{"id":58636,"date":"2010-12-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-15T10:51:13","modified_gmt":"2015-12-15T05:21:13","slug":"tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Tom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Tom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 212 of 2004()\n\n\n1. TOM JOSEPH, KALARIPARAMBIL HOUSE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. KURIAN JOSEPH, MATHICHIPARAMBIL\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.J.THOMAS\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SABU GEORGE\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :22\/12\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                      Crl.A. No. 212 of 2004\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n          Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2010\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       This appeal is filed by the complainant in C.C.No. 1593 of<\/p>\n
1998 on the file of the Addl. Magistrate of First Class No.II<\/p>\n
Mobile Court, Kottayam (Camp sitting Changanacherry). The<\/p>\n
first respondent herein was the accused in that case, which was<\/p>\n
filed by the complainant alleging commission of the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.\n<\/p>\n
       2.   Briefly the case of the complainant is as follows.<\/p>\n
Towards the amount due to the complainant, the accused issued<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 cheque. The complainant presented the above cheque for<\/p>\n
encashment, but the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency<\/p>\n
of funds. A registered lawyer notice was issued to the accused<\/p>\n
demanding payment of the amount. Though the notice was<\/p>\n
received by the accused, he did not repay the amount. Hence the<\/p>\n
complaint.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 212 of 2004<\/p>\n
                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
      3. In the Magistrate Court, on the side of the complainant, PW1<\/p>\n
was examined and Exts.P1 to P7 were marked. On the defence side,<\/p>\n
Dws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked.          The<\/p>\n
learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence, found that it is<\/p>\n
improbable that a huge amount of Rs.5,00,000\/- was advanced by the<\/p>\n
complainant to the accused during the period in which money as per<\/p>\n
several other account were due to the complainant. On the other hand,<\/p>\n
the case set up buy the accused that he has secured the prize money of<\/p>\n
the chitty by executing blank signed cheques and promissory notes and<\/p>\n
one of the above cheque has been miutilised by the complainant to<\/p>\n
fabricate Ext.P1 document, appears to be correct. So it is found that<\/p>\n
the accused has miserably failed to establish that Ext.P1 cheque has<\/p>\n
been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.<\/p>\n
Hence the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is not attracted in<\/p>\n
this case and the accused was found not guilty and acquitted under<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 212 of 2004<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Against that judgment of acquittal the<\/p>\n
complainant filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     4.     Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the first respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     5. At the time of argument, learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
raised the following contentions. The court below went wrong in<\/p>\n
acquitting the accused. The court below ought to have found that the<\/p>\n
essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is<\/p>\n
proved and the court below ought to have convicted the accused. The<\/p>\n
version given by PW1 is probable and natural.          Simply because<\/p>\n
amounts are due from the accused to the complainant, the transaction<\/p>\n
spoken to by PW1 is not improbable and the finding of the court<\/p>\n
below is perverse. In the absence of any reliable evidence, the court<\/p>\n
below ought to have found that the cheque is issued for the discharge<\/p>\n
of a legally enforceable debt. The learned counsel for the first<\/p>\n
respondent supported the judgment of the court below.<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 212 of 2004<\/p>\n
                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
      6. The accused contended that Ext.P1 cheque was not issued in<\/p>\n
discharge of any legally enforceable debt and it has been issued only<\/p>\n
by way of security. It was only a blank cheque with the signature of<\/p>\n
the accused. It is the definite case of the accused that the above<\/p>\n
cheque has been issued as security for the prize money of certain<\/p>\n
chitties conducted by the complainant, in which the accused was a<\/p>\n
subscriber.\n<\/p>\n
      7. The complainant was examined as PW1. He deposed that he<\/p>\n
had acquaintance with the accused and that the accused borrowed an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs. 5 lakhs from him and when he demanded back that<\/p>\n
amount, the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque. When PW1 presented that<\/p>\n
cheque for encashment, it was dishonoured due to insufficiency of<\/p>\n
funds in the account of the accused. Ext.P2 is the dishonour memo<\/p>\n
and Ext.P3 is the intimation memo. PW1 sent a lawyer notice to the<\/p>\n
accused, intimating the dishonour of the cheque and demanding the<\/p>\n
amount. PW1 deposed that inspite of receipt of the lawyer notice, the<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 212 of 2004<\/p>\n
                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
accused did not repay any amount.       Ext.P4 is the copy of the lawyer<\/p>\n
notice and Ext.P5 is the postal acknowledgment. Ext.D3 is the copy<\/p>\n
of the reply notice sent by the accused.\n<\/p>\n
      8. The certified extract of the savings back account ledger of the<\/p>\n
accused is marked as Ext.P6. The cheque returned register maintained<\/p>\n
in the bank, in which the accused is having account, is marked as<\/p>\n
Ext.P7. From Exts.P6 and P7 it is clear that there was no sufficient<\/p>\n
funds in the account of the accused to honour Ext. P1 cheque.<\/p>\n
      9.   In cross examination PW1 admitted that he is conducting a<\/p>\n
Kuri Company by name Kalariparambil Chitty Funds and Kuries and<\/p>\n
that the accused was a subscriber to two chitties for a total amount of<\/p>\n
Rs. 8 lakhs. PW1 deposed that the accused borrowed Rs. 5 lakhs in<\/p>\n
two intalments, Rs. 3 lakhs in Ocrtober, 1997 and Rs. 2 lakhs in<\/p>\n
December, 1997 and that he gave Rs. 5 lakhs not for getting interest.<\/p>\n
PW1 admitted that the accused remitted the entire amount due from<\/p>\n
him in the chittry transaction. PW1 denied the suggestion that he used<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 212 of 2004<\/p>\n
                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
to collect Promissory Notes and blank cheques while giving prized<\/p>\n
amount of the chitty. Instead he said that he used to insist to get salary<\/p>\n
certificate of Government servants and sale deeds as security. PW1<\/p>\n
deposed that the accused signed Ext.P1 filled cheque in his presence.<\/p>\n
PW1 admits that on 23.3.1996 the accused and his brothers and parents<\/p>\n
borrowed Rs. 3 lakhs from him and for the realisation of that amount<\/p>\n
he filed a suit as O.S.No. 301 of 1998 before the Sub Court, Kottayam<\/p>\n
and that Ext.D2 is the copy of the plaint in that suit.<\/p>\n
      10. The accused was examined as DW1. According to DW1<\/p>\n
when he bid the chitty conducted by the complainant, he gave blank<\/p>\n
signed cheques as security and that the complainant misused one such<\/p>\n
cheque and filed the above complaint. The counter foil of the cheque<\/p>\n
book maintained by the accused is marked as Ext.D4. Ext.P1 cheque<\/p>\n
is also seen issued from the above counter foil book. It was submitted<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for the accused that the last cheque leaf bearing<\/p>\n
No.745240 in Ext.D4 counter foil came up for collection before Ext.P1<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 212 of 2004<\/p>\n
                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
cheque bearing No.755230. The Manager of the Bank was examined<\/p>\n
as DW2.      From his evidence it is clear that the cheque usually does<\/p>\n
not come for collection in the chronological order or as per serial<\/p>\n
number. The certified copy of the savings bank account ledger of the<\/p>\n
accused was marked as Ext.D5. DW2 deposed that two cheque leaves<\/p>\n
came up for collection. Hence the fact that Ext.P1 cheque came up<\/p>\n
for collection subsequently is not of much significance.<\/p>\n
     11. It has come out in evidence that the complainant is<\/p>\n
conducting chitty business and also engaged in lending money and the<\/p>\n
accused and his family borrowed amounts from him. The mere fact<\/p>\n
that a huge amount was due from the accused by way of chitty<\/p>\n
transaction and a civil suit was pending against the accused for<\/p>\n
recovery of the amount are not sufficient to doubt the case of the<\/p>\n
complainant that he lent Rs. 5 lakhs to the accused and when he<\/p>\n
demanded back that amount the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque as in<\/p>\n
those transactions the complainant obtained sufficient security for<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 212 of 2004<\/p>\n
                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
realisation of those amounts and that the accused was paying the<\/p>\n
amounts due in the chitty transaction promptly. If Ext.P1 cheque was<\/p>\n
given by the accused as security for the chitty transaction, the accused<\/p>\n
ought to have taken steps to get back that cheque after closing the<\/p>\n
chitty transaction. But the accused has not taken any steps for getting<\/p>\n
back the cheque. On considering all these aspects, I am of the view<\/p>\n
that the case of the complainant that Ext.P1 cheque was issued by the<\/p>\n
accused is believable. Since execution of Ext.P1 cheque is proved,<\/p>\n
the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act would apply<\/p>\n
and it is for the accused to rebut that presumption. But the evidence<\/p>\n
adduced from the side of the accused is not sufficient to rebut that<\/p>\n
presumption.\n<\/p>\n
      12.   Since the complainant has proved all the essential elements<\/p>\n
of the offence     under Section 138 of the N.I. Act,       the learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate is not justified in acquitting the accused. As the accused<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 212 of 2004<\/p>\n
                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
committed the offence under Section 138 of the Act he is convicted<\/p>\n
for that offence.\n<\/p>\n
      13.   In the decision reported in Damodar S. Prabhu v.<\/p>\n
Sayed Babalal H<\/a> (2010(2) KHC 428 (SC)), it was held that in a<\/p>\n
case of dishonour of cheques, compensatory aspect of the remedy<\/p>\n
should be given priority over the punitive aspect. Considering the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that<\/p>\n
sentencing the accused to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000\/- would meet<\/p>\n
the ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
      14. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The judgment of<\/p>\n
acquittal in C.C.No. 1593 of 1998 on the file of the Addl.<\/p>\n
Magistrate of Ist Class – No.II, Mobile Court, Kottayam (Camp<\/p>\n
sitting Changanacherry)    is set aside and the accused is found<\/p>\n
guilty and convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he is<\/p>\n
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000\/- The said fine shall be<\/p>\n
Crl.A. No. 212 of 2004<\/p>\n
                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
paid to the appellant as compensation under Section 357(1) of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. The accused is permitted either to deposit the fine amount<\/p>\n
before the court below or directly pay the compensation to the<\/p>\n
appellant within three months from today and produce a memo to<\/p>\n
that effect before the court below in case of direct payment. If the<\/p>\n
accused fails to deposit or pay the said amount within the aforesaid<\/p>\n
period, he shall suffer S.I. for a period of three months by way of<\/p>\n
default sentence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
\n                                            Judge
\ntm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Tom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 212 of 2004() 1. TOM JOSEPH, KALARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, … Petitioner Vs 1. KURIAN JOSEPH, MATHICHIPARAMBIL … Respondent 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY For Petitioner :SRI.M.J.THOMAS For Respondent :SRI.SABU GEORGE The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-58636","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 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\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-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=\"2010-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-15T05:21:13+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-15T05:21:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1672,\"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\\\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Tom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-15T05:21:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Tom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 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\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-15T05:21:13+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-15T05:21:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010"},"wordCount":1672,"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\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010","name":"Tom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-15T05:21:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tom-joseph-vs-kurian-joseph-on-22-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tom Joseph vs Kurian Joseph on 22 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58636","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=58636"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58636\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58636"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58636"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58636"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}