{"id":76371,"date":"2008-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-28T13:41:03","modified_gmt":"2018-06-28T08:11:03","slug":"p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"P.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 848 of 2008(A)\n\n\n1. P.P. MANZIL, S\/OLATE FRANCIES,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. P.F. ANTONY, DOOR NO. 47\/1227,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. RAI ABHILASH, S\/O UPENDRA RAO,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI(SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :03\/11\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                      V. RAMKUMAR, J.\n                  = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                  R.S.A.Nos.848 & 905 of 2008\n                  = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n            Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     The defendants in O.S.Nos.846 of 1996 and 891 of 1996<\/p>\n
respectively on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam are<\/p>\n
the appellants in these second appeals. The said suits were<\/p>\n
filed by the common plaintiff seeking fixation of boundary of<\/p>\n
the plaint B schedule property after excluding the plaint C<\/p>\n
schedule property in the respective suits. Both suits were<\/p>\n
dismissed by the trial court.     On appeal preferred by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs, the lower appellate court reversed the decrees and<\/p>\n
decreed the suit.      Hence these second appeals by the<\/p>\n
respective defendants.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The facts which are either proved or admitted are<\/p>\n
the following:-\n<\/p>\n
     One acre of land comprised in Survey No.1062\/1 of<\/p>\n
Cheranelloor village of which Thirumala Devasawam is the<\/p>\n
Jenmi was taken on lease by one Mr.Payyappillil Marzalinja<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.848
\n& 905of 2008
\n                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
and he constructed a house in 4 cents of land.         Plaint C<\/p>\n
Schedule property in O.S.No.846 of 1996 is the said 4 cents<\/p>\n
of land.    Thereafter the balance extent of 96 cents      was<\/p>\n
possessorily mortgaged by the said Marzalinja           to one<\/p>\n
Paradessy as per two document Nos. 355 and 356 of 1097<\/p>\n
ME corresponding to the year 1922. In the year 1099 ME the<\/p>\n
said Marzalinja transferred his equity of redemption over the<\/p>\n
said 96 cents in favour of one Anthappan.             The said<\/p>\n
Anthappan in turn assigned the said equity of redemption to<\/p>\n
the mortgagee Paradessy as per Ext.A2 sale deed of the year<\/p>\n
1103 ME corresponding to the year 1928. Thus the equity of<\/p>\n
redemption came to vest in the mortgagee Paradessy who<\/p>\n
thus got the entire rights of Marzalinja over the said 96 cents.<\/p>\n
In a subsequent partition, the rights of Paradessy came to<\/p>\n
vest in a female heir of Paradessy by name Koditheertha. The<\/p>\n
1st plaintiff namely Kalavathy who died pending the suit is the<\/p>\n
only daughter of the said Koditheertha. In the plaint there<\/p>\n
was an averment that the 1st plaintiff got the rights of her<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.848
\n& 905of 2008
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
mother Koditheertha as per a will executed by Koditheertha.<\/p>\n
The said will was not produced before court. Consequent on<\/p>\n
the death of the 1st plaintiff, Kalavathy the additional 2nd<\/p>\n
plaintiff namely Rai Abhilash who is her son was impleaded in<\/p>\n
the suit. The 2nd plaintiff claimed the rights of his mother also<\/p>\n
by virtue of Ext.A1 registered will executed by his mother.<\/p>\n
Koditheertha and her daughter and 1st plaintiff had sold<\/p>\n
portions of the said 96 cents. Ext.A4 to A7 are the assignment<\/p>\n
deeds executed by Kalavathy and Exts.A8 to A10 are the<\/p>\n
assignment deeds executed by the          mother Koditheertha.<\/p>\n
According to the plaintiffs a total extent of 40.927 cents were<\/p>\n
thus assigned by Koditheertha and her daughter to strangers.<\/p>\n
Another extent of 7 = cents was compulsorily acquired for<\/p>\n
the purpose of widening a road forming the boundary. Thus,<\/p>\n
according to the plaintiffs the plaint B Schedule property<\/p>\n
admeasuring 47.575 cents was the balance extent which was<\/p>\n
in the possession of the plaintiffs.    They therefore wanted<\/p>\n
fixation of the boundary of the plaint B Schedule Property<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.848
\n& 905of 2008
\n                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
after excluding 4 cents belonging to Marsalinja described as<\/p>\n
plaint C schedule property in O.S.No.846\/96 and after<\/p>\n
excluding 3 cents described as plaint C Schedule in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.891\/96 forming the Kudikidappu of late Joseph the<\/p>\n
father of the defendants in O.S.No.891\/96.<\/p>\n
     3.    The main reason given by the trial court for<\/p>\n
dismissing the suit was that what was produced as Exts.A4 to<\/p>\n
A10 were only Photostat copies of the original sale deeds<\/p>\n
executed by Kalavathy and her mother Koditheertha and they<\/p>\n
could not be relied on to accept the alleged transfer and<\/p>\n
therefore the plaintiffs had failed to substantiate their<\/p>\n
contention that they were in possession of the alleged balance<\/p>\n
extent of 47.575 cents described as plaint B Schedule<\/p>\n
property.     The lower appellate court, however, relied on<\/p>\n
Exts.A4 to A10 to accept the alienations pleaded by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and granted a decree excluding 4.180 cents in stead<\/p>\n
of 4 cents in O.S.No.846 of 1996 in addition to the<\/p>\n
appurtenant land of 0.918 cents.     Likewise, a decree was<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.848
\n& 905of 2008
\n                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
granted in O.S.No.891\/96 fixing the boundary after excluding<\/p>\n
3 cents described as plaint C Schedule Property as well as<\/p>\n
0.355 cents shown as the appurtenant land. It is the said<\/p>\n
appellate decree which is assailed in these second appeals.<\/p>\n
     4.   I heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for<\/p>\n
the appellants in these second appeals. Assailing the decrees<\/p>\n
passed by the lower appellate court the learned senior<\/p>\n
Advocate made the following submissions before me:-<\/p>\n
     Exts.A4 to A10 are only Photostat copies of the<\/p>\n
assignment deeds allegedly executed by Koditheertha and her<\/p>\n
daughter Kalavathay.     These Photostat copies      are only<\/p>\n
secondary evidence and are admissible as such only on proof<\/p>\n
of foundation made out for reception of secondary evidence.<\/p>\n
That is why the trial court had eschewed of these documents<\/p>\n
from consideration since the plaintiffs had not made out a<\/p>\n
case for reception of Photostat copies as secondary evidence.<\/p>\n
The lower appellate court has not given any reason to rely on<\/p>\n
these documents which were rightly discarded by the trial<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.848
\n& 905of 2008
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
court.     It was by relying on those inadmissible documents<\/p>\n
that the lower appellate court had held that Ext.A2<\/p>\n
assignment of the equity of redemption and the prior<\/p>\n
documents were not sham and nominal documents as<\/p>\n
contented by the defendants. The plaintiffs had come to court<\/p>\n
with a specific allegation in the plaint that Koditheertha’s<\/p>\n
right came to be vested in the 1st plaintiff, Kalavathy on the<\/p>\n
strength of the will executed by Koditheertha. But strangely<\/p>\n
enough, the said will has not been produced before court.<\/p>\n
When a testamentary succession is put forward as the basis<\/p>\n
for devolution of title, it is impermissible for the party to give<\/p>\n
a go bye to the said case pleaded in the plaint and fall back<\/p>\n
upon intestate succession. When there is nothing to show<\/p>\n
that Marzalinja had parted with his possession of the entire<\/p>\n
96 cents comprising of the plaint A Schedule Property, the<\/p>\n
case of the plaintiffs that there was a mortgage of the said<\/p>\n
property in favour of Paradessy who subsequently obtained<\/p>\n
the equity of redemption etc. cannot be accepted            for a<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.848
\n& 905of 2008
\n                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
moment, particularly when the specific defence contention is<\/p>\n
that the said mortgage as well as transfer of equity of<\/p>\n
redemption were all sham transactions which were never<\/p>\n
acted upon.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above<\/p>\n
submissions:-\n<\/p>\n
     It is true that the plaintiffs have pleaded that the rights<\/p>\n
of Koditheertha had devolved on the 1st plaintiff, Kalavathy<\/p>\n
under a will executed by Koditheertha. It is also true that the<\/p>\n
said testamentory document has not been produced before<\/p>\n
court.   But it must be remembered that the additional 2nd<\/p>\n
plaintiff who was examined as PW1 in the case after the<\/p>\n
death of Kalavathy has deposed before the court in<\/p>\n
unmistakable terms that the rights of Koditheertha came to<\/p>\n
vest in Kalavathy as the sole surviving daughter.   There is no<\/p>\n
dispute that Kalavathy was the sole surviving daughter of<\/p>\n
Koditheertha.     This being the position, whether it was<\/p>\n
testamentary or intestate succession, since the plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.848
\n& 905of 2008
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
contention was that it was Kalavathy, the only daughter who<\/p>\n
got the property under a will executed by the mother<\/p>\n
Kalavathy being the sole surviving daughter of Koditheertha<\/p>\n
would have even otherwise inherited the plaint B Schedule<\/p>\n
property.    Hence, the non-production of the will by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs does not alter the position.\n<\/p>\n
     6.    It is no doubt true that Exts.A4 to A10 are only<\/p>\n
Photostat copies of their originals.    Without preparing the<\/p>\n
foundation for reception of secondary evidence within the<\/p>\n
meaning of Section 63(2) of the Evidence Act, technically<\/p>\n
speaking, those Photostat copies        could not have been<\/p>\n
received in evidence. But then, the specific plaint averment<\/p>\n
that as per 7 registered documents, a total extent of 40.927<\/p>\n
14.92 cents had been assigned by Koditheertha and her<\/p>\n
daughter Kalavathy and 7= cents had been acquired for the<\/p>\n
purpose of widening a road had not been specifically denied<\/p>\n
in the written statement.       Moreover, the 2nd defendant in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.846 of 1996 examined as DW1 had unambiguously<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.848
\n& 905of 2008
\n                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
admitted that 40 cents has been assigned by 1st plaintiff and<\/p>\n
mother that, he knows the location of the properties which<\/p>\n
have been assigned and that the      assignees under the 7<\/p>\n
documents are in possession of their respective portions.<\/p>\n
With regard to the 7 = cents acquired for the purpose of<\/p>\n
widening the road he pleaded ignorance.         But the 2nd<\/p>\n
defendant in O.S.No.891\/96 examined as DW2 has clearly<\/p>\n
admitted that 7= cents of land had been acquired          for<\/p>\n
widening the road and it was the 1st plaintiff Kalavathy who<\/p>\n
received the compensation for the said acquisition. DW1 has<\/p>\n
further confessed that the plaint B Schedule Property is the<\/p>\n
property which remains after excluding the properties      so<\/p>\n
transferred under the 7 documents and after the acquisition<\/p>\n
for the road. In the face of these admissions by DWs.1 and 2<\/p>\n
even if the plaintiffs had not produced Exts.A4 to A10 that<\/p>\n
would not in any way weaken the case of the plaintiffs. It is<\/p>\n
well known that an admitted fact need not be proved and<\/p>\n
when both Dws1 and 2 have admitted the assignments alleged<\/p>\n
R.S.A.Nos.848
\n& 905of 2008
\n                                10<\/span><\/p>\n
by the plaintiffs, it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to<\/p>\n
prove the said admitted fact.     Hence, even if Exts.A4 to A10<\/p>\n
are eschewed from consideration that does not in any way<\/p>\n
alter the position.\n<\/p>\n
     The lower appellate court has found that the plaint B<\/p>\n
Schedule Property in both the suits is the property which<\/p>\n
remains    after excluding     the assignments     effected by<\/p>\n
Kalavathy and her mother Koditheertha. If so, the decrees<\/p>\n
granted by the lower appellate court do not suffer from any<\/p>\n
illegality. No questions of law, much less any substantial<\/p>\n
question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal.<\/p>\n
The questions of law formulated in the memoranda of appeals<\/p>\n
do not arise for consideration in these second appeals which<\/p>\n
are accordingly dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
     Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
sj<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 848 of 2008(A) 1. P.P. MANZIL, S\/OLATE FRANCIES, … Petitioner 2. P.F. ANTONY, DOOR NO. 47\/1227, Vs 1. RAI ABHILASH, S\/O UPENDRA RAO, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI(SR.) For Respondent :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-76371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008 - 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-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-28T08:11:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-28T08:11:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1704,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008\",\"name\":\"P.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-28T08:11:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008 - 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-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-28T08:11:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-28T08:11:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008"},"wordCount":1704,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008","name":"P.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-28T08:11:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-p-manzil-vs-rai-abhilash-on-3-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.P. Manzil vs Rai Abhilash on 3 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/76371","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=76371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76371\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}