{"id":58988,"date":"2007-06-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007"},"modified":"2017-11-07T23:11:30","modified_gmt":"2017-11-07T17:41:30","slug":"v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"V.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
V.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP No. 956 of 2005()\n\n\n1. V.T.SAMUEL, AGED 63 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. T.S.ABRAHAM, AGED 73 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. V.S.JOHN, AGED 74 YEARS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\n\n Dated :28\/06\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n                              PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.\n\n                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n                               C.R.P. No.956 of 2005\n\n                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n                               Dated: 28th June, 2007\n\n\n                                         ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
       The defendant counter petitioner in an application for initiation of<\/p>\n
action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A for alleged violation of an order of<\/p>\n
temporary injunction is aggrieved by the order of the learned Munsiff<\/p>\n
finding that the petitioner is guilty of disobedience of injunction order<\/p>\n
and   directing   his   arrest   and   detention   in   civil   prison   and   also<\/p>\n
attachment and sale of his property  for payment  of compensation to<\/p>\n
the respondent-plaintiff and also the judgment of the lower appellate<\/p>\n
court confirming the order of the learned Munsiff. The suit O.S.No.456<\/p>\n
of 2004 was filed by the 1st respondent arraying the petitioner and the<\/p>\n
2nd  respondent   herein   as   defendants   for   a   decree   of   permanent<\/p>\n
prohibitory   injunction   restraining   the   defendants   from   trespassing<\/p>\n
upon   the   plaint   item   No.2   pathway   or   from   reducing   the   same   into<\/p>\n
their   possession   or   from   making   obstructions   to   the   user   of   the<\/p>\n
pathway by the plaintiff or from committing any act of waste upon the<\/p>\n
pathway.   Along   with   the   suit   I.A.No.2030\/04,   an   application   for<\/p>\n
temporary   injunction  was   also  filed  on   13.11.2004   and  on   the  same<\/p>\n
day   the   learned   Munsiff   granted   temporary   injunction   which   was<\/p>\n
prayed   for   in   the   lines   of   the   decree   sought   for   in   the   plaint.   An<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner was appointed ex parte on the same day on a<\/p>\n
CRP 956\/2005<\/p>\n
                                         -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
separate   application   filed   by   the   plaintiff.   The   Commissioner   filed<\/p>\n
report, mahazer and draft sketch on 2.12.2004. The allegation of the<\/p>\n
first respondent in the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A was that<\/p>\n
the   petitioner-1st  defendant   in   blatant   violation   of   the   temporary<\/p>\n
injunction order obstructed the pathway by  depositing heaps of jungle<\/p>\n
stones on the pathway from the western side to the eastern side and<\/p>\n
by spreading glass pieces and throwing through out the pathway. The<\/p>\n
further allegation is that the first respondent is throwing stones on the<\/p>\n
plaintiff   and   his   workers   whenever   they   attempt   to   use   the   pathway<\/p>\n
notwithstanding the subsistence  of the order of temporary injunction.<\/p>\n
The contention raised by the petitioner in the application was that the<\/p>\n
application is not maintainable; that he  has not violated the order  of<\/p>\n
injunction; that plaint item No.2 is not a pathway, it is in fact a place<\/p>\n
set apart by the forefathers of the petitioner who are agriculturists in<\/p>\n
between the boundaries of their properties for the purpose of storage<\/p>\n
of granite stone pieces; the said  area is even now being used for the<\/p>\n
said   purpose;   no   pathway   as   alleged   is   in   existence;   the   plaintiff<\/p>\n
inflicted bodily injury on the wife of the petitioner who is now admitted<\/p>\n
for   treatment   in   the   Government   Hospital,   Pathanamthitta;<\/p>\n
Pathanamthitta Police have registered a crime case in respect of that<\/p>\n
offence; the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A has been filed with<\/p>\n
a   view   to   see   whether   the   plaintiff   can   escape   from   criminal<\/p>\n
CRP 956\/2005<\/p>\n
                                        -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution. The learned Munsiff deputed the Advocate Commissioner<\/p>\n
who had prepared Ext.C1 series for a further visit to the property. This<\/p>\n
time the Commissioner conducted inspection with notice to both sides<\/p>\n
and   filed   Exts.C2   report   and   C2(a)   plan.   The   learned   Munsiff<\/p>\n
considering   the   rival   contentions   and   evaluating   the   evidence<\/p>\n
particularly the reports and plan submitted by the very same Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner  on  the  basis  of two  inspections  and  the  circumstances<\/p>\n
attending on the case allowed the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A<\/p>\n
and the District Judge as already indicated found in appeal that there<\/p>\n
is no warrant for interfering with the order of the learned Munsiff.<\/p>\n
      2. I have heard the submissions of Mr.Philip M.Varghese, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner and also those of Mr.Liju V.Stephen, counsel<\/p>\n
for the 1st respondent-plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3. Mr.Philip M.Varghese would submit that O.S.No.456\/04 is not<\/p>\n
the only suit between the parties in respect of the suit property. The<\/p>\n
petitioner has filed another suit O.S.No.509\/04 in which also an order<\/p>\n
of temporary injunction was issued against the first respondent herein.<\/p>\n
An Advocate Commissioner was appointed in O.S.No.509\/04 also and<\/p>\n
he has filed a report in that suit which would show that the case of the<\/p>\n
1st  respondent   regarding   the   pathway   in   question   and   the   allegation<\/p>\n
that   the   order   of   temporary   injunction   in   O.S.No.456\/04   has   been<\/p>\n
violated is untrue. The petitioner actually filed I.A.No.967\/05 for calling<\/p>\n
CRP 956\/2005<\/p>\n
                                           -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
the Commissioner’s report in O.S.No.509\/04 as an item of evidence in<\/p>\n
the prosecution petition. But the learned Munsiff did not consider that<\/p>\n
I.A.   at   all.   It   is   relying   on   an   ex   parte   commissioner’s   report   in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.456\/04   that   the   learned   Munsiff   has   passed   the   impugned<\/p>\n
order on the petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2A. No opportunity was<\/p>\n
given   to   the   petitioner   for   cross-examining   the   Commissioner   who<\/p>\n
prepared   the   two   reports   relied   on   by   the   learned   Munsiff   and   the<\/p>\n
learned District Judge. The prosecution petition has been allowed in a<\/p>\n
very  casual  manner   by the   learned  Munsiff   without   any  enquiry.  The<\/p>\n
impugned orders  affect the liberty of the petitioner  and orders  which<\/p>\n
are   so   consequential   as   the   impugned   order   should   not   have   been<\/p>\n
passed   by   the   courts   below   without   testing   the   truth   of   what   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner had reported and what the 1st respondent has stated in<\/p>\n
the petition by subjecting both of them to cross-examination. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel would place before me copies of the Commissioners report and<\/p>\n
plan in O.S.No.509\/04. Learned counsel would fortify his submissions<\/p>\n
on the basis of various judgments of this court including the judgments<\/p>\n
in  Yohannan   v.   Mathai  (1991(2)   KLT   Sh.Notes   Case   No.36,   P.25),<\/p>\n
Thampi v. Malathi<\/a> (2005(4) KLT 575) (authored by myself) and that<\/p>\n
of the Supreme  Court  in  Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao<\/a>  [(1999) 3  S.C.C.<\/p>\n
573].\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         4. Learned  counsel for  the  respondent Mr.Liju  V.Stephen would<\/p>\n
CRP 956\/2005<\/p>\n
                                           -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
resist   the   submissions   of   Mr.Philip   M.Varghese   as   forcefully   as   he<\/p>\n
could.   Placing   strong   reliance   of   the   judgment   of   this   court   in   Nanu<\/p>\n
Ramachandran   v.   Raman   Uthaman   (1994(2)   KLT   Sh.Notes   Case<\/p>\n
No.44,   P.33   he   would   submit   that   in   order   to   entail   liability   in<\/p>\n
connection   with   under   Order   XXXIX   Rule   2A   it   is   not   necessary   to<\/p>\n
prove formal service of the order by official route and it will suffice if<\/p>\n
the   respondent   had   knowledge   of   the   exact   order   aliunde.   It   is   well<\/p>\n
settled that the authority and dignity of courts is to be maintained and<\/p>\n
if any party is allowed to belittle  the same it will affect the rule of law<\/p>\n
and   the   result   will   be   anarchy.   The   learned   counsel   took   me<\/p>\n
extensively   through   the   judgment   of   the   Supreme   Court   in  Delhi<\/p>\n
Judicial Service Association, Tiz Hazari Court v. State of Gujarat<\/p>\n
(AIR 1991 S.C. 2176) and submitted that contempt proceedings is sui<\/p>\n
generis   having   peculiar   features   which   are   not   found   in   criminal<\/p>\n
proceedings.   The   charge   of   contempt   is   tried   on   summary   process<\/p>\n
without   any   fixed   procedure   as   the   court   is   free   to   evolve   its   own<\/p>\n
procedure   consistent   with   fair   play   and   natural   justice.   In   contempt<\/p>\n
proceedings  unlike the trial for  a criminal offence  no oral evidence  is<\/p>\n
ordinarily   recorded   and   the   usual   practice   is   to   give   evidence   by<\/p>\n
affidavits. This court will be sending a wrong message to violators of<\/p>\n
court orders if the impugned orders are interfered with.<\/p>\n
       5.     Having   considered   the   rival   submissions   addressed   at<\/p>\n
CRP 956\/2005<\/p>\n
                                          -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
the   Bar,   in   the   light   of   the   principles   emerging   from   the   various<\/p>\n
judicial   precedence   cited   before   me   by   the   learned   counsel,   I   am<\/p>\n
inclined   to   accept   the   submissions   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   that   the   trial   court   was   not   justified   in   allowing   I.A.<\/p>\n
2320\/2004   and   in   directing   arrest   of   the   petitioner   as   well   as<\/p>\n
attachment   of   the   petitioner’s   property   on   the   reason   that   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   has   violated   the   order   of   injunction   passed   against   him<\/p>\n
and  the  further  submission  that the  lower  appellate  court  was  not<\/p>\n
justified   in   not   considering   the   petitioner’s   request   for   remand   to<\/p>\n
the trial court.  It is seen that it was mainly relying on the ex parte<\/p>\n
commissioner’s   report   in   O.S.456\/04   that   the   learned   Munsiff   has<\/p>\n
passed   the   order   which   was   impugned   before   the   lower   appellate<\/p>\n
court.   No   opportunity   had   been   given   to   the   petitioner   for   cross-<\/p>\n
examining the Commissioner who prepared the two reports, which<\/p>\n
were   relied   on   by   the   learned   Munsiff   and   the   learned   District<\/p>\n
Judge.  The authority and the dignity of the Court is very important<\/p>\n
and   nobody   should  be  allowed  to  belittle   the  same.    But  personal<\/p>\n
liberty of citizens is also equally important.  I feel that the petitioner<\/p>\n
should   have   been   given   an   opportunity   to   cross-examine   the<\/p>\n
Commissioner and show that what the commissioner had  reported<\/p>\n
was   not   correct.     The   submissions   of   Shri.Philip   M.Varghese   have<\/p>\n
CRP 956\/2005<\/p>\n
                                       -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
the support of the judgment in Yohannan  Vs. Mathai,  reported in<\/p>\n
1991(2) KLT SN Case No.36 P.25, and that of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
Vidhyadhar  Vs.  Manikrao,  reported   in  1999  (3)  SCC  573.     To  a<\/p>\n
certain  extent  they have support of  my  own  judgment  in  Thampi<\/p>\n
Vs. Malathi, reported in 2005 (4) KLT 575.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.     Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the trial court<\/p>\n
in I.A.No.2320\/2004 and the judgment of the District Court in CMA<\/p>\n
No.39\/2005   and   remand   I.A.No.2320\/2004   to   the   Munsiff   Court,<\/p>\n
Pathanamthitta.     The   learned   Munsiff   is   directed   to   take   decision<\/p>\n
afresh  in  the prosecution  petition  after affording an opportunity to<\/p>\n
the petitioner for substantiating his objections filed by him against<\/p>\n
the Commissioner’s reports.   Both  the parties should be permitted<\/p>\n
to adduce whatever further evidence they have at their command.<\/p>\n
Fresh orders will be passed by the learned Munsiff at the earliest.<\/p>\n
      Transmit the records back to the court below forthwith.<\/p>\n
                                        (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
jg<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court V.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP No. 956 of 2005() 1. V.T.SAMUEL, AGED 63 YEARS, … Petitioner Vs 1. T.S.ABRAHAM, AGED 73 YEARS, … Respondent 2. V.S.JOHN, AGED 74 YEARS, For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP M.VARUGHESE For Respondent :SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS […]<\/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-58988","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007 - 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\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-06-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-07T17:41:30+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\\\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-07T17:41:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1611,\"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\\\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007\",\"name\":\"V.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-07T17:41:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"V.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007 - 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\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-07T17:41:30+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\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-07T17:41:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007"},"wordCount":1611,"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\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007","name":"V.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-07T17:41:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-t-samuel-vs-t-s-abraham-on-28-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.T.Samuel vs T.S.Abraham on 28 June, 2007"}]},{"@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\/58988","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=58988"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58988\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58988"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58988"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58988"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}