{"id":77781,"date":"2007-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007"},"modified":"2016-07-09T02:38:34","modified_gmt":"2016-07-08T21:08:34","slug":"padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Padmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Padmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCMA No. 52 of 1999()\n\n\n\n1. PADMAVATHI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. LALITHAMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR\n\n Dated :27\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                           K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J.\n                       -------------------------------------------------\n                                 C.M.A.No.52 of 1999\n                       -------------------------------------------------\n                      Dated, this the 27th day of September, 2007\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Plaintiffs in O.S.No.129\/1994 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg are<\/p>\n
the appellants.    This appeal is filed against an order of remand passed by the<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg by which it had set aside the decree and judgment<\/p>\n
passed by the trial court and remanded the case for fresh disposal with certain<\/p>\n
directions.\n<\/p>\n
       2.     Plaintiffs filed the suit for partition. It was contended that suit<\/p>\n
properties originally belonged to State. Same was assigned to Ramakrishna. He<\/p>\n
was in possession of the same by constructing house and by effecting<\/p>\n
improvements. He died in the year 1961. On his death his right devolved upon his<\/p>\n
children viz. defendants 1 to 4, Vinayaka, Damodara and Narayana. Vinayaka,<\/p>\n
Damodara and Narayana died thereafter. 1\/7th share of Vinayaka devolved upon<\/p>\n
defendants 5 to 11, 1\/7th share of Damodara devolved upon plaintiffs and the 1\/7th<\/p>\n
share of Narayana devolved upon defendants 12 to 17.                    It was averred that<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and defendants are co-owners and in joint possession. It was further<\/p>\n
averred that for and on behalf of all the parties 4th defendant was managing the<\/p>\n
properties.\n<\/p>\n
       3.      Defendants 2 and 3 supported the plaintiffs. 4th defendant contended<\/p>\n
that the parties to the suit and late Ramakrishna were governed by Namboodiri law<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No.52\/1999                      -: 2 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
and hence the female members were not entitled to get any share in the property of<\/p>\n
late Ramakrishna. It was contended that Ramakrishna died long prior to the<\/p>\n
commencement of Joint Family Abolition Act and hence his male children alone<\/p>\n
had inherited his right.  It was contended that plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 17<\/p>\n
alone were entitled to share. It was further contended that all the other parties had<\/p>\n
their own separate houses and hence the house in the suit property may be allotted<\/p>\n
to the 4th defendant. It was also contended that he along with his family members<\/p>\n
are residing in that house for more than 40 years. It was contended that he had<\/p>\n
made substantial improvements in the property and building.            It was also<\/p>\n
contended that he was conducting Tulasi Pooja, Navarathri and Puthari every year<\/p>\n
by spending more than Rs.10,00\/- every year.\n<\/p>\n
       4.     Subsequently defendants 18 and 19 were impleaded. Plaint was<\/p>\n
amended. It was contended that the plaintiffs came to know that 4th defendant sold<\/p>\n
14 cents from the suit property to the 18th defendant and that sale deed was not<\/p>\n
binding on the plaintiffs. It was contended that defendants 18 and 19 had not<\/p>\n
derived any right. 18th defendant filed written statements contending that the 4th<\/p>\n
defendant had executed a sale deed in respect of 14 cents of property comprised in<\/p>\n
Re-survey No.145\/3 to him. It was contended that 4th defendant had every right to<\/p>\n
sell the property as he was holding power of attorney of other co-owners. It was<\/p>\n
contended that 18th defendant was a bona fide purchaser. 19th defendant also filed<\/p>\n
written statement contending 4th defendant sold the property to 18th defendant on<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No.52\/1999                        -: 3 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
the strength of the power of attorney executed by other co-owners. It was also<\/p>\n
contended that 4th defendant was fully competent to alienate the property for and<\/p>\n
on behalf of other co-owners.        It was further contended that 18th defendant<\/p>\n
subsequently assigned his right to 19th defendant on 1.8.1991. So the only dispute<\/p>\n
to be resolved in the suit was whether the sale deed executed by the 4th defendant<\/p>\n
in favour of 18th defendant which was subsequently assigned in favour of 19th<\/p>\n
defendant was valid. Trial court found that the contention of defendants 4, 18 and<\/p>\n
19 that 4th defendant was competent to alienate the shares of others was not<\/p>\n
correct and hence the sale deed was not binding on other co-owners.        Trial court<\/p>\n
further held that the plaintiffs can proceed with the suit claiming partition ignoring<\/p>\n
the claims put forward by the 19th defendant. Trial court passed a preliminary<\/p>\n
decree which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
       “a)    The plaint schedule property shall be divided into 7 equal shares out<\/p>\n
of which the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 1 share, defendants 1 to 4 are entitled<\/p>\n
to 1 share each, the defendants 5 to 11 are jointly entitled to 1 share and the<\/p>\n
defendants 12 to 17 are jointly entitled to 1 share.\n<\/p>\n
       b)     The share of the plaintiffs, defendants 2 and 3 shall be allotted to<\/p>\n
them separately.\n<\/p>\n
       c)      The shares of the defendant 1, 4, joint share of defendants 5 to 11<\/p>\n
and joint share of defendants 12 to 17 shall be allotted to them only on payment of<\/p>\n
the requisite court fee.\n<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No.52\/1999                        -: 4 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
       d)     The plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 3 and defendants 5 to 17 are entitled<\/p>\n
to get mesne profits in accordance with their share from the 4th defendant<\/p>\n
commencing from the date of suit i.e. From 5.4.1994 till delivery of their share.<\/p>\n
       e)     The quantum of mesne profits shall be decided at the stage of final<\/p>\n
decree.\n<\/p>\n
       f)     Any of the parties who have paid court fee can apply for passing<\/p>\n
final decree.\n<\/p>\n
       g)     The cost of the suit shall come out of estate.\"\n\nChallenging that decree and judgment the 19th defendant filed             appeal as\n\n<\/pre>\n
A.S.No.52\/1996 before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Hosdurg. Lower appellate<\/p>\n
court took a view that the disputed power of attorney appeared to be more or less<\/p>\n
genuine. It was further held that the attesting witnesses of Exts.B1 and B2 should<\/p>\n
have been examined before the trial court either by 4th defendant or by the 19th<\/p>\n
defendant. Lower appellate court set aside the decree and judgment passed by the<\/p>\n
trial court and remanded the case for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the<\/p>\n
19th defendant to examine the attestors of Exts.B1 and B2 and also to get the<\/p>\n
document examined by an expert. Liberty was given to the parties to amend the<\/p>\n
pleadings and to adduce additional evidence. Challenging that order of remand<\/p>\n
plaintiffs have filed this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       5.     Though no substantial questions of law were framed at the time of<\/p>\n
admission, in view of the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court at the<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No.52\/1999                       -: 5 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
time of hearing the following substantial questions of law were framed:<\/p>\n
       1.     Whether the lower appellate court was justified in remanding the<\/p>\n
case for the purpose of filling up lacuna?\n<\/p>\n
       2.     Whether the finding of the lower appellate court that the parties shall<\/p>\n
be given an opportunity to amend the pleadings is correct?<\/p>\n
Appellants and respondents were heard on the questions of law framed.<\/p>\n
       6.     Suit was filed in the year 1994. It was decided on 29.6.1996. 4th<\/p>\n
defendant in the original written statement did not make any admission that he sold<\/p>\n
14 cents of property to 18th defendant. Subsequently the plaintiffs amended the<\/p>\n
plaint and impleaded 18th and 19th defendants on the ground that 18th defendant<\/p>\n
had purchased properties from the 4th defendant and the same was subsequently<\/p>\n
sold to 19th defendant. Even according to defendants 18 and 19 the 4th defendant<\/p>\n
executed Ext.B3 sale deed in favour of 18th defendant on 17.12.1987 based on<\/p>\n
Exts.B1 and B2 power of attorneys. 4th defendant gave evidence. Trial court after<\/p>\n
elaborately considering the evidence of DW1 and also comparing Exts.B1 and B2<\/p>\n
and also the oral evidence of DW3 held that Exts.B1 and B2 were brought into<\/p>\n
existence by Sivanandan and 4th defendant to create evidence. That finding of fact<\/p>\n
is based on good evidence. Neither the 4th defendant nor the 18th defendant gave<\/p>\n
any explanation why they did not examine the attestors to Exts.B1 and B2 power<\/p>\n
of attorneys or send the above documents for expert opinion. Summons were<\/p>\n
issued to the attestors and they appeared before the court, but they were given up<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No.52\/1999                       -: 6 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
and not examined. It is also to be noted that there was no prayer to admit<\/p>\n
additional evidence by the appellants before the lower appellate court. No petition<\/p>\n
was filed before the lower appellate court to send the disputed documents for<\/p>\n
expert opinion. Further 19th defendant had no grievance that he was not given<\/p>\n
sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence. The trial court had given very cogent<\/p>\n
reasons. It discussed the evidence in detail and held that the power of attorneys<\/p>\n
were not genuine. The lower court without discussing the evidence set aside a<\/p>\n
finding which was based on well considered reasons.        So the order of remand<\/p>\n
passed by the lower appellate court giving another         opportunity to the 19th<\/p>\n
defendant who deliberately gave up the witnesses who appeared before the court<\/p>\n
to examine them again is nothing but an abuse of process of court. The 19th<\/p>\n
defendant cannot be allowed to fill up a lacuna. The oral evidence of DWs 1 to 3<\/p>\n
clearly establishes that Exts.B1 and B2 were not genuine and valid documents. So<\/p>\n
on the strength of Exts.B1 and B2 the 4th defendant is not competent to convey the<\/p>\n
right of other co-owners to other person.   The evidence on record shows that the<\/p>\n
parties are co-owners. The sale deed so far as it relates to the extent of share of<\/p>\n
4th defendant is a valid document. Trial court was not justified in holding that the<\/p>\n
entire document is void or invalid. 19th defendant will get whatever share due to<\/p>\n
the 4th defendant. But he can only claim 1\/7th share due to the 4th defendant which<\/p>\n
has to be worked out in the final decree proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
       In the result, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of in the following<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No.52\/1999                        -: 7 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
manner. The order of remand passed by the lower appellate court is hereby set<\/p>\n
aside. The decree and judgment passed by the trial court are restored but modified.<\/p>\n
In addition to clauses (a) to (g) in the decreetal portion the following clauses will<\/p>\n
also be added : ” (h)         1\/7th share due to the 4th defendant shall be allotted to<\/p>\n
the share of 19th defendant and (i) Equities and reservations shall be worked out<\/p>\n
during the final decree stage”.\n<\/p>\n
       C.M.P.No.3203\/1999 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                     K. PADMANABHAN NAIR,
\n                                                                JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
\n       Appeal is posted for ‘to be spoken to’ today. Learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
the 19th defendant submits that the property was sold to him representing that the<\/p>\n
4th defendant was having authority to deal with the properties of other co-owners<\/p>\n
and thereby cheated him. It is submitted that his right to proceed against the 4th<\/p>\n
defendant may be reserved. I make it clear that this judgment will not be a bar for<\/p>\n
the 19th defendant to proceed against the 4th defendant in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
16th October, 2007.                              K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,
\n                                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No.52\/1999    -: 8 :-<\/span><\/p>\n
                      K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.\n<\/p>\n
                      C.M.A.No.52 of 1999<\/p>\n
                      JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                      27th September, 2007.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Padmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CMA No. 52 of 1999() 1. PADMAVATHI … Petitioner Vs 1. LALITHAMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH The Hon’ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR Dated :27\/09\/2007 O R D E R […]<\/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-77781","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPadmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007 - 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\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Padmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-08T21:08:34+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\\\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Padmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-08T21:08:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1728,\"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\\\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Padmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-08T21:08:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Padmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Padmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007 - 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\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Padmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-08T21:08:34+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\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Padmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-08T21:08:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007"},"wordCount":1728,"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\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007","name":"Padmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-08T21:08:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padmavathi-vs-lalithamma-on-27-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Padmavathi vs Lalithamma on 27 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/77781","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=77781"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77781\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77781"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77781"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77781"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}