{"id":58675,"date":"2010-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-26T12:31:03","modified_gmt":"2016-02-26T07:01:03","slug":"shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Shiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Shiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP(C).No. 813 of 2010(O)\n\n\n1. SHINY, AGED 47 YEARS, W\/O.RAPHAEL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. RAPHAEL, AGED 48 YEARS, S\/O.OUSEPH,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.V.SURENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SAJITHA SURENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,\n\n3. K.C.MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,\n\n4. ABDUL KAREEM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.BASIL MATHEW\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :29\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                              THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                            --------------------------------------\n                              O.P.(C) No.813 of 2010\n                            --------------------------------------\n                  Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010.\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
              Plaintiffs in O.S.No.115 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge,<\/p>\n
Perumbavoor are the petitioner before me,                    aggrieved by Ext.P7, order<\/p>\n
dismissing an application for amendment of plaint and striking out name of<\/p>\n
respondent No.4 from the array of defendants. According to the petitioners,<\/p>\n
petitioner No.1 owned the suit property and executed a power of attorney in<\/p>\n
favour of respondent No.1 in connection with a money transaction petitioner<\/p>\n
No.2 had with respondent No.1 as security for the said transaction. But misusing<\/p>\n
that power of attorney respondent No.1 is said to have created sale deed in<\/p>\n
favour of respondent No.2, his wife who, in turn created assignment deed in<\/p>\n
favour of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 filed O.S.No.260 of 2005 in the<\/p>\n
court of learned Munsiff, Perumbavoor against one Joy and his wife for fixation of<\/p>\n
boundary as if he is the owner in possession of the suit property. In that case<\/p>\n
petitioners got impleaded as additional defendant Nos.3 and 4.               Petitioners<\/p>\n
filed O.S.No.115 of 2008 in the court of learned Sub Judge for declaration of title<\/p>\n
and possession of petitioner No.1 and, that the assignment deed created by<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 or the assignment deed created<\/p>\n
by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3 did not bind petitioner No.1 and<\/p>\n
the suit property and for other reliefs.           Alleging that respondent No.4 has<\/p>\n
trespassed    into a portion of the suit property, respondent No.3 sought<\/p>\n
impleadment of respondent No.4 as additional defendant No.5 in O.S.No.260 of<\/p>\n
2005 and that application was            allowed.        On the request of petitioners,<\/p>\n
OP(C) No.813\/2010<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
O.S.No.260 of 2005 filed in the court of learned Munsiff was transferred to the<\/p>\n
court of learned Sub Judge, Perumbavoor and renumbered as O.S.No.35 of<\/p>\n
2009. Petitioners say that a joint trial of O.S.No.115 of 2008 and O.S.No.35 of<\/p>\n
2009 was ordered. While so, the Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.P3,<\/p>\n
report and plan which revealed that respondent No.4 is in possession of a<\/p>\n
portion of the suit property. Thereon petitioners filed I.A.No.302 of 2010 to<\/p>\n
implead respondent No.4 as additional defendant No.4 in O.S.No.115 of 2008.<\/p>\n
That application was allowed as per order dated 02.07.2010. Consequent to<\/p>\n
that impleadment petitioners filed I.A.No.889 of 2010 (in O.S.No.115 of 2008) for<\/p>\n
amendment of plaint to incorporate prayer for recovery of possession of portion<\/p>\n
of property found in the possession of respondent No.4. That application was<\/p>\n
objected by respondent No.4 contending that amendment would change nature<\/p>\n
and character of the suit and that petitioners have no right to seek any such<\/p>\n
amendment. The attempt of petitioners was to take possession of property<\/p>\n
belonging to respondent No.4, it was contended. Learned Sub Judge by Ext.P7,<\/p>\n
order dismissed I.A.No.889 of 2010 (for amendment of plaint in O.S.No.115 of<\/p>\n
2008) and struck off the name of respondent No.4 from the array of parties in<\/p>\n
that suit. That order is under challenge.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.    Notice of this petition was served on counsel for respondents in the<\/p>\n
trial court as per order dated 22.11.2010. Counsel for petitioners have filed a<\/p>\n
memo stating that notice has been served on counsel stating      that the case is<\/p>\n
OP(C) No.813\/2010<\/p>\n
                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
posted in this Court, this day. There is however, no appearance for any of the<\/p>\n
respondents. Service of notice on counsel is sufficient in view of Rule 59 of the<\/p>\n
Kerala High Court Rules.\n<\/p>\n
       3.    Question for consideration is whether Ext.P7 would stand legal<\/p>\n
scrutiny.  It is not disputed that on the premise that respondent No.4 is a<\/p>\n
necessary party to the proceeding I.A.No.302 of 2010 was allowed on<\/p>\n
02.07.2010 and he was impleaded as additional defendant No.4 in O.S.No.115<\/p>\n
of 2008. It is when petitioners filed I.A.No.889 of 2010 for a consequential<\/p>\n
amendment of plaint in O.S.No.115 of 2008 to incorporate prayer for recovery<\/p>\n
of the possession of that portion of the property found in the possession of<\/p>\n
respondent No.4, that he raised an objection that amendment sought for is<\/p>\n
not to be allowed. That objection was upheld by learned Sub Judge. Not only<\/p>\n
I.A.No.889 of 2010 was dismissed but the learned Sub Judge also struck off<\/p>\n
name of respondent No.4 from the array of parties.\n<\/p>\n
       4.    No doubt, the court has power under Order I Rule 10(2) of the<\/p>\n
Code of Civil Procedure to add or delete any person from the array of parties in<\/p>\n
the suit.  Question for consideration is whether     court below is justified in<\/p>\n
invoking that power on the facts of the case. In O.S.No.115 of 2008 petitioners<\/p>\n
are seeking a declaration that property belongs to them and that the assignment<\/p>\n
deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 and            the<\/p>\n
assignment deed executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.3 is<\/p>\n
OP(C) No.813\/2010<\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
invalid. In otherwords, issue regarding title of petitioners is to be adjudicated in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.115 of 2008.        Ext.P3, report shows that respondent No.4 is in<\/p>\n
possession of a portion of suit property.       Certainly petitioner could recover<\/p>\n
possession of the suit property on the basis of title which is to be adjudicated in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.115 of 2008. If respondent No.4 is left out from the array of parties,<\/p>\n
petitioners may have to file a separate suit for recovery of possession against<\/p>\n
respondent No.4 on the strength of title. That involves multiplicity of suits and<\/p>\n
possibility of divergent findings on title. It also involves waste of time and<\/p>\n
energy. I must bear in mind that in O.S.No.35 of 2009 (originally filed in the<\/p>\n
court of learned Munsiff as O.S.No.260 of 2005) respondent No.4 has already<\/p>\n
been impleaded as a party and he is on record as additional defendant No.5. In<\/p>\n
such a situation it is proper that dispute on title of petitioners is adjudicated in<\/p>\n
the pending suit with respondent No.4 also as a party. Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
petitioners have    placed reliance on the decision Prem Lala Nahata v.<\/p>\n
Chandi Prasad<\/a> (2007 (1) KLT 910). In that case Supreme Court dealt<\/p>\n
with the issue regarding non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and cause of<\/p>\n
action and consolidation of the suits. In paragraph 13, it is held that issue<\/p>\n
regarding non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties are more in<\/p>\n
the relam of procedure and not affecting the substantive right of parties. I must<\/p>\n
bear in mind that in O.S.No.35 of 2010 respondent No.4 has already been<\/p>\n
impleaded as additional defendant No.5 on the request of respondent No.3 who<\/p>\n
OP(C) No.813\/2010<\/p>\n
                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
filed that suit for fixation of boundary and other reliefs. Necessarily respondent<\/p>\n
No.4 has been impleaded in the          suit because of his presence in the suit<\/p>\n
property as reported by the Advocate Commissioner. If that be so, there is no<\/p>\n
reason why the same stand should not be applied in O.S.No.35 of 2005.<\/p>\n
       5.     I am not inclined to think that the amendment if allowed would<\/p>\n
change     nature and      character of the suit.     Petitioners have prayed for a<\/p>\n
declaration of their title and possession and when it was found that a third<\/p>\n
party is in possession of a portion of the suit property they wanted to amend the<\/p>\n
plaint to incorporate a prayer for recovery of         possession of that   portion.<\/p>\n
Amendment is necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to<\/p>\n
avoid multiplicity of suits. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the<\/p>\n
case I am inclined to think that learned Sub Judge ought to have allowed<\/p>\n
I.A.No.889 of 2010 and permitted amendment of the plaint. In that view Ext.P7,<\/p>\n
order is liable to be set aside and I.A.No.889 of 2010 is to be allowed.<\/p>\n
       Resultantly this petition is allowed in the following lines:<\/p>\n
       i.     Ext.P7, order dismissing I.A.No.887 of 2010 is set aside and that<\/p>\n
application will stand allowed.\n<\/p>\n
OP(C) No.813\/2010<\/p>\n
                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
       ii.    Petitioners are allowed to amend the plaint as prayed for in<\/p>\n
I.A.No.889 of 2010. Amendment shall be carried out within 14 days of receipt of<\/p>\n
a copy of this judgment in the court below.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       iii.   Respondent No.4 whose name has been deleted from the array of<\/p>\n
parties is brought back to his position as additional defendant No.4.<\/p>\n
       iv.    It will be open to the respondents to file written statement or<\/p>\n
additional written statement as the case may be in answer to the amended<\/p>\n
plaint.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                        Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Shiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP(C).No. 813 of 2010(O) 1. SHINY, AGED 47 YEARS, W\/O.RAPHAEL, … Petitioner 2. RAPHAEL, AGED 48 YEARS, S\/O.OUSEPH, Vs 1. K.V.SURENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, … Respondent 2. SAJITHA SURENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 3. K.C.MATHEW, AGED […]<\/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-58675","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 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\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-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=\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-26T07:01:03+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\\\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-26T07:01:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1403,\"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\\\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Shiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-26T07:01:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 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":"Shiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 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\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-26T07:01:03+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\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-26T07:01:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010"},"wordCount":1403,"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\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010","name":"Shiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-26T07:01:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shiny-vs-k-v-surendran-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shiny vs K.V.Surendran on 29 November, 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\/58675","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=58675"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58675\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58675"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58675"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58675"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}