also taken.  But there<br \/>\nwas no denial to the plea regarding readiness and willingness.<br \/>\nThere was specific reference to the earlier disputes between<br \/>\nthe defendants. The trial court by judgment and decree dated<br \/>\n19.3.1992 dismissed the suit as barred by limitation after<br \/>\nholding on merits that the agreements are valid and binding<br \/>\nthe defendant.  The plaintiffs filed separate appeals in the High<br \/>\nCourt. Defendant No.3 also filed separate memo of cross-<br \/>\nobjections challenging the trial court&#8217;s finding on the valid and<br \/>\nbinding nature of the agreements. By the impugned judgment<br \/>\ndated 9.7.2001, the High Court affirmed the trial court&#8217;s<br \/>\nfinding that the agreement are valid and binding, and also<br \/>\nheld that the suits were not barred by limitation.  However the<br \/>\nHigh Court dismissed the suit on the ground that there was no<br \/>\nplea raised regarding readiness and willingness and exercise of<br \/>\ndiscretion.  However, the High Court granted a decree for<br \/>\nrefund of the amount paid as advance covered by the<br \/>\nagreement, but that no credit was to be given for further<br \/>\npayments of Rs.3,800\/- and 4,460\/- by the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tLearned counsel for the appellants submitted that the<br \/>\nHigh Court fell into grave errors by holding that the plea of<br \/>\nreadiness and willingness was not raised by the plaintiffs. In<br \/>\nthis connection, reference is made to averments in the plaint<br \/>\nas noted in the judgment of the trial court.  Reference was also<br \/>\nmade to the issues framed and the written statements filed by<br \/>\nthe defendants.  It was pointed out that in the written<br \/>\nstatements there was no plea taken by the defendants that<br \/>\nplaintiff was not ready and willing to fulfil their part of the<br \/>\nobligation.  It was, therefore, submitted that the High Court<br \/>\nnon suited the plaintiffs on a ground which was not raised by<br \/>\nthe defendants and which was not considered by the trial<br \/>\ncourt.  It was also   pointed out that factually the High Court<br \/>\nwas wrong in holding that no plea in that regard was taken.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tLearned counsel for the respondent on the other hand<br \/>\nsubmitted, that while considering a case of this nature, the<br \/>\nparameters of Section 20 have to be kept in view.  It is pointed<br \/>\nout that suits were not filed within a reasonable time and the<br \/>\nsubsequent events by considerable effect. It was submitted<br \/>\nthat the High Court has rightly held that there was no<br \/>\nmaterial to show that at all relevant points of time the plaintiff<br \/>\nwas ready and willing to fulfill their part of the obligation.<br \/>\nReference was placed on several decisions of this Court in<br \/>\nsupport of the stand e.g. <a href=\"\/doc\/756653\/\">K.S. Vidyanadam and others v.<br \/>\nVairavan<\/a> (1997(3) SCC 1), <a href=\"\/doc\/580446\/\">K. Narendra v. Riviera Apartments<br \/>\n(P) Ltd.<\/a> (1999(5) SCC 77), <a href=\"\/doc\/1783196\/\">V. Pechimuthu v. Gowrammal<\/a><br \/>\n(2001(7) SCC 617), <a href=\"\/doc\/1934247\/\">Manjunath Anandappa v. Tammanasa and<br \/>\nOthers<\/a> (2003(10) SCC 390) and <a href=\"\/doc\/122509\/\">Pukhraj D. Jain &amp; Ors. v. G.<br \/>\nGopala Krishna<\/a> (2004 (7) SCC 251).  There can be no quarrel<br \/>\nwith the position in law urged by learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent about the parameters to be considered while<br \/>\ndealing with a suit for specific performance. But the High<br \/>\nCourt&#8217;s judgment is clearly vulnerable.  Firstly, there was no<br \/>\ndispute ever raised by the defendants about the readiness and<br \/>\nwillingness of the plaintiffs to fulfill their obligations. The High<br \/>\nCourt was clearly in error in holding that no plea regarding<br \/>\nreadiness and willingness was raised. As noted above, the trial<br \/>\ncourt in its judgment has referred to various portions of the<br \/>\naverments in the plaint where the plaintiffs had categorically<br \/>\nstated that they were and are always willing to fulfill their part<br \/>\nof the obligations.  The High Court also failed to notice that<br \/>\nthere was no plea either the written statement  or in the cross<br \/>\nobjections filed in the appeal before the High Court that the<br \/>\nplaintiffs were not ready and willing to fulfill their part of the<br \/>\nobligation.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe conclusions of the High Court are to the following<br \/>\neffect:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Then the question is whether the respective<br \/>\nplaintiffs have pleaded and proved that they<br \/>\nwere always ready and willing to perform their<br \/>\npart of the contracts.  Even though time did<br \/>\nnot start to run on the expiry of two months<br \/>\nfrom the dates of the agreements, certainly,<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs were aware that the defendants<br \/>\nhad to discharge their obligation and get a<br \/>\nrelease of the mortgage in two months of the<br \/>\ndates of the agreements.  Until the sending of<br \/>\nthe notices preceding the suits, there is<br \/>\nnothing to show that the plaintiffs at any time<br \/>\ncalled upon the defendants to perform their<br \/>\npart of the contract.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe conclusions are clearly contrary to the pleadings of<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs.  It was categorically stated in the plaint in both<br \/>\nthe suits that the plaintiffs are always ready and willing to<br \/>\nfulfill their part of the obligations and that defendants were<br \/>\nevading the execution for one reason or the other.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tAbove being the position, the appeals deserve to be<br \/>\nallowed, which we direct.  The respondents shall execute the<br \/>\nsale deed after receiving the balance of the consideration<br \/>\nwithin a period of three months. If that is not done it shall be<br \/>\nopen to the appellants to move the trial court for necessary<br \/>\nsteps in that regard.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tThe appeals are allowed without any order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1396-1397 of 2002 PETITIONER: Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr. RESPONDENT: Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/02\/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P. SATHASIVAM [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-50677","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 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\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-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=\"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-07T15:00:57+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-07T15:00:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1489,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-07T15:00:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 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\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-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":"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-07T15:00:57+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-07T15:00:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008"},"wordCount":1489,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008","name":"Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-07T15:00:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramakrishna-pillai-anr-vs-muhammed-kunju-ors-on-20-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramakrishna Pillai &amp; Anr vs Muhammed Kunju &amp; Ors on 20 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/50677","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=50677"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50677\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50677"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50677"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50677"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}