{"id":74312,"date":"2010-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-02T09:36:24","modified_gmt":"2017-07-02T04:06:24","slug":"sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 615 of 2006()\n\n\n1. SANKARANARAYANAN, S\/O. KANNAN @ CHANDRAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SOWMINI, W\/O. SANKARANARAYANAN\n3. ARUN, S\/O. SANKARANARAYANAN.\n4. AISWARYA (MINOR), D\/O.SANKARANARAYANAN.\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. R. SUMITHRA AMMA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :29\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                            --------------------------------------\n                               R.S.A.No.615 of 2006\n                            --------------------------------------\n                     Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010.\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Appellant No.1 is the son of respondent. Appellant Nos.2 to 4 are wife<\/p>\n
and children of appellant No.1.         Respondent claimed that the suit property<\/p>\n
belonged to her as per Ext.A1, assignment deed dated 7.5.1952 and later she<\/p>\n
purchased jenm right as per Ext.A2, purchase certificate dated 19.12.1975.<\/p>\n
While so, she permitted the appellants, her son, wife and children to stay in the<\/p>\n
building in the suit property. Later as per Ext.A3, notice dated 26.12.2001 she<\/p>\n
revoked that permission and wanted appellants to vacate the building in the suit<\/p>\n
property. They sent Ext.A4, reply refusing the demand and setting up a claim of<\/p>\n
co-ownership over the suit property and that the building was constructed by<\/p>\n
appellant No.1 using his funds.           Hence the suit for mandatory injunction.<\/p>\n
Appellants     contended that suit property was purchased by the father of<\/p>\n
appellant No.1 (husband of respondent) in the name of respondent at a time<\/p>\n
when he had certain liabilities, sale consideration flowed from the father and that<\/p>\n
respondent is only a transferee of the suit property. On the death of the father,<\/p>\n
appellant No.1 along with others became co-owner of the suit property. He<\/p>\n
constructed the building in the suit property spending Rs.2,50,000\/-. He also<\/p>\n
claimed to have improved the property. It is incorrect to say that himself and<\/p>\n
family are residing in the building with the permission of respondent. Instead, he<\/p>\n
is residing in the building as of right. Trial court found the issues in favour of the<\/p>\n
RSA No.615\/2006<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent and granted mandatory injunction. That was confirmed by the first<\/p>\n
appellate court and hence the Second Appeal. Following substantial questions<\/p>\n
of law are framed for a decision:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       i.     Whether the courts below were correct in law in decreeing the suit<\/p>\n
for mandatory injunction to vacate the property in the absence of proof of<\/p>\n
existence of a licence to occupy and its revocation?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       ii.    Is not the plaintiff obliged to file a proper suit for recovery of<\/p>\n
possession on title wherein the defendants are also entitled to claim the value of<\/p>\n
improvements, if any, in the property?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       iii.   Does the prohibition against entering into benami transaction apply<\/p>\n
to a case of purchase in the name of the wife in view of Section 3(2) of the<\/p>\n
Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       iv.    Whether the courts below were right in holding that the<\/p>\n
presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act applies not only to execution<\/p>\n
but also to the contents of ancient documents?\n<\/p>\n
RSA No.615\/2006<\/p>\n
                                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
       v.     Is the presumption under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms<\/p>\n
Act available to the certificate of purchase obtained behind the back of the<\/p>\n
interested parties as in this case?\n<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for appellants contended that there is no acceptable evidence<\/p>\n
to show that the suit property was purchased by the respondent utilising her<\/p>\n
funds and that there is no evidence to show that during the time of Ext.A1,<\/p>\n
respondent had any income and that the purchase was effected with her funds.<\/p>\n
Further contention is that at any rate, there is sufficient evidence to show that the<\/p>\n
building was constructed by appellant No.1 with his funds, since relief in the suit<\/p>\n
prayed for is in relation to building courts below went wrong in ordering<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction.     Yet another contention is that a suit for mandatory<\/p>\n
injunction would not lie and that the appropriate remedy of the respondent was to<\/p>\n
sue for recovery of possession so that appellants could raise a claim for value of<\/p>\n
improvements effected by them.         Counsel for respondent would support the<\/p>\n
findings entered by the courts below.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.      So far as the title of the suit property as per Ext.A1 is concerned, it<\/p>\n
is not disputed that the document is in the name of respondent and there is<\/p>\n
recital to the effect that consideration flowed from the respondent. Ext.A1 is<\/p>\n
dated 7.5.1952. Respondent when examined as PW1 stated that she raised the<\/p>\n
RSA No.615\/2006<\/p>\n
                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
funds for purchase of the property by selling her ornaments. It is true that<\/p>\n
appellant No.1 when examined as DW1 denied that his mother had any<\/p>\n
ornaments at the time of Ext.A1. But considering his age as on the date of his<\/p>\n
examination it is not likely that he had any direct information whether his mother<\/p>\n
had ornaments at the time of Ext.A1 dated 7.5.1952. He also would say that it is<\/p>\n
the information he got from his father (who was employed in the railway retired in<\/p>\n
the year 1978 and died in the same year) that his father spent money for<\/p>\n
purchase of the suit property.     Appellants have a contention that the purchase<\/p>\n
was effected by the father in the name of respondent and hence the latter is only<\/p>\n
a transferee. I stated that the recital in the document shows that the necessary<\/p>\n
fund for purchase of Ext.A1 flowed from the respondent. No doubt, recitals in<\/p>\n
the document do not attract the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence<\/p>\n
Act. If the truth of the recitals are disputed, it is to be proved. But in so far as<\/p>\n
there is no contra evidence to show that the recital in Ext.A1 is false, that recital<\/p>\n
must stand. Courts below are therefore justified in holding that suit property was<\/p>\n
acquired by the respondent as per Ext.A1. As such, the question whether the<\/p>\n
purchase is benami or, respondent is only a trustee for appellant No.1 and<\/p>\n
others does not arise for decision. In the light of the above, there could also be<\/p>\n
no challenge to the issue of purchase certificate in favour of the respondent.<\/p>\n
RSA No.615\/2006<\/p>\n
                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
      3.     Now the dispute is concerning title to the building wherefrom the<\/p>\n
appellants are asked to vacate. Though Ext.A1 does not refer to any building in<\/p>\n
existence at the time of that assignment it is admitted by appellant No.1 when<\/p>\n
examined as DW1 that there was an old tiled house in the suit property<\/p>\n
constructed after Ext.A1 and himself was aged 1 = years at that time. Obviously<\/p>\n
he could not have had any role in the construction of that building. Though it is<\/p>\n
the case of appellants that the old house also was constructed by the father that<\/p>\n
also was not supported by any acceptable evidence except the interested<\/p>\n
version of appellant No.1as DW1 which itself is not on the basis of any direct<\/p>\n
knowledge. According to the respondent, while herself and children including<\/p>\n
appellant No.1 were residing in the old house she started construction of the<\/p>\n
RCC building in the suit property (which is the subject matter of the suit) she<\/p>\n
raised the funds by sale of timber in the suit property and by sale of her<\/p>\n
ornaments.     It is not disputed that construction of the said building was<\/p>\n
completed by about 1988. It is also not disputed that before that, appellant<\/p>\n
No.1 had taken up employment abroad. Case of appellants is that appellant<\/p>\n
No.1 in his capacity as co-owner of the suit property constructed the building<\/p>\n
spending about Rs.2,50,000\/-. In proof of that, appellants produced Exts.B6<\/p>\n
series to B13.    Exts.B6 to B9 series are various memos for appellant No.1<\/p>\n
sending money either to the respondent or to his brothers. Ext.B6 series are in<\/p>\n
the name of the brother while Ext.B7 series are in the name of the sister and<\/p>\n
RSA No.615\/2006<\/p>\n
                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
brother. Ext.B8, memo dated 27.07.1981 is in the name of respondent. Ext.B9<\/p>\n
series and Ext.B10 also in favour of two of the brothers of appellant No.1.<\/p>\n
Ext.B11 is the counter foil of the NRE account of appellant No.1. Ext.B12 is the<\/p>\n
letter dated 19.04.1987 sent by appellant No.1 to         one of his brothers and<\/p>\n
Ext.B13 is letter dated 21.04.1987 sent by another brother to appellant No.1.<\/p>\n
When examined as DW1 he stated that he sent money to the brothers and<\/p>\n
mother as stated above for the purpose of construction of the house. But it is<\/p>\n
seen that of the memos produced, Exts.B6 (a) and (b) are for the year 1980<\/p>\n
while Ext.B6(c), B7 series and Ext.8 are for the 1981. Ext.B9 series are for the<\/p>\n
year 1981 and 1982 while Ext.B10 is for the 1983. Ext.B11 is for the year 1987.<\/p>\n
Respondent when examined as PW1 denied that the money sent by appellant<\/p>\n
No.1 was utilised for construction of the house. Though the trial court observed<\/p>\n
from Ext.B6 series to Ext.B13 that some amount sent by appellant No. 1 also<\/p>\n
may have been utilised for construction of the house, first appellate court held<\/p>\n
that there is no reliable evidence to state so. It is true that there is reference in<\/p>\n
Exts.B8 to B13 about construction of building. Even if it is assumed that as<\/p>\n
observed by the trial court contribution for construction of the house came from<\/p>\n
appellant No.1 also, that does not necessarily mean that he constructed the<\/p>\n
building as if the building should belong to him. Though the principle that<\/p>\n
whatever is affixed to the soil belongs to the soil has no application in India and<\/p>\n
land and the building can be owned by different persons it is for the person<\/p>\n
RSA No.615\/2006<\/p>\n
                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
claiming to be the owner of building to prove the same. In the absence of<\/p>\n
reliable evidence in that regard it must be taken that the building belongs to the<\/p>\n
owner of the land being something embedded in the land and forming part of it.<\/p>\n
First appellate court has found from the evidence that documents produced by<\/p>\n
appellants are not sufficient to hold that the building was constructed by<\/p>\n
appellant No.1. That is a finding entered on the evidence on record and even if it<\/p>\n
is assumed that the finding is erroneous that does not give rise to a substantial<\/p>\n
question of law so far as the finding is not perverse.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       4.     It is then argued by learned counsel that at any rate, the suit ought<\/p>\n
to have been for recovery of possession and not for mandatory injunction.<\/p>\n
According to the learned counsel though it is the case of         respondent that<\/p>\n
permission was granted to the appellants to stay in the building in question in<\/p>\n
the year 1999 evidence on record show that even before that, appellants have<\/p>\n
been staying in the building in question. Learned counsel invites my attention to<\/p>\n
Exts.B4, B5 and B18 to B23. Even as per evidence, construction of the building<\/p>\n
was completed only by 1988. PW1 stated that during that time, appellants were<\/p>\n
also staying in the tiled house with her and thereafter appellant No.1 purchased<\/p>\n
land elsewhere and set up residence there. During 1999-2000 in connection<\/p>\n
with the education of his children appellant No.1 wanted to stay in the building in<\/p>\n
question and that was permitted by the respondent. Even if it is assumed that<\/p>\n
RSA No.615\/2006<\/p>\n
                                          8<\/span><\/p>\n
even prior to 1999 appellants were staying in the building in question so far as<\/p>\n
there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the courts below that<\/p>\n
the suit property and building belong to the respondent, residence of appellants<\/p>\n
in the said building can only be taken as permissive. That permission has been<\/p>\n
revoked by respondent and appellants are called upon to vacate the building.<\/p>\n
This Court in Ayissa Umma v. Ami (1990 (1) KLT 98) and the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in Joseph Severence v. Benny Mathew<\/a> (2005 (4) KLT 290)<\/p>\n
have has held that when a license is terminated it is open to the grantor to sue<\/p>\n
for mandatory injunction within a reasonable time to direct the licensee to<\/p>\n
vacate the premises. Going by Section 63 of the Easements Act (for short, “the<\/p>\n
Act”) on expiry of the period of licence or termination as the case may be,<\/p>\n
licensee is entitled only to a reasonable time to vacate the premises. A suit for<\/p>\n
recovery of possession is required      only after the termination of licensee or<\/p>\n
expiry of the period as the case may be the licensee has asserted possession<\/p>\n
as against grantor and continued to be in such possession. That situation does<\/p>\n
not arise in this case and hence the prayer for mandatory injunction is proper<\/p>\n
and sufficient.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.     Though not raised as a substantial question, it is contended that<\/p>\n
appellants are entitled to protection of Section 60(b) of the Act in so far as the<\/p>\n
licensee is coupled with a grant and appellants have put up a permanent<\/p>\n
RSA No.615\/2006<\/p>\n
                                         9<\/span><\/p>\n
structure acting upon the license. This contention cannot survive as I stated<\/p>\n
there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the first appellate court that the<\/p>\n
building did not belong to appellant No.1 as claimed by him. Moreover, there is<\/p>\n
no pleading in the written statement regarding irrevocability of the licence under<\/p>\n
Section 60(b) of the Act. Without specific plea of irrevocability though not the<\/p>\n
Section is not quoted, no contention in that regard can be raised.              (See<\/p>\n
Saraswathi v. M\/s.Bharat Textiles (1992 (1) KLJ 344) Substantial<\/p>\n
questions of law framed are answered in the above lines.<\/p>\n
       6.    Learned counsel for appellants requests that appellants may be<\/p>\n
granted twelve (12) months’ time to vacate the building in question. Request is<\/p>\n
opposed by counsel for respondent. Learned counsel for respondent would<\/p>\n
submit that appellants could be granted a few months’ time to vacate the<\/p>\n
building.  Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel for<\/p>\n
appellants I am inclined to grant the appellants six (6) months’ time to vacate the<\/p>\n
building.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Resultantly appeal is dismissed. Appellants are granted six (6) months’<\/p>\n
time from today to vacate the building subject to the following conditions:<\/p>\n
       (i).  Appellants shall not cause any damage to the building.<\/p>\n
RSA No.615\/2006<\/p>\n
                                          10<\/span><\/p>\n
        (ii).  Appellants shall vacate the building on the expiry of the said period<\/p>\n
of six (6) months’ without putting forward any claim.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        (iii). Appellant No.1 on behalf of himself and other appellants shall file<\/p>\n
affidavit in the trial court within one month from today undertaking to comply<\/p>\n
with condition Nos. (i) and (ii) above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        (iv).  It is made clear that in case of non-compliance of any of the above<\/p>\n
conditions it will be open to the respondent to execute the decree<\/p>\n
notwithstanding the time granted hereby.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        Parties shall suffer their respective cost.\n<\/p>\n
        I.A.Nos.1641 of 2006 and 773 of 2007 will stand dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                                 THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                         Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 615 of 2006() 1. SANKARANARAYANAN, S\/O. KANNAN @ CHANDRAN … Petitioner 2. SOWMINI, W\/O. SANKARANARAYANAN 3. ARUN, S\/O. SANKARANARAYANAN. 4. AISWARYA (MINOR), D\/O.SANKARANARAYANAN. Vs 1. R. SUMITHRA AMMA, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH For […]<\/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-74312","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 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\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-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=\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-02T04:06:24+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-02T04:06:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2361,\"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\\\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Sankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-02T04:06:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 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":"Sankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 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\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-02T04:06:24+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-02T04:06:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010"},"wordCount":2361,"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\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010","name":"Sankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-02T04:06:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankaranarayanan-vs-r-sumithra-amma-on-29-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sankaranarayanan vs R. Sumithra Amma on 29 March, 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\/74312","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=74312"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74312\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74312"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74312"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74312"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}