{"id":66572,"date":"1987-11-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-11-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987"},"modified":"2016-01-03T22:52:52","modified_gmt":"2016-01-03T17:22:52","slug":"p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987","title":{"rendered":"P. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 339, \t\t 1988 SCR (2)\t 81<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nP. KESAVAN(DEAD) THROUGH LRS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nAMMUKUTTY AMMA & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/11\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nRANGNATHAN, S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 AIR  339\t\t  1988 SCR  (2)\t 81\n 1988 SCC  (1) 202\t  JT 1987 (4)\t575\n 1987 SCALE  (2)1311\n\n\nACT:\n     Kerala Buildings  (Lease and  Rent Control)  Act, 1965:\nss. 11(3),  17 &  20-Eviction-Bona fide\t need  of  landlord-\nTenant using  building for  non-residential purpose-Landlord\nwhether entitled  to seek eviction on grounds of residential\nuse.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     Sub-section (3) of s. 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease\nand Rent  Control) Act,\t 1965 permits  eviction of  a tenant\nwhere the  landlord bona fide needs the building for his own\noccupation. The\t second proviso\t thereto excepts  the tenant\ndepending for  his livelihood  mainly on business carried on\nin such\t building. Sub-s. (1) of s. 17 interdicts conversion\nof a  residential building  into a  non-residential  one  or\nvice-versa and\tdivision  of  such  building  into  separate\nportions except\t with the  permission of  the  Accommodation\nController. The\t proviso thereto  makes the  consent of\t the\nlandlord necessary where such conversion involves structural\nalteration of the building.\n     The premises  in question\twas being used by the tenant\nfor nonresidential purpose. The respondent-landlord required\nit bona\t fide for  his self-occupation.\t The Rent Controller\ngranted permission  under  s.  11(3)  for  eviction  of\t the\ntenant. The  Appellate Authority  and the  District Judge in\nrevision did  not interfere  with the concurrent findings of\nfacts on the bonafide need of the landlord.\n     In\t second\t revision  the\tcontention  that  since\t the\nrequirements of\t the second proviso to s. 11(3) had not been\nfulfilled, the\tlandlord was  not entitled  to eviction\t was\nrejected by  the High  Court on\t the ground  that this was a\nquestion of  fact and  ail the courts had found in favour of\nthe landlord.\n     In the  appeal by\tspecial leave,\tit was contended for\nthe appellant  that since  the building in question was used\nfor non-residential  purpose by\t the tenant and the landlord\nrequired the  same for\ta residential  purpose, such  a need\ncould not  justify tenant's  eviction by  virtue of s. 17 of\nthe Act which prohibited such conversion.\n82\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: l.  The landlord  is entitled  to eviction. It is\nfound as  a fact  that he  bona fide  needed the premises in\nquestion for his own use and occupation. Therefore, s. 11(3)\nhas been complied with. [84D-E]\n     The prescriptions\tof s.  17 are  not attracted  to the\ninstant case. The conversion as contemplated by s. 17(1) for\nwhich permission  was required\tis conversion  by the tenant\nand cannot  be a  conversion by\t the landlord.\tThe  use  of\nexpression \"such  conversion\" in  the proviso  to  s.  17(t)\nindicates  that\t  in  case   of\t conversion  by\t the  tenant\npermission is  required on  the\t consent  of  the  landlord.\nFurther-more, the  term \"convert\"  therein does not denote a\nmere change  in the  mode  of  occupation  but\tcovers\tonly\nalterations of the physical features. Putting to a different\npurpose the  user of the building is not a conversion of the\nbuilding as  such. The building was used for non-residential\npurposes and  the purpose  for which  it was  sought was for\nresidential purpose. It has been found that the building has\nrooms which can be used as bed rooms, sitting rooms etc. and\nit  has\t  a  kitchen  and  dining  hall.  No  alteration  or\nconversion is  required if  the building  is to\t be used for\nresidential purpose.  There was, therefore, no conversion of\nthe building  as such  involved in  the instant\t case, but a\nchange of user of the building. [86A; 85C-F, 86B]\n     Muhammed v.  Abdul Rahiman,  [1983] K.L.T.\t 874 and Das\nNaik v. Narayanan, [1980] K.L.T. 951, approved.\n     [Since the\t appellants-tenants have  been in possession\nof the\tpremises for  sometime, it  was\t directed  that\t the\ndecree for  eviction shall  not be  executed till  30.9.1988\nprovided they pay arrears of rent, if any, within one month,\nand undertake  to hand\tover vacant and peaceful possession,\nto pay\tfuture compensation  month by  month before  10th of\nevery month and not to induct any other person.[86D-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No.  2  of
\n1982.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  order dated  16. 10.1981 of the
\nKerala High Court in C. R. P. No. 1927 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     N. Sudhakaran for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     E.M.S. Anam for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
83<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
\n     SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This appeal by special leave is
\ndirected against  the order  of the  High Court of Kerala at
\nErnakulam dated\t the 16th  October 1981\t in  Civil  Revision
\nPetition No.  1927 of  1981. The appellants are the heirs of
\nthe original  tenant. The  original appellant  died and\t his
\nheirs have been substituted in his place. The landlord being
\nthe respondent\therein wanted  the premises  in question for
\nhis own\t use and  occupation. He  accordingly applied to the
\nRent Controller\t for permission.  The Rent  Controller after
\nhearing the  parties granted  such permission  The Appellate
\nAuthority  upholding  the  order  of  the  Rent\t Controller,
\nmaintained the\torder of  eviction.  There  was\t a  revision
\nbefore the  learned District  Judge.  The  learned  District
\nJudge dismissed\t the revision  petition holding\t that it was
\ndifficult to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts
\nof the\tCourts below  on the  bona fide need of the landlord
\nfor his own use and occupation.\n<\/p>\n
     The tenant\t came up  before the  High Court  in  second
\nrevision and  the High\tCourt after  hearing the parties and
\nconsidering the\t contentions urged  before it, dismissed the
\nrevision  upholding   the  order  of  Rent  Controller,\t the
\nAppellate Authority  and the District Court under Section 20
\nof the\tKerala Building\t (Lease and  Rent Control) Act, 1965
\nthat the  landlord required  the premises  for his bona fide
\nneed and for self occupation.\n<\/p>\n
     The only  contention that\twas urged  in the matter was
\nthat the  landlord was\tnot entitled  to eviction under sub-
\nsection (3)  of Section\t 11. Sub-section  (3) of Section l l
\nprovides as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “A landlord  may apply  to the  Rent Control Court
\n\t  for an  order\t directing  the\t tenant\t to  put  in
\n\t  possession of\t the building  if he bona fide needs
\n\t  the building\tfor his\t own occupation\t or for\t the
\n\t  occupation be\t any member  of his family dependent
\n\t  on him.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The contention  urged before the Courts below including
\nthe High  Court was  that the  second proviso to Sub-section
\n(3) of\tSection 11  had not  been fulfilled  and the  second
\nproviso provides as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “That the  Rent Control  Court shall\tnot give any
\n\t  direction to\t a  tenant to  put the\tlandlord  in
\n\t  possession, if  such tenant  is depending  for his
\n\t  livelihood mainly on the
\n84<\/span>
\n\t  income derived  from any trade or business carried
\n\t  on in\t A such\t building  and\tthere  is  no  other
\n\t  suitable building  available in  the locality\t for
\n\t  such person to carry on such trade or business.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     All  the\tCourts\thave   found  against  the  tenant’s
\ncontention on  this aspect  of the  matter.  As\t this  is  a
\nquestion of  fact, the High Court in our opinion has rightly
\ndeclined to interfere with that findings of fact.\n<\/p>\n
     Before we\tproceed further\t it was\t pointed out  by the
\ncounsel for  the respondents  that in view of the provisions
\nof the said Act and in view of the decision of this Court in
\nthe case  of Aundal  Ammal v.  Sadasivan  Pillai,<\/a>  [1987]  1
\nS.C.C. 183  the second revision before the High Court in the
\nfacts and  circumstances of  this case\tdid not lie. For the
\npurpose of  this appeal,  we are not proceeding with on that
\nbasis but  have examined the facts found by the courts below
\nto find\t out if\t there is any infirmity in their findings as
\nmentioned hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  found as  a fact  that the\tlandlord  bona\tfide
\nneeded\tthe  premises  in  question  for  his  own  use\t and
\noccupation. Therefore, Section 11(3) has been complied with.\n<\/p>\n
     The only  contention raised  was whether  on the second
\nproviso to  Section 11(3)  of the  Act the  landlord was not
\nentitled to eviction. That was rejected by the High Court on
\nthe ground  that this  was a  question of  fact and  all the
\nCourts have  found in  favour of the landlord. We agree with
\nthis.  Even   if  a   second  revision\t lay  the  scope  of
\ninterference by\t the High  Court in  the second\t revision is
\nvery limited. This has been so held by this Court in M\/s Sri
\nRaja  Lakshmi\tDyeing\tWorks\tand  others,  v.  Rangaswamy
\nChettiar,  A.I.R.   1980  S.C.\t 1253.\tWe  adhere  to\tthis
\nprinciple.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  urged before  us that  the building in question
\nwas used  for non-residential  purpose by the tenant and the
\nbona fide  need of  the landlord  was said to be for the use
\nand occupation\tof the\tlandlord and  his family  which is a
\nresidential purpose.  It was  submitted\t that  such  a\tneed
\ncannot justify\tin this\t case the eviction of the tenant. It
\nwas also  submitted that  Section 17  of the  Act prohibited
\nsuch conversion.  Sub-section (1)  of Section  17  which  is
\nrelevant for the present purpose provides as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Section 17.\tConversion of  buildings and failure
\n\t  by land-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
85<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  lord to make necessary repairs:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1) No  residential buildings\t shall be  converted
\n\t  into a  nonresidential building  or vice-versa and
\n\t  no such  building shall  be divided  into separate
\n\t  portions for letting on rent or for other purposes
\n\t  except with  the  permission\tin  writing  of\t the
\n\t  Accommodation Controller:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Provided that  where such conversion involves
\n\t  structural alteration of the building, the consent
\n\t  of the landlord shall also be necessary.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It appears\t clear that  this conversion as contemplated
\nfor which  permission was  required  is\t conversion  by\t the
\ntenant and  cannot be  a conversion  by the  landlord. Quite
\napart  from  the  fact\tthat  in  this\tcase  there  was  no
\nconversion of the building sought. The building was used for
\nnon-residential\t purpose  and  the  purpose  for  which\t the
\nbuilding was  sought was for residential purpose. It appears
\nto us  that putting  to a  different purpose the user of the
\nbuilding is not a conversion of the building as such. It has
\nbeen found that the building as it is without any structural
\nchange can  be put  to residential  purpose.  There  was  no
\nconversion of  the building as such is involved in this case
\nbut a  change of  user of  the building. Furthermore, in any
\nevent the  proviso to  Section (  I) makes  it clear, in our
\nopinion, that  such conversion as contemplated by Section 17
\nof  the\t  Act  for   which  permission\tin  writing  by\t the
\nAccommodation Controller  required is  in case\tof change of
\nthe user  of the  premises by  the tenant  and\tnot  by\t the
\nlandlord. The use of the expression “such conversion” in the
\nproviso indicates  that in  case of conversion by the tenant
\npermission is  required on  the\t consent  of  the  landlord.
\nTherefore the  absence\tof  permission\tin  writing  of\t the
\nAccommodation Controller  in this  case does  in our opinion
\naffect the  position. This  appears to\tbe the\tview of\t the
\nKerala High  Court on this aspect of the matter. See in this
\nconnection Muhammed  v. Abdul Rahiman, [1983] K.L.T. 874 and
\nDas Naik v. Narayanan, [1980] K.L.T. 951. This appears to be
\nthe correct view of law. Our attention was also not drawn to
\nany decision  of the  Kerala High  Court which has taken any
\ncontrary view.\tThe view  held by  the Kerala  High Court in
\nthis aspect  has been  relied  by  the\tHigh  Court  in\t the
\njudgment under appeal. It seems to be logical view. We would
\ntherefore  follow   that  view.\t  In  view  of\tthe  proviso
\nexplaining the\tambit of  that requirement  that  permission
\nsought for  or mentioned  in Section  17(1) is in respect of
\nthe different  user by\tthe tenant  and not by the landlord.
\nThe High Court has also observed in term
\n86<\/span>
\n“convert” does\tnot denote  a mere  change in  the  mode  of
\noccupation, but\t covers only  alterations  of  the  physical
\nfeatures, the  prescriptions of Section 17 are not attracted
\nto the\tpresent case  at all.  Admittedly  the\tbuilding  in
\nquestion has  rooms which  can be used as bed rooms, sitting
\nroom  etc.  and\t it  has  a  kitchen  and  dining  hall.  No
\nalteration or  conversion is  required if the building is to
\nbe used for residential purposes.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  aforesaid view  of the  matter there was hardly
\nany scope  for interference  by the  District Judge  and  he
\ndeclined to  do so  on this  basis. In\tour opinion  he\t was
\nright. Similar\twas the\t position of the High Court on these
\nfacts and  it declined\tto interfere  with the\tfindings  of
\nfact.\n<\/p>\n
     In the aforesaid view there is no merit in this appeal.
\nThe appeal  fails and is dismissed accordingly. Parties will
\npay and bear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
     Since the\ttenants\t have  been  in\t possession  of\t the
\npremises for  some  time  we  direct  that  the\t decree\t for
\neviction shall\tnot be\texecuted till 30.9.1988 provided all
\nthe heirs of deceased appellant file an usual undertaking in
\nthis Court  within four weeks from today stating inter alia.
\nas follows;\n<\/p>\n
     1.\t That  the  appellant  will  hand  over\t vacant\t and
\n     peaceful  possession   of\tthe  suit  premises  to\t the
\n     respondent on or before 30.9.1988 from today.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     2. That  the appellants  will  pay\t to  the  respondent
\n     arrears of rent, if any, within one month from today.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     3. That  the appellants  will  pay\t to  the  respondent
\n     future compensation  for use and occupation of the suit
\n     premises month by month before 10th of every month.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     4. That the appellants will not induct any other person
\n     in the suit premises.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It is  further directed  that in  default of compliance
\nwith  any  one\tor  more  of  these  conditions\t or  if\t the
\nundertaking is\tnot filed  as required within the stipulated
\ntime, the decree shall become executable forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
P.S.S.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed .\n87<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1988 AIR 339, 1988 SCR (2) 81 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: P. KESAVAN(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Vs. RESPONDENT: AMMUKUTTY AMMA & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/11\/1987 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66572","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987 - 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\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987\" \/>\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=\"1987-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-03T17:22:52+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-03T17:22:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987\"},\"wordCount\":1606,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987\",\"name\":\"P. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-11-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-03T17:22:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987\"}]},{\"@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":"P. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987 - 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\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-03T17:22:52+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987","datePublished":"1987-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-03T17:22:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987"},"wordCount":1606,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987","name":"P. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-11-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-03T17:22:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-kesavandead-through-lrs-vs-ammukutty-amma-ors-on-26-november-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P. Kesavan(Dead) Through Lrs vs Ammukutty Amma & Ors on 26 November, 1987"}]},{"@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\/66572","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=66572"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66572\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66572"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66572"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66572"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}