{"id":81550,"date":"2009-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-08-23T22:13:54","modified_gmt":"2015-08-23T16:43:54","slug":"kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 31 of 1995()\n\n\n\n1. KAMALAKSHYAMMA THANKAMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. KAMALAKSHYAMMA SARASWATHYAMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.R.S.KALKURA\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :11\/02\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                    THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, J\n                  ==================\n                      S.A.No. 31 of 1995\n                  ==================\n         Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008.\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The substantial question of law formulated for a decision is<\/p>\n
whether the courts below are justified in relying on a wrong<\/p>\n
description of the property in Ext.A1 to declare the respondents’<\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and whether<\/p>\n
the courts below ought to have found that the property covered by<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 is not the schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Respondents initiated the litigation seeking declaration of<\/p>\n
their title and possession of the plaint scheduled property and for<\/p>\n
fixation of its eastern boundary.      They claimed that the suit<\/p>\n
property which is described as seven cents in R.Sy.No. 2014\/2 was<\/p>\n
acquired by the 1st respondent as per Ext.A1, sale deed No. 2904<\/p>\n
dated 9.6.1964 executed by the 1st appellant. It is also claimed that<\/p>\n
the respondents have been in possession and enjoyment of the said<\/p>\n
property paying its revenue.        Respondents alleged that the<\/p>\n
appellants destroyed the eastern boundary of the said property.<\/p>\n
That lead to the institution of the suit. Appellants admitted the<\/p>\n
execution of Ext.A1 by the 1st appellant but their contention is that<\/p>\n
S.A.No. 31 of 1995              -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
though a property as described in the schedule of Ext.A1 was<\/p>\n
purported to be sold to the 1st respondent, what was really<\/p>\n
intended by the parties is to convey another item of land which is<\/p>\n
situated on the immediate east of another 10 cents belonging to<\/p>\n
the 1st respondent situated on the south of the property referred to<\/p>\n
in Ext.A1. Appellants denied that they destroyed the physical<\/p>\n
boundary on the eastern side of the schedule property. Learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff found that in view of Ext.A1, the appellants cannot dispute<\/p>\n
the identity of the property sold, accepted the case of the<\/p>\n
respondents and granted decree. It was directed that Ext.C2, plan<\/p>\n
prepared by the Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of the<\/p>\n
Surveyor will form part of the decree. Appellants challenged that<\/p>\n
judgment and decree before the First Additional District Court<\/p>\n
Thiruvananthapuram. Learned Additional District Judge confirmed<\/p>\n
the judgment and decree. It is contended by the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for appellants that the view taken by the learned Munsiff that in<\/p>\n
view of Ext.A1 the defence of appellants in the suit is foreclosed as<\/p>\n
they could not adduce evidence in support of their contention that<\/p>\n
what was intended to be conveyed and actually conveyed is<\/p>\n
another plot of land, is erroneous.       Learned counsel placed<\/p>\n
reliance on the decision in Balaprasad Asaram Charkha and<\/p>\n
others v. Asmabi w\/o Fakruddin Bohri [A.I.R. 1954 NAGPUR<\/p>\n
S.A.No. 31 of 1995                -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
328], Sateri Shiddappa Gadkari v. Rudrappa Shetteppa<\/p>\n
Bachenhatti [A.I.R. 1954 BOMBAY 463] and Rikhiram<\/p>\n
Pyarelal and another v. Ghasiram Dukalu [A.I.R. 1978<\/p>\n
MADHYA PRADESH 189].            According to the learned counsel,<\/p>\n
evidence on record is sufficient to show that it is a case of mistaken<\/p>\n
identity of the property sold. Counsel for the respondents asserted<\/p>\n
that the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below required no<\/p>\n
interference.\n<\/p>\n
      3. It is seen from the judgment of the learned Munsiff that a<\/p>\n
view has been taken that in the light of Ext.A1, it is not open to the<\/p>\n
appellants to contend that what was sold as per Ext.A1 is not in the<\/p>\n
property scheduled in the plaint but another plot of land. That<\/p>\n
view stems from Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act which<\/p>\n
excludes oral evidence against the terms of a contract, grant or<\/p>\n
other disposition of property or any matter required by law to be<\/p>\n
reduced to the form of a document. The contention that there was<\/p>\n
a common mistake regarding the description and boundaries in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 and what was intended to be sold is another plot of land<\/p>\n
cannot be brought within the mischief of “terms of any such<\/p>\n
contract, grant or other disposition of property”. Oral evidence is<\/p>\n
admissible to prove that the expression of the contract was<\/p>\n
contrary to the intention of the parties due to a common mistake<\/p>\n
S.A.No. 31 of 1995                -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
and it is possible to prove by evidence that what was intended to be<\/p>\n
sold is not the property referred to in the document in question.<\/p>\n
Even in the absence of a suit for rectification of the instrument as<\/p>\n
contemplated under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, it is<\/p>\n
possible for the party concerned to raise such a plea either as<\/p>\n
plaintiff or in defence provided of course, rights of third parties<\/p>\n
who bonafide purchased the property for consideration without<\/p>\n
noticing the ‘common mistake’ is not involved. The decisions of the<\/p>\n
Nagpur, Bombay and Madhya Pradesh High Courts in the cases<\/p>\n
referred above, support that view.\n<\/p>\n
     4.    Learned counsel for respondents contend that it is<\/p>\n
possible to raise such a contention only if at the time when such a<\/p>\n
defence is taken, a suit for rectification of the instrument under<\/p>\n
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act is not barred by limitation.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel invited my attention to the observation in Sateri<\/p>\n
Shiddappa Gadkari v. Rudrappa Shetteppa Bachenhatti<\/p>\n
[A.I.R. 1954 BOMBAY 463].\n<\/p>\n
     5.    I am unable to accept that contention of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel. For, it is when the respondents attempted to enforce their<\/p>\n
right under Ext.A1 which according to the appellants contain a<\/p>\n
common mistake regarding identity of the property that the<\/p>\n
appellants are required to take up such plea. A plea in defence<\/p>\n
S.A.No. 31 of 1995               -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Therefore, it is open to<\/p>\n
the appellants to show that what is conveyed by Ext.A1 is not the<\/p>\n
suit property, but, another plot of land.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   Now, I have to refer to the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
parties. It is not disputed and proved by the respondents that the<\/p>\n
1st appellant executed Ext.A1, for valid consideration. That, the<\/p>\n
schedule descriptions in Ext.A1 as it stands relate to the suit<\/p>\n
property is not very much in dispute.      The contention of the<\/p>\n
appellants is that what they sold as per Ext.A1 is not the suit<\/p>\n
property but another item of land.        This is clear from the<\/p>\n
suggestion made to PW1, husband of the 1st respondent in cross<\/p>\n
examination that though in Ext.A1 the property sold is described as<\/p>\n
situated on the south of the 10 cents, the property sold for<\/p>\n
convenient enjoyment (of the respondents) is on the east of the said<\/p>\n
10 cents which also belonged to the first respondent. PW1 denied<\/p>\n
that suggestion. Records reveal that the Advocate Commissioner<\/p>\n
had identified the suit property based on the descriptions in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1. Ext.C2 is the plan prepared by Commissioner with the<\/p>\n
assistance of the Surveyor. In Ext.C2, the suit property (coming<\/p>\n
within the descriptions in Ext.A1) is shown as the red shaded<\/p>\n
portion. On its south, the 10 cents admittedly belonging to the<\/p>\n
respondents is marked in green (in Ext.C2). On the east of the said<\/p>\n
S.A.No. 31 of 1995                -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
green shaded portion is another 12.625 cents which also belongs to<\/p>\n
and is in the possession of the respondent.        According to the<\/p>\n
appellants, the property conveyed as per Ext.A1 is the yellow<\/p>\n
shaded portion in Ext.C2.          But concededly, the boundary<\/p>\n
description in Ext.A1 did not support that contention.<\/p>\n
      7.   The suit property as described in the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
tallies with the descriptions in Ext.A1 (item No. 2) in respect of the<\/p>\n
7 cents. The Advocate Commissioner found on measurement the<\/p>\n
extent of the red shaded portion as 7 cents. It is seen from Ext.A2<\/p>\n
that consequent to the transfer as per Ext.A1, 1st respondent has<\/p>\n
been paying revenue for the 7 cents. What is now pressed into<\/p>\n
service by the appellants is Ext.B1, a gift deed of the year 1981<\/p>\n
executed by the 1st appellant in favour of her daughter, 2nd<\/p>\n
appellant. Ext.B1, according to the appellants covered the suit<\/p>\n
property also. Learned counsel contends that Ext.B1 was executed<\/p>\n
before the institution of the suit and therefore, no oblique motives<\/p>\n
could be attributed to the execution of Ext.B1. But fact remained<\/p>\n
that Ext.B1 was executed in the year 1981 while Ext.A1 was<\/p>\n
executed by the 1st appellant in favour of the respondent in the<\/p>\n
year 1964.      Therefore, whatever be the intention behind the<\/p>\n
execution of Ext.B1, that document cannot take precedence over<\/p>\n
Ext.A1. It is seen from Ext.C2 which again is not objected by the<\/p>\n
S.A.No. 31 of 1995               -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants that the property comprised in R.Sy.No.2014\/3 is<\/p>\n
situated on the further south of the green and yellow shaded<\/p>\n
portion. Ext.B1 is not sufficient to prove that what was conveyed<\/p>\n
as per Ext.A1 is not the suit property. In this situation, it is<\/p>\n
pertinent to note that the appellants did not produce their original<\/p>\n
documents nor requested the Advocate Commissioner to measure<\/p>\n
the properties based on such documents.\n<\/p>\n
      8. It is contended by the learned counsel for appellants that<\/p>\n
respondent did not produce the title deeds in respect of the green<\/p>\n
and yellow shaded portions marked in Ext.C2 and that non<\/p>\n
production of the documents was with ulterior motives. But, the<\/p>\n
suit is in respect of the disputed property which according to the<\/p>\n
respondents is covered by Ext.A1. The appellants did not, at any<\/p>\n
point of time require the respondents to produce their title deeds<\/p>\n
in respect of the green and yellow shaded portions.<\/p>\n
      9.   It is then contended that the respondents have no<\/p>\n
possession of the disputed property, no evidence is produced by<\/p>\n
the respondent to prove their possession and that even as per<\/p>\n
report of the Advocate Commissioner (Ext. C1) and the evidence<\/p>\n
given by DW2, respondent can have no possession of the disputed<\/p>\n
property. DW2 claimed that since before 4 years of the institution<\/p>\n
of the suit, he has been running a brick kiln in the disputed<\/p>\n
S.A.No. 31 of 1995              -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
property. He obtained permission for running the brick kiln from<\/p>\n
the appellants. PW1 admitted that there is a brick kiln towards the<\/p>\n
eastern portion of the 7 cents and that portion of the brick kiln<\/p>\n
comes in the property admittedly belong to the appellants and<\/p>\n
situated on the immediate east of the suit property. According to<\/p>\n
PW1, since DW2 wanted to put up a brick kiln, he also granted<\/p>\n
permission. Evidence of DW2 is not sufficient to hold against the<\/p>\n
recitals in Ext.A1. It is recited in Ext.A1 that the 1st appellant<\/p>\n
handed over possession of the 7 cents referred to therein to the 1st<\/p>\n
respondent. It must be presumed that the respondents continue in<\/p>\n
possession of the 7 cents. DW2 claimed that he has document to<\/p>\n
show that he obtained permission from the appellants to put up the<\/p>\n
brick kiln but he did not produce that document. Exts.A1 and A2<\/p>\n
show that the respondents are in possession of the suit property.<\/p>\n
When the appellants claimed as against the recitals in Ext.A1 that<\/p>\n
they continue to be in possession of the suit property, it was for<\/p>\n
them to substantiate that contention and show that the recital in<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 was not correct. Appellants have not adduced acceptable<\/p>\n
evidence in that respect. The statement made by the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioner in Ext.C1 about what he learned about possession<\/p>\n
cannot be accepted as the Commissioner is not expected to speak<\/p>\n
about possession. This is a matter to be decided by the court on<\/p>\n
S.A.No. 31 of 1995               -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence, may be including the datas if any supplied by the<\/p>\n
Advocate Commissioner.\n<\/p>\n
      10. It is contended by the learned counsel for appellants that<\/p>\n
though PW1 stated that the green and yellow shaded portions and<\/p>\n
the red shaded portion in Ext.C2 lie contiguous, Exts.C1 states that<\/p>\n
the green and yellow shaded portions lie within specified<\/p>\n
boundaries. According to the learned counsel, that is an indication<\/p>\n
that the red shaded portion is not in the possession of the<\/p>\n
respondents.     The Advocate Commissioner has stated in Ext.C1<\/p>\n
that the first respondent has his residential building with other<\/p>\n
structures in the green shaded portion. A boundary between the<\/p>\n
red shaded (suit property) and the green shaded portion is not<\/p>\n
inconsistent with the claim of the respondents.<\/p>\n
      11. It is true that it was open to the appellants to raise a<\/p>\n
contention as made by them even without a separate suit for<\/p>\n
rectification of the instrument under Section 31 of the Specific<\/p>\n
Relief Act. But it is important to remember that in spite of the<\/p>\n
appellants claiming that there is a wrong description of the<\/p>\n
property in Ext.A1 no attempt was made by them to correct that<\/p>\n
mistake in Ext.A1 of the year 1964 in appropriate proceedings till<\/p>\n
they raised a contention to that effect in the suit filed in the year<\/p>\n
1984. It is difficult to think that in spite of getting Ext.A1 in the<\/p>\n
S.A.No. 31 of 1995                -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
year 1964, respondents remained idle till 1984 without trying to<\/p>\n
get possession of the property covered by Ext.A1. Courts below<\/p>\n
concurrently found that what is conveyed as per Ext.A1 is the suit<\/p>\n
property marked in red shade in Ext.C2. It is also found that AB<\/p>\n
line is the boundary between the suit property marked in red shade<\/p>\n
in Ext.C2 and the property belonging to the appellants on its east.<\/p>\n
There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings<\/p>\n
entered by the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
      12. I make it clear that I am not not interfering with the<\/p>\n
observation made by the learned Munsiff regarding the right if any<\/p>\n
of the appellants to move against the 12.625 cents with whatever<\/p>\n
defence that may be available to the respondents.<\/p>\n
      Appeal fails. It is dismissed. No Costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   THOMAS.P.JOSEPH, JUDGE<\/p>\n
rhs<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 31 of 1995() 1. KAMALAKSHYAMMA THANKAMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. KAMALAKSHYAMMA SARASWATHYAMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR For Respondent :SRI.R.S.KALKURA The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :11\/02\/2009 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-81550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009 - 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\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-23T16:43:54+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-23T16:43:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2281,\"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\\\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Kamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-23T16:43:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Kamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009 - 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\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-23T16:43:54+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-23T16:43:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009"},"wordCount":2281,"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\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009","name":"Kamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-23T16:43:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kamalakshyamma-thankamma-vs-kamalakshyamma-saraswathyamma-on-11-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kamalakshyamma Thankamma vs Kamalakshyamma Saraswathyamma on 11 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/81550","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=81550"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81550\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}