{"id":56558,"date":"2008-02-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3"},"modified":"2015-02-25T16:03:40","modified_gmt":"2015-02-25T10:33:40","slug":"abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3","title":{"rendered":"Abraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Abraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 861 of 1996()\n\n\n\n1. ABRAHAM MARIAKUTTY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SIBY J.MONIPPALLY\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :18\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                                HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n\n                       ----------------------------------------------\n\n                                 S.A. NO. 861 OF 1996\n\n                       ----------------------------------------------\n\n\n                     Dated this the  18th day of February, 2008\n\n\n                                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
        This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   and   decree   dated<\/p>\n
30.10.1995 in A.S. No.116 of 1994 on the file of the Sub Court, Pala.  The<\/p>\n
appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit.   The suit was filed for declaration<\/p>\n
of  the   plaintiffs’  title   to   the  plaint  schedule   property  and  for  recovery  of<\/p>\n
damages.   The Munisff,s Court, Pala decreed the suit.     On appeal by the<\/p>\n
defendant,   the   appellate   court   reversed   the   finding   of   the   trial   court   and<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit.  Hence, this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        2.     The   parties   to   this   appeal   are   referred   to   as   plaintiffs   and<\/p>\n
defendant   as   in   the   suit.     The   brief   averments   in   the   plaint   and   written<\/p>\n
statement are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        The   plaint   schedule   property   belonged   to   the   plaintiffs.     The<\/p>\n
northern   side   of   the   plaint   schedule   property   is   bounded   by   a   very   old<\/p>\n
kayyala   and   within   the   boundary   kayyala   on   the  northern  part   of   the<\/p>\n
property there is an Anjili tree.  The plaintiffs cut down the Anjili tree for<\/p>\n
their   own   purpose.     According   to   the   plaintiffs,   the   Anjili   tree   was   not<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.861\/1996                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
standing in the puramboke land, but within the compound wall and even if<\/p>\n
a portion of the property within the boundary kayyala is puramboke land,<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs and their predecessors were in possession of the property for<\/p>\n
the last 70 years and, therefore, the title of the defendant, if any, is lost by<\/p>\n
adverse possession   and limitation.   The plaintiffs further alleged that the<\/p>\n
timber which was in their possession was removed by the defendant on  a<\/p>\n
false   pretext   stating   that   the   plaintiffs   have   no   manner   of   right   over   it.\n<\/p>\n
According to the plaintiffs, the action of the Village Officer to auction the<\/p>\n
timber  is  illegal    and  that  the State has  no  right over  the plaint  schedule<\/p>\n
property.  The plaintiffs, therefore, sought declaration of title and damages<\/p>\n
to the tune of Rs.3500\/- and other ancillary reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
        The   defendant   filed   a   written   statement   denying   the   claim   of   the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.  The defendant contended that  the Anjili tree cut by the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
stood  in the  puramboke  land which  is  vested  in the  Government and  the<\/p>\n
State defended the action of the  Village  Officer and the Revenue Officer<\/p>\n
who proceeded to auction the timber.  The defendant also denied the right<\/p>\n
of the plaintiffs to claim any damages.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   The plaintiffs examined PWs.1 to 4 and marked Exts.A1 to A3.\n<\/p>\n
The   defendant   examined   DWs.1   and   2   and   marked   Exts.B1   to   B1(c).\n<\/p>\n
Exts.C1   and   C2   are   the   commission   report   and   plan   which   were<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.861\/1996                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
subsequently set aside.   The further report and plan obtained by the court<\/p>\n
below are marked as Exts.C3 and C4.   The trial court, on a consideration<\/p>\n
of   the   matter   on   evidence,   concluded   that   the   defendant\/State   has<\/p>\n
absolutely   no   right   over   the   timber   in   question.       The   trial   court   further<\/p>\n
held that  the plaintiffs have title over the land where the Anjili tree stood,<\/p>\n
by   adverse   possession   and,   therefore,   the   ownership   of   the   tree   which<\/p>\n
stood in the land in question is with the plaintiffs.   The trial court further<\/p>\n
found that the discretionary  remedy of granting declaration of title on the<\/p>\n
basis of adverse possession prayed for by the plaintiffs can be exercised in<\/p>\n
this   case,   finding   that   the   property   where   the   Anjili   tree   stood   is<\/p>\n
puramboke   land   and   considering   the   possession   and   enjoyment   of   the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and their predecessors for the last more than 60 years.\n<\/p>\n
        4.     In   appeal,   the   appellate   court   re-appreciated   the   evidence   on<\/p>\n
record.  The appellate court also considered the question as to whether the<\/p>\n
suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and held that the suit is bad<\/p>\n
for non-joinder of the Tahsildar, Meenachil  and the concerned panchayat<\/p>\n
as parties  to the suit.   The   appellate court   also found  that the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
failed to prove the plea of adverse possession and that the defendant has no<\/p>\n
right over the puramboke land   and the Anjili tree.   Having found so, the<\/p>\n
appellate   court   held   that   the   plaintiffs   are   not   entitled   to   the   declaration<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.861\/1996                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
sought for and also the damages claimed by them.\n<\/p>\n
       5.  The plaint schedule property is having an extent of 3 acres and 6<\/p>\n
= cents lying within the boundary.  According to the plaintiffs, they are in<\/p>\n
possession   and   enjoyment   of   the   same   and   sought   declaration   of   title<\/p>\n
alleging  that even if any portion of the plaint schedule property is found to<\/p>\n
be   puramboke   land,   the   plaintiffs   and   their   predecessors   being     in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property   for   more   than   75   years   continuously   and<\/p>\n
uninterruptedly   as   of   right,   the   right   of   the   defendant   has   been   lost   by<\/p>\n
adverse possession and limitation.\n<\/p>\n
       6.    Ext.C3  commission  report  and  Ext.C4  plan  would  undoubtedly<\/p>\n
show that the extent of the plaint schedule property is not 3 acres and 6 =<\/p>\n
cents, but  3 acres  and  19  cents.    The  puramboke  portion  of the property<\/p>\n
was found to be in Survey No.97\/4.   The plaintiffs have no case that  they<\/p>\n
have obtained any right over the property comprised in Survey No.97\/4 as<\/p>\n
per their document of title.   So, on evidence, both the courts below found<\/p>\n
that  the  Anjili  tree  stood  in  the  puramboke  land  which,  according  to  the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs   belongs   to   the   Panchayat.     Admittedly,   the   plaintiffs   seek<\/p>\n
declaration of title by adverse possession and limitation.  The suit without<\/p>\n
the lawful owner in the party array is not maintainable for non-joinder of<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.861\/1996                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
necessary parties.  The view taken by the appellate court that a declaration<\/p>\n
cannot  be   granted    for the  reason  that  the  true   owner   is   not  in  the  party<\/p>\n
array seems to be a correct view.   The further question   whether the right<\/p>\n
of the defendant over the plaint schedule property has been lost by adverse<\/p>\n
possession and limitation on account of  the long continued possession of<\/p>\n
the  plaint  schedule  property  by the  plaintiffs   was  also  considered   by the<\/p>\n
lower appellate  court.    The lower  appellate  court  found  that  a portion  of<\/p>\n
the   property   including   the   portion   where   the   Anjili   tree   stood   is   a<\/p>\n
puramboke   land.     PW.2,   the   Deputy   Superintendent   of   Survey   who<\/p>\n
measured   the   property   and   prepared   Ext.C4   plan   testified   that   the   final<\/p>\n
sketch of Survey No.97\/4 was with him at the time of measurement of the<\/p>\n
property.   The  appellate  court  noted  that  during  cross-examination  PW.2<\/p>\n
had   specifically   stated   that   Ext.C4   was   prepared   on   the   basis   of   the<\/p>\n
measurement with reference to the final sketch of Survey No.97\/4 and the<\/p>\n
attested   copy   of   the   original   plan   in   Survey   No.95\/2.     The   Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner who was  examined as PW.3 also testified before the court<\/p>\n
that the measurement in Ext.C4 plan tallied with the final sketch of Survey<\/p>\n
No.97\/4   and   the   copy   of     Survey   No.95\/2.     The   evidence   of   the   only<\/p>\n
independent witness, PW.4, was disbelieved by the appellate court for the<\/p>\n
reasons   stated   in   the   judgment.       The   lower   appellate   court,   from   the<\/p>\n
evidence and documents made available before it, concluded that the Anjili<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.861\/1996                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
tree   stood   in   the   puramboke   land   in   Survey   No.97\/4   and   that   after   the<\/p>\n
amendment   of   the   plaint   incorporating   the   relief     for   declaration,   no<\/p>\n
evidence was adduced    by the plaintiffs  to prove adverse  possession  and<\/p>\n
limitation.   On the basis of the facts and circumstances discussed in detail,<\/p>\n
the appellate court held that the evidence available is not at all sufficient to<\/p>\n
prove the plea of adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
        7.     The   materials   on   record   were   appreciated   by   the   trial   court   as<\/p>\n
well as the appellate court.  The findings on all the issues are arrived at on<\/p>\n
the  basis   of   facts  and  evidence.       I am  not   inclined  to   interfere   with  the<\/p>\n
factual   findings   entered   by   the   lower   appellate   court   which   cannot   be<\/p>\n
characterised   as   perverse.         I   find   that   the   case   was   decided   on   merits<\/p>\n
solely on the basis of the materials before the court.   No question of law,<\/p>\n
much less any substantial  question of law  arises  for consideration  in this<\/p>\n
Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.  There<\/p>\n
will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                             (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
sp\/<\/p>\n
S.A.NO.861\/1996    7<\/span><\/p>\n
                        HAURN-UL-RASHID, J.\n<\/p>\n
                        S.A.NO861 of 1996<\/p>\n
                            JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                        18TH FEBRUARY,  2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Abraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 861 of 1996() 1. ABRAHAM MARIAKUTTY … Petitioner Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.SIBY J.MONIPPALLY For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :18\/02\/2008 O R […]<\/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-56558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAbraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008 - 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\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-25T10:33:40+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-25T10:33:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3\"},\"wordCount\":1337,\"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\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3\",\"name\":\"Abraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-25T10:33:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Abraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008 - 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\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-25T10:33:40+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-25T10:33:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3"},"wordCount":1337,"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\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3","name":"Abraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-25T10:33:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abraham-mariakutty-vs-state-of-kerala-on-18-february-2008-3#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abraham Mariakutty vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/56558","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=56558"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56558\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}