{"id":80943,"date":"2010-10-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-08-08T09:46:43","modified_gmt":"2017-08-08T04:16:43","slug":"sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRFA.No. 67 of 2005(E)\n\n\n1. SAM B.SAHAYAM, S\/O. BRUSE D.SAHAYAM,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. L.R.BEENA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :20\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n                   ...........................................\n                R.F.A.Nos.67,165 & 166 OF 2005\n                   .............................................\n            Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010.\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      R.F.A.No.67\/2005 is preferred against the judgment<\/p>\n
and decree of the 1st Additional Sub Judge, Trivandrum in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.131\/1995.       R.F.A.No.165\/2005 is preferred                against<\/p>\n
O.S.No.173\/1995 and R.F.A.No.166\/2005 is preferred against<\/p>\n
O.S.No.175\/1995.       All      these         suits       were   for specific<\/p>\n
performance of the contract with                      alternative reliefs for<\/p>\n
damages and return of the amount.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The trial court on a consideration of the entire<\/p>\n
materials held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to specific<\/p>\n
performance of the contract, but directed the defendant to<\/p>\n
return the advance amount paid + cost of construction made<\/p>\n
by the    plaintiffs in pursuance of the contract with                  12%<\/p>\n
interest from the last date of agreement dated 30.9.1994<\/p>\n
till the date of suit and        at the rate of 6% thereafter. It is<\/p>\n
against those decisions, the defendant in these cases have<\/p>\n
come up in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also<\/p>\n
                             : 2 :<\/span>
\nR.F.A.Nos.67,165 & 166 OF 2005<\/p>\n
the    counsel for the     respondent in    RFA.No.67\/2005.<\/p>\n
O.S.No.131\/1995 against which RFA.No.67\/2005 contains<\/p>\n
the following facts:\n<\/p>\n
        The plaintiff and defendant have entered into an<\/p>\n
agreement for sale with respect to 16 cents of land<\/p>\n
comprised in    Sy.No.156\/2-14 of    Vilavoorkkal village on<\/p>\n
14.12.1993 with the     stipulation to pay Rs.8,300\/= per<\/p>\n
cent.   The period of agreement was to expire on 31.1.1994.<\/p>\n
An amount of Rs.5,000\/= was paid as advance. Subsequently<\/p>\n
as the defendant could not execute the document, by virtue<\/p>\n
of   the endorsement dated        29.1.1994 the period was<\/p>\n
extended and ultimately on 31.3.1994 again the period was<\/p>\n
extended up to 30.9.1994. While executing the second<\/p>\n
agreement, it was agreed upon by the defendant that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff can construct compound wall over the property to<\/p>\n
be assigned. Now the amount claimed by the plaintiff, so far<\/p>\n
as advance is concerned, is Rs.5,000\/= + Rs.35,000\/= as<\/p>\n
cost of construction + difference in value on account of non<\/p>\n
performance of the contract.\n<\/p>\n
      4. On the other hand, the defendant would contend<\/p>\n
that he has not committed the breach. A suit was filed by<\/p>\n
                               : 3 :<\/span>
\nR.F.A.Nos.67,165 & 166 OF 2005<\/p>\n
one Sara George and there was an injunction by the court<\/p>\n
from executing the agreement and therefore, he was unable<\/p>\n
to   execute the document. It is also contended that         the<\/p>\n
plaintiff had only spent Rs.3,000\/= towards          construction<\/p>\n
and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief.<\/p>\n
       5. A.S.No.173\/1995    against which R.F.A.No.165\/2005<\/p>\n
is filed relates to the following facts:\n<\/p>\n
      There was an agreement between the plaintiff and the<\/p>\n
defendant for the sale of 16 cents of property comprised in<\/p>\n
Sy.No.156\/2-14 of Vilavoorkkal village for a consideration of<\/p>\n
Rs.9,000\/= per cent and the period was to expire               on<\/p>\n
15.2.1994 and the plaintiff has paid an amount of Rs.5,000\/=<\/p>\n
as advance.    On account of      inability of the defendant the<\/p>\n
agreement     was initially extended up to        15.4.1994 and<\/p>\n
thereafter again up to 30.9.1994. Meanwhile permission was<\/p>\n
granted to the plaintiff to construct     compound wall for the<\/p>\n
property and for making other improvements. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
had spent Rs.10,000\/= for        construction of the compound<\/p>\n
wall. Though ultimately the plaintiff has sent a notice, the<\/p>\n
defendant had failed to perform his part of the contract,<\/p>\n
hence the suit.      The defendant, on the other hand, would<\/p>\n
                              : 4 :<\/span>
\nR.F.A.Nos.67,165 & 166 OF 2005<\/p>\n
contend that he had not committed the breach of contract.<\/p>\n
Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.<\/p>\n
      6. The suit O.S.No.175\/1995 against which R.F.A.No.<\/p>\n
166\/2005 is filed contains the following facts:<\/p>\n
      Here also there was an agreement with respect to 15<\/p>\n
cents of property on 14.12.1993 between the plaintiff and the<\/p>\n
defendant with stipulation to pay at the rate of Rs.5,000\/=<\/p>\n
per  cent   and   Rs.5,000\/=      was paid   as advance.   The<\/p>\n
defendant did not perform his part of the contract. Therefore<\/p>\n
there was a subsequent endorsement and an agreement<\/p>\n
whereby    the term was extended up to 30.9.1994 and in<\/p>\n
pursuance to the agreement, the plaintiff has constructed<\/p>\n
basement for compound wall and also dug a well and had<\/p>\n
expended Rs.25,000\/=. In spite of readiness and willingness,<\/p>\n
the defendant did not comply with the terms of the contract<\/p>\n
and hence the suit.\n<\/p>\n
      7. In the written statement the defendant would<\/p>\n
contend regarding     execution of the agreement but would<\/p>\n
submit that he has not committed         breach of the contract<\/p>\n
and it had happened only on account of the suit filed by<\/p>\n
Sara George against him. He would also contend that he is<\/p>\n
                               : 5 :<\/span>
\nR.F.A.Nos.67,165 & 166 OF 2005<\/p>\n
prepared to pay the expense of Rs.15,000\/= along with the<\/p>\n
advance amount of Rs.5,000\/=.\n<\/p>\n
      8. The cases were tried jointly and PWs 1 and 2 and<\/p>\n
DW1 were examined. Exts.A1 to A18, B1, C1 and C2 were<\/p>\n
marked and the court below granted a money decree in<\/p>\n
favour of the plaintiff in all these cases. So far as specific<\/p>\n
performance of the contract is concerned, this Court need<\/p>\n
not probe into the matter for the reason that no appeal is<\/p>\n
preferred by the plaintiffs challenging refusal of specific<\/p>\n
performance of the contract. In all these cases there had<\/p>\n
been an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant<\/p>\n
with respect to purchase of parcels of land and in all these<\/p>\n
cases Rs.5,000\/= had been paid as advance and by virtue of<\/p>\n
the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
had constructed compound wall and in one case had dug a<\/p>\n
well. The   court below     found that the     defendant   was<\/p>\n
restrained from performing his part of contract by virtue of<\/p>\n
an order of injunction passed       in a case filed by one Sara<\/p>\n
George. The court considered that on account of the fact<\/p>\n
that   there was frustration of the contract the defendant<\/p>\n
was unable to perform his part of the contract. I am not<\/p>\n
                              : 6 :<\/span>
\nR.F.A.Nos.67,165 & 166 OF 2005<\/p>\n
saying anything on the same for the reason that now the<\/p>\n
specific performance is negatived which is not challenged.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs would      contend that they are entitled to<\/p>\n
proportionate increase as damages on account of escalation<\/p>\n
of   price of the property which had been declined by the<\/p>\n
trial court.    That is also not the subject matter of these<\/p>\n
appeals and therefore, it also does not require consideration.<\/p>\n
      9. The learned counsel for the appellant had raised the<\/p>\n
following points before me namely: (1) since there was an<\/p>\n
offer by the defendant     to pay the advance amount with<\/p>\n
some amount as damages for the construction of wall, the<\/p>\n
defendant shall not be saddled with the liability of payment<\/p>\n
of interest, (2) the agreement does not contain any specific<\/p>\n
term with respect to payment of interest and (3) if at all<\/p>\n
interest is to be paid, it has to be paid only on the excess<\/p>\n
amount which is awarded by the court other than what is<\/p>\n
offered by the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
       10. At the outset, I may like to point out that here is a<\/p>\n
defendant who had entered into an agreement for sale of the<\/p>\n
property with the respective plaintiffs without disclosing the<\/p>\n
fact that at an earlier point of time he had entered into an<\/p>\n
                              : 7 :<\/span>
\nR.F.A.Nos.67,165 & 166 OF 2005<\/p>\n
agreement for sale with one Sara George         and the said<\/p>\n
person had instituted the suit for specific performance of<\/p>\n
the contract. So the conduct of the defendant by any<\/p>\n
stretch of imagination cannot be said to be innocent. The<\/p>\n
court passed an order of injunction. Necessarily it became<\/p>\n
imperative    for him to    get the term of the    agreement<\/p>\n
extended and it was at that time the factum of        litigation<\/p>\n
and   earlier agreement to sell have come into      lime light.<\/p>\n
Therefore all is not well with the conduct of the defendant.<\/p>\n
     11. The plaintiffs in these cases were earnest in getting<\/p>\n
the property. They had paid the advance and at the request<\/p>\n
of the defendant had agreed to extend the term of the<\/p>\n
contract and further the defendant had permitted all these<\/p>\n
plaintiffs to have the construction of the compound wall of<\/p>\n
the property proposed to be purchased and they had invested<\/p>\n
amount for the same. It is in this background one has to find<\/p>\n
out the earnestness of the plaintiffs to get the property in<\/p>\n
their favour. Just because the defendant submits that he is<\/p>\n
prepared to pay the amount taken as advance and some<\/p>\n
damages towards construction which the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
made, I     am afraid that the same would     entitle   him to<\/p>\n
                               : 8 :<\/span>
\nR.F.A.Nos.67,165 & 166 OF 2005<\/p>\n
contend for the position that he is not liable to pay the<\/p>\n
interest. If he had such a good motive behind him, under<\/p>\n
ordinary circumstance along with the written statement, he<\/p>\n
would have deposited the amount admitted by him. So that<\/p>\n
the   court    could have    averted  awarding    interest with<\/p>\n
respect to the amount that had deposited. The plaintiffs<\/p>\n
cannot be blamed for not accepting that plea in the written<\/p>\n
statement for the reason that they had filed the suit for<\/p>\n
larger relief of specific performance of the contract.<\/p>\n
       12. Now     regarding non     mentioning of payment of<\/p>\n
interest in the agreement. It has to be stated that under the<\/p>\n
bonafide faith and belief they will become the owners of the<\/p>\n
property,    the plaintiffs had invested the amount for the<\/p>\n
construction of the      compound wall.    Similarly they had<\/p>\n
parted with Rs.5,000\/= each for the purpose of purchase as<\/p>\n
sale consideration.      The amount of Rs.5,000\/= has been<\/p>\n
retained and enjoyed by the defendant            whereas the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs did not get any fruits from the said agreement. So<\/p>\n
custody of     Rs.5,000\/= as far as      advance    amount is<\/p>\n
concerned is to be repaid with interest.      Similarly now a<\/p>\n
situation has arisen whereby though the compound walls<\/p>\n
                              : 9 :<\/span>
\nR.F.A.Nos.67,165 & 166 OF 2005<\/p>\n
are constructed, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the<\/p>\n
property for the reason     of an order in another case. The<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are not responsible for the same. They have never<\/p>\n
contributed anything for the same.         They were    bonafide<\/p>\n
persons prepared to purchase the property by spending<\/p>\n
amount and they have invested the               amount for the<\/p>\n
construction of the compound wall and virtually they had<\/p>\n
been thrown     out of the property. They had invested their<\/p>\n
amount which had become futile and did not get any benefit<\/p>\n
from the same. It was on account of the conduct of the<\/p>\n
defendant and it was a permissive construction made by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs  and   therefore, that     amount     also has to be<\/p>\n
reimbursed.\n<\/p>\n
      13. Now it has to be stated that the wall remains in<\/p>\n
tact in the property and it is only the amount that is spent<\/p>\n
with interest has to be paid back. So far as estimation of cost<\/p>\n
of the wall, I may state that     it is not in a very satisfactory<\/p>\n
manner the Commissioner has assessed. But it is a fact that<\/p>\n
such a minimum amount         should have been        spent and<\/p>\n
therefore I feel, the court after giving necessary deduction<\/p>\n
only awarded a reasonable            amount as the cost of<\/p>\n
                            : 10 :<\/span>
\nR.F.A.Nos.67,165 & 166 OF 2005<\/p>\n
construction.  The defendant has not filed any objection to<\/p>\n
the Commissioner’s report and therefore he cannot take<\/p>\n
shelter under    non availability of data.       So taking into<\/p>\n
consideration these materials, I find that the court below has<\/p>\n
proceeded in the matter in the correct perspective and only<\/p>\n
had awarded reasonable amount to the plaintiffs in each<\/p>\n
case with the stipulation to pay interest at 12% from the<\/p>\n
date of agreement till the date of suit and thereafter at the<\/p>\n
rate of 6% from the date of suit till realisation.<\/p>\n
      The judgment and decree of the trial court do not call<\/p>\n
for any interference and therefore, all these appeals fail<\/p>\n
and they are dismissed, but I direct the parties to bear their<\/p>\n
respective costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                  M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
cl<\/p>\n
                          : 11 :<\/span>
\nR.F.A.Nos.67,165 & 166 OF 2005<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RFA.No. 67 of 2005(E) 1. SAM B.SAHAYAM, S\/O. BRUSE D.SAHAYAM, … Petitioner Vs 1. L.R.BEENA, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL For Respondent :SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :20\/10\/2010 O R D E […]<\/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-80943","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 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\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-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=\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-08T04:16:43+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-08T04:16:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1951,\"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\\\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Sam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-08T04:16:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 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":"Sam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 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\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-08T04:16:43+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-08T04:16:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010"},"wordCount":1951,"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\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010","name":"Sam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-08T04:16:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sam-b-sahayam-vs-l-r-beena-on-20-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sam B.Sahayam vs L.R.Beena on 20 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\/80943","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=80943"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80943\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80943"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80943"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80943"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}