{"id":55722,"date":"2010-01-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010"},"modified":"2019-04-10T10:55:12","modified_gmt":"2019-04-10T05:25:12","slug":"melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Melapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Melapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 907 of 2009()\n\n\n1. MELAPATH KADEEJA, D\/O.MAMMU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. KOVVAPRATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL AHISHABI,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S\/O.MUHAMMAD HAJI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.N.NAGARESH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :18\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.\n            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                        R.S.A. NO.907 of 2009\n            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n              Dated this the 18th      day of January, 2010\n\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                            ———————\n<\/p>\n
     Admit. Respondent appears through counsel.<\/p>\n
     2.    The following substantial questions of law are framed for<\/p>\n
a decision:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                (i)    Whether a mere permission of user\n\n           as a    means of access will mature into an\n\n<\/pre>\n
           easement by grant to the extent of binding the<\/p>\n
           subsequent transferee?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                (ii)   Whether a suit can be maintained<\/p>\n
           for perpetual injunction without seeking a<\/p>\n
           declaration of right, if any of the respondent<\/p>\n
           when a prayer for injunction is based on a right<\/p>\n
           which the appellants deny?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                (iii)  Whether any right of easement can<\/p>\n
           be created in total destruction of the entire<\/p>\n
           property owned by the appellants?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     3.    Second    Appeal arises from          judgment and decree of<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.907 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                 -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
learned Prl. Sub Judge, Thalassery in A.S.No.21 of 2005 confirming<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of learned Additional Munsiff, Kannur in O.S.<\/p>\n
No.128 of 2002.\n<\/p>\n
       4.     Facts necessary for a decision of the questions above<\/p>\n
framed are: Plaint A schedule item No.1 belonged to Komath<\/p>\n
Rukhiya who assigned the same to Parayil Chandran as per A1,<\/p>\n
assignment deed dated 20.1.1999. Item No.2 of plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
belonged to Ahammed. He assigned it to Parayil Chandran as per<\/p>\n
Ext.A2, assignment deed dated 20.1.1999. Ahammed had 8 cents<\/p>\n
adjoining     plaint A schedule item No.2 acquired   as per Ext.A3,<\/p>\n
assignment deed No.2342\/1981 which is described as plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule.      While Ahammed assigned item No.2 of plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
to Parayil Chandran as per Ext.A2, he granted a right to take<\/p>\n
vehicles to item No.2 of plaint A schedule through plaint B schedule.<\/p>\n
Later, Parayil Chandran assigned plaint A schedule item Nos.1 and 2<\/p>\n
to Nissar and his wife, Suneera as per Ext.A4, assignment deed<\/p>\n
No.2010\/2000 with right to take      vehicles  to the said property<\/p>\n
through plaint B schedule. Respondent-plaintiff is the father of the<\/p>\n
said Suneera. He filed the suit for injunction for and on behalf of<\/p>\n
Nissar and Suneera as they are abroad and he is managing       plaint<\/p>\n
A schedule properties on their behalf. Respondent-plaintiff alleged<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.907 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                   -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
that appellant No.1 acquired title over plaint B schedule property<\/p>\n
as per assignment deed No.1641\/2000 but subject to the right of<\/p>\n
Nissar and Suneera to take vehicles to the plaint A schedule through<\/p>\n
that property. The only access to plaint A schedule is through plaint<\/p>\n
B schedule.        Hence the suit for prohibitory injunction. Appellant<\/p>\n
No.1 assigned plaint B schedule to appellant No.2. Hence appellant<\/p>\n
No.2 is also       impleaded in the suit.   Appellants contended that<\/p>\n
respondent has no locus standi to file the suit and that he, Nissar or<\/p>\n
Suneera have no right over plaint B schedule.         Parayil Chandran,<\/p>\n
Nissar and Suneera had no right to use pliant B schedule. It is<\/p>\n
incorrect to say that plaint B schedule is the only access to plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule.      Trial court found that as per Ext.A2 a right of easement<\/p>\n
by grant has been conferred on Parayil Chandran, assignor of Nissar<\/p>\n
and Suneera over plaint B schedule. That right was assigned to<\/p>\n
Nissar and Suneera while plaint A schedule items were assigned to<\/p>\n
them as per Ext.A4. Holding so, the suit was decreed.          That has<\/p>\n
been confirmed by the first appellate court.       Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
appellants contended that there is no plea of easement anywhere<\/p>\n
in the plaint, no declaration of right of easement is prayed for and<\/p>\n
hence courts below were not justified legally or factually in granting<\/p>\n
reliefs to the respondent. It is also contended that at any rate the<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.907 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                  -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
user of plaint B schedule property in the way granted as per Ext.A4<\/p>\n
would render plaint B schedule       totally useless    and hence also<\/p>\n
courts below were not justified in granting injunction as prayed for.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for respondent would contend that Exts.A2 and A4<\/p>\n
amounted to a grant of the right to take vehicles through plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule in favour of Parayil Chandran and his assignees – Nissar<\/p>\n
and Suneera.        Hence respondent is entitled to seek relief on behalf<\/p>\n
of Nissar and Suneera who are not in station and on whose behalf<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule items are being managing by the respondent.<\/p>\n
       5.     There is no dispute regarding      title of plaint A or B<\/p>\n
schedules. There is also no dispute that item Nos.1 and 2 of plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule belonged to Parayil Chandran as per Ext.A2 executed by<\/p>\n
Ahammed to whom plaint B schedule also belonged and the said<\/p>\n
Ahammed as per Ext.A2 granted right to Parayil Chandran to take<\/p>\n
vehicles to plaint A schedule     through plaint B schedule.        That<\/p>\n
amounted to an easement by grant. It is the settled position of law<\/p>\n
that when a right of easement by         grant is provided as per a<\/p>\n
document, the terms and conditions of the grant will be governed<\/p>\n
by the contract between the parties. The grant would control the<\/p>\n
easement (See         Simon v. N.Jayanth – 1986 KLT 457 and<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.907 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                   -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Velayudhan v. Padmanabhan – 1998 [2] KLT 417). Courts<\/p>\n
below have held         that right of easement by    grant has been<\/p>\n
conferred on Parayil Chandran, who later assigned plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
item Nos.1 and 2 together with right of easement in favour of Nissar<\/p>\n
and Suneera as per Ext.A4.         Therefore Nissar and Suneera are<\/p>\n
entitled to the right of easement by grant over plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property by virtue of Exts.A2 and A4.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     One argument advanced         by learned counsel    for<\/p>\n
appellants       is that there is no  plea regarding easement in the<\/p>\n
plaint. Further contention is that no declaration of easement has<\/p>\n
been prayed for.        These contentions cannot stand.  Though the<\/p>\n
word “easement” is not used in the plaint it is stated in the plaint<\/p>\n
that Parayil Chandran had the right to take vehicles through plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule      by virtue of Ext.A2, assignment deed executed by the<\/p>\n
owner of plaint B schedule and plaint A schedule item No.2 and that<\/p>\n
by virtue of Ext.A4, Nissar and Suneera had acquired that right. That<\/p>\n
is sufficient to show that a right of easement by grant has been<\/p>\n
pleaded.      The contention that      in the absence of  prayer for<\/p>\n
declaration of right of easement the suit is not maintainable is<\/p>\n
equally unsustainable in the light of the decisions of this Court in<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.907 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                   -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
Krishna Pillai v. Kunjupillai (1990 [1] KLT 136) and<\/p>\n
Unnikrishnan v. Ponnu Ammal<\/a> (1999 [1] KLT 298). What is<\/p>\n
required is only that before substantive relief is sought, respondent<\/p>\n
had    to prove that he has got a right of easement.         A formal<\/p>\n
declaration of right is not essential.\n<\/p>\n
       7.     Yet another contention advanced by learned counsel is<\/p>\n
that the grant as provided in Exts.A2 and A4 would render plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule entirely useless as far as appellants are concerned. This<\/p>\n
argument cannot stand in law since in the case of easement which is<\/p>\n
result of a grant it may even altogether exclude the servient owner<\/p>\n
from the use of        servient tenement.      It has been held in<\/p>\n
Southport v. Ormskirk ([1894] 1 QB 196) and Biyan v.<\/p>\n
Whistlee ([1956] 1 All. E.R. 237) that the easement granted may<\/p>\n
be such as would altogether exclude owner of the servient tenement<\/p>\n
and others from participation in the enjoyment of the easement.<\/p>\n
       8.     The Advocate Commissioner deputed from the         trial<\/p>\n
court has submitted Exts.C1 and C1(a), report and plan. Plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule is shown as plots A and B in Ext.C2.         In Ext.C2, plan<\/p>\n
Commissioner has shown that along the middle of plots A and B a<\/p>\n
compound wall has been constructed.         According to the learned<\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.907 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                     -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel for respondent that            construction was made by the<\/p>\n
appellants during the pendency of the suit but respondent has not<\/p>\n
moved the court for removal of the compound wall. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
for respondent submits that so far as vehicular access to plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule (marked as plots C and D in Ext.C2) is concerned, plot B<\/p>\n
marked by Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C2 is sufficient.      Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for appellants also is satisfied with that suggestion and a<\/p>\n
consequent modification of the decree. As decree of the trial court<\/p>\n
now stands, it is in respect of the entire plaint B schedule (plots A<\/p>\n
and B in Ext.C2).       In the light of the submission made by learned<\/p>\n
counsel for respondent relief can be confined to plot B marked by<\/p>\n
the Advocate Commissioner in Ext.C2. Substantial questions of law<\/p>\n
framed are answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
       Resultantly the Second Appeal is allowed in part. Judgment<\/p>\n
and decree of courts below are modified in the following lines:<\/p>\n
                     (i)   Appellants-defendants, their men,<\/p>\n
              agents or persons claiming under them       are<\/p>\n
              restrained by a decree for            permanent<\/p>\n
              prohibitory injunction from blocking the way to<\/p>\n
              plaint A schedule (plots C and D in Ext.C2)<\/p>\n
              through plot B in Ext.C2.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
R.S.A. No.907 of 2009<\/p>\n
                                    -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                     (ii)  Exhibit C2 shall form part of the<\/p>\n
              decree of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                     (iii) Parties shall bear their respective<\/p>\n
              costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                          THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
vsv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Melapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 907 of 2009() 1. MELAPATH KADEEJA, D\/O.MAMMU, … Petitioner 2. KOVVAPRATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL AHISHABI, Vs 1. P.ABDUL RAHIMAN, S\/O.MUHAMMAD HAJI, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.N.NAGARESH The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated […]<\/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-55722","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMelapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 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\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Melapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-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=\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-10T05:25:12+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\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Melapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-10T05:25:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1489,\"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\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Melapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-10T05:25:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Melapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Melapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 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\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Melapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-10T05:25:12+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\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Melapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-10T05:25:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010"},"wordCount":1489,"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\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010","name":"Melapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-10T05:25:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/melapath-kadeeja-vs-p-abdul-rahiman-on-18-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Melapath Kadeeja vs P.Abdul Rahiman on 18 January, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/55722","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=55722"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/55722\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=55722"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=55722"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=55722"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}