{"id":81841,"date":"2008-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008"},"modified":"2015-01-26T04:39:12","modified_gmt":"2015-01-25T23:09:12","slug":"ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ravunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ravunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 571 of 2008()\n\n\n1. RAVUNNI @ CHANDRAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SARALA BHASKARAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. BINSU, D\/O. DO. AND W\/O.MULLANGATH\n\n3. BASU, S\/O.DO. RESIDING AT THYKAD\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :03\/12\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n              K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J.\n          ------------------------------------------------\n              C. R. P. Nos.571 & 709 of 2008\n          ------------------------------------------------\n          Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008\n\n                            ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    The    revision              petitioner               and  the<\/p>\n
respondents in both these revisions are the<\/p>\n
same. Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
O.S.1025\/04 on the file of the Sub Court,<\/p>\n
Thrissur.  The      Respondents              are       respectively<\/p>\n
defendants 1, 3 and 2 in the said suit. The<\/p>\n
suit was decreed ex parte by the court below<\/p>\n
as respondents 1 to 3 who entered appearance<\/p>\n
in   the   court           below           through         Advocate<\/p>\n
Sri.C.B.Pradeep       did       not        file        any  written<\/p>\n
statement or contest the suit. The decree was<\/p>\n
passed ex parte on 30\/09\/05. Respondents 1 and<\/p>\n
2 filed I.A.2084\/08 in the said suit under<\/p>\n
Order IX Rule 13 to set aside the ex parte<\/p>\n
decree and judgment and I.A.2083\/08 seeking<\/p>\n
condonation of delay of 844 days in filing<\/p>\n
I.A.2084\/08. Both the petitions were allowed<\/p>\n
C. R. P. Nos.571 & 709 of 2008       -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
       by the court below vide orders challenged in<\/p>\n
       C.R.P.571\/08. Pursuant to the ex parte decree<\/p>\n
       in the suit, the petitioner\/plaintiff who was<\/p>\n
       the decree holder filed I.A.3996\/06 to have<\/p>\n
       sale deed executed in compliance with the<\/p>\n
       decree        passed     in O.S.1025\/04 for specific<\/p>\n
       performance            of the contract to  sell the<\/p>\n
       scheduled property. It is submitted that the<\/p>\n
       said I.A. was allowed by the court below and<\/p>\n
       sale deed was got executed through court by<\/p>\n
       the petitioner on 12\/03\/08. Respondents 1 and<\/p>\n
       2 filed I.A.2081\/08 in I.A.3996\/06 in the said<\/p>\n
       suit to set aside the ex parte order passed on<\/p>\n
       I.A.3996\/06 and also filed I.A.2085\/08 under<\/p>\n
       Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the<\/p>\n
       delay in filing I.A.2081\/08. The orders on<\/p>\n
       I.As.2081 and 2085 of 2008 are assailed by the<\/p>\n
       petitioner\/decree holder in C.R.P.709\/08.<\/p>\n
C. R. P. Nos.571 & 709 of 2008    -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
               2. Before proceeding to consider the case<\/p>\n
       of the petitioner in C.R.P.571\/08, I am to<\/p>\n
       observe that the orders assailed in C.R.P.<\/p>\n
       709\/08 are not speaking orders and the order<\/p>\n
       is only “I.A. allowed”. Probably it could be<\/p>\n
       because the Sub Judge who has allowed the<\/p>\n
       petitions under Order IX Rule 13 and the delay<\/p>\n
       condonation application filed therewith vide<\/p>\n
       I.A.2083 and 2084 of 2008 would have thought<\/p>\n
       that in view of the said order no speaking<\/p>\n
       order is required to be made on I.A.2081 and<\/p>\n
       2085 of 2008. Such a view also cannot be<\/p>\n
       faulted for the reason that when the ex parte<\/p>\n
       decree is set aside, obviously the subsequent<\/p>\n
       order passed on I.A.3996\/06 to have the decree<\/p>\n
       complied with also will have to be set aside.<\/p>\n
       Consequently, it follows that the decision in<\/p>\n
       C.R.P.709\/08 shall depend upon the order that<\/p>\n
       is to be passed in C.R.P.571\/08.\n<\/p>\n
C. R. P. Nos.571 & 709 of 2008      -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
               3. The orders assailed in C.R.P.571\/08<\/p>\n
       were passed by the court below considering the<\/p>\n
       evidence           adduced which consisted of only<\/p>\n
       documentary evidence Exts.B1 to B7 in I.A.<\/p>\n
       2084\/08 and Exts.B1 to B3 in I.A.2083\/08.<\/p>\n
       Exts.B1 to B3 marked in I.A.2083\/08 are the<\/p>\n
       same as Exts.B1 to B3 marked in I.A.2084\/08.<\/p>\n
       The counsel for the petitioner has produced<\/p>\n
       before me for perusal true photostat copies of<\/p>\n
       Exts.B1 and B3. Ext.B3 shows that the summons<\/p>\n
       issued to the defendants in O.S.1025\/04 was<\/p>\n
       being served in the address given in the<\/p>\n
       plaint directly to the second defendant who is<\/p>\n
       the third respondent herein who accepted also<\/p>\n
       the summons on behalf of defendants 1 and 3<\/p>\n
       who are respondents 1 and 2 herein stating<\/p>\n
       that they had then gone out and the Process<\/p>\n
       Server was serving summons of defendants 1 and<\/p>\n
       3 on the second defendant being convinced that<\/p>\n
C. R. P. Nos.571 & 709 of 2008        -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
       defendants 1 and 3 are residing in the same<\/p>\n
       house and that D2 is residing with them in<\/p>\n
       that house. The service of summons is in order<\/p>\n
       and      its       correctness  cannot be  challenged.<\/p>\n
       Pursuant thereto all defendants 1 to 3 have<\/p>\n
       entered appearance in the suit on 22\/03\/08<\/p>\n
       filing          Ext.B1     vakalath  through  Advocate<\/p>\n
       Sri.C.B.Pradeep, a lawyer of Thrissur bar. The<\/p>\n
       counsel for the respondents does not assail<\/p>\n
       the       fact         of defendants  having   entered<\/p>\n
       appearance in the suit filing vakalath of<\/p>\n
       Advocate              Sri.C.B.Pradeep.   Consequently,<\/p>\n
       therefore, the case is one where summons has<\/p>\n
       been duly served and the respondents were<\/p>\n
       having knowledge of the suit and they entered<\/p>\n
       appearance, but did not care to file any<\/p>\n
       written statement and the suit happened to be<\/p>\n
       decreed ex parte.\n<\/p>\n
C. R. P. Nos.571 & 709 of 2008    -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
               4. The question therefore, is whether<\/p>\n
       there is any sufficient cause to enable the<\/p>\n
       decree passed ex parte on 30\/09\/05 being set<\/p>\n
       aside on an application made vide I.A.2084\/05<\/p>\n
       on 04\/03\/08 condoning the delay of as much as<\/p>\n
       844 days sought for to be got condoned filing<\/p>\n
       I.A.2083\/08.\n<\/p>\n
               5. It is worthy to note in this context<\/p>\n
       that the petitioners have not entered the<\/p>\n
       witness box and have not tendered any evidence<\/p>\n
       to substantiate any ground to set aside the ex<\/p>\n
       parte decree. To substantiate the case of the<\/p>\n
       petitioner\/plaintiff that the suit agreement<\/p>\n
       on the basis of which a decree was granted to<\/p>\n
       him is genuine, he produced Ext.B4 prior title<\/p>\n
       deed of the suit property which was handed<\/p>\n
       over to him while executing the suit agreement<\/p>\n
       for sale of the scheduled property. He also<\/p>\n
       produced Ext.B5 sale deed executed in his<\/p>\n
C. R. P. Nos.571 & 709 of 2008        -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
       favour through court pursuant to the decree<\/p>\n
       for       specific       performance in  O.S.1025\/04<\/p>\n
       aforesaid. From the order, I see that the<\/p>\n
       court has allowed the application to set aside<\/p>\n
       the ex parte decree observing that according<\/p>\n
       to the petitioners (defendants 1 & 3) they<\/p>\n
       have never accepted the summons from the court<\/p>\n
       and their address shown in the plaint is<\/p>\n
       incorrect and the respondent (plaintiff) also<\/p>\n
       has no case that the summons were properly<\/p>\n
       served        to      the petitioners in person and<\/p>\n
       consequently,            petitioners have sufficient<\/p>\n
       cause for their absence. The said approach<\/p>\n
       made by the court is perverse and deserves to<\/p>\n
       be reversed for the reason that the service as<\/p>\n
       evidenced from Ext.B3 report of the Process<\/p>\n
       Server is sufficient service and further that<\/p>\n
       cannot be assailed in view of all defendants 1<\/p>\n
       to 3 entering appearance in the suit engaging<\/p>\n
C. R. P. Nos.571 & 709 of 2008       -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
       lawyer        who      has filed Ext.B1 vakalath on<\/p>\n
       23\/02\/05. The delay of as much as 844 days<\/p>\n
       also is condoned casually by the Sub Judge<\/p>\n
       recording the submissions of the counsel that<\/p>\n
       the defendants 1 to 3 who filed petition under<\/p>\n
       Order IX Rule 13 have no knowledge regarding<\/p>\n
       the summons and that the words “sufficient<\/p>\n
       cause” should receive a liberal construction<\/p>\n
       so as to advance substantial justice when no<\/p>\n
       negligence or inaction or want of bona fides<\/p>\n
       is imputable to a party. Though the Sub Judge<\/p>\n
       has extracted the broad principles which are<\/p>\n
       to be followed, he has not considered the<\/p>\n
       question as to whether there was negligence or<\/p>\n
       inaction or want of bona fides on the part of<\/p>\n
       respondents 1 and 2 in the matter of conduct<\/p>\n
       of their defence in the suit after entering<\/p>\n
       appearance through a lawyer. They did not file<\/p>\n
       any written statement nor did they do anything<\/p>\n
C. R. P. Nos.571 & 709 of 2008       -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
       for the progress of the suit. They did not<\/p>\n
       make any enquiry to their lawyer regarding<\/p>\n
       their case. They gave scant regard to the<\/p>\n
       matter and did not enquire as to whether a<\/p>\n
       decree is passed at all. The nature of the<\/p>\n
       petitioners in those I.As who are defendants 1<\/p>\n
       and 3 show that they were callous in the<\/p>\n
       matter of conduct of defence in the case and<\/p>\n
       the court below has not seen any justifiable<\/p>\n
       reason to be accepted as sufficient cause to<\/p>\n
       condone         the    delay of  844 days in filing<\/p>\n
       petition under Order IX Rule 13 so as to upset<\/p>\n
       the decree that has been passed in favour of<\/p>\n
       the       petitioner\/plaintiff     as  early as on<\/p>\n
       30\/09\/05 pursuant to which Ext.B5 sale deed<\/p>\n
       also was executed in their favour by the<\/p>\n
       court. It is strange that the learned Sub<\/p>\n
       Judge has set aside the decree in a casual<\/p>\n
       manner condoning the delay of 844 days without<\/p>\n
C. R. P. Nos.571 & 709 of 2008       -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
       even having the petitioners in the said I.A<\/p>\n
       who are respondents 1 and 2 tendering any<\/p>\n
       evidence           also  in  support  of   their  case<\/p>\n
       advanced in I.A. Nos.2083 and 2084 of 2008<\/p>\n
       that they were not aware of the decree in the<\/p>\n
       suit and they had not been served with summons<\/p>\n
       when the fact remains that all the defendants<\/p>\n
       in      the        suit  entered   appearance  through<\/p>\n
       Advocate           Sri.C.B.Pradeep  who  filed  Ext.B1<\/p>\n
       vakalath in the suit on 23\/02\/08. The orders<\/p>\n
       on the above two I.As.2083 and 2084 of 2008<\/p>\n
       assailed in C.R.P.571\/08 deserve therefore, to<\/p>\n
       be set aside in the circumstances allowing<\/p>\n
       C.R.P.571\/08 and consequently, the orders on<\/p>\n
       I.A. Nos.2081 and 2085 of 2008 which are<\/p>\n
       nonspeaking orders assailed in C.R.P.709\/08<\/p>\n
       also        deserve     to   be   set  aside  allowing<\/p>\n
       C.R.P.709\/08.\n<\/p>\n
C. R. P. Nos.571 & 709 of 2008    -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
               6. In the result, I set aside the orders<\/p>\n
       impugned in both these revisions and dismiss<\/p>\n
       I.As.2083 and 2084 of 2008 as also I.As.2081<\/p>\n
       and 2085 of 2008 filed by respondents 1 and 2<\/p>\n
       in O.S.1025\/04 of Sub Court, Thrissur. C.R.P<\/p>\n
       Nos.571\/08 and 709\/08 are thus, allowed.<\/p>\n
                                         K.P.BALACHANDRAN,
\n                                                    JUDGE
\n       kns\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ravunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 571 of 2008() 1. RAVUNNI @ CHANDRAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. SARALA BHASKARAN, … Respondent 2. BINSU, D\/O. DO. AND W\/O.MULLANGATH 3. BASU, S\/O.DO. RESIDING AT THYKAD For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR […]<\/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-81841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRavunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008 - 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\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ravunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-25T23:09:12+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ravunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-25T23:09:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1554,\"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\\\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Ravunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-25T23:09:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ravunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Ravunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008 - 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\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ravunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-25T23:09:12+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ravunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-25T23:09:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008"},"wordCount":1554,"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\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008","name":"Ravunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-25T23:09:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ravunni-chandran-vs-sarala-bhaskaran-on-3-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ravunni @ Chandran vs Sarala Bhaskaran on 3 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/81841","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=81841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81841\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}