{"id":85625,"date":"2009-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-22T15:55:34","modified_gmt":"2016-03-22T10:25:34","slug":"raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Raman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Raman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 10624 of 2008(M)\n\n\n1. RAMAN PANICKER THULASIDAS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. GANGADHARA PANICKER VIJAYAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. KANTHIMATHI LALITHA OF -DO- -DO-.\n\n3. SUKUMARAN LAMBODARAN OF  -DO- -DO-.\n\n4. K. THANKAMMA,\n\n5. S. JYOTHI BOSE OF   -DO- -DO-.\n\n6. T. SAROJAKUMARI OF  -DO- -DO-.\n\n7. RAJAPPAN NADAR RAFEL NADAR,\n\n8. MARGREETE MARY VALSALA,\n\n9. CHINNATHAMPI NADAR BENSIOR OF -DO- DO-.\n\n10. JNANASUNDARI MARIYAPUSHPAM,\n\n11. JNANASUNDARI SUSEELA OF -DO- -DO-.\n\n12. JNANASUNDARI THRESSI OF -DO- -DO-.\n\n13. JNANASUNDARI KAMALAM OF  -DO-  -DO-.\n\n14. THANKAPPAN NADAR NESAYYAN OF -DO- -DO-.\n\n15. THANKAPPAN NADAR THANKARAJAN OF -DO--DO-\n\n16. THANKAPPAN NADAR BENNIS OF -DO- -DO-.\n\n17. JNANASUNDARI RAJAM OF   -DO--DO-.\n\n18. THANKAPPAN NADAR BINU OF -DO-   -DO-.\n\n19. ANNAMMA THRESSIAL,\n\n20. THRESSIAL JOYIS VIMALAMBIKA OF -DO- -DO-\n\n21. JOYIS BIYADRIS AMBIKA OF -DO- -DO-.\n\n22. ELIYAS PRAKASH OF -DO--DO-.\n\n23. THRESSIAL JOYIS RAJEEVKUMARI OF -DO--DO-\n\n24. THRESSIAL JOYIS SAJEEVKUMARI OF -DO-DO-\n\n25. PONNUPILLA NADAR SIMON,\n\n26. APPIYAN NADAR SATHYA DAS,\n\n27. JOSEPH NADAR SELVAMKUTHU NADAR,\n\n28. THAMARI GEETHA,\n\n29. RAYAPPAN NADAR SAJEEVKUMAR @ SALU OF\n\n30. LAZAR NADAR DEVANESAN,\n\n31. THANKARAJAN OF  -DO-  -DO-.\n\n32. APPIYAMMA NADATHI SARASU OF  -DO--DO-.\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.L.MOHANAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.R.SARIN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :26\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                     S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n                     -----------------------------------\n                    W.P.(C).No.10624 of 2008 - M\n                     ---------------------------------\n              Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:<\/p>\n
                  “i)    To issue a writ of certiorari or other<\/p>\n
            appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the<\/p>\n
            records leading to Ext.P10 and set aside the same<\/p>\n
            so far as it deals with point No.2, as it is illegal and<\/p>\n
            against order of remand.\n<\/p>\n
                  ii)    To issue an writ of mandamus or other<\/p>\n
            appropriate writ, order or direction directing the<\/p>\n
            court below to pass final decree in respect of the<\/p>\n
            plaintiffs share as allotted in Ext.P1 preliminary<\/p>\n
            judgment without any further delay.”\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.421 of 1981 on the<\/p>\n
file of the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. Suit is one for partition.<\/p>\n
A preliminary decree and judgment was passed in the suit on<\/p>\n
30.1.1988 allotting plaintiffs 97.1\/8 cents as their share in the<\/p>\n
suit property which was described as having a total extent of 3<\/p>\n
acre and 50 cents. Some of the defendants were also allotted<\/p>\n
separate shares which altogether took an extent of one acre<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.10624 of 2008 – M<\/p>\n
                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
86.1\/2 cents. The preliminary decree and judgment so passed<\/p>\n
was challenged in appeal as A.S.No.495 of 1994 by the 23rd<\/p>\n
defendant\/1st respondent in the writ petition. Defendants 24 and<\/p>\n
25 filed an appeal in which they contended that they too are<\/p>\n
entitled to have shares in the suit property.  The appellate court<\/p>\n
modified the preliminary decree directing that some of the<\/p>\n
defendants including 23rd defendant who claimed right over the<\/p>\n
suit property under some documents will be allotted shares in the<\/p>\n
remaining unallotted area, which was taken as 69 cents. In fact<\/p>\n
there was an error in holding that the allotted area out of 3 acres<\/p>\n
50 cents of the suit property was 2 acres 81 cents which was<\/p>\n
actually 2 acres 83.5\/8 cents. Whatever that be, the specific<\/p>\n
direction given by the appellate court was to give allotment to<\/p>\n
the 23rd defendant and other defendants shares in the unallotted<\/p>\n
area of 69 cents left behind after allotment made to the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
and others under the preliminary decree passed on 30.1.1988.<\/p>\n
On remission of the case, supplementary preliminary decree was<\/p>\n
passed on 29.1.2002 allotting 21 cents to 23rd defendant, 7 cents<\/p>\n
to 15th defendant and 8 cents to 70th defendant. 15th defendant is<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.10624 of 2008 – M<\/p>\n
                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
stated to be the pendente lite transferee of the 24th defendant<\/p>\n
and 70th defendant, the legal heir of the 25th defendant. After<\/p>\n
passing that preliminary decree some other defendants also<\/p>\n
moved for passing separate preliminary decree for allotment of<\/p>\n
shares in their favour. A supplementary preliminary decree was<\/p>\n
passed by the court on 7.8.2004 allotting 3.5 cents to 14th<\/p>\n
defendant, 2.5 cents to 16th defendant, 9.5 cents to 20th<\/p>\n
defendant and 4.5 cents to 19th defendant.         Yet another<\/p>\n
supplementary preliminary decree was passed later on the<\/p>\n
request of 70th defendant and by that decree dated 7.10.2004<\/p>\n
that defendant was allotted 7 cents. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
have moved an application for passing of a final decree. In the<\/p>\n
final decree proceedings, a commissioner was deputed to<\/p>\n
measure out the property with the assistance of a surveyor.<\/p>\n
When the commissioner carried out measurement with the<\/p>\n
assistance of a surveyor, it was found that the property has got<\/p>\n
only a much reduced extent than what was described in the suit.<\/p>\n
On measurement of the property it was found having an<\/p>\n
approximate area of 2 acres 88 cents.        The question then<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.10624 of 2008 – M<\/p>\n
                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
emerged for consideration was what should be the proportionate<\/p>\n
reduction in respect of the shares allotted to the parties to be<\/p>\n
made in tune with the preliminary decrees passed.       Plaintiffs<\/p>\n
contended that since they had been allotted specific area of<\/p>\n
97.1\/8 cents under the first preliminary decree passed in the suit<\/p>\n
proportionate deductions is permissible only from the 69 cents,<\/p>\n
unallotted area in the above decree, from which alone allotments<\/p>\n
were made to some of the defendants by passing supplementary<\/p>\n
preliminary decree later.   In other words, plaintiffs contended<\/p>\n
that no proportionate deduction can be made from 2 acres 81<\/p>\n
cents which was covered by the first preliminary decree passed<\/p>\n
by the court whereunder the plaintiff was allotted 97.1\/8 cents.<\/p>\n
The commission report disclosed that portions of the suit<\/p>\n
property had been taken up for widening of a road. Taking note<\/p>\n
of that aspect and also other relevant circumstance involved, the<\/p>\n
court below came to the view that the plaintiffs and those<\/p>\n
defendants who had been allotted shares under the first<\/p>\n
preliminary decree dated 30.1.1988, also have to suffer the<\/p>\n
proportionate deduction when the extent available for partition<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.10624 of 2008 – M<\/p>\n
                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
on measurement is found to be less. Propriety and correctness of<\/p>\n
that order passed by the learned Munsiff, a copy of which is<\/p>\n
produced as Ext.P10, is challenged in the writ petition invoking<\/p>\n
the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article<\/p>\n
227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   I heard the counsel on both sides.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   Both sides reiterated before me the respective case<\/p>\n
urged before the court below with the plaintiffs contending that<\/p>\n
since allotment and division from a specified area in suit property<\/p>\n
having been granted in their favour under the first preliminary<\/p>\n
decree, they are not liable to suffer any proportionate deduction<\/p>\n
when the extent of the property is found to be less and the<\/p>\n
contesting respondents resisting that challenge against the<\/p>\n
impugned order stating that when the extent of land available for<\/p>\n
partition on measurement is found to be less, the plaintiffs too<\/p>\n
have to suffer deduction irrespective of the question that the<\/p>\n
decree in their favour provided allotment for specific extent of<\/p>\n
land. After going through Ext.P10 order passed by the learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff and considering the submissions made by the counsel on<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.10624 of 2008 – M<\/p>\n
                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
both sides, I find that so far as the plaintiffs and also the<\/p>\n
defendants, who have been allotted shares under the first<\/p>\n
preliminary decree dated 30.1.1988 with specific extent of land in<\/p>\n
their favour, they are entitled to contend that the proportionate<\/p>\n
deduction they have to suffer must be restricted to the allotted<\/p>\n
area under that preliminary decree which is having 2 acres 81<\/p>\n
cents.   The other defendants who have got share by way of<\/p>\n
preliminary decree passed subsequently, it is seen, allotments<\/p>\n
are made only in the area of 69 cents which remained unallotted<\/p>\n
after providing shares to the plaintiffs and those defendants<\/p>\n
under the earlier preliminary decree. So much so, the question<\/p>\n
of proportionate deduction has to be considered with reference to<\/p>\n
allotted and unallotted area as under the first preliminary decree.<\/p>\n
Counsel on both sides have worked out the ratio to be followed<\/p>\n
by the above principle and it is stated that when the extent of<\/p>\n
property comes to only 2 acres 88 cents in the place of 3 acres<\/p>\n
50 cents in the schedule, the allotted area covered under the<\/p>\n
preliminary decree would constitute 80.28% and the unallotted<\/p>\n
area of 69 cents would constitute 19.72%. In accordance with<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.10624 of 2008 – M<\/p>\n
                                 7<\/span><\/p>\n
that ratio in the extent of the property now available ie., 2 acres<\/p>\n
88 cents which of course is provisional the commissioner has to<\/p>\n
work out what is the area to be allotted to the parties involved in<\/p>\n
accordance with the preliminary decrees passed.            Learned<\/p>\n
counsel on both sides submits that in accordance with the above<\/p>\n
ratio calculation the total extent of the land allotted to the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs and other defendants under the first preliminary decree<\/p>\n
would come to 2 acres 31.20 cents and the rest of the land,<\/p>\n
previously stated as 69 cents, the unallotted area, would come to<\/p>\n
56.80 cents. With reference to the extent shown above allotment<\/p>\n
to the parties as per the decrees passed have to be worked out.<\/p>\n
     5.     Ext.P10 shall stand modified in the manner indicated<\/p>\n
as above. Having regard to the fact that the suit was instituted<\/p>\n
in the year 1981, I direct the learned Munsiff to complete the<\/p>\n
final decree proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, and<\/p>\n
dispose it of after getting report and plan from advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner effecting division taking note of the observations<\/p>\n
and directions made above and with reference to allotment of<\/p>\n
shares in the decrees, and hearing both sides, at the earliest, at<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.10624 of 2008 – M<\/p>\n
                                 8<\/span><\/p>\n
any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of<\/p>\n
a copy of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     The writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
\n                                                 JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Raman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 10624 of 2008(M) 1. RAMAN PANICKER THULASIDAS, … Petitioner Vs 1. GANGADHARA PANICKER VIJAYAN, … Respondent 2. KANTHIMATHI LALITHA OF -DO- -DO-. 3. SUKUMARAN LAMBODARAN OF -DO- -DO-. 4. K. THANKAMMA, 5. […]<\/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-85625","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRaman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 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\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-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=\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-22T10:25:34+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\\\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-22T10:25:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1389,\"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\\\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Raman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-22T10:25:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 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":"Raman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 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\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-22T10:25:34+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\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-22T10:25:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009"},"wordCount":1389,"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\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009","name":"Raman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-22T10:25:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-panicker-thulasidas-vs-gangadhara-panicker-vijayan-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raman Panicker Thulasidas vs Gangadhara Panicker Vijayan on 26 August, 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\/85625","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=85625"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85625\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85625"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85625"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85625"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}