{"id":535,"date":"2010-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-06T22:52:22","modified_gmt":"2018-07-06T17:22:22","slug":"purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Purushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Purushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 592 of 1999(D)\n\n\n\n1. PURUSHOTHAMAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. CHANDRASEKHARAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.DILIP J.AKKARA\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :19\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n              S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n           -----------------------------------------------\n                    S.A.NO.592 OF 1999\n           -----------------------------------------------\n        Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The 2nd defendant in O.S.No.96 of 1988 on the file of<\/p>\n
the Munsiff Court, Kodungalloor had preferred this second<\/p>\n
appeal. He passed away pending the appeal and then his<\/p>\n
legal heir (son) was impleaded as additional 2nd appellant.<\/p>\n
Challenge in the appeal is against the concurrent decision<\/p>\n
rendered by the two courts below granting a decree<\/p>\n
declaring the right of prescriptive easement over plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule, a pathway by the respondents\/plaintiffs and also a<\/p>\n
perpetual prohibitory injunction against the defendants in<\/p>\n
the suit from causing any obstruction to the plaintiffs in<\/p>\n
enjoyment of such right.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     2.   The dispute involved in the case, admittedly, is<\/p>\n
confined to the width of the pathway and also whether<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule takes in portions of a thodu running along<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.592\/1999                2<\/span><\/p>\n
the northern extremities of the property of the 1st defendant<\/p>\n
in the suit.    The 1st defendant is the wife of the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant. Plaintiffs alleged that the B schedule pathway<\/p>\n
running through the northern extremities of the properties<\/p>\n
of the 1st defendant in east west direction, is being enjoyed<\/p>\n
by them as of right for the last more than fifty years<\/p>\n
uninterruptedly and peacefully and they have acquired<\/p>\n
prescriptive easement over that pathway for ingress and<\/p>\n
egress to their residential building comprised in the<\/p>\n
property situate to the west of that pathway. The immediate<\/p>\n
cause for filing of the suit, according to the plaintiffs, was<\/p>\n
the attempt made by the defendants to put up a boundary<\/p>\n
wall on the northern side of their property encroaching<\/p>\n
upon portions of B schedule pathway. The defendants, both<\/p>\n
of them, together filed a joint written statement contending<\/p>\n
that the plaintiffs have no right of easement over B schedule<\/p>\n
pathway and its description was per se wrong. Contending<\/p>\n
that the 2nd defendant was an unnecessary party to the suit,<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs resisted the suit claim asserting that the<\/p>\n
pathway situate on the north of the property of the 1st<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.592\/1999               3<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant is only having a width of 2 to 3 feet. It was the<\/p>\n
further case of the defendants that just to the south of that<\/p>\n
pathway through the northern extremities of the property of<\/p>\n
the 1st defendant, there is a water channel, which, by the<\/p>\n
flow of rain water from east to west to a water tank situate<\/p>\n
on the south western side, at some places had been filled up<\/p>\n
and the portions covered by the water channel running<\/p>\n
through the property of the defendants are mischievously<\/p>\n
included in B schedule pathway by the plaintiffs as if over<\/p>\n
such a pathway they have obtained right of prescriptive<\/p>\n
easement.      The defendants have a right to put up a<\/p>\n
boundary wall to the north of the channel which pass<\/p>\n
through the property of the 1st defendant was their case to<\/p>\n
resist the reliefs canvassed by the plaintiffs in their suit.<\/p>\n
The trial court, after appreciating the materials tendered in<\/p>\n
the case by the parties, which consisted of PWs.1 to 3 and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A4 for the plaintiffs and DW1 for the defendants,<\/p>\n
and Exts.C1 to C4, the reports and plans prepared by an<\/p>\n
advocate commissioner, found the claims of the plaintiffs for<\/p>\n
declaration of prescriptive easement over B schedule and<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.592\/1999               4<\/span><\/p>\n
also for perpetual prohibitory injunction against the<\/p>\n
defendants from causing any obstruction to their enjoyment<\/p>\n
over that pathway are well-founded and thereupon,<\/p>\n
negativing the challenges raised to such claims by the<\/p>\n
defendants, the suit was decreed as canvassed for.       The<\/p>\n
lower appellate court, after re-appreciating the materials,<\/p>\n
confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the<\/p>\n
appeal preferred by the defendants against the decree<\/p>\n
granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The decision so rendered<\/p>\n
by the two courts below holding that the plaintiffs are<\/p>\n
entitled to the declaration of their right of prescriptive<\/p>\n
easement over B schedule pathway and also an injunction<\/p>\n
against the defendants is challenged in this appeal filed by<\/p>\n
the 2nd defendant, and after his death, prosecuted by his<\/p>\n
legal representative, the additional 2nd appellant.   Pending<\/p>\n
the appeal before the courts below, it is stated in the<\/p>\n
memorandum of appeal, the 1st defendant had passed away,<\/p>\n
but evidently none was brought on record as her legal<\/p>\n
representative in such appeal.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.592\/1999               5<\/span><\/p>\n
       3. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the<\/p>\n
concurrent findings entered by the two courts below with<\/p>\n
respect to the existence of B schedule pathway and its<\/p>\n
enjoyment by the plaintiffs contending that the materials<\/p>\n
tendered in the case, especially the reports of the advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner, clearly demonstrate that such pathway is<\/p>\n
having uneven width at different places, and when a claim<\/p>\n
for a declaration of prescriptive easement is canvassed for,<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs were bound to state with precision the material<\/p>\n
particulars of the pathway and its identity with concrete<\/p>\n
evidence. The learned counsel further contended that the<\/p>\n
case of the plaintiffs was that B schedule was outside the<\/p>\n
property of the defendants, and such being the case<\/p>\n
advanced, no decree for declaration of prescriptive<\/p>\n
easement over B schedule pathway could have been granted<\/p>\n
by the courts as was wrongly done in the present case. The<\/p>\n
width of the footsteps on the east for getting to the public<\/p>\n
road and also the features noticed by the commissioner that<\/p>\n
a major portion of B schedule claimed by the plaintiffs are at<\/p>\n
uneven levels by the flow of rain water from east to west,<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.592\/1999               6<\/span><\/p>\n
according to the counsel, substantiated the defense raised<\/p>\n
that a water channel pass through the northern extremities<\/p>\n
of the property of the 1st defendant and B schedule is<\/p>\n
described as taking in that water channel as well to claim<\/p>\n
prescriptive easement by the plaintiffs. Reliance was placed<\/p>\n
by the counsel in Smt.Anguri and others v. Jiwan Dss<\/p>\n
and<\/a> another (AIR 1988 SC 2024) to contend the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
cannot be permitted to increase the burden of easement on<\/p>\n
servient owner setting up a larger claim than that was<\/p>\n
available and enjoyed by them as a right of easement. By<\/p>\n
seeking a declaration of easement over B schedule as<\/p>\n
described in the plaint, according to the counsel, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs were blocking the natural water channel flowing<\/p>\n
through the northern extremities of the property of the 1st<\/p>\n
defendant and the right of easement so claimed by them was<\/p>\n
not at all allowable.      But both the courts, without<\/p>\n
appreciating the materials in the proper perspective,<\/p>\n
forming wrong conclusions, granted the decree imputed in<\/p>\n
the appeal in favour of the plaintiffs and it is liable to be set<\/p>\n
aside, according to the counsel.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.592\/1999               7<\/span><\/p>\n
       4. Though the learned counsel for the appellant had<\/p>\n
raised some arguments that the declaration of easement of<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule was claimed by the plaintiffs as if they<\/p>\n
were setting up such a right contending that part of the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule is a public way and the rest formed part of<\/p>\n
the property of the 1st defendant, after going through the<\/p>\n
pleadings and also the materials tendered and also<\/p>\n
adjudication made by both the courts on the issues involved,<\/p>\n
I find there was no such case for the defendants either in<\/p>\n
the pleadings or before the courts below. Further more,<\/p>\n
there is nothing on record to indicate that the plaintiffs had<\/p>\n
at any point of time set up a case over B schedule as if the<\/p>\n
part of it was enjoyed as a public way and the rest alone<\/p>\n
under the servient tenement of the 1st defendant. Perusing<\/p>\n
the concurrent decisions rendered by the two courts below,<\/p>\n
I find that the challenges raised against the decree that the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration of easement and<\/p>\n
also injunction are meritless.   It has come out from the<\/p>\n
evidence that the 1st defendant examined as DW.1 that the<\/p>\n
fence put up in her property is to the south of the plaint<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.592\/1999              8<\/span><\/p>\n
schedule, that is, beyond the water channel claimed as<\/p>\n
running through her property. Further more, during the<\/p>\n
pendency of the suit, she had executed A4 sale deed in<\/p>\n
respect of ten cents of land in north south direction on the<\/p>\n
eastern side of her property. In that document also, the<\/p>\n
northern boundary of the property conveyed was shown as<\/p>\n
the pathway. A3 was executed in favour of one Co-operative<\/p>\n
Society and it has come out that its execution was after that<\/p>\n
society obtaining approval from the competent authorities.<\/p>\n
If the case of the 1st defendant is to be accepted over the<\/p>\n
water channel, which is claimed as running from east to<\/p>\n
west through the northern extremity of her property, she<\/p>\n
retained her proprietary right after execution of A3 deed<\/p>\n
even in respect of partition of the channel situate to the<\/p>\n
north of the ten cents of land conveyed under that deed.<\/p>\n
During the rainy season, water from the public road situate<\/p>\n
on the north runs through a portion of the pathway, to a<\/p>\n
nearby water bank situated on the southwest in no way<\/p>\n
indicate that there is only a pathway of two or three feet,<\/p>\n
and not as described in the plaint schedule.         The 1st<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.592\/1999               9<\/span><\/p>\n
defendant had obtained right over the property situated to<\/p>\n
the south of the plaint schedule pathway under A2 partition<\/p>\n
deed.      In that deed also the northern boundary of the<\/p>\n
property allotted to the 1st defendant is described as<\/p>\n
‘idavazhy’ (pathway). Similarly in A3 deed relating to the<\/p>\n
property owned by a close-by neighbour situate to the north<\/p>\n
of the plaint schedule, the southern boundary of that<\/p>\n
property is shown as the ‘idavazhi’.      In none of these<\/p>\n
documents there is any mention of any water channel close<\/p>\n
to the pathway or such a channel running through the<\/p>\n
northern extremities of the 1st defendants property. Plaint<\/p>\n
schedule is lying on a lower level from the rest of the<\/p>\n
property of the 1st defendant situated on its southern side is<\/p>\n
not indicative of the existence of a water channel through<\/p>\n
the northern extremities of the 1st defendant’s property.<\/p>\n
Similarly, the width of the stepping stones near the public<\/p>\n
road which are comparatively less when compared to the<\/p>\n
width of the pathway is also not a determining factor to hold<\/p>\n
that the description of the plaint schedule is wrong and the<\/p>\n
pathway has got only a lesser extent. The commissioner has<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.592\/1999             10<\/span><\/p>\n
reported that the pathway has uneven width of ten to twelve<\/p>\n
feet at various places and not ten feet uniform by, as<\/p>\n
described in the schedule, is hardly sufficient to negative<\/p>\n
the claim for declaration canvassed by the plaintiff where<\/p>\n
the existence of the pathway, though, disputed by the<\/p>\n
defendants, and its right of enjoyment by the plaintiffs is<\/p>\n
established by the materials. The decision relied by the<\/p>\n
counsel Smt.Anguri and others v. Jiwan Dss and<\/a><\/p>\n
another (AIR 1988 SC 2024) has no application to the<\/p>\n
facts of the case. That was a case where additional burden<\/p>\n
over the servient tenement was attempted to be brought in<\/p>\n
by the dominant tenement holder, and in that context,<\/p>\n
adverting to Section 23 of the Indian Easements Act, it was<\/p>\n
held that such increasing burden of easement on the<\/p>\n
servient owner cannot be approved or permitted.        That<\/p>\n
decision no way helps the present appellant where the<\/p>\n
resistance put by him that a water channel forming part of<\/p>\n
his property is claimed as a pathway has been found<\/p>\n
unacceptable by the courts below after appreciating the<\/p>\n
materials tendered in the case.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.592\/1999               11<\/span><\/p>\n
       5. It is also noticed that the second appeal has been<\/p>\n
preferred by the 2nd defendant in the suit, the husband of<\/p>\n
the 1st defendant. In the memorandum of appeal, it is stated<\/p>\n
that pending the appeal before the lower appellate court,<\/p>\n
the 1st defendant, the servient owner, through whose<\/p>\n
property easement was claimed by the plaintiffs, had passed<\/p>\n
away.       It appears that the appeal was continued and<\/p>\n
prosecuted by the 2nd defendant, who was the 2nd appellant,<\/p>\n
without impleading any other legal heirs of the deceased 1st<\/p>\n
defendant\/the 1st appellant.     Pending second appeal, the<\/p>\n
appellant\/2nd defendant too had passed away and his son<\/p>\n
had been impleaded as additional appellant. It is a moot<\/p>\n
point how far the challenge against the concurrent decision<\/p>\n
rendered by the courts below could be assailed by the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant or his legal representative when in the joint<\/p>\n
written statement filed by both the defendants, it was<\/p>\n
contended that the 2nd defendant was an unnecessary party<\/p>\n
to the suit and, further, the 1st defendant was the servient<\/p>\n
owner of the property.      Irrespective of that question, as<\/p>\n
indicated earlier, there is no merit in the challenges raised<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.592\/1999               12<\/span><\/p>\n
to impeach the concurrent decision rendered by the courts<\/p>\n
below holding that the respondents\/plaintiffs are entitled to<\/p>\n
the decree of easement and also decree of injunction against<\/p>\n
the defendants. There is no question of law, leave alone any<\/p>\n
substantial question of law in this appeal.<\/p>\n
       Appeal is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed<\/p>\n
directing both sides to suffer their respective costs.<\/p>\n
                                S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
\n                                             JUDGE<\/p>\n
prp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Purushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 592 of 1999(D) 1. PURUSHOTHAMAN … Petitioner Vs 1. CHANDRASEKHARAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.DILIP J.AKKARA For Respondent :SRI.G.PRABHAKARAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :19\/10\/2010 O R D E R S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ———————————————– S.A.NO.592 OF […]<\/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-535","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPurushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 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\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Purushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-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=\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-06T17:22:22+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Purushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-06T17:22:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2176,\"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\\\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Purushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-06T17:22:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Purushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 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":"Purushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 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\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Purushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-06T17:22:22+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Purushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-06T17:22:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010"},"wordCount":2176,"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\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010","name":"Purushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-06T17:22:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothaman-vs-chandrasekharan-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Purushothaman vs Chandrasekharan on 19 October, 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\/535","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=535"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/535\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=535"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=535"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=535"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}