{"id":76938,"date":"2010-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010"},"modified":"2015-01-26T13:27:11","modified_gmt":"2015-01-26T07:57:11","slug":"pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 598 of 1997(E)\n\n\n\n1. PILACHERY CHANDRAN KUTTY\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. POYIL ILLATH RAJAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :20\/08\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n                  ...........................................\n                       A.S.NO.598 OF 1997\n                                      &amp;\n                       A.S.No.162 of 1999\n                 .............................................\n           Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010.\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>      A.S.No.598\/1997 is preferred against the judgment<\/p>\n<p>and decree in O.S.No.276\/1991 and the other appeal is<\/p>\n<p>preferred    against       the        judgment            and   decree in<\/p>\n<p>O.S.No.284\/1993. The suit is one for damages. The plaintiff<\/p>\n<p>in O.S.No.276\/1991 is claiming right over one acre and 90<\/p>\n<p>cents of land in R.S.No.245\/1 as per the revenue records and<\/p>\n<p>referred to as R.S.No.250\/1 in the title deed of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<p>In O.S.No.284\/1993 the plaintiff therein is claiming title over<\/p>\n<p>70 &gt; cents of land in R.S.No.150\/1 which is referred in her<\/p>\n<p>document in R.S.No.241\/1. The case of the plaintiff in<\/p>\n<p>O.S.No.276\/1991 is that the defendants had trespassed into<\/p>\n<p>the property and cut and removed the rubber plants situated<\/p>\n<p>in his property     and thereby had incurred a damage of<\/p>\n<p>Rs.27,733.35 and hence a suit for the same. In the other<\/p>\n<p>suit, it is submitted that three rubber plants and cadjen<\/p>\n<p>shades provided to 242 rubber trees were also destroyed.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                : 2 :<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.NO.598 OF 1997<br \/>\n&amp;<br \/>\nA.S.No.162 of 1999<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff has claimed for damages.<\/p>\n<p>      2. In both the suits, the defendants would contend that<\/p>\n<p>the plaintiffs are not having any right over the property and<\/p>\n<p>the property having      an extent of 3 acres and 13 cents<\/p>\n<p>belonged to the temple and it is used for the purpose of<\/p>\n<p>conducting ceremonies in the temple.<\/p>\n<p>      3. In the trial court, PWs 1 to 4 and DWs 1 to 3 were<\/p>\n<p>examined, Exts.A1 to A32 and B1 to B9 were marked. On a<\/p>\n<p>consideration of the materials, the trial court had dismissed<\/p>\n<p>the suit. It is against that decision, the present appeals are<\/p>\n<p>preferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>     4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.<\/p>\n<p>The learned counsel appearing for the respondents in these<\/p>\n<p>appeals would     submit that with      respect to the property<\/p>\n<p>covered by O.S.No.805\/1989, a suit for recovery of possession<\/p>\n<p>was filed and ultimately by the order of this Court it is<\/p>\n<p>remanded and pending consideration before the court below.<\/p>\n<p>Against the order of remand,       an appeal was preferred and it<\/p>\n<p>was dismissed.    In order to entitle the plaintiffs in these<\/p>\n<p>suits to claim damages, they have to establish that the rubber<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                               : 3 :<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.NO.598 OF 1997<br \/>\n&amp;<br \/>\nA.S.No.162 of 1999<\/p>\n<p>trees alleged to be damaged were situated in their property<\/p>\n<p>and that damage has been caused by the defendants. The<\/p>\n<p>learned counsel for the appellants would submit before me<\/p>\n<p>that as Exts.A1 to A32 were produced would convincingly<\/p>\n<p>establish the title of the plaintiffs in the case.   But the<\/p>\n<p>contention of the parties has made it imperative for the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiffs  to  prove    that   the trees which are  cut and<\/p>\n<p>removed form part and parcel of their immovable property<\/p>\n<p>and unless they are able to establish that plants and trees<\/p>\n<p>were standing in the property covered by their title deed,<\/p>\n<p>the plaintiffs will not be entitled to any damages. It has<\/p>\n<p>come out in evidence before the court that survey numbers<\/p>\n<p>250\/1 as well as 245\/1 takes in a huge extent of property.<\/p>\n<p>It can also be seen that the plaintiffs&#8217; document shows the<\/p>\n<p>number as R.S.250\/1 but in the revenue records the number<\/p>\n<p>is R.S.245\/1. Similarly with respect to the wife&#8217;s property<\/p>\n<p>the   number is shown      as 150\/1 in the   revenue records<\/p>\n<p>whereas in the document it is 250\/1.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5. I am conscious of the fact that the property can be<\/p>\n<p>identified with respect to the description, boundaries, survey<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                             : 4 :<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.NO.598 OF 1997<br \/>\n&amp;<br \/>\nA.S.No.162 of 1999<\/p>\n<p>number and extent.     The courts have also pronounced that<\/p>\n<p>when there is discrepancy between the survey number,<\/p>\n<p>extent etc, it will be the boundaries that will prevail.<\/p>\n<p>Ultimately it has also been laid down in facts and<\/p>\n<p>circumstances of each case, the most infallible method is to<\/p>\n<p>be resorted to identify the property. In these cases the<\/p>\n<p>defendants are claiming 3 acres and 13 cents of property<\/p>\n<p>and would contend that the        plaintiffs are claiming right<\/p>\n<p>over that property.   According to the defendants, it is part<\/p>\n<p>and parcel of the temple property where         there are  sub<\/p>\n<p>deities and inhabitants of the locality gathered there to<\/p>\n<p>perform the rituals in the temple. So when both the parties<\/p>\n<p>are claiming property under the very same survey number<\/p>\n<p>and there is dispute with respect to the title of the plaintiff<\/p>\n<p>over the property, the plaintiffs should have identified the<\/p>\n<p>property covered by the document and should have satisfied<\/p>\n<p>the conscience of the court that rubber trees stood in the<\/p>\n<p>property which is    covered under their      document.    Just<\/p>\n<p>because number of documents are thrust upon court showing<\/p>\n<p>that the plaintiffs are having title over some property, it<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                              : 5 :<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.NO.598 OF 1997<br \/>\n&amp;<br \/>\nA.S.No.162 of 1999<\/p>\n<p>cannot lead to the conclusion that their title deed covers the<\/p>\n<p>disputed property. So as rightly held by the trial court, non<\/p>\n<p>identification of the property with respect to the title deed is<\/p>\n<p>fatal and therefore in such cases damages cannot be granted.<\/p>\n<p>      6. The learned Subordinate Judge has also considered<\/p>\n<p>the evidence available. It was contended before the court<\/p>\n<p>below that the first defendant had not visited the property<\/p>\n<p>for 15 years and the second defendant used to visit the<\/p>\n<p>property only once in a year. The court also found that<\/p>\n<p>though there are innumerable number of inhabitants in the<\/p>\n<p>locality,  the plaintiffs have not chosen to examine        any<\/p>\n<p>independent witness. One of the witnesses examined was<\/p>\n<p>PW2 who was the cousin of the plaintiffs&#8217;. The court felt<\/p>\n<p>that his evidence cannot be accepted at all. So also the<\/p>\n<p>court below refused to accept the evidence of         PW3 the<\/p>\n<p>alleged labourer. The court also found that persons residing<\/p>\n<p>near the disputed property were Bapputy master, Viswanathan<\/p>\n<p>and    Sudhakaran, but none of them were examined before<\/p>\n<p>the court. So the court below felt that the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n<p>not succeeded in proving that defendants had committed<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                              : 6 :<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.NO.598 OF 1997<br \/>\n&amp;<br \/>\nA.S.No.162 of 1999<\/p>\n<p>the act of damages.\n<\/p>\n<p>       7. Therefore, I hold that there is nothing to interfere<\/p>\n<p>with the decision rendered by the trial court in both the suits<\/p>\n<p>and so the appeals are devoid of any merit and are dismissed<\/p>\n<p>but without costs. But I make it clear that the title to the<\/p>\n<p>property has not been decided in these cases and therefore<\/p>\n<p>it will not prevent the plaintiffs to establish their title in a<\/p>\n<p>properly instituted suit or any other pending matter.<\/p>\n<p>     Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n<p>                                   M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n<p>cl<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                      : 7 :<\/span><br \/>\nA.S.NO.598 OF 1997<br \/>\n&amp;<br \/>\nA.S.No.162 of 1999<\/p>\n<p>                         M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                         &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.<br \/>\n                          A.S.NO.598 OF 1997<br \/>\n                                          &amp;<br \/>\n                         A.S.No.162 of 1999<br \/>\n                         &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;<br \/>\n                         20th day of August, 2010.\n<\/p>\n<p>                         J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 598 of 1997(E) 1. PILACHERY CHANDRAN KUTTY &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. POYIL ILLATH RAJAN &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR For Respondent :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :20\/08\/2010 O R [&hellip;]<\/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-76938","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-26T07:57:11+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-26T07:57:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1127,\"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\\\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-26T07:57:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 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":"Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-26T07:57:11+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-26T07:57:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010"},"wordCount":1127,"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\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010","name":"Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-26T07:57:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pilachery-chandran-kutty-vs-poyil-illath-rajan-on-20-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pilachery Chandran Kutty vs Poyil Illath Rajan on 20 August, 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\/76938","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=76938"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76938\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}