{"id":51288,"date":"2011-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011"},"modified":"2016-01-15T07:59:08","modified_gmt":"2016-01-15T02:29:08","slug":"thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Thankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Thankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 654 of 1995(C)\n\n\n\n1. THANKAYYAN ABANIZAR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. M.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.L.MOHANAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :20\/01\/2011\n\n O R D E R\n                       HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                        ------------------------\n                         S.A.No.654 Of 1995\n                         ----------------------\n             Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011.\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      Plaintiffs in O.S.No.469\/77 on the file of the II Additional<\/p>\n
Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara are the appellants. The appeal is<\/p>\n
directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.160\/82 on<\/p>\n
the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit<\/p>\n
was filed for declaration of title and possession of the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
over the plaint schedule property and for consequential<\/p>\n
injunction.    The trial court dismissed the suit.  In the appeal<\/p>\n
preferred by the plaintiffs, the appellate court confirmed the<\/p>\n
decree and judgment.        Parties hereinafter are referred to as<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the suit.<\/p>\n
      2.    There are three items scheduled in the plaint. Item<\/p>\n
No.1 is 85 cents, item No.2 three cents with building and item<\/p>\n
No.3 is 9< cents of land. Originally the suit was filed against the<\/p>\n
first defendant for a perpetual injunction restraining him from<\/p>\n
trespassing into the plaint schedule property and committing<\/p>\n
waste. In the light of the contention raised by the first defendant<\/p>\n
in the written statement that other persons are also necessary<\/p>\n
                                 ::2::\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.654 Of 1995<\/p>\n
parties to the suit, additional defendants 2 to 15 were impleaded<\/p>\n
as per order dated 29.10.1979. Though additional defendants<\/p>\n
were impleaded, nobody has chosen to appear before the court<\/p>\n
nor contested the case. Originally, suit was filed for injunction<\/p>\n
simplicitor. The first defendant denied the title of the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
Subsequently,     pleadings    were    amended    and   prayer    for<\/p>\n
declaration of title was also inserted. Plaintiffs claimed title on<\/p>\n
the strength of Exts.A2 to A5 and A12 documents. According to<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs their predecessor-in-interest by name, Thankayyan<\/p>\n
was the title holder of the property, that on his death the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are in possession of the property in continuation of their<\/p>\n
predecessor-in-interest and that they are the present title<\/p>\n
holders.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     Though the suit was filed for declaration for title and<\/p>\n
injunction, the trial court failed to frame relevant issues for trial.<\/p>\n
I have gone through the judgment passed by the trial court.<\/p>\n
Issues were framed as if the suit was one for injunction<\/p>\n
simplicitor. No issue regarding title was framed by the trial court.<\/p>\n
Therefore, there was no occasion to consider the claim of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs regarding the title of the plaint schedule property. The<\/p>\n
                                 ::3::\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.654 Of 1995<\/p>\n
trial court considered the only question as to whether the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are in possession of the plaint schedule property and as<\/p>\n
to whether they are entitled to injunction as prayed for. The trial<\/p>\n
court found that the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove<\/p>\n
possession holding that they have not discharged their burden.<\/p>\n
Suit was dismissed finding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove<\/p>\n
possession and further held that the defendant is in possession of<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule property as per Ext.B1 delivery list.<\/p>\n
      4.    In the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs challenging<\/p>\n
the dismissal of the suit, in paragraph 7 of the judgment the<\/p>\n
lower appellate court observed that the most important aspect to<\/p>\n
be made mention is that though the plaint was amended by<\/p>\n
inserting a prayer for declaration of title and possession also, no<\/p>\n
issue regarding the same was raised by the trial court and no<\/p>\n
finding was seen entered into regarding title. The appellate court<\/p>\n
also noticed in the same paragraph that though additional<\/p>\n
defendants 2 to 15 remained ex-parte, trial court awarded cost to<\/p>\n
all respondents. The appellate court examined the contentions of<\/p>\n
the parties in the light of the aforesaid observations.<\/p>\n
                                ::4::\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.654 Of 1995<\/p>\n
     5.    The appellate court on appreciation and evaluation of<\/p>\n
the evidence on record held that the plaint schedule property is<\/p>\n
not included in Ext.B1 delivery list, that neither the plaintiffs nor<\/p>\n
their predecessor are parties to O.S.No.874\/1950 and therefore<\/p>\n
the decree and judgment and consequent delivery proceedings<\/p>\n
are not binding on the plaintiffs.        The appellate court in<\/p>\n
paragraph 13 observed that the plaintiffs have no case that the<\/p>\n
executants of Exts.A1, A5 and A8 had right or possession over<\/p>\n
any plot so as to convey the absolute title and possession<\/p>\n
thereunder and that the properties were got assigned in the joint<\/p>\n
names of 5 persons in respect of survey No.146\/1 and in the joint<\/p>\n
names of 4 persons in respect of survey No.146\/1 is admitted.<\/p>\n
The appellate court further observed that the joint title holders<\/p>\n
ever affected a partition thereby specific portions were allotted to<\/p>\n
the executants of Exts.a1 to A5 and A12.         The court further<\/p>\n
observed that plaintiffs have no case that the executants of<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A5 and A12 had right or possession over any plot so<\/p>\n
as to convey the absolute title and possession thereunder and the<\/p>\n
recitals in the above documents will go to show that they<\/p>\n
acquired absolute right over specific plots conveyed thereunder<\/p>\n
                                 ::5::\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.654 Of 1995<\/p>\n
as per any specific documents. The court on the basis of the said<\/p>\n
observations held that it cannot be found that Thankayyan, the<\/p>\n
predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs acquired absolute title over<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule as per Exts.A1 to A5 and A12. The appellate<\/p>\n
court held that though the plaintiffs have no absolute title and<\/p>\n
possession over the entire plaint schedule properties they can<\/p>\n
claim oodukoor right over the entire property in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule survey number basing on documents in their favour of<\/p>\n
title basing on adverse possession and limitation if they are in<\/p>\n
actual physical possession of the plaint schedule properties or<\/p>\n
portions thereof. After entering such finding the appellate court<\/p>\n
dismissed the appeal stating that there is no pleading or proof in<\/p>\n
that respect and therefore, the only course open to the court is<\/p>\n
the direct the plaintiffs to work out their remedy in a properly<\/p>\n
instituted suit.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   The trial court did not understand the scope and ambit<\/p>\n
of the suit. The trial court failed to consider the question of title<\/p>\n
in a suit for declaration of title and possession. No issues were<\/p>\n
framed and there was no adjudication on the point. Finding that<\/p>\n
the trial court has committed mistakes, the lower appellate court<\/p>\n
                               ::6::\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.654 Of 1995<\/p>\n
framed the issue regarding the title and proceeded further to<\/p>\n
decide the case on merits.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   Trial court proceeded with the suit as if it is a suit for<\/p>\n
injunction and dismissed the suit finding that Ext.B1 delivery list<\/p>\n
is binding on the plaintiffs.  The lower appellate court took a<\/p>\n
reverse stand and held that Ext.B1 delivery list is not binding on<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs. At the same time, the lower appellate court held<\/p>\n
that the defendants did not got delivery of the entire extent<\/p>\n
shown in Ext.B1. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out<\/p>\n
that in the property delivered as per Ext.B1 there are no building<\/p>\n
whereas there are 4 plots in the southern portion of survey<\/p>\n
No.146\/1 and 146\/5 including the building described in item No.2<\/p>\n
and Exts.A6 to A11 assessment register show that the residential<\/p>\n
building of Thankayyan was there even prior to 1954.            The<\/p>\n
commissioner in Exts.C1 report and C2 plan mentioned about the<\/p>\n
existence of building in the property. The lower appellate court<\/p>\n
held that as per the documents       relied on by the plaintiffs,<\/p>\n
namely, Exts.A1 to A5 and A12, specific plots were conveyed.<\/p>\n
But the relief claimed in the plaint was refused for the reason<\/p>\n
that the joint holders have effected partition and plaintiffs’<\/p>\n
                                  ::7::\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.654 Of 1995<\/p>\n
predecessor did not get absolute title as per the documents.<\/p>\n
      8.    The present suit was filed for declaration of title and<\/p>\n
possession. Suit was filed in the year 1977. The question to be<\/p>\n
adjudicated in the suit is as to whether the plaintiffs have right,<\/p>\n
title and possession over the plaint schedule property. If the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs failed to prove title and possession, the course open to<\/p>\n
the fact findings courts is to dismiss the suit. The court cannot<\/p>\n
relegate the plaintiff to file another suit for the very same reliefs.<\/p>\n
In this case the trial court did not examined the question of title<\/p>\n
at all. The lower appellate court entered the findings mostly in<\/p>\n
favour of the plaintiffs and dismissed the appeal mainly for the<\/p>\n
reason that there is no partition of the entire property by the co-<\/p>\n
owners.\n<\/p>\n
      9.    The learned counsel for the appellant contended that<\/p>\n
by the conduct of executing these documents show that specific<\/p>\n
plots were conveyed to the plaintiffs and therefore observation of<\/p>\n
the lower appellate court is incorrect.          The counsel further<\/p>\n
submits that it is solely based on wrong understanding of the<\/p>\n
questions involved in the case and a misreading of the said<\/p>\n
documents.        The learned counsel also submits that the<\/p>\n
                                 ::8::\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.654 Of 1995<\/p>\n
observation of the lower appellate court that the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
no case that the joint title holders have effected partition is also<\/p>\n
incorrect and such a finding was entered on a misunderstanding<\/p>\n
of the facts of the case and the documents. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
pointed out that the predecessors-in-interest have obtained<\/p>\n
specific plots as per the documents produced.         The case put<\/p>\n
forward by the plaintiffs that plaint schedule items are separate<\/p>\n
plots obtained as per the documents referred above and the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs were in possession of the said plots. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
also pointed out that in the commissioner’s report there is no<\/p>\n
building in the property taken delivery as per Ext.B1 delivery list.<\/p>\n
Considering the facts and circumstances and evidence on record,<\/p>\n
this Court is of the view that the stand adopted by the lower<\/p>\n
appellate court dismissing the appeal and directing the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
to institute a fresh suit for the very same reliefs is not a correct<\/p>\n
approach to the questions involved. The question as to whether<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs have title over the plaint schedule properties shall<\/p>\n
be decided by the fact findings courts on the basis of oral and<\/p>\n
documentary evidence and materials on record adduced by the<\/p>\n
parties. Finding that there is no proper appreciation of facts and<\/p>\n
                                 ::9::\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.654 Of 1995<\/p>\n
evidence, this Court is of the view that the matter requires re-<\/p>\n
consideration.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result, the appeal is allowed.      The judgment and<\/p>\n
decree passed by the courts below are set aside. The case is<\/p>\n
remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration and disposal in<\/p>\n
accordance with law.      The trial court shall consider the case<\/p>\n
afresh untrammeled by any of the observations and findings in<\/p>\n
any of the judgments. Parties are at liberty to adduce additional<\/p>\n
evidence, if so advised. The trial court shall dispose of the case<\/p>\n
within a period of nine months from the date of appearance of<\/p>\n
the parties. The parties shall appear before the court below on<\/p>\n
18.2.2011. Since there is no appearance for the respondents,<\/p>\n
the trial court shall issue notice to the contesting first defendant.<\/p>\n
No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                       Judge.\n<\/p>\n
bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Thankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 654 of 1995(C) 1. THANKAYYAN ABANIZAR … Petitioner Vs 1. M.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.L.MOHANAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :20\/01\/2011 O R D E R […]<\/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-51288","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011 - 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\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-15T02:29:08+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-15T02:29:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1787,\"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\\\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Thankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-15T02:29:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Thankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011 - 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\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-15T02:29:08+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-15T02:29:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011"},"wordCount":1787,"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\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011","name":"Thankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-15T02:29:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thankayyan-abanizar-vs-m-madhusoodhanan-nair-on-20-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thankayyan Abanizar vs M.Madhusoodhanan Nair on 20 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/51288","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=51288"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51288\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51288"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51288"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51288"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}