{"id":53352,"date":"2010-09-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-05T21:04:58","modified_gmt":"2018-04-05T15:34:58","slug":"thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Thanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Thanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 211 of 1995()\n\n\n\n1. THANAKA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SUKUMARAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :13\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n                   ...........................................\n                        A.S.NO.211 OF 1995\n                  .............................................\n         Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010.\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and<\/p>\n
decree of the      Subordinate Judge’s Court,                     Palakkad in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.201\/1983.      Originally the suit was decreed and the<\/p>\n
matter   came     up      before         this      Court       in  appeal    as<\/p>\n
A.S.No.357\/1986.      The judgment was set aside and it was<\/p>\n
remanded. Against that order, AFA.No.55\/1990 was filed and<\/p>\n
this Court disposed of the AFA by directing the trial court to<\/p>\n
consider the matter afresh in the light of the observations<\/p>\n
contained in the judgment or in other words,                       directed the<\/p>\n
trial court to consider the question whether the Will has<\/p>\n
been proved to be genuine and whether suspicion created<\/p>\n
by the plaintiffs by pointing out various circumstances has<\/p>\n
been removed. For this purpose, the court can look into<\/p>\n
the evidence     already adduced and                    the evidence     to be<\/p>\n
adduced after the remand.\n<\/p>\n
     2. After the remand,             in the trial            court  PW3 was<\/p>\n
examined and Exts.A6 to A8 were marked. On the side of the<\/p>\n
                             : 2 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.211 OF 1995<\/p>\n
defendants Dws 4 to 7 were examined and Exts.B2 to B6<\/p>\n
were marked. On an analysis of the materials, the trial<\/p>\n
court came to the conclusion that both the Wills – Exts.B1<\/p>\n
and B2 are genuine and they are not surrounded by any<\/p>\n
suspicious circumstances and therefore dismissed the suit of<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
     3.   Before   analysing   the   facts of the case, it is<\/p>\n
worthwhile to state the position of law with respect to Will.<\/p>\n
In the decision reported in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v.<\/p>\n
B.N. Thimmajamma (AIR<\/a> 1959 SC 443), the Hon’ble Apex<\/p>\n
Court has held that it is always the duty of the propounder<\/p>\n
to prove the Will and remove any suspicious circumstances<\/p>\n
even surrounding the execution of the Will. The Court also<\/p>\n
held that the person who had written the document is no<\/p>\n
more and it is trying to find out the truth by sitting on the<\/p>\n
arm chair of the testator.\n<\/p>\n
     4. The brief facts would reveal that the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property belonged to     one Appuchamy.     Plaintiffs are the<\/p>\n
three children of Appuchamy born in three different wives<\/p>\n
namely Ammu, Meenakshi and Malu. The sole defendant is<\/p>\n
                               : 3 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.211 OF 1995<\/p>\n
the wife of    deceased Appuchamy.       It is the case of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs that Appuchamy died and on his death, the property<\/p>\n
had devolved upon the three daughters and the wife and<\/p>\n
therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to 3 out of 4 shares in<\/p>\n
the property.\n<\/p>\n
     5. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that<\/p>\n
during the life time of Appuchamy on 18.2.1970, he had<\/p>\n
executed a Will and therefore by virtue of the Will, on his<\/p>\n
death the property had devolved upon the defendants and<\/p>\n
therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. It has<\/p>\n
also come out now that the sole defendant is dead and by<\/p>\n
virtue of another   Will executed     in the year    1980,   the<\/p>\n
property had devolved upon supplemental defendants            2<\/p>\n
and 3.\n<\/p>\n
     6. Now the question to be considered by virtue of the<\/p>\n
order of remand is whether the Will is genuine and there are<\/p>\n
any suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of<\/p>\n
Will which would invalidate the Will. So far as execution of<\/p>\n
the Will and proof of the Will under Section 63 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Succession Act, the trial court, the first appellate court as<\/p>\n
                              : 4 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.211 OF 1995<\/p>\n
well as AFA court had found that the Will is executed by<\/p>\n
this Appuchamy and its execution has been properly proved.<\/p>\n
       7. When the matter was heard by a learned single<\/p>\n
Judge of this Court, His Lordship found that there are certain<\/p>\n
circumstances   which requires explanation      and   if it not<\/p>\n
properly    explained     would     amount     to    suspicious<\/p>\n
circumstance regarding the      genuineness of the Will.   The<\/p>\n
Division Bench while considering the AFA also has pointed<\/p>\n
out the same and those suspicious circumstances that are<\/p>\n
enumerated are:\n<\/p>\n
      (1) Exclusion of all the children as legatees in the Will.<\/p>\n
     (2). Blank spaces are seen at the top and bottom in<\/p>\n
          page 3 of Ext.B1 Will.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3). Attestors signed only on the last page where no<\/p>\n
          portion of the contents of the Will is written.<\/p>\n
     (4). Unnatural placing of signatures of attestors and<\/p>\n
          testator on the last page of the Will.<\/p>\n
      (5) The scribe has not been examined to prove the<\/p>\n
          reason for the leaving space on page No.3.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8. The first appellate court felt that other than point<\/p>\n
                              : 5 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.211 OF 1995<\/p>\n
No.1 all others are explained. But the Division Bench felt<\/p>\n
that all these may have to be considered together to arrive<\/p>\n
at a correct decision. The principal point canvassed is that<\/p>\n
natural heirs had been disinherited and the only one heir is<\/p>\n
given the entire property which is really unreasonable and<\/p>\n
that would create     suspicion in the mind of a person. Much<\/p>\n
case law has been relied on this subject and it has been held<\/p>\n
in very many decisions that mere exclusion of a natural heir<\/p>\n
by itself does not amount to suspect the genuineness of the<\/p>\n
Will. But     so far as this case is concerned, there is a<\/p>\n
contention for the contesting defendants that each of these<\/p>\n
three daughters had been given 4 acres of wet land and 2<\/p>\n
acres of dry land during the life time of Appuchamy prior<\/p>\n
to his death. In order to impress the said fact, the defendants<\/p>\n
after the remand had produced Exts.B2 to B7 and had also<\/p>\n
examined DW7. Ext.B3 is an agreement which is not<\/p>\n
registered. It is an agreement executed by three sons-in-law<\/p>\n
of Appuchamy in favour of Appuchamy whereby each of them<\/p>\n
had taken possession of 4 acres of double crop land and two<\/p>\n
acres of dry land. Exts.B4 and B5 are partition deed as<\/p>\n
                              : 6 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.211 OF 1995<\/p>\n
well as assignment deed which would refer to nature of the<\/p>\n
property whereby it can be seen that the property dealt<\/p>\n
with by them really belonged to Appuchamy. It is true that<\/p>\n
agreement by itself does not confer any title on the parties,<\/p>\n
but in one of the documents it is clearly recited that it had<\/p>\n
devolved upon them even. So it is very clear that during the<\/p>\n
life time of Appuchamy, the property as described in Ext.B3<\/p>\n
had come into possession of the three daughters through<\/p>\n
their husbands and there is even apportionment of the rent<\/p>\n
for the property obtained by them. DW7 namely Aru who is<\/p>\n
an attesting witness to the said agreement had spoken about<\/p>\n
the factum of   mediation pursuant to which properties had<\/p>\n
been put into possession of the three sons-in-law. Therefore<\/p>\n
the evidence of DW7 coupled with Exts.B3 to B5 documents<\/p>\n
would establish that during the life time of Appuchamy he<\/p>\n
had granted 4 acres of double crop and 2 acres of dry<\/p>\n
land to the children and therefore one shall not hold that<\/p>\n
there had been no     parting of property in favour of the<\/p>\n
children.   Admittedly under Ext.B3 document, no property<\/p>\n
has been given to the wife and therefore, it cannot be held<\/p>\n
                              : 7 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.211 OF 1995<\/p>\n
that there is no justification for executing    Ext.B1 Will in<\/p>\n
favour of the wife – Kuttiamalu.    So,  the   attempt of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs to raise a suspicious circumstance by unequal<\/p>\n
distribution of assets does not detain us long to hold that<\/p>\n
the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances.<\/p>\n
       9. The next point noted by the Division Bench and<\/p>\n
Single Bench of this Court is regarding point Nos.2 to 4<\/p>\n
which deals with some blank spaces, attestors signatures<\/p>\n
only in the last page and unnatural placing of the signatures.<\/p>\n
       10. I had meticulously scanned through the Will. The<\/p>\n
blank    space seen on the    third page of the Will is   self<\/p>\n
explanatory. It can be seen that body of the Will ends in the<\/p>\n
3rd page and the schedule starts on the 4th page. Normally<\/p>\n
when     documents are written and     property schedules are<\/p>\n
attached it is nothing but a common practice among the<\/p>\n
scribes to start schedule of the property in a new page. So<\/p>\n
mere leaving space in page 3 does not by itself create a<\/p>\n
suspicious circumstance. It has also        to be stated that<\/p>\n
normally in Will which we come across in civil litigation,<\/p>\n
the attestors do not sign in each page but only sign in the<\/p>\n
                                : 8 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.211 OF 1995<\/p>\n
last page of the Will. That is what is precisely done in this<\/p>\n
case also.   After attaching the     schedule in the last page,<\/p>\n
name of the       witnesses are      shown.   They had signed<\/p>\n
thereafter the scribe had also signed and then the executant<\/p>\n
had also signed.\n<\/p>\n
     11. I do not find any suspicious circumstance arising<\/p>\n
out of such conduct by the scribe. Therefore one cannot<\/p>\n
hold that mere gap somewhere in the document is               a<\/p>\n
suspicious circumstance to vitiate the genuineness of the<\/p>\n
will. I do not find any unnatural interpolation or omission<\/p>\n
in the document so as to make an appearance of imperfection<\/p>\n
or fraud. Therefore those points are also to be held against<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs in this case.\n<\/p>\n
     12. Lastly regarding non-examination of the scribe.<\/p>\n
The trial court had considered this aspect and held that when<\/p>\n
really there are no      sufficient  suspicious circumstances,<\/p>\n
which would militate against the correctness of the document,<\/p>\n
non examination of the scribe cannot be held to be fatal. The<\/p>\n
trial court held that it is not necessary to examine the scribe<\/p>\n
under such circumstance when          execution of the Will has<\/p>\n
                               : 9 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.211 OF 1995<\/p>\n
been proved by examination of both the attesting witnesses.<\/p>\n
So an over all analysis of the entire materials placed before<\/p>\n
the court,   execution and attestation of the document and<\/p>\n
mental capacity of the     executant    are proved. It is also<\/p>\n
proved that property had been given to the persons who are<\/p>\n
excluded from the Will previously and the document only<\/p>\n
puts up a natural look and it does not create any suspicion<\/p>\n
in the mind of the court regarding genuineness.<\/p>\n
       13. Admittedly Appuchamy was being looked after by<\/p>\n
his wife and as daughters had been already provided, he<\/p>\n
thought it fit to provide it to the wife and had executed the<\/p>\n
Will. So an exhaustive consideration, I also hold that Ext.B1<\/p>\n
Will is genuine and therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled<\/p>\n
to any relief.\n<\/p>\n
      14. Now comes the correctness of Ext.B2. Unfortunately<\/p>\n
during the pendency of the suit the original defendant died<\/p>\n
and sisters children of the defendants are claiming property<\/p>\n
under Ext.B2 Will.      The trial court has    considered the<\/p>\n
evidence with respect to Ext.B2 Will. The attestors have<\/p>\n
been examined and scribe has been examined and they have<\/p>\n
                              : 10 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.211 OF 1995<\/p>\n
proved about the mental capacity of Kuttimalu and also the<\/p>\n
fact that both the attesting witnesses had seen the executant<\/p>\n
signing the document and the executant had seen both the<\/p>\n
attesting witnesses signing the document and therefore the<\/p>\n
burden under Section 63 of the       Indian Succession Act is<\/p>\n
properly discharged by them.\n<\/p>\n
      15. It is also to be stated that Will is executed in the<\/p>\n
year 1980 whereas the plaintiffs had instituted the suit in<\/p>\n
the year 1983 and therefore there was no bad intention for<\/p>\n
Kuttimalu or the supplemental defendants          2 and 3 to<\/p>\n
create a Will three years prior to the institution of the suit.<\/p>\n
That is why it is often said men may lie but the circumstances<\/p>\n
will never lie. The trial court had considered and analysed<\/p>\n
the evidence of attesting witnesses and the propounder and<\/p>\n
had arrived at a decision Ext.B2 properly. Therefore the<\/p>\n
finding that Ext.B2 is valid and genuine has to be upheld.<\/p>\n
Since Ext.B2 Will is proved to be true, genuine, valid and<\/p>\n
free of    any suspicious    circumstances,    consequently it<\/p>\n
follows that plaintiffs are not entitled to get any right over<\/p>\n
the property and therefore, the finding of the trial court to<\/p>\n
                             : 11 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.211 OF 1995<\/p>\n
that effect does not call for any interference and therefore<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of the trial court are confirmed and<\/p>\n
the appeal is dismissed under circumstances without any<\/p>\n
orders as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
cl<\/p>\n
                      : 12 :<\/span>
\nA.S.NO.211 OF 1995<\/p>\n
                         M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                         …………………………………….
\n                         A.S.NO.211 OF 1995
\n                         ………………………………………
\n                         13th day of September, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
                         J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Thanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 211 of 1995() 1. THANAKA … Petitioner Vs 1. SUKUMARAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.) For Respondent :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :13\/09\/2010 O R D E R M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ……………………………………. […]<\/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-53352","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-05T15:34:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-05T15:34:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2011,\"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\\\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Thanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-05T15:34:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Thanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-05T15:34:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-05T15:34:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010"},"wordCount":2011,"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\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010","name":"Thanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-05T15:34:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thanaka-vs-sukumaran-on-13-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thanaka vs Sukumaran on 13 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53352","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=53352"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53352\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}