{"id":61826,"date":"2010-07-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-03-30T12:41:53","modified_gmt":"2017-03-30T07:11:53","slug":"thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Thomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Thomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 195 of 1996()\n\n\n\n1. THOMAS P.CHACKO@ TOMY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. AMMINI VELAYUTHAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :08\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                      P.BHAVADASAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                 ————————————-\n<\/p>\n
                     SA No.195 of 1996-F\n<\/p>\n
                 ————————————-\n<\/p>\n
                      Dated 8th July 2010<\/p>\n
                            Judgment<\/p>\n
            The plaintiff in OS No.558\/78 before the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s Court, Kottayam, is the appellant. During the<\/p>\n
pendency of the appeal, both the respondents died<\/p>\n
and their legal heirs have been brought on the party<\/p>\n
array as respondents 3 to 7.\n<\/p>\n
            2. According to the plaintiff, the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
building was let out to the defendant as per document<\/p>\n
dated 1.2.1975 at a monthly rent of Rs.25\/-. Rent was paid<\/p>\n
only till 1979 and thereafter it was kept in appears. In spite<\/p>\n
of lawyers’ notices, rent was not paid and vacant<\/p>\n
possession was not given. Hence the suit.<\/p>\n
            3. The defendant resisted the suit, taking the<\/p>\n
contention that she is entitled to kudikidappu right under<\/p>\n
the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. She also disputed<\/p>\n
the lease arrangement pleaded by the plaintiff. It appears<\/p>\n
SA 195\/96                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
that the issue regarding kudikidappu was referred to the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal by the Munsiff’s Court, Kottayam. The Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal returned the matter, finding that the defendant is<\/p>\n
not entitled to kudikidappu rights. Accepting the said<\/p>\n
finding, the suit was decreed.\n<\/p>\n
           4. The defendant carried the matter in appeal as<\/p>\n
AS No.399\/1986. The Appellate Court, on an evaluation of<\/p>\n
the materials before it, disagreed with the finding of the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal and held that the defendant is entitled to<\/p>\n
kudikidappu rights. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed<\/p>\n
and the suit was dismissed. The said Judgment and decree<\/p>\n
are assailed in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
           5. The only question that arises for consideration<\/p>\n
in this appeal is whether the defendant in the suit is entitled<\/p>\n
to kudikidappu rights.\n<\/p>\n
SA 195\/96                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
          6. The following questions of law are seen<\/p>\n
framed in the Second Appeal :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “(a) Is not the lower appellate court in serious<\/p>\n
           error in setting aside the order of the Land<\/p>\n
           Tribunal on the sole ground that it conducted a<\/p>\n
           local inspection of the plaint schedule building<\/p>\n
           especially in the light of rule 137 of the Kerala<\/p>\n
           Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules 1970 and in the<\/p>\n
           light of the fact that local inspection was not the<\/p>\n
           sole ground for arriving at the decision and it<\/p>\n
           was done only to assess and verify the evidence<\/p>\n
           on record ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (b)   Is not the lower appellate court in serious<\/p>\n
           error in holding that the defendant is a<\/p>\n
           kudikidappukari of the plaint schedule building<\/p>\n
           which is only a portion of a larger building ?<\/p>\n
SA 195\/96                        4<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
          (c) In the light of the specific undertaking by the<\/p>\n
          defendant before the appellate court on the first<\/p>\n
          occasion to take out a commission after remand,<\/p>\n
          and in the light of the refusal of the defendant to<\/p>\n
          do so, is not the appellate court in serious error<\/p>\n
          in not drawing abuse inference against the<\/p>\n
          defendant ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (d) Is not the lower appellate court in serious<\/p>\n
          error in relying on a portion of the Revenue<\/p>\n
          Inspector’s report to find that the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
          building was in existence from 1950 onwards in<\/p>\n
          view of the fact that the said report cannot be<\/p>\n
          relied upon.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (e)  Is  not   the    lower   appellate   court  in<\/p>\n
          serious error in holding that Ext.A1 relates<\/p>\n
          to the plaint schedule building and the rent<\/p>\n
SA 195\/96                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
            shown therein can be taken as the rent of the<\/p>\n
            building in view of the fact that Ext.A1 is for the<\/p>\n
            year 1955-56 whereas entrustment of the<\/p>\n
            building even according to the defendant is only<\/p>\n
            in 1967.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that<\/p>\n
the lower Appellate Court was not justified in taking a<\/p>\n
different view from that of the Land Tribunal. The solitary<\/p>\n
item of evidence relied on by the lower Appellate Court is<\/p>\n
Ext.A1. There is nothing to show that the said document<\/p>\n
relates to the building in question and the lower Appellate<\/p>\n
Court has omitted to take note of various facts which would<\/p>\n
conclusively show that the defendant is not entitled to the<\/p>\n
benefit under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. According to<\/p>\n
the learned counsel, there was ample evidence to show<\/p>\n
that the original building was pulled down and a new<\/p>\n
structure had been put up in its place, which fact has not<\/p>\n
been noticed by the lower Appellate Court.<\/p>\n
SA 195\/96                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
           8. The learned counsel drew the attention of this<\/p>\n
Court to an earlier order of remand by the District Court to<\/p>\n
the Trial Court wherein the defendant had undertaken to<\/p>\n
take out a commission to value the structure and that had<\/p>\n
not been done by the defendant. Therefore, the benefits<\/p>\n
under the Kerala Land Reforms Act should not have been<\/p>\n
extended to the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
           9. The learned counsel for the respondent on<\/p>\n
the other hand, pointed out that the lower Appellate Court<\/p>\n
has considered the matter in considerable detail and after<\/p>\n
analysing the evidence on record, has come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the structure in question is a hut, falling<\/p>\n
within the definition of S.2(25) of the Land Reforms Act and<\/p>\n
therefore, the defendant is entitled to kudikidappu rights.<\/p>\n
           10. The lower Appellate Court has analysed the<\/p>\n
evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 produced by the defendant before the Land Tribunal<\/p>\n
related to a building involved in this proceedings and the<\/p>\n
rent shown there was only Rs.2\/- per month. It is also<\/p>\n
SA 195\/96                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
pointed out that even though the landlord claimed that the<\/p>\n
earlier building had been pulled down and a new building<\/p>\n
had been put up, he adduced no evidence in that regard.<\/p>\n
           11. Attention of this Court was also drawn to the<\/p>\n
fact that even though the report of the Revenue Inspector<\/p>\n
was found to be unacceptable, it opined that the structure<\/p>\n
is more than 30 years old. Viewed in that context, it can be<\/p>\n
easily seen that ext.A1 relates to the building involved in<\/p>\n
this proceedings. The evidence of RW2 would clearly show<\/p>\n
that the person by name Kunja, shown in Ext.A1 had been<\/p>\n
in occupation of the premises at the relevant time. The<\/p>\n
landlord had miserably failed to show that the defendant<\/p>\n
was in occupation of a new structure. Accordingly, it was<\/p>\n
contended that no grounds were made out to interfere with<\/p>\n
the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and that the<\/p>\n
appeal was without merits.\n<\/p>\n
           12. There appears to be considerable force in<\/p>\n
the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondents. True, it was solely based on Ext.A1 document<\/p>\n
SA 195\/96                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
that the lower Appellate Court has come to a conclusion<\/p>\n
that the defendant is entitled to kudikidappu rights. It is<\/p>\n
also true that there was an earlier order of remand by the<\/p>\n
first Appellate Court to the Munsiff’s court and it is seen<\/p>\n
observed therein that the defendant had undertaken to take<\/p>\n
out a commission to ascertain the value of the structure. It<\/p>\n
is not complied with.\n<\/p>\n
           13. It is seen from the records that Ext.A1 was<\/p>\n
among the records even at the time of passing the earlier<\/p>\n
order of remand. S.2(25) of the kerala Land Reforms Act<\/p>\n
reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                 “Kudikidappukaran” means a person who<\/p>\n
           has   neither   a  homestead    nor   any   land<\/p>\n
           exceeding in extent three cents in any city or<\/p>\n
           major municipality or five cents in any other<\/p>\n
           municipality or ten cents in any panchayat area<\/p>\n
           or township, in possession either as owner or as<\/p>\n
           tenant, on which he could erect a homestead<\/p>\n
           and –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
SA 195\/96                          9<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (a)who has been permitted with or without an<\/p>\n
           obligation to pay rent by a person in lawful<\/p>\n
           possession of any land to have the use and<\/p>\n
           occupation of a portion of such land for the<\/p>\n
           purpose of erecting a homestead; or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (b) who has been permitted by a person in<\/p>\n
           lawful possession of any land to occupy, with or<\/p>\n
           without   an    obligation   to pay    rent,   a hut<\/p>\n
           belonging to such person and situate in the said<\/p>\n
           land; and “kudikidappu” means the land and the<\/p>\n
           homestead or the hut so permitted to be erected<\/p>\n
           or   occupied     together   with  the   easements<\/p>\n
           attached thereto.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
A reading of the above provision shows that a structure<\/p>\n
qualifies to be a hut if at the time of construction, its cost of<\/p>\n
construction did not exceed Rs.750 or the structure, at the<\/p>\n
time of construction, yielded a monthly rent not exceeding<\/p>\n
Rs.5\/-.\n<\/p>\n
SA 195\/96                         10<\/span><\/p>\n
           14. The main contention taken by the appellant<\/p>\n
before this Court is that there is nothing to show that Ext.A1<\/p>\n
relates to the building in question. It does not appear to be<\/p>\n
correct. The lower     Appellate Court has considered this<\/p>\n
aspect in great detail and on the basis of the oral evidence<\/p>\n
adduced by the parties, has found that Ext.A1 relates to the<\/p>\n
period 1955-56.\n<\/p>\n
           15. On going through the evidence, it is seen<\/p>\n
that one Kunja had occupied the premises at one point of<\/p>\n
time. That would be clear from the reading of the evidence<\/p>\n
given by the witness examined by the appellant. It is<\/p>\n
significant to notice that the name of Kunja appears in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 also.\n<\/p>\n
           16. However, it is seen that the lower Appellate<\/p>\n
Court had come to the conclusion that the structure would<\/p>\n
fetch only Rs.2\/- per month based on the entry in column<\/p>\n
No.7 of Ext.A1. That column relates to tax for general<\/p>\n
purpose. It does not appear that Rs.2\/- shown in column<\/p>\n
No.7 relates to the rent that the structure could fetch per<\/p>\n
SA 195\/96                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
month. However, in column No.6 of Ext.A1, the annual<\/p>\n
value is shown as Rs.60\/-. That obviously must be the<\/p>\n
annual rental value, which means the monthly rent is<\/p>\n
Rs.5\/-. If that be so, the structure is a hut, coming within<\/p>\n
the definition already quoted above.\n<\/p>\n
            17. It has come out from the evidence of AW1<\/p>\n
before the Land Tribunal that a portion of the structure<\/p>\n
occupied by her husband who had taken it on rent initially,<\/p>\n
had been demolished for widening a road and there is no<\/p>\n
suggestion to AW1 that either the old structure had been<\/p>\n
pulled down or that she was occupying a new structure.<\/p>\n
            18. Even though the appellant has a case that<\/p>\n
there were several structures in the property, he had not<\/p>\n
been able to substantiate it with acceptable evidence.<\/p>\n
            19. Merely because the respondent herein did<\/p>\n
not take up a commission to have the structure valued, it<\/p>\n
does not mean that she should be deprived of the benefit<\/p>\n
under the Land Reforms Act, if in fact, she was entitled to<\/p>\n
the same.      The evidence also discloses that the name<\/p>\n
SA 195\/96                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
entered in Ext.A1 in Column No.4 showing owner’s name,<\/p>\n
is none other than that of the father of the appellant. The<\/p>\n
lower Appellate Court has considered the oral as well as<\/p>\n
the documentary evidence in detail and has come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the defendant in the suit is entitled to claim<\/p>\n
kudikidappu rights.\n<\/p>\n
           20. The appellant has not been able to show that<\/p>\n
the findings of the courts below are either perverse or is not<\/p>\n
warranted by the materials available on record. Under<\/p>\n
S.100 of CPC, unless it is shown that the findings are<\/p>\n
perverse or was totally unwarranted by the evidence on<\/p>\n
record, no interference is called for with the judgments and<\/p>\n
decrees of the courts below. No substantial questions of<\/p>\n
law arise for consideration in this appeal. The appeal is<\/p>\n
without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There will<\/p>\n
be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                 P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE\n\nsta\n\nSA 195\/96    13\n\nSA 195\/96    14\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Thomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 195 of 1996() 1. THOMAS P.CHACKO@ TOMY … Petitioner Vs 1. AMMINI VELAYUTHAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) For Respondent :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN Dated :08\/07\/2010 O R D […]<\/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-61826","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 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\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-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=\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-30T07:11:53+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-30T07:11:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1889,\"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\\\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Thomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-30T07:11:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 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":"Thomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 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\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-30T07:11:53+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-30T07:11:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010"},"wordCount":1889,"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\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010","name":"Thomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-30T07:11:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thomas-p-chacko-tomy-vs-ammini-velayuthan-on-8-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thomas P.Chacko@ Tomy vs Ammini Velayuthan on 8 July, 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\/61826","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=61826"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61826\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61826"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61826"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61826"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}