{"id":58921,"date":"2010-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010"},"modified":"2019-02-10T01:35:18","modified_gmt":"2019-02-09T20:05:18","slug":"puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 704 of 1997()\n\n\n\n1. PUTHIYAPURAYIL DEVU\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. 8UTHIYAPURAYIL GOVINDAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.CIBI THOMAS\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :20\/01\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.\n                 --------------------------\n                      A.S.NO.704 OF 1997\n                 --------------------------\n               DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>          Plaintiffs in O.S.No.52\/95 on the file of the Sub Court,<\/p>\n<p>Payyannur are the appellant. The suit was filed for declaration<\/p>\n<p>that the assignment deed No.4282\/92 dated 18\/12\/1992 is void<\/p>\n<p>and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs or on the plaint<\/p>\n<p>schedule property and for an injunction restraining the 2nd<\/p>\n<p>defendant from entering into the plaint schedule property or from<\/p>\n<p>exercising any acts of possession on the strength of the<\/p>\n<p>assignment deed. The court below held that the lst defendant has<\/p>\n<p>got exclusive right over the property, that the lst defendant is<\/p>\n<p>entitled to alienate the property during his lifetime and therefore,<\/p>\n<p>the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree on the basis of the relief<\/p>\n<p>claimed in the plaint. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment, the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.      The parties hereinafter<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 -2-<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.No.704\/97<\/p>\n<p>referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the suit.<\/p>\n<p>          2. The plaintiffs and defendants are members of the<\/p>\n<p>same family and they and others have entered into a partition<\/p>\n<p>dividing the family property. The plaint schedule property in the<\/p>\n<p>suit is 22 cents described as item No.1 in Ext.A1, which is the<\/p>\n<p>partition deed dated 22\/5\/92 executed between the plaintiffs and<\/p>\n<p>defendants. The properties belonging to the family are divided<\/p>\n<p>into four items.    A schedule property was allotted to the lst<\/p>\n<p>defendant, B schedule to the 2nd defendant and C schedule to<\/p>\n<p>defendants 3 and 4. The party No.1, who is the lst defendant,<\/p>\n<p>was allotted A schedule property, party No.2, who is the 2nd<\/p>\n<p>defendant, was allotted B schedule, party Nos.3, 4 and 5 together<\/p>\n<p>were allotted    C schedule and party Nos.6 and 7 together were<\/p>\n<p>allotted  D schedule. There are 3 items in A schedule.          The<\/p>\n<p>subject matter of the suit is item No.1 in A schedule.<\/p>\n<p>          3. According to the plaintiffs, the lst defendant has got<\/p>\n<p>only life interest in the plaint schedule property and has no right<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 -3-<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.No.704\/97<\/p>\n<p>to alienate the property in favour of others. It is further alleged<\/p>\n<p>that the stipulation in Ext.A1 confers absolute right over item<\/p>\n<p>No.1 in favour of party No.4, 6 and 7 (plaintiffs in the suit) and<\/p>\n<p>therefore the lst defendant has no right to assign the property.<\/p>\n<p>The lst defendant by Ext.B1 jenm deed dated 18\/12\/92 assigned<\/p>\n<p>the property in favour of his brother, the 2nd defendant. In the<\/p>\n<p>circumstances, the plaintiff prayed for passing a decree declaring<\/p>\n<p>that Ext.B1 jenm deed is void and not binding on the rights of the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiffs and for consequential injunction.<\/p>\n<p>          3. The lst defendant admitted the execution of the<\/p>\n<p>partition deed and also Ext.B1 jenm deed. He contended that he<\/p>\n<p>got absolute right over the property, that there is no restrictions<\/p>\n<p>imposed by the terms of the partition deed and therefore, the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief.<\/p>\n<p>          4. The dispute centres around one paragraph in Ext.A1<\/p>\n<p>partition deed. The recitals in paragraph 11 of page 3 of the<\/p>\n<p>judgment reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                -4-<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.No.704\/97<\/p>\n<p>           &#8221; On going through the recitals in the initial<\/p>\n<p>           portions of Ext.A1 there can be no doubt that<\/p>\n<p>           the right conferred on the lst defendant is an<\/p>\n<p>           exclusive right and he has become the absolute<\/p>\n<p>           owner of the property by the said documents.<\/p>\n<p>           The further recitals in the document also makes<\/p>\n<p>           it clear that what is intended to be conveyed to<\/p>\n<p>           the lst defendant is the exclusive right over the<\/p>\n<p>           property shown in the A schedule. This is the<\/p>\n<p>           case with other allottees also.           There is<\/p>\n<p>           difference in the recital in the initial portions so<\/p>\n<p>           far as the right conferred on the parties are<\/p>\n<p>           concerned. It is against these recitals that the<\/p>\n<p>           subsequent recital that the lst defendant shall<\/p>\n<p>           not alienate item No.1 in A schedule is made in<\/p>\n<p>           the document.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>         5. The trial court interpreted the the partition deed and<\/p>\n<p>held that there can be no doubt that the right conferred on the lst<\/p>\n<p>defendant is an exclusive right and he has become absolute<\/p>\n<p>owner of the property as per Ext.A1 partition deed. The court<\/p>\n<p>below also considered the contention raised by the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 -5-<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.No.704\/97<\/p>\n<p>The court below held that there is no clause restraining the lst<\/p>\n<p>defendant from alienating the property nor enjoying the property<\/p>\n<p>as an absolute owner. The court below held that the intention of<\/p>\n<p>the parties at the time of execution of Ext.A1 was to confer<\/p>\n<p>exclusive right on the lst defendant. So far as A schedule items<\/p>\n<p>are concerned in respect of item No.1 in A schedule also, there<\/p>\n<p>was no intention to restrict his right to a life interest. The trial<\/p>\n<p>court rightly observed that if this is the intention it could have<\/p>\n<p>been specifically stated in the document itself, that the right that<\/p>\n<p>is given to the lst defendant is only a life interest and the property<\/p>\n<p>is allotted to party Nos.4, 6 and 7.\n<\/p>\n<p>          6. I have also gone through the relevant paragraph<\/p>\n<p>extracted above. The said clause recites that item No.1 of A<\/p>\n<p>schedule was in the possession and enjoyment of the lst<\/p>\n<p>defendant as on the date of Ext.A1 partition deed, that on his<\/p>\n<p>death the property shall devolve on party Nos. 4, 6 and 7 and<\/p>\n<p>their female children. In the earlier portion of the partition deed<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                               -6-<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.No.704\/97<\/p>\n<p>the properties are divided into four shares and it was recited that<\/p>\n<p>A schedule was allotted to the lst defendant, B schedule to the 2nd<\/p>\n<p>defendant, C schedule to party Nos.3, 4 and 5 and D schedule to<\/p>\n<p>party Nos. 6 and 7. So, there was allotment of properties to each<\/p>\n<p>and every sharer. The extracted portion only shows that the<\/p>\n<p>property shall be devolved on party Nos.4, 6 and 7, after the<\/p>\n<p>death of the lst defendant.     That does not mean that the lst<\/p>\n<p>defendant has got no independent or exclusive right. The recitals<\/p>\n<p>in the partition deed do not restrict his right during the life time.<\/p>\n<p>That means, he can enjoy the property as absolute owner. During<\/p>\n<p>his life time he executed Ext.B1 jenm deed in favour of his<\/p>\n<p>brother, the 2nd defendant. I do not find any reason to interfere<\/p>\n<p>with the findings entered by the court below. The interpretation<\/p>\n<p>placed by the court below of the impugned paragraph and rest of<\/p>\n<p>the paragraphs are correct and are in order. I find no reason to<\/p>\n<p>take a different view from the view taken by the court below.<\/p>\n<p>          In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                              -7-<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.No.704\/97<\/p>\n<p>court below are confirmed. The appeal fails and accordingly<\/p>\n<p>dismissed. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                       HARUN-UL-RASHID,<br \/>\n                                             JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n<p>kcv.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                  -8-<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.No.704\/97<\/p>\n<p>                    HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                 &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>                     A.S.NO.704 OF 1997\n<\/p>\n<p>                 &#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                             JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>                       20th JANUARY, 2010<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                 -9-<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.No.704\/97<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 704 of 1997() 1. PUTHIYAPURAYIL DEVU &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. 8UTHIYAPURAYIL GOVINDAN &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.CIBI THOMAS For Respondent :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :20\/01\/2010 O R D E R [&hellip;]<\/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-58921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-09T20:05:18+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-09T20:05:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1136,\"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\\\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-09T20:05:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-09T20:05:18+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-09T20:05:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010"},"wordCount":1136,"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\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010","name":"Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-09T20:05:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/puthiyapurayil-devu-vs-8uthiyapurayil-govindan-on-20-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Puthiyapurayil Devu vs 8Uthiyapurayil Govindan on 20 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/58921","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=58921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58921\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}