{"id":60541,"date":"2010-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-15T05:28:30","modified_gmt":"2018-05-14T23:58:30","slug":"mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 875 of 1998(C)\n\n\n\n1. MANNAT DEVI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. PUTHENVALAPPIL DEVU\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :02\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
            Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan<\/p>\n
                         &<\/p>\n
                 P.Bhavadasan, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
               A.S.No.875 of 1998-C<\/p>\n
  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
      Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2010.<\/p>\n
                     Judgment<\/p>\n
  Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.<\/p>\n
1.Mannan  died  intestate    on  19.8.1964.   Matha,<\/p>\n
 admittedly, his wife, died intestate on 4.8.1990.<\/p>\n
 They  had  eight  children.   Of  them,   Devu and<\/p>\n
 Bhaskaran sued for partition. This appeal arises<\/p>\n
 from that. By that time, Kalliani, a daughter of<\/p>\n
 Matha, had died intestate on 12.6.1994. Her heirs<\/p>\n
 are arrayed defendants 5 to 9.      Anandan, a son<\/p>\n
 died earlier, on 30.11.1983, again intestate. His<\/p>\n
 widow and children are defendants 10 to 14.<\/p>\n
2.I.A.No.669\/1995 filed by strangers to the suit<\/p>\n
 for impleadment was allowed as per order dated<\/p>\n
 30.8.1995 bringing in additional defendants 15 to<\/p>\n
 17. They claimed that Mannan had another wife<\/p>\n
AS875\/98              -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 Kalliani who died leaving behind defendants 15<\/p>\n
 and 16 and Bhaskaran of whom Bhaskaran also died<\/p>\n
 leaving behind defendant no.16.<\/p>\n
3.With this, it appears that the plaintiffs did not<\/p>\n
 further prosecute the suit and their counsel<\/p>\n
 reported      no     instructions.       Thereupon,<\/p>\n
 I.A.1296\/1996 filed by those who were impleaded<\/p>\n
 as defendants 15 and 17, was allowed transposing<\/p>\n
 them as plaintiffs and Devu and Bhaskaran, the<\/p>\n
 original    plaintiffs      being   transposed  as<\/p>\n
 defendants 18 and 19.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.Thereupon,  the  fundamental     lis  between  the<\/p>\n
 parties   revolved  around    the  question  as to<\/p>\n
 whether    Mannan  had      a  wife   Kalliani and<\/p>\n
 consequently, whether defendants 15 to 17 whom we<\/p>\n
 shall refer by that status, were entitled to<\/p>\n
 share in the assets of Mannan.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.Plaint A schedule admittedly belonged exclusively<\/p>\n
 to    Mannan and  plaint     B  schedule admittedly<\/p>\n
AS875\/98              -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 belonged  to  Matha,   i.e.,   the mother  of   the<\/p>\n
 original   plaintiffs   Devu   and  Bhaskaran  and<\/p>\n
 defendants 1 to 4, Kalliani and Anandan. No<\/p>\n
 arguments were addressed before us to the contra.<\/p>\n
6.The trial court granted a preliminary decree of<\/p>\n
 plaint A and B schedule properties exclusively to<\/p>\n
 the children of Matha holding that no marriage<\/p>\n
 between   Mannan  and    Kalliani  is  proved  and<\/p>\n
 therefore, defendants 15 to 17 are not entitled<\/p>\n
 to any share even in plaint A schedule that<\/p>\n
 belonged to Mannan.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.This  appeal is   by   the  transposed  plaintiffs<\/p>\n
 (defendants  15  and   17   and  defendant  no.16),<\/p>\n
 meaning thereby, the heirs of Kalliani.<\/p>\n
8.With the aforesaid, before proceeding further, we<\/p>\n
 affirm   the  preliminary    decree for   partition<\/p>\n
 granted by the trial court as regards Mannan’s<\/p>\n
 estate, i.e., plaint A schedule to be partitioned<\/p>\n
 among the original plaintiffs Devu and Bhaskaran<\/p>\n
AS875\/98               -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 and defendants 1 to 4, 5 to 9 as heirs of<\/p>\n
 Kalliani   and  defendants    10   to 14,  heirs  of<\/p>\n
 Anandan.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.The only issue that would survive is as to<\/p>\n
 whether, in sharing    B schedule that belonged to<\/p>\n
 Matha, defendants 15, 16 and 17 are entitled to<\/p>\n
 share as children of Mannan.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.The existence of a marriage between Mannan and<\/p>\n
 Matha    until 1964   when    Mannan  died,  is not<\/p>\n
 disputed by the heirs of Kalliani. Obviously,<\/p>\n
 therefore,    Kalliani’s     alleged  marriage  with<\/p>\n
 Mannan, even if shown, would necessarily be void<\/p>\n
 or voidable in terms of the laws that governed<\/p>\n
 the parties who are Malabar Thiyyas, be it Madras<\/p>\n
 Aliyasantana Act or the Malabar Marriage Act,<\/p>\n
 1896 or the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,<\/p>\n
 1955. We are also not shown any other provisions<\/p>\n
 of    law on  the  basis     of  which it  could be<\/p>\n
 contended that Mannan, a Malabar Thiyya, could<\/p>\n
 have had two wives living at the same time.<\/p>\n
AS875\/98               -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
11.In the light of the above, the only question<\/p>\n
 that would survive for consideration is as to<\/p>\n
 whether   the  appellants,     namely,  the  original<\/p>\n
 defendants 15 to 17 are entitled to any share in<\/p>\n
 the estate of Mannan on the basis of Section 16<\/p>\n
 of the Hindu Marriage Act.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.In   terms  of  Section     3(1)(j)  of the  Hindu<\/p>\n
 Succession   Act,  defining      the  word  “related”<\/p>\n
 under the Hindu Succession Act and the proviso<\/p>\n
 thereto,   the   only   room    for  any  claim  for<\/p>\n
 succession by any child of a marriage which is<\/p>\n
 null and void is only with reference to Section<\/p>\n
 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Reference is made<\/p>\n
 by the learned counsel for the appellants to the<\/p>\n
 decision of the Apex Court in Parayankandiyal<\/p>\n
 Eravath   Kanapravan   Kalliani     Amma v.  K.Devi,<\/a><\/p>\n
 (1996) 4 SSC 76 rendered with reference to the<\/p>\n
 provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage<\/p>\n
 Act    recognizing  the      removal  of  distinction<\/p>\n
 between the child of void and voidable marriages<\/p>\n
AS875\/98              -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 and thereby putting it in tune with Article 14 of<\/p>\n
 the Constitution. As noticed by the Apex Court in<\/p>\n
 Bharatha Matha v. Vijaya Renganathan,<\/a> [2010(2)<\/p>\n
 KLT SN 65(C.No.62)SC], recourse to Section 16 is<\/p>\n
 permissible only for the purpose of claiming<\/p>\n
 share in self acquired properties of the parents<\/p>\n
 and the said provision cannot be utilised to<\/p>\n
 claim   inheritance   in     ancestral coparcenary<\/p>\n
 property, even by any dilution of the provisions<\/p>\n
 contained in Section 16 based on the equality<\/p>\n
 doctrine   contained    in   Article  14  of  the<\/p>\n
 Constitution.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.On to the evidence, we find that additional 15th<\/p>\n
 defendant, who is the eldest among the children<\/p>\n
 of Kalliani, gave evidence as P.W.1. She proved<\/p>\n
 Exts.A1 to A3 which are the certificates of birth<\/p>\n
 issued as regards defendant 15, defendant 16 and<\/p>\n
 the father of defendant 17 recording their date<\/p>\n
 of births as 4.12.1927, 16.10.1934 and 3.7.1937<\/p>\n
 respectively. She also spoke that the persons<\/p>\n
 named in those certificates as the father and<\/p>\n
AS875\/98               -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 mother of the child in question is Mannan and<\/p>\n
 Kalliani. That assertion is not seriously denied<\/p>\n
 by any contra evidence, though there is cross-<\/p>\n
 examination on this point which, in our view, has<\/p>\n
 not affected the credibility of the evidence of<\/p>\n
 P.W.1 in this regard. With this, is Ext.A4, the<\/p>\n
 invitation letter for the marriage of defendant<\/p>\n
 no.17, the daughter of Bhaskaran. That invitation<\/p>\n
 is extended by the first defendant who gave<\/p>\n
 evidence as D.W.1. The first defendant is the<\/p>\n
 eldest son of Matha and Mannan. Exts.A5 and A6<\/p>\n
 are     photographs  taken    at the marriage of<\/p>\n
 defendant no.17, the daughter of Bhaskaran. The<\/p>\n
 evidence of D.W.1, the eldest son of Matha is<\/p>\n
 that his father Mannan had two wives, namely,<\/p>\n
 Matha and Kalliani and that he is identifiable<\/p>\n
 from the photographs produced as Exts.A5 and A6.<\/p>\n
 He     says  that  it  was    he who extended the<\/p>\n
 invitation for the said marriage, though in the<\/p>\n
 cross examination he also stated that he did so<\/p>\n
 as the elder in the locality.\n<\/p>\n
AS875\/98             -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
14.With the aforesaid evidence on record, we find<\/p>\n
 that there is no contra evidence either from the<\/p>\n
 original plaintiffs, namely, Devu and Bhaskaran<\/p>\n
 or from any among the heirs of Kalliani and<\/p>\n
 Anandan, whereas the only evidence is from D.W.1,<\/p>\n
 who is the first defendant, the eldest son of<\/p>\n
 Mannan. Though it is suggested that D.W.1 was<\/p>\n
 sailing along with the children of Kalliani, we<\/p>\n
 do not find any material on record to reasonably<\/p>\n
 infer   to that  effect.   This is  because, the<\/p>\n
 evidence  of  D.W.1,   when  used  in favour  of<\/p>\n
 Kalliani’s heirs, would result in depriving him<\/p>\n
 of his otherwise large share which he would have<\/p>\n
 got    as an   heir    of   Mannan.  Under  such<\/p>\n
 circumstances, we are not impressed to take the<\/p>\n
 evidence of D.W.1 as motivated, in any manner,<\/p>\n
 against the interest of the original plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
 We also take the setting in which D.W.1 gives<\/p>\n
 evidence; as the eldest son of Mannan; as the<\/p>\n
 eldest male member of the family; as the senior<\/p>\n
 person of the locality etc. D.W.1 having spoken<\/p>\n
 to the effect that Kalliani is the wife of<\/p>\n
AS875\/98               -: 9 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 Mannan, in the adjudication of the suit which was<\/p>\n
 filed in the year 1994, we do not find it<\/p>\n
 necessary to further probe for evidence relating<\/p>\n
 to a customary marriage of Mannan with Kalliani.<\/p>\n
 When Mannan admittedly died way back on 19.8.1964<\/p>\n
 and the eldest among the children of Mannan and<\/p>\n
 Kalliani (defendant no.15) was born on 4.12.1927,<\/p>\n
 it may be too far-fetched to expect any evidence<\/p>\n
 in that regard. Even if we were to assume that<\/p>\n
 there is no legal evidence to hold that there is<\/p>\n
 a    proved  and continued     cohabitation  between<\/p>\n
 Mannan and Kalliani, there is sufficient material<\/p>\n
 on record to hold that they lived as husband and<\/p>\n
 wife and they had three children and the children<\/p>\n
 born to Matha had also recognised the children<\/p>\n
 born to Kalliani as children of Mannan. This is<\/p>\n
 how we appreciate the evidence of D.W.1. It is in<\/p>\n
 this    context  that    we   have   necessarily to<\/p>\n
 visualize    the  social      acceptance  that  the<\/p>\n
 relationship   between   Mannan   and  Kalliani had<\/p>\n
 received. The evidence of D.W.1 vouchsafed that<\/p>\n
 defendant no. 17’s marriage was held inviting the<\/p>\n
AS875\/98             -: 10 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 public. Ext.A4 extended by D.W.1 (defendant no.1)<\/p>\n
 shows that it was he who extended the invitation<\/p>\n
 for the marriage of defendant no.17. D.W.1 was<\/p>\n
 the eldest among the children of Mannan and<\/p>\n
 defendant no.17 was the daughter of Bhaskaran. In<\/p>\n
 Ext.A4, D.W.1 Kunhikannan makes the invitation by<\/p>\n
 calling defendant no.17 Bindu as his brother’s<\/p>\n
 daughter. This, obviously, means that for all<\/p>\n
 intents and purposes, even on 30.12.1990, i.e.,<\/p>\n
 after the demise of Matha, even D.W.1 had treated<\/p>\n
 Bhaskaran, the father of defendant no.17 as his<\/p>\n
 brother, may be, a half brother.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.On the aforesaid materials, we are unable to<\/p>\n
 agree with the decision of the trial court that<\/p>\n
 the heirs of Kalliani, defendants 15 to 17 are<\/p>\n
 not entitled to share in the plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
 property.\n<\/p>\n
 In the result, the impugned preliminary decree in<\/p>\n
 so far as it relates to A schedule property is<\/p>\n
 set aside. It is ordered that A schedule will be<\/p>\n
AS875\/98               -: 11 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
 divided   into  12   shares.    From  that, original<\/p>\n
 defendants, 15 , 16 and 17 (i.e., transposed<\/p>\n
 plaintiffs 3 and 4 and defendant no.16) will be<\/p>\n
 allotted one share each and original plaintiffs<\/p>\n
 Devu and Bhaskaran and defendants 1 to 4 would be<\/p>\n
 allotted one share each; defendants 5 to 9 would<\/p>\n
 be    allotted one   share    jointly  and defendant<\/p>\n
 nos.10 to 14 would be allotted one share jointly<\/p>\n
 and one share of Matha will be allotted jointly<\/p>\n
 to original plaintiffs Devu and Bhaskaran and<\/p>\n
 defendants 1 to 14. It is also clarified that the<\/p>\n
 children of Matha would be eligible to seek<\/p>\n
 allotment   as  regards     Matha’s share  in  final<\/p>\n
 decree    proceedings,   if   they  so  desire.  The<\/p>\n
 preliminary decree passed by the trial court is<\/p>\n
 modified to the said effect. No costs.<\/p>\n
                          Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
\n                                     Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                  P.Bhavadasan,
\n                                       Judge.\n<\/p>\n
Sha\/09\/2411<\/p>\n
AS875\/98    -: 12 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                        Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan<\/p>\n
                                     &<\/p>\n
                            P.Bhavadasan, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
                            A.S.875 of 1998-C<\/p>\n
                     = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
                                 Judgment<\/p>\n
                            2nd November, 2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 875 of 1998(C) 1. MANNAT DEVI … Petitioner Vs 1. PUTHENVALAPPIL DEVU … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.L.KRISHNAMOORTHY For Respondent :SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN Dated :02\/11\/2010 O […]<\/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-60541","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 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\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-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=\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-14T23:58:30+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\\\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-14T23:58:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1704,\"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\\\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Mannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-14T23:58:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 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":"Mannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 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\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-14T23:58:30+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\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-14T23:58:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010"},"wordCount":1704,"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\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010","name":"Mannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-14T23:58:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mannat-devi-vs-puthenvalappil-devu-on-2-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mannat Devi vs Puthenvalappil Devu on 2 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\/60541","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=60541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}