{"id":583,"date":"2009-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-06-30T20:40:41","modified_gmt":"2016-06-30T15:10:41","slug":"d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"D.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
D.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 536 of 1996()\n\n\n\n1. D.PONNAMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. KRISHNAN NAIR\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.SUKUMARAN NAYAR(SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :28\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                              P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                             S.A. No. 536 of 1996\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009.\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
           The defendant in O.S. No.149 of 1989 before the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s Court, Kayamkulam, who sufferd a decree for<\/p>\n
specific performance at the hands of the first appellate court is<\/p>\n
the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to<\/p>\n
as they were available before the trial court.<\/p>\n
           2. The suit was based on Ext.A1 document, an<\/p>\n
agreement for sale, by which, according to the plaintiff, the<\/p>\n
defendant undertook to sell an extent of 14 cents of land with a<\/p>\n
building therein for a sum of Rs.9,600\/-. Even though the<\/p>\n
entire amount was paid, the defendant did not execute the sale<\/p>\n
deed inspite of repeated demands. Hence the suit.<\/p>\n
           3. The defendant resisted the suit. She denied the<\/p>\n
execution of the agreement as alleged in the plaint.                       She<\/p>\n
pointed out that the sale consideration shown is too low and<\/p>\n
the price of the property at the relevant time was Rs.10,000\/-<\/p>\n
S.A. 536\/1996.                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
per cent. Ext.A1 document was executed by the defendant in a<\/p>\n
chitty transaction and there was no agreement to sell her property.<\/p>\n
She also denied execution of the agreement. On the basis of the<\/p>\n
above contention, she prayed for dismissal of the suit.<\/p>\n
             4.  The trial court raised necessary issues for<\/p>\n
consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.Ws. 1<\/p>\n
and 2 and Exts.A1 marked on the side of the plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and Exts.B1 and B2 marked.<\/p>\n
The trial court found that Ext.A1 is a genuine document and infact<\/p>\n
executed by the defendant. However, the trial court came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the agreement for sale as claimed by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was not proved and there was a lot of suspicion about the<\/p>\n
transaction. Holding so, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
carried the matter in appeal as A.S. 129 of 1992 before the<\/p>\n
Additional District Court, Mavelikkara.        By judgment dated<\/p>\n
1.12.1995 the first appellate court granted specific performance in<\/p>\n
favour of the plaintiff and the suit was decreed. The said judgment<\/p>\n
S.A. 536\/1996.                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
and decree are assailed in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
             5. At the time of admission, notice was issued on the<\/p>\n
following questions of law:\n<\/p>\n
      “(i) Can an Agreement which is perfectly legal going<\/p>\n
      by the provisions of Section 10 of the Contract Act be<\/p>\n
      enforced even if, it satisfy the conditions and<\/p>\n
      circumstances provided under Sub Section (2)(a) to (2)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (c) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (ii) The substantial variation of the evidence from the<\/p>\n
      pleadings whether would entitle the plaintiff for a<\/p>\n
      decree of specific performance?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (iii) The non-prosecution of Ext.B2 suit notice whether<\/p>\n
      would accentuate the defendant’s case that Ext.A1 is<\/p>\n
      only to secure the debt?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (iv) Do the period of two days to performance stated in<\/p>\n
      Ext.A1 and further extension of period for 10 days at<\/p>\n
      the instance of the husband of the defendant, would<\/p>\n
      create cloud on the genuineness of Ext.A1.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             6. The question that arises for consideration is whether<\/p>\n
the claim made by the appellant can be allowed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
S.A. 536\/1996.                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
             7. Both the courts below have concurrently found that<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 was infact executed by the defendant. Being a question of<\/p>\n
fact, the said finding does not call for any interference at all.<\/p>\n
             8. The trial court came to the conclusion that there is<\/p>\n
no evidence to prove that the sum of Rs.9,600\/- mentioned in the<\/p>\n
document has been paid by the plaintiff. The trial court also took<\/p>\n
note of the fact that the claim of the plaintiff was that the sale<\/p>\n
consideration was actually Rs.50,000\/-, but in order to avoid stamp<\/p>\n
duty the sale consideration was shown as Rs.9,600\/- in Ext.A1<\/p>\n
document. The court below was of the view that the claim of the<\/p>\n
defendant that Ext.A1 was executed as a security for the chitty<\/p>\n
transaction is more acceptable. The appellate court on the other<\/p>\n
hand found that once the document is found to be genuine and in<\/p>\n
fact executed by the defendant, there is no reason to deny specific<\/p>\n
performance to the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
             9. In this appeal, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellant mainly relied on Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.<\/p>\n
S.A. 536\/1996.                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel, even assuming that Ext.A1 is a<\/p>\n
genuine document as held by the court below, the facts of the case<\/p>\n
are such that the lower court should not have granted specific<\/p>\n
performance in favour of the plaintiff. Learned counsel pointed<\/p>\n
out that on a reading of the judgment of the trial court, it could be<\/p>\n
seen that the trial court has analysed the matter in detail and has<\/p>\n
come to a just conclusion. Pointing out that even if the document<\/p>\n
is held to be genuine, all that the appellate court should have to do<\/p>\n
was to direct the appellant to return the amount mentioned in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 document.\n<\/p>\n
             10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on<\/p>\n
the other hand pointed out that the defendant has gone to the extent<\/p>\n
of denying the document itself. Attention of this court was drawn<\/p>\n
to the fact that at the time of evidence, she denied her signature in<\/p>\n
the summons and in the written statement as well. In the light of<\/p>\n
these facts, according to learned counsel no discretion needs to be<\/p>\n
exercised in favour of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
S.A. 536\/1996.                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
             11.  Section 20 of the specific Relief Act reads as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “20. Discretion as to decreeing specific performance.-<\/p>\n
      (1)The jurisdiction to decree specific performance is<\/p>\n
      discretionary, and the Court is not bound to grant such<\/p>\n
      relief merely because it is lawful to do so; but the<\/p>\n
      discretion of the Court is not arbitrary but sound and<\/p>\n
      reasonable, guided by judicial principles and capable<\/p>\n
      of correction by a court of appeal<\/p>\n
      (2) The following are cases in which the Court may<\/p>\n
      properly exercise discretion not to decree specific<\/p>\n
      performance-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (a) where the terms of the contract or the conduct<\/p>\n
      of the parties at the time of entering into the contract or<\/p>\n
      the other circumstances under which the contract was<\/p>\n
      entered into are such that the contract, though not<\/p>\n
      voidable, gives the plaintiff n unfair advantage over he<\/p>\n
      defendant; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (b) where the performance of the contract would<\/p>\n
      involve some hardship on the defendant which he did<\/p>\n
      not foresee, whereas its non-performance would involve<\/p>\n
      no such hardship on the plaintiff;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
S.A. 536\/1996.                     7<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (c) where the defendant entered into the contract<\/p>\n
      under circumstances which though not rendering the<\/p>\n
      contract voidable, makes it inequitable to enforce<\/p>\n
      specific performance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Explanation .1.- Mere inadequacy of consideration, or<\/p>\n
      the mere fact that the contract is onerous to the<\/p>\n
      defendant or improvident in its nature, shall not be<\/p>\n
      deemed to constitute an unfair advantage within the<\/p>\n
      meaning of clause (a) or hardship within the meaning<\/p>\n
      of clause (b).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Explanation 2.- The question whether the performance<\/p>\n
      of a contract would involve hardship on the defendant<\/p>\n
      within the meaning of clause (b) shall, except in cases<\/p>\n
      where the hardship has resulted from any act of the<\/p>\n
      plaintiff, subsequent to the contract, be determined with<\/p>\n
      reference to the circumstances existing at the time of<\/p>\n
      the contract.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (3)The Court may properly exercise discretion to<\/p>\n
      decree specific performance in any case where the<\/p>\n
      plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses in<\/p>\n
      consequence     of a    contract   capable    of specific<\/p>\n
      performance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (4) The Court shall not refuse to any party specific<\/p>\n
S.A. 536\/1996.                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
      performance of a contract merely on the ground that<\/p>\n
      the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the<\/p>\n
      other party.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
             12.   It is well settled that specific relief cannot be<\/p>\n
claimed as a matter of right. However, the discretion has to be<\/p>\n
exercised judiciously.     There must be convincing reasons for<\/p>\n
exercising discretion. It is not possible to enumerate factors, which<\/p>\n
can be taken into consideration for exercising the discretion. It<\/p>\n
depends upon the facts of each case. The Section does give some<\/p>\n
indication regarding the circumstances under which the discretion<\/p>\n
may be exercised. But they are not exhaustive. Merely because<\/p>\n
the price of a property has gone up or because the sale<\/p>\n
consideration is inadequate by themselves are not grounds to deny<\/p>\n
relief to the plaintiff. However, if on a consideration of the facts, it<\/p>\n
is found that the plaintiff had derived undue advantage of the<\/p>\n
situation as emerged from the evidence, the court should exercise<\/p>\n
its discretion in favour of the defendant.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
S.A. 536\/1996.                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
             13. It will not be out of place to refer to the evidence of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff.    According to him, the sale consideration was<\/p>\n
Rs.50,000\/-. But the amount shown in Ext.A1 is Rs.9,600\/-, to<\/p>\n
save stamp duty. The defendant had pointed out that the document<\/p>\n
was taken as a security for a chitty transaction. There is nothing to<\/p>\n
indicate as rightly pointed out by the court below that any amount<\/p>\n
has infact been paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had admitted<\/p>\n
that there was a chitty transaction between the parties, he has also<\/p>\n
pointed out that the amount due to him was not received from the<\/p>\n
chitty transaction.    It is significant to notice that according to<\/p>\n
P.W.1 it was the defendant who had offered the property for sale.<\/p>\n
He claims that he offered a sum of Rs.40,000\/- for the property, but<\/p>\n
the defendant refused to give the property below Rs.50,000\/-.<\/p>\n
             14.   What is interesting is that the agreement was<\/p>\n
entered into on 16.4.1989, and the document was to be executed on<\/p>\n
or before 18.4.1989.\n<\/p>\n
S.A. 536\/1996.                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
             15. The defendant has also produced Exts.B1 and B2,<\/p>\n
which would indicate that there was infact a chitty transaction<\/p>\n
between the parties.     She would also deny that an amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.40,000\/- was paid in two instalments. It is significant to notice<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff admits that no amount was paid at the time of sale<\/p>\n
agreement and he claims that the entire amount has been paid<\/p>\n
earlier.\n<\/p>\n
             16. A reading of the evidence of P.W.1 is sufficient to<\/p>\n
show that the transaction claimed by the plaintiff is not above<\/p>\n
doubt. Whatever that be, it has been found by both the courts<\/p>\n
below that Ext.A1 document was infact executed by the defendant.<\/p>\n
             17. One cannot omit to note the fact that the extent<\/p>\n
involved is 14 cents with a building therein. The defendant claims<\/p>\n
to be residing there with his family.     Considering the various<\/p>\n
aspects, this appears to be a proper case where the discretion<\/p>\n
available under Section 20 should be exercised in favour of the<\/p>\n
defendant.\n<\/p>\n
S.A. 536\/1996.                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
             In the result, the judgment and decree of the first<\/p>\n
appellate court in A.S.129 of 1992 granting specific relief to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is set aside and a decree is passed on the following terms:<\/p>\n
             i) The plaintiff is entitled to realise a sum of Rs.9,600\/-<\/p>\n
with 6% interest from the date of suit till date of realisation<\/p>\n
personally from the defendant and from her assets.<\/p>\n
             ii) The plaintiff is entitled to costs throughout.<\/p>\n
                                                   P. BHAVADASAN,
\n                                                        JUDGE<\/p>\n
sb.\n<\/p>\n
S.A. 536\/1996.    12<\/p>\n
                                    P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n
                                    S.A. No. 536 of 1996\n<\/p>\n
                      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                          28.10.2009.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court D.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 536 of 1996() 1. D.PONNAMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. KRISHNAN NAIR … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI For Respondent :SRI.P.SUKUMARAN NAYAR(SR.) The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN Dated :28\/10\/2009 O R D E R P. BHAVADASAN, […]<\/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-583","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nD.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009 - 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\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-30T15:10:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-30T15:10:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1877,\"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\\\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009\",\"name\":\"D.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-30T15:10:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"D.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009 - 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\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-30T15:10:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-30T15:10:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009"},"wordCount":1877,"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\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009","name":"D.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-30T15:10:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-ponnamma-vs-krishnan-nair-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.Ponnamma vs Krishnan Nair on 28 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/583","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=583"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/583\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=583"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=583"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}