{"id":53210,"date":"2007-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007"},"modified":"2014-01-28T22:31:22","modified_gmt":"2014-01-28T17:01:22","slug":"manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Manoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Manoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA No. 768 of 2007()\n\n\n1. MANOHARAN, S\/O. VELUKUTTY, AGED 43,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SREEJA, D\/O. NAGAMMA, AGED 34,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. G. DASAMMA, D\/O. GRACY, AGED 72 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. NIRMALA,D\/O. GRACY, AGED 70\n\n3. BABU,S\/O. KOCHAPPI, AGED 58\n\n4. G. KAMALAM DO\/. GRACY, AGED 56\n\n5. G. RAJAMMA, D\/O. GRACY, AGED 54,\n\n6. VASANTHA, AGED 32, VIJI NIVAS,\n\n7. NADESAN,S\/O. VELUKUTTY, AGED 47 YEARS,\n\n8. SABU, S\/O. VELUKUTTY,AGED 40\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.GOPAN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :06\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n            ===========================\n             R.S.A. NO.768     OF 2007\n            ===========================\n\n     Dated this the 6th day of September, 2007\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    Defendants 2 and 4 in O.S.185\/2004 on the file<\/p>\n
of     Munsiff     Court,     Neyyattinkara     are<\/p>\n
appellants.Respondents 1 to 6 are   plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
other    respondents    are    other    defendants.<\/p>\n
Respondents instituted the suit seeking a decree<\/p>\n
for  partition  contending  that  plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property originally belonged to father ofplaintiffs<\/p>\n
Daveed Kochappi father of respondents\/plaintiffs<\/p>\n
and he filed a petition for purchase of kudikidappu<\/p>\n
before the Land Tribunal, Vellarada and during the<\/p>\n
pendency of  proceedings, Daveed  Kochappi died and<\/p>\n
thereafter Gracy  mother of plaintiffs  got herself<\/p>\n
impleaded and later the case was compromised and a<\/p>\n
purchase certificate was obtained   in the name of<\/p>\n
Gracy and appellants and respondents 7 and 8 who<\/p>\n
are  defendants 1 to 4    are the   legal heirs of<\/p>\n
deceased  Ponnamma, sister of respondents 1 to 5<\/p>\n
R.S.A.768\/2007              2<\/span><\/p>\n
and deceased third plaintiff       and Gracy died in<\/p>\n
1991 and respondents 1 to 7 are entitled to 6 out<\/p>\n
of 8 shares in the plaint schedule property and<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession<\/p>\n
of    the property and therefore they are entitled to<\/p>\n
get their shares separated.      Appellants in their<\/p>\n
written statement contended that Daveed Kochappi<\/p>\n
had no right in the plaint schedule property and<\/p>\n
only after marrying Gracy, Kochappi started living<\/p>\n
in     the property and he had no kudikidappu right<\/p>\n
over the property and Gracy alone had kudikidappu<\/p>\n
right and in O.A.552\/1970 purchase certificate was<\/p>\n
issued in the name of Gracy and on the strength    of<\/p>\n
the purchase certificate Gracy is the absolute<\/p>\n
owner of the       property and she transferred   the<\/p>\n
property in favour of first appellant who is the<\/p>\n
second defendant, as per sale deed No.258\/92 for<\/p>\n
valuable      consideration and he  is  a  bona  fide<\/p>\n
purchaser and      has effected mutation and has been<\/p>\n
paying tax and therefore respondents 1 to 6 are not<\/p>\n
entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
R.S.A.768\/2007               3<\/span><\/p>\n
property and suit is only to be dismissed.      It was<\/p>\n
also contended that 3rd respondent\/4th plaintiff had<\/p>\n
filed     an   application  for  kudikidappu  right  as<\/p>\n
O.A.15\/2004 and that application was dismissed and<\/p>\n
as Gracy sold her right during her life time she<\/p>\n
had     no    right over   the  property  which   would<\/p>\n
devolve      after her death and therefore the  suit is<\/p>\n
only to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Learned Munsiff on evidence of PW1, DW1 and<\/p>\n
DW2, Exts. A1 to A3, B1 to B9 granted a preliminary<\/p>\n
decree      holding  that  Kochappi  was  the  original<\/p>\n
kudikidappukaran     and   he  filed  O.A.552\/1970  for<\/p>\n
purchase of kudikidappu right and Gracygot      herself<\/p>\n
impleaded as legal heir of Kochappi and obtained<\/p>\n
purchase certificate in that capacity and it      shall<\/p>\n
enure to the benefit of all the legal heirs of<\/p>\n
Kochappi.      Relying on the decision of this court in<\/p>\n
Moothorakutty v. Chiruthakutty(1995 (1) KLT 251) it<\/p>\n
was held that Ext.B1 purchase certificate shall<\/p>\n
enure to the benefit of Gracy as well as plaintiffs<\/p>\n
and legal heirs of deceased Ponnamma the sister of<\/p>\n
R.S.A.768\/2007               4<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiffs.      Learned Munsiff also found that as per<\/p>\n
Ext.B2 sale deed executed Gracy, her       1\/8 share in<\/p>\n
the property was transferred and therefore apart<\/p>\n
from the share of Ponnamma, appellants are entitled<\/p>\n
to     the share of Gracy also and plaintiffs are<\/p>\n
entitled to get remaining 6\/8 shares. Preliminary<\/p>\n
decree      was  passed.    Appellants  challenged  the<\/p>\n
decree and judgment before Sub Court, Neyyattinkara<\/p>\n
in      A.S.74\/2006.        Learned   Sub   Judge    on<\/p>\n
reappreciation of evidence confirmed the findings<\/p>\n
of learned Munsiff and dismissed the appeal.      It is<\/p>\n
challenged in the      second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      3.      Learned counsel appearing for appellants<\/p>\n
was heard.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    The argument of learned counsel   was that<\/p>\n
Kochappi was not a kudikidappukaran and it was<\/p>\n
specifically pleaded by appellants that the         hut<\/p>\n
was    constructed    by  father  of  Gracy  and   Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal       granted Ext.B1 purchase certificate to<\/p>\n
Gracy alone and not to the legal heirs of Kochappi<\/p>\n
and therefore Gracy was the absolute owner of the<\/p>\n
R.S.A.768\/2007               5<\/span><\/p>\n
property by virtue of Ext.B1 and     under Ext.B2 sale<\/p>\n
deed, that right was purchased by first appellant<\/p>\n
and therefore on the death of Gracy, no right over<\/p>\n
the property was devolved on her children and the<\/p>\n
preliminary      decree  granted by courts  below  is<\/p>\n
unsustainable.       Learned counsel also argued that<\/p>\n
even if properties are available for partition, the<\/p>\n
share computed by courts below is incorrect, as on<\/p>\n
the death of Kochappi, under        Indian Succession<\/p>\n
Act, 1\/3       share would devolve on the   widow and<\/p>\n
under Ext.B2 first appellant is entitled to that<\/p>\n
share        apart from the share, due to deceased<\/p>\n
Ponnamma.       Learned counsel further argued that<\/p>\n
Ext.B2 sale deed is not a void sale deed and<\/p>\n
Gracy is entitled to transfer her right in the<\/p>\n
property and without getting        Ext.B2 sale deed<\/p>\n
set aside, plaintiffs are not entitled to the<\/p>\n
decree sought for.\n<\/p>\n
      5.     On hearing the learned counsel, I do not<\/p>\n
find any substantial questions of law involved in<\/p>\n
the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.768\/2007              6<\/span><\/p>\n
      6.     It is not disputed that the   kudikidappu<\/p>\n
application pursuant to which Ext.B1 was granted,<\/p>\n
was filed by Kochappi.     It is only after the death<\/p>\n
of Kochappi, Gracy his wife was impleaded as his<\/p>\n
legal heir and continued to prosecute        the O.A.<\/p>\n
Proceedings.        Ext.B1  purchase  certificate  was<\/p>\n
granted in that O.A. Though it was granted      in the<\/p>\n
name of Gracy, courts below on appreciating the<\/p>\n
evidence found that kudikidappu right granted in<\/p>\n
favour of Gracy under Ext.B1 shall enure to the<\/p>\n
benefit of all the legal heirs.      The principle is<\/p>\n
correct in view of the decision of this court in<\/p>\n
Moothorakutty’s case (supra).\n<\/p>\n
      7.      Though  learned  counsel    argued  that<\/p>\n
computation of       shares is not correct, I cannot<\/p>\n
agree      with  the  said  submission  also.   Though<\/p>\n
Kochappi      was a  kudikidappukaran,  on  his  death<\/p>\n
that kudikidappu right devolved on all the legal<\/p>\n
heirs including the      widow and children. Till the<\/p>\n
kudikidappu was purchased it cannot be said that<\/p>\n
Kochappi was the owner of the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
R.S.A.768\/2007              7<\/span><\/p>\n
property.     Till the purchase he has only the status<\/p>\n
of kudikidappukaran.     He was entitled to purchase<\/p>\n
the kudikidappu.      As it was not purchased during<\/p>\n
his life time it was that status which devolved on<\/p>\n
his legal heirs.     Therefore   widow is not entitled<\/p>\n
to claim 1\/3rd share.    Instead she is only entitled<\/p>\n
to get share along with the children who are also<\/p>\n
entitled to equal share. As found by courts below,<\/p>\n
in view of Ext.B1 purchase certificate issued by<\/p>\n
the Land Tribunal and     under Ext.B2 sale deed that<\/p>\n
right was transferred to first appellant,        first<\/p>\n
appellant is       entitled to the share of Gracy.<\/p>\n
Along with that share, children of Ponnamma are<\/p>\n
entitled to the share due to Ponnamma.          Courts<\/p>\n
below on the evidence rightly found that appellants<\/p>\n
are entitled to only the 1\/8 share of Gracy along<\/p>\n
with     the   1\/8 share  of  deceased  Ponnamma   and<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are entitled to the remaining 6\/8 share.<\/p>\n
      Appeal is dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
                                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
\n                                           JUDGE
\ntpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A.768\/2007    8\n\nM.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n\n\n\n\n   ---------------------\n    W.P.(C).NO. \/06\n   ---------------------\n\n\n       JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n\n    SEPTEMBER,2006\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Manoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA No. 768 of 2007() 1. MANOHARAN, S\/O. VELUKUTTY, AGED 43, … Petitioner 2. SREEJA, D\/O. NAGAMMA, AGED 34, Vs 1. G. DASAMMA, D\/O. GRACY, AGED 72 YEARS, … Respondent 2. NIRMALA,D\/O. GRACY, AGED 70 3. […]<\/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-53210","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nManoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007 - 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\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Manoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-28T17:01:22+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\\\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Manoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-28T17:01:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1132,\"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\\\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Manoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-28T17:01:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Manoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Manoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007 - 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\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Manoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-28T17:01:22+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\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Manoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-28T17:01:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007"},"wordCount":1132,"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\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007","name":"Manoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-28T17:01:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/manoharan-vs-g-dasamma-on-6-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Manoharan vs G. Dasamma on 6 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/53210","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=53210"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53210\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}