{"id":78220,"date":"2010-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-25T08:44:58","modified_gmt":"2015-05-25T03:14:58","slug":"c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"C.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
C.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 82 of 1998(B)\n\n\n\n1. C.KUNHIKANNAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. K.GOPI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :28\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                   HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.\n          -------------------------------\n                     S.A. NO. 82 OF 1998\n          -------------------------------\n          DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
          The substantial questions of law framed in the<\/p>\n
appeal are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                       (1) Whether in the facts and
\n           circumstances of the case the lower
\n           appellate court was correct in coming to a
\n           conclusion     and   recording   a   finding
\n           discarding legal evidence and basing on
\n           wild      observations      and     baseless
\n           presumptions?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (2)  Whether in the facts and circumstances of
\n           the case, the court below was legally
\n           correct in casting the burden of proof in a
\n           suit for injunction on the defendants?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           2. The defendants in O.S.No.81\/1987 on the file of<\/p>\n
the Munsiff-Magistrate’s Court, Perambra are the appellants.<\/p>\n
The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in<\/p>\n
A.S.No.67\/95 on the file of the Sub Court, Quilandy. The<\/p>\n
suit was for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the<\/p>\n
                                 -2-<\/span>
\nS.A.No.82\/98<\/p>\n
defendants from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property. By<\/p>\n
the revised judgment dated 23\/12\/1994 the trial court dismissed the<\/p>\n
suit finding that the plaintiff has not succeeded in proving the<\/p>\n
possession over the plaint schedule property. In the appeal<\/p>\n
(A.S.No.67\/95) preferred by the plaintiff the Lower appellate Court<\/p>\n
reversed the findings of the trial court and held that the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
proved the possession over the plaint schedule property.            The<\/p>\n
Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the<\/p>\n
trial court and decreed the suit for injunction. The parties are<\/p>\n
hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as arrayed in<\/p>\n
the suit.\n<\/p>\n
           3. The suit property is having an extent of 7 cents<\/p>\n
comprised in R.S.No.88\/1A. The plaintiff claimed to be in<\/p>\n
possession of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff claimed<\/p>\n
title and possession by virtue of Ext.A3 deed dated 17\/3\/1987<\/p>\n
executed by Chathu and others in favour of the plaintiff.           The<\/p>\n
defendants filed written statement contending inter alia that the<\/p>\n
                                -3-<\/span>
\nS.A.No.82\/98<\/p>\n
plaintiff has no manner of right, title and possession over the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property. The defendants also disputed the identity of the<\/p>\n
property. Originally the suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff.<\/p>\n
Subsequently, in the appeal the Sub Court, Badakara directed the<\/p>\n
trial court to dispose of the suit afresh after deputing            a<\/p>\n
Commissioner to identify the plaint schedule property. As per the<\/p>\n
remand order, the trial court deputed a Commissioner. The court,<\/p>\n
after considering the objections raised that there were some<\/p>\n
mistakes in the report and plan, remitted the report and plan to the<\/p>\n
Commissioner. Thereafter, the Commissioner submitted Exts.C5<\/p>\n
and C6 report and plan.       The parties also adduced additional<\/p>\n
evidence both oral and documentary, after remand. Admittedly the<\/p>\n
property lying on the immediate east of the plaint schedule property<\/p>\n
is in the possession of the defendants.      Both the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
defendants claimed title on the strength of Exts.A3 and B1 deeds<\/p>\n
respectively executed by the very same person, who was holding<\/p>\n
the property. On the basis of the description of the boundaries and<\/p>\n
                                  -4-<\/span>
\nS.A.No.82\/98<\/p>\n
on the basis of the identification done by the parties to the suit in<\/p>\n
the presence of the Commissioner, the Commissioner measured,<\/p>\n
identified and demarcated the plaint schedule property and the<\/p>\n
adjacent eastern property, which admittedly belongs to the<\/p>\n
defendants.    The plaint schedule property is shown as plot A and<\/p>\n
the property on the eastern side is shown as plot B.              The<\/p>\n
identification of the properties was made on the basis of the title<\/p>\n
deeds of the respective parties. The Commissioner found that plot<\/p>\n
A is having an extent of 6.25 cents and plot B 3.8 cents. As per<\/p>\n
the   documents, the plaint schedule property and the adjacent<\/p>\n
eastern property are having an extent of 7 cents and 5 cents<\/p>\n
respectively.\n<\/p>\n
            4. The trial court as well as the Appellate Court accepted<\/p>\n
the Commissioner’s report and held that the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property is correctly identified and described by the Commissioner<\/p>\n
in Ext.C6 plan as plot A. The trial court as well as the Appellate<\/p>\n
Court considered the claims of the respective parties on merits.<\/p>\n
                                  -5-<\/span>
\nS.A.No.82\/98<\/p>\n
Both the parties are claiming title and possession under a common<\/p>\n
vendor. The defendants case is that they obtained 5 cents of<\/p>\n
property from PW-1, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. The trial court considered the question as to whether the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property. After<\/p>\n
examining the description of the property shown in Exts.A3 and<\/p>\n
B1, considering the Commissioner’s report, plan and other oral and<\/p>\n
documentary evidence, the trial court held that the plaintiff has not<\/p>\n
succeeded in proving the possession of the property and therefore<\/p>\n
the relief of injunction was declined.   The Appellate Court on the<\/p>\n
very same set of facts, circumstances and evidence, reversed the<\/p>\n
findings of the trial court.    The Appellate Court also considered<\/p>\n
the question of possession of the property with reference to the title<\/p>\n
deeds, namely, Exts.A3 and B1. The Appellate Court also found<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff and the lst defendant get portions of item No.3 in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 and the assignor is also the same person. The Appellate<\/p>\n
Court also noted the fact that the Commissioner has shown Ext. B1<\/p>\n
                                  -6-<\/span>
\nS.A.No.82\/98<\/p>\n
property as plot B which is admittedly in the possession of the<\/p>\n
defendants. The court also noted the fact that the Commissioner<\/p>\n
has on measurement shown lessor extent of both Exts.A3 and B1<\/p>\n
properties. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced<\/p>\n
in support of the respective contentions including Commissioner’s<\/p>\n
report and plan, the Lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has succeeded in proving the possession over the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property. The court below held that the evidence of PW1 and the<\/p>\n
documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff             satisfactorily<\/p>\n
shown the possession of the plaintiff. After assessing the whole<\/p>\n
evidence it set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court<\/p>\n
and held that the plot A in Ext.C6 is in the possession of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and he is entitled to the relief as prayed for.  The finding<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property is a<\/p>\n
pure question of fact entered by the fact finding court. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the finding of facts recorded by the court below            cannot be<\/p>\n
interfered in the second appeal filed under Section 100 of the<\/p>\n
                                 -7-<\/span>
\nS.A.No.82\/98<\/p>\n
C.P.C. On a perusal of the judgment rendered by the Lower<\/p>\n
Appellate Court, I am of the view that the court rightly found that<\/p>\n
the plaintiff is in possession of plot A in Ext.C6 plan. There is<\/p>\n
slight difference in extent between the property shown as plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property and the property identified by the Commissioner<\/p>\n
in Ext.C6 plan. In the plaint the extent shown is 7 cents. The<\/p>\n
Commissioner identified the property, which is having 6.25 cents.<\/p>\n
           5. The learned Sub Judge in appeal instead of restricting<\/p>\n
the decree to plot A in Ext.C6 plan, granted injunction for the<\/p>\n
extent of 7 cents shown in the plaint, after finding that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
is in possession of only 6.25 cents identified as plot A in Ext.C6<\/p>\n
plan. There is no justification for passing the decree for injunction<\/p>\n
as prayed for in the plaint. Therefore, slight modification of the<\/p>\n
decree and judgment passed by the court is necessitated.<\/p>\n
           In the result, the judgment and decree passed by the<\/p>\n
Appellate Court is confirmed subject to the modification that the<\/p>\n
decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is confined to plot A<\/p>\n
                                 -8-<\/span>
\nS.A.No.82\/98<\/p>\n
in Ext.P6 plan.\n<\/p>\n
           Second Appeal is disposed of with the above<\/p>\n
modification. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Ext.C6<\/p>\n
plan shall form part of the decree.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                    Judge.\n<\/p>\n
kcv.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court C.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 82 of 1998(B) 1. C.KUNHIKANNAN … Petitioner Vs 1. K.GOPI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR For Respondent :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :28\/10\/2010 O R D E R HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ——————————- S.A. NO. 82 […]<\/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-78220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 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\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-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=\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-25T03:14:58+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-25T03:14:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1283,\"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\\\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010\",\"name\":\"C.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-25T03:14:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 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":"C.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 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\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-25T03:14:58+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-25T03:14:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010"},"wordCount":1283,"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\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010","name":"C.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-25T03:14:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-kunhikannan-vs-k-gopi-on-28-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.Kunhikannan vs K.Gopi on 28 October, 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\/78220","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=78220"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78220\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78220"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78220"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78220"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}