{"id":54498,"date":"2007-07-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007"},"modified":"2018-08-21T23:08:08","modified_gmt":"2018-08-21T17:38:08","slug":"sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Sankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 39 of 1994()\n\n\n\n1. SANKAR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. JANARDHANAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :11\/07\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n                    ...........................................\n                      S.A.No. 39             OF 1994\n                    ............................................\n         DATED THIS THE 11th                   DAY OF JULY, 2007\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Plaintiff in O.S.418 of 1987 on the file of Munsiff Court,<\/p>\n
Wadakkancherry is the appellant. Defendants are respondents.<\/p>\n
Appellant and respondents 1 and 2 are direct brothers. Third<\/p>\n
respondent is the wife of second respondent.                           Appellant<\/p>\n
instituted the suit seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory<\/p>\n
injunction in respect of plaint A, B and C schedule properties and<\/p>\n
for realisation of Rs.500\/- being half of the amount realised by<\/p>\n
second respondent by sale of fishes caught from plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule tank.     Plaint A schedule property is 66.5 cents in<\/p>\n
Survey No.65 \/4 of Kariyannor Village.                         Plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property is half portion of the tank falling in plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property. Plaint C schedule property is the fence constructed on<\/p>\n
the north-eastern boundary of plaint A schedule property. Plaint<\/p>\n
A schedule property along with the other properties belonging to<\/p>\n
the family of appellant and respondents 1 and 2 were divided<\/p>\n
under Ext.A1 partition deed dated 7.9.1971.                        Under Ext.A1<\/p>\n
partition deed, as item No.6, appellant was alloted plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property.       As item No.23, the remaining western<\/p>\n
SA 39\/1994                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
portion of the said property was alloted to first respondent who<\/p>\n
was then a minor. Subsequently, first respondent transferred his<\/p>\n
right in favour of second respondent who in turn settled it in<\/p>\n
favour of third respondent his wife under Ext.B2 settlement<\/p>\n
deed.     Appellant instituted the suit seeking a decree for<\/p>\n
injunction contending that respondents are raising claim over<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule property and obstructing construction of plaint<\/p>\n
C schedule fence and also contending that they are utilising the<\/p>\n
fish from the tank without allowing appellant to catch the fish.<\/p>\n
Respondents in their written statement admitted the right, title<\/p>\n
and possession of appellant to plaint A schedule property. It was<\/p>\n
contended that the disputed B schedule tank is not part of the<\/p>\n
property alloted to appellant and therefore appellant is not<\/p>\n
entitled to claim any decree for injunction or value of the fish<\/p>\n
allegedly caught by second respondent.      It was also contended<\/p>\n
that using influence in police, appellant constructed a fence on<\/p>\n
the north eastern side of       plaint A schedule property and<\/p>\n
appellant has no right over that portion of the property and<\/p>\n
therefore appellant is not entitled to the decree for injunction.<\/p>\n
SA 39\/1994                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
      2. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of PW 1 to 4, DW1 and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A5 and Exts.B1 and B2 and Ext.C1 and C1(a) granted<\/p>\n
a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of plaint<\/p>\n
A and C schedule properties but refused the decree in respect of<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property holding that appellant        did not<\/p>\n
establish his right to plaint B schedule tank.          Appellant<\/p>\n
challenged the decree and judgment before District Court,<\/p>\n
Thrissur in A.S. 228 of 1991. Respondents filed a cross objection<\/p>\n
in the appeal contending that trial court should not have granted<\/p>\n
a decree in respect of plaint A and C schedule properties also.<\/p>\n
Learned District Judge, on reappreciation of evidence, found that<\/p>\n
under Ext.A1 item No.6 was alloted to appellant and it does not<\/p>\n
take in the disputed B schedule tank and therefore finding of<\/p>\n
learned Munsiff that appellant is not entitled to the decree in<\/p>\n
respect of plaint B schedule property is correct. Learned District<\/p>\n
Judge also confirmed the findings of learned Munsiff that<\/p>\n
appellant established his possession of plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property and that plaint C schedule fence is the eastern<\/p>\n
boundary of plaint A schedule property and appellant established<\/p>\n
SA 39\/1994                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
his possession of plaint C schedule fence also. But holding that<\/p>\n
appellant did not establish cause of action in respect of plaint A<\/p>\n
or C schedule property, appellant is not entitled to encroach<\/p>\n
upon others property and construct a fence, decree granted by<\/p>\n
the trial court was set aside and suit was dismissed.            It is<\/p>\n
challenged in the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      3.  The appeal was admitted formulating the following<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
1)When specific allotment of shares have been made under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 partition deed and the tank was not included as an item<\/p>\n
alloted to any of the sharers, is it not indicative of the fact that it<\/p>\n
was intended to be kept in common and if so whether courts<\/p>\n
below were right in declining the relief to grant a decree in<\/p>\n
respect of plaint B schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
2)When the trial court and first appellate court found that<\/p>\n
appellant established possession of plaint A and C schedule<\/p>\n
property and trial court granted a decree for injunction, whether<\/p>\n
first appellate court was justified in interfering with the decree.<\/p>\n
      4. Learned counsel appearing for appellant and respondent<\/p>\n
SA 39\/1994                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
were heard. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
appellant was that when even in the written statement<\/p>\n
respondent did not dispute the right of appellant over item No.6<\/p>\n
of the property alloted to him, which is plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property and trial court and first appellate court confirmed that<\/p>\n
appellant established his possession of that property, first<\/p>\n
appellate court should not have interfered with the discretion<\/p>\n
exercised by the trial court holding that there is no cause of<\/p>\n
action to grant the decree. It was argued that a reading of the<\/p>\n
written statement filed by respondents establish that they are<\/p>\n
raising a claim over the property in the possession of the<\/p>\n
appellant   contending   that   appellant   put  up   the  fence<\/p>\n
encroaching upon their property and as the appellant has<\/p>\n
established his possession of the property which was upheld by<\/p>\n
the courts below, appellant is entitled to the decree for<\/p>\n
injunction. It was also argued that even in Ext.B2 settlement<\/p>\n
deed executed by second respondent, the assignee of first<\/p>\n
respondent to whom the western property was alloted under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 as item No.23 did not mention existence of the tank in the<\/p>\n
SA 39\/1994                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
property sold and it is to be taken that plaint B schedule tank is<\/p>\n
not included in the property of respondents and therefore the<\/p>\n
claim of appellant that he has half right over plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
tank should have been upheld and a decree should have been<\/p>\n
granted.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   Learned counsel appearing for respondents argued<\/p>\n
that without establishing the identity of plaint schedule property,<\/p>\n
with reference to Ext.A1 partition deed, appellant is not entitled<\/p>\n
to a decree as plaint C schedule fence is constructed in a portion<\/p>\n
of the property not alloted to the appellant under Ext.A1<\/p>\n
partition deed. It was therefore argued that there is no reason to<\/p>\n
interfere with the decree granted by first appellate court.<\/p>\n
      6. Under Ext.A1, as item No.6, plaint A schedule property<\/p>\n
was alloted to appellant. As item No.23, the property which lies<\/p>\n
to the west of plaint A schedule property, which is the western<\/p>\n
portion of the property divided thereunder, was alloted to first<\/p>\n
respondent    who   subsequently     transferred    it to   second<\/p>\n
respondent, who in turn settled it in favour of his wife under<\/p>\n
Ext.B2 settlement deed. Neither Ext.B2 settlement deed nor<\/p>\n
SA 39\/1994                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.A1 partition deed show existence of the tank.       Therefore<\/p>\n
with reference to Ext.A1, the right over plaint B schedule tank<\/p>\n
cannot be fixed. As the property alloted to appellant and first<\/p>\n
respondent under Ext.A1 are the eastern and western portion of<\/p>\n
the property divided thereunder the question whether the tank is<\/p>\n
included in the property alloted to appellant or first respondent<\/p>\n
or is in both properties, can be fixed only if the properties are<\/p>\n
identifed with reference to the division effected under Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
Though a Commission was taken out and Commissioner<\/p>\n
submitted report and plan, Commissioner has not identified both<\/p>\n
the properties in accordance with the description and<\/p>\n
boundaries given in Ext.A1. Therefore on the evidence it is not<\/p>\n
possible to hold that the disputed tank is included either in the<\/p>\n
property alloted to appellant or first respondent, which now<\/p>\n
belong to third respondent. Therefore appellant is not entitled to<\/p>\n
a decree in respect of plaint B schedule tank.       Even if the<\/p>\n
argument of appellant that as the tank was not alloted to any of<\/p>\n
the sharers it is to be taken as kept in common is accepted,<\/p>\n
being a co-owner appellant is not entitled to a decree for<\/p>\n
SA 39\/1994                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
injunction against other co-owner and therefore courts below<\/p>\n
rightly refused to grant a decree in respect of plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
tank.\n<\/p>\n
      7. Though plaint A schedule property was not identified<\/p>\n
with reference to Ext.A1 partition deed, the fact that the entire<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule property is in possession of appellant was<\/p>\n
found by trial court as well as by first appellate court. Though<\/p>\n
respondents contended that appellant has constructed plaint C<\/p>\n
schedule fence      after encroaching upon a portion of the<\/p>\n
property, the factum of settled possession was admitted. Insuch<\/p>\n
circumstances, trial court granted a decree in favour of<\/p>\n
appellant.   First appellate court interfered with the decree,<\/p>\n
confirming the finding of possession on the ground that there is<\/p>\n
no reasonable apprehension of trespass. As rightly pointed out<\/p>\n
by learned counsel appearing for appellant, a reading of the<\/p>\n
written statement shows that respondents have raised a case<\/p>\n
that appellant is not entitled to reconstruct the fence alleging<\/p>\n
that he has no right to do so.       As settled possession was<\/p>\n
established and respondents have raised a dispute on the right<\/p>\n
SA 39\/1994                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
of appellant, it cannot be said that there is no reasonable<\/p>\n
apprehension of trespass or obstruction as alleged by appellant.<\/p>\n
If so, first appellate court should not have interfered with the<\/p>\n
discretion rightly exercised by the trial court. The decree and<\/p>\n
judgment passed by first appellate court with respect to plaint A<\/p>\n
and C schedule properties are therefore set aside and the decree<\/p>\n
granted by trial court is restored.\n<\/p>\n
      The appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment passed by<\/p>\n
District court in A.S. 228 of 1991 are set aside and the decree<\/p>\n
granted by Munsiff in O.S.418 of 1987 is restored. No cost.<\/p>\n
                            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 39 of 1994() 1. SANKAR … Petitioner Vs 1. JANARDHANAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD For Respondent :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :11\/07\/2007 O R D E R M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, […]<\/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-54498","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 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\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-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=\"2007-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-21T17:38:08+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-21T17:38:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1638,\"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\\\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Sankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-21T17:38:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 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":"Sankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 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\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-21T17:38:08+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-21T17:38:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007"},"wordCount":1638,"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\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007","name":"Sankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-21T17:38:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankar-vs-janardhanan-on-11-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sankar vs Janardhanan on 11 July, 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\/54498","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=54498"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/54498\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54498"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=54498"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=54498"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}