{"id":82965,"date":"2007-03-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007"},"modified":"2017-06-02T10:20:52","modified_gmt":"2017-06-02T04:50:52","slug":"harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 449 of 1993(C)\n\n\n\n1. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD.\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. PANKARA MOIDEEN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI A A ABUL HASSAN, V M KURIAN(JR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :27\/03\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n\n                        ...........................................\n\n             S.A.No. 449     OF   1993 & Cross Objection\n\n                       ............................................\n\n          DATED THIS THE  27th  DAY OF MARCH, 2007\n\n\n                                   JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Plaintiff   in   O.S.394   of   1982   on   the   file   of   Munsiff   Court,<\/p>\n
Kalpetta is the appellant.   Defendant therein is the respondent.<\/p>\n
Appellant   filed   the   suit   seeking   a   decree   for   recovery   of<\/p>\n
possession of plaint B schedule property on the strength of title.<\/p>\n
Case   of   the   appellant   was   that   plaint   A   schedule   property   was<\/p>\n
taken   assignment   by   the   appellant   company   as   per   Ext.A1<\/p>\n
assignment   deed   dated   25.10.1923   and   plaint   B   schedule<\/p>\n
property   forms   part   of   plaint   A   schedule   property   and   on<\/p>\n
8.5.1979,   respondent   trespassed   into   the   plaint   B   schedule<\/p>\n
property and reduced the same into his unlawful possession and<\/p>\n
he   succeeded   in   getting   a   purchase   certificate   from   Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal and that order was set aside by the Appellate Authority<\/p>\n
(Land  Reforms) in  an  appeal filed  by appellant and appellant is<\/p>\n
therefore   entitled   to   recover   possession   of   plaint   B   schedule<\/p>\n
property   on   the   strength   of   title   with   mesne   profits  @   Rs.100\/-<\/p>\n
per annum.  Respondent in the written statement contended that<\/p>\n
appellant has no subsisting title to plaint B schedule property.  It<\/p>\n
was contended that an extent of 2.35 acres in  R.S.188\/3A1 was<\/p>\n
SA 449\/1993                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
entrusted   on   an   oral   lease   to   the   respondent   by     appellant<\/p>\n
company in 1960  and he has been in possession of the property<\/p>\n
since   then   and   he   is   entitled   to   fixity   of   tenure   and   though   he<\/p>\n
obtained purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal, the order<\/p>\n
was set aside and  SM proceedings was remanded  and appellant<\/p>\n
is  not  entitled  to  the  decree  sought   for.    It   was also  contended<\/p>\n
that even if appellant has title to the plaint B schedule property,<\/p>\n
it is barred by adverse possession and limitation.   The question<\/p>\n
of tenancy claimed by the respondent was referred to the Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal under Section 125(3) of Kerala Land Reforms Act.  Land<\/p>\n
Tribunal,   Kalpetta   tried   the   referred   case   along   with   the   SM<\/p>\n
proceedings   which   was   remanded   by     the   Appellate   Authority<\/p>\n
(Land  Reforms).  Before   the   Land     Tribunal,   AW1   and  RW1  and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A10, C1 to C4 and X1 were marked.   Land Tribunal,<\/p>\n
on the evidence, upheld the claim of tenancy in respect of plot C<\/p>\n
measuring 70 cents marked by the Commissioner in Ext.C2 plan.<\/p>\n
On   receipt   of   the   findings   from   the   Land   Tribunal,   Section<\/p>\n
Officer   of   the   appellant   company   was   examined   as   PW1   and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1   to  A4  and   C1  to C3  were  marked.   On    the   side  of  the<\/p>\n
respondent, he was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 and B11 were<\/p>\n
marked.\n<\/p>\n
\nSA 449\/1993                               3<\/span><\/p>\n
       2. Learned Munsiff, on the evidence, upheld the finding of<\/p>\n
the   Land   Tribunal   and   held   that   respondent   is   a   cultivating<\/p>\n
tenant   having   fixity   of   tenure   in   respect   of   plot   C     marked   in<\/p>\n
Ext.C2 plan.   Learned Munsiff further found that plot A marked<\/p>\n
in Ext.C1 plan is part of vested forest as admitted by PW1   and<\/p>\n
therefore   appellant   is   not   entitled   to   a   decree   for   recovery   of<\/p>\n
possession   of  plot   A. But   learned     Munsiff   found   that  appellant<\/p>\n
has  title   to   plot   B     and   respondent   has   no   right   over   the   same<\/p>\n
and therefore granted a decree for recovery of possession of plot<\/p>\n
B.     Appellant   challenged   the   decree   and   judgment   before   Sub<\/p>\n
Court,   Sultan   Bathery   in   A.S.14   of   1991.     Respondent   filed   a<\/p>\n
cross-objection challenging the decree granted in respect of plot<\/p>\n
B marked in Ext.C2 plan.  Learned Sub Judge, on re-appreciation<\/p>\n
of   evidence,   confirmed   the   decree   and   judgment   passed   by<\/p>\n
learned   Munsiff   and   dismissed   the   appeal   and   cross   objection.<\/p>\n
The   Second   appeal   is   filed   challenging   the   concurrent   decree<\/p>\n
and judgment disallowing the claim for recovery of possession on<\/p>\n
the strength of title in respect of plot A and C marked in Ext.C2<\/p>\n
plan.     Respondent   filed   a   cross-objection     challenging   the<\/p>\n
dismissal of the cross-objections.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.     The   Second   Appeal   was   admitted   formulating   the<\/p>\n
SA 449\/1993                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
i)  Whether   courts   below   were   right   in   finding   that   the   plaintiff<\/p>\n
does not have title over Plot A of B schedule property merely on<\/p>\n
a   statement   made   by   the   Advocate   Commissioner   that   the   said<\/p>\n
area was Vested Forest?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
ii)Whether   courts   below  were   right  in  considering   the   question<\/p>\n
as to whether a portion of B schedule was vested forest and that<\/p>\n
plaintiff has no right over the same?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
iii)Whether courts below were  right in  upholding the  finding of<\/p>\n
land Tribunal, when there was absolutely no evidence before the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal  to prove that the defendant was in possession  of<\/p>\n
the property prior to 1.4.1964?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.  Learned counsel appearing for appellant and respondent<\/p>\n
were heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.  The title of the appellant to the property covered  under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1  was not disputed.  The case of appellant was that plot A,<\/p>\n
B   and   C   marked   by   the   Commissioner   in   Ext.C2   plan,   is   the<\/p>\n
plaint   B   schedule   property   which   is   part   of   plaint   A   schedule<\/p>\n
property.   According to appellant plaint A schedule property   is<\/p>\n
the   property   covered   under   Ext.A1.     The   learned   Munsiff   and<\/p>\n
learned   Sub   Judge,   on   the   evidence   upheld   the   claim   of<\/p>\n
SA 449\/1993                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant over plot B. But the claim for recovery of possession of<\/p>\n
plot   A   was   disallowed   holding   that   report   of   the   Commissioner<\/p>\n
and   Ext.C3   plan   prepared   by   Surveyor   and   the   evidence<\/p>\n
establish that plot A is part of vested forest.   Claim for recovery<\/p>\n
of possession over plot C was disallowed, upholding the plea of<\/p>\n
tenancy raised by the respondent after confirming the finding of<\/p>\n
the Land Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.     Learned     counsel     appearing   for   the   appellant<\/p>\n
vehemently argued that there is no evidence to prove that plot A<\/p>\n
marked in Ext.C2 plan is part of vested forest. It was also aruged<\/p>\n
that courts below should not have relied on the report submitted<\/p>\n
by   the   Commissioner   to     enter   a   finding   that   plot     A   is   part   of<\/p>\n
vested forest.  But from the records, it is clear that courts below<\/p>\n
did   not   rely   on   the   report   of   the   Commissioner   or   the   plan<\/p>\n
prepared     by   the   Surveyor   alone   to   enter   a   finding   that   plot   A<\/p>\n
forms part of vested forest.  On the other hand, evidence of PW1<\/p>\n
is sufficient to establish that plot A  forms part of vested forest.<\/p>\n
The   report   of   the   Commissioner   and   the   evidence   of   PW1   and<\/p>\n
DW1 establish that the residential house of respondent is in plot<\/p>\n
A.   Ext.B1 is a communication sent by the appellant at the time<\/p>\n
when respondent started construction of the building. In Ext.B1,<\/p>\n
SA 449\/1993                               6<\/span><\/p>\n
it  has   been  specifically  stated   by   the   appellant  that  respondent<\/p>\n
has   started   construction   of   a     building   in   the   reserved   forest.<\/p>\n
PW1   admitted   at   the   time   of   cross-examination   that   Forest<\/p>\n
Tribunal   found   that   part   of   the   property   belonging   to   the<\/p>\n
appellant   company   was   declared   as   vested   forest.   PW1   also<\/p>\n
deposed   that  the   matter  is   now  pending  before   Supreme  Court<\/p>\n
in an appeal filed by the appellant company.  PW1 also admitted<\/p>\n
that the property which lies just to the north of plot B and shown<\/p>\n
in   yellow   shaded   portion   which   is   plot   A   is   part   of   the   vested<\/p>\n
forest and it was  taken possession by the State  pursuant to the<\/p>\n
order of Forest Tribunal   and now pending  before the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court.     Therefore   evidence   establish   that   plot   A   is   part   of   the<\/p>\n
vested forest as found by Forest Tribunal.  So long as that order<\/p>\n
was not set aside  in the appeal filed by the appellant before the<\/p>\n
Supreme   Court,   appellant   is   not   entitled   to   claim   any     right   or<\/p>\n
title   to   that   property.     Hence   the   finding   of   courts   below   that<\/p>\n
appellant   has   no   subsisting   title   to   plot   A   and   being   a   vested<\/p>\n
forest   appellant   is   not   entitled   to   a   decree   for   recovery   of<\/p>\n
possession of plot A is perfectly correct.   It is made clear that if<\/p>\n
the   appellant   succeeds   in   the   matter   pending   before   the<\/p>\n
Supreme Court and it is found that it is not part of vested forest,<\/p>\n
SA 449\/1993                             7<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant is entitled to seek  appropriate remedy available under<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        7.     The   argument   of   learned   counsel   appearing   for<\/p>\n
appellant was that there is no evidence to prove that respondent<\/p>\n
has been in possession of the property in plot C  before 1.4.1964<\/p>\n
and the evidence only show that he has been in possession after<\/p>\n
1.1.1970   and   therefore   the   finding   of   the   Land   Tribunal   as<\/p>\n
upheld by the first appellate court is unsustainable.  The case of<\/p>\n
the   appellant   could   have   been   appreciated   if   appellant   had   a<\/p>\n
case that respondent was permitted to cultivate the property but<\/p>\n
permission   was   granted   only   after   1.4.1964   and   therefore<\/p>\n
respondent is not entitled to fixity of tenure. But that was not the<\/p>\n
case   pleaded   or   sought   to   be   proved.     What   was   contended   by<\/p>\n
the   appellant   was   that   respondent   is   a   rank   trespasser,   who<\/p>\n
trespassed  into  plaint  B   schedule   property   on   8.5.1979. On  the<\/p>\n
otherhand  case of  respondent was that he was in possession of<\/p>\n
the property from 1960 onwards as per an oral lease granted by<\/p>\n
appellant   company.     Therefore   if   the   evidence   establish   that<\/p>\n
case of trespass of 1979 alleged by appellant is not true, then the<\/p>\n
only   other   alternative   case   available   is   the   one   pleaded   by   the<\/p>\n
respondent   is   that   he   has   been   in   possession   of   the   property<\/p>\n
SA 449\/1993                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
from 1960 onwards and that too as per oral lease granted by the<\/p>\n
appellant company.  The Land Tribunal as well as first appellate<\/p>\n
court   appreciated   the   evidence   and   found   that   Ext.B2   dated<\/p>\n
12.11.1973   establish   that   appellant   had   granted   permission     to<\/p>\n
the respondent to cultivate the paddy field.  The relevant portion<\/p>\n
of Ext.B2 reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               “It has been reported to me by the<\/p>\n
               Conductor,   Kardoora   Division   that<\/p>\n
               you   have   trespassed   into   the<\/p>\n
               Company’s   Land   adjoining   the<\/p>\n
               paddy   plot(swamp)alloted   to   you<\/p>\n
               for   cultivation     and   that   you   have<\/p>\n
               planted   the   trespassed   area   with<\/p>\n
               tapioca”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      8.   As rightly  found  by  the  courts below, Ext.B2  establish<\/p>\n
that   respondent   has   been   cultivating   the   paddy   field   before<\/p>\n
1973   and   that   was   as   permitted   by   the   appellant   company.   If<\/p>\n
that   be   so,   case   of   appellant   that   respondent   trespassed   into<\/p>\n
plaint   B   schedule   property   in   1979   as   alleged   in   the   plaint<\/p>\n
cannot  be  true.    Land  Tribunal   and  first  appellate  court  in   the<\/p>\n
light of the evidence accepted the case of the respondent that he<\/p>\n
SA 449\/1993                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
has been in possession of plot C marked in Ext.C2 plan as per an<\/p>\n
oral   lease   from   1960   onwards.     I   find   no   reason   to   differ   with<\/p>\n
that finding as it is a possible and reasonable finding that could<\/p>\n
be   taken   on   the   evidence   on   record.     In   such   circumstances,<\/p>\n
there is no merit in the appeal.  It is dismissed.  Though a cross-<\/p>\n
objection  was filed, no substantial question of law arises in the<\/p>\n
cross-objection.   The cross-objection  is also dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/-\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 449 of 1993(C) 1. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD. … Petitioner Vs 1. PANKARA MOIDEEN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE For Respondent :SRI A A ABUL HASSAN, V M KURIAN(JR.) The Hon’ble MR. Justice […]<\/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-82965","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHarrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-02T04:50:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-02T04:50:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1749,\"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\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-02T04:50:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-02T04:50:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-02T04:50:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007"},"wordCount":1749,"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\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007","name":"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-02T04:50:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harrisons-malayalam-ltd-vs-pankara-moideen-on-27-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harrisons Malayalam Ltd vs Pankara Moideen on 27 March, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82965","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=82965"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82965\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82965"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82965"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82965"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}