{"id":85747,"date":"2009-06-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-11T21:16:29","modified_gmt":"2017-02-11T15:46:29","slug":"p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"P.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
P.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 357 of 1997()\n\n\n\n1. P.V.MADHAVI\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. P.V.BALAKRISHNAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS\n\n Dated :10\/06\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n               M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                   A.S.No. 357 of 1997\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n           Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      This appeal is filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.<\/p>\n
10 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosdurg.<\/p>\n
Respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiff and the second<\/p>\n
defendant in that suit. It was a suit for setting aside the<\/p>\n
Sale Deed executed by the guardian of a minor and for<\/p>\n
partition.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly as follows.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff’s father, late Kunhiraman Nair, was holding<\/p>\n
properties jointly with his sister Karthiyayani.            On his<\/p>\n
death, his half right over the said properties devolved upon<\/p>\n
the plaintiff and his mother, the second defendant, who are<\/p>\n
his only heirs and legal representatives. Plaintiff was a<\/p>\n
minor when his father died.              Thereafter, in a suit for<\/p>\n
partition   filed    by     the     plaintiff’s      mother against<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
  Karthiyayani, the half share of the plaintiff and his mother was<\/p>\n
  allotted to them jointly as per a partition decree in O.S.No. 123<\/p>\n
  of 1978 of the Munsiff Court, Hosdrug. The plaintiff’s mother<\/p>\n
  was holding the said property for and on behalf of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
  also since the plaintiff was a minor.\n<\/p>\n
        3.     The suit properties consisting of two items contain<\/p>\n
  improvement and was more than sufficient to meet the need of<\/p>\n
  the plaintiff and his mother, the 2nd defendant.          The first<\/p>\n
  defendant purchased the property from the plaintiff’s mother on<\/p>\n
  29.8.1980. The plaintiff’s mother had executed the document for<\/p>\n
  herself and on behalf of the minor plaintiff. Plaintiff’s right was<\/p>\n
  purported to be transferred under the document. It was sold for a<\/p>\n
  consideration of Rs.6,000\/- It is recited in the document that<\/p>\n
  Rs.4,000\/- was received by her in advance, which was used for<\/p>\n
  clearing the debts of the plaintiff’s father and Rs.2,000\/- received<\/p>\n
  at the time of execution of the document was paid towards<\/p>\n
  consideration for purchasing another property in the name of the<\/p>\n
  plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
        4. According to the plaintiff, the alienation by his mother<\/p>\n
  was wrongful and injurious to him and for meagre consideration.<\/p>\n
  The plaintiff’s father had no debts and there was no necessity to<\/p>\n
  sell the property. He also pleaded ignorance about the purchase<\/p>\n
  of the property in his name and also stated that he is not in<\/p>\n
  possession of the same. The alienation by the mother is void in<\/p>\n
  law and liable to be set aside and the suit was filed within 3 years<\/p>\n
  from 5.2.1992, when the plaintiff attained majority. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
  therefore prayed for setting aside the sale deed No.3527 of 1980<\/p>\n
  dt.29.8.1980 in favour of the first defendant in respect of the<\/p>\n
  plaintiff’s half right over the property and for surrender of<\/p>\n
  possession of his share which relief on 6.11.1996 was got<\/p>\n
  amended as one for partition of his share as per order in I.A.no.<\/p>\n
  645 of 1996.\n<\/p>\n
        5. The appellant\/first defendant resisted the suit raising the<\/p>\n
  following contentions. It is admitted that the first defendant had<\/p>\n
  purchased the property from the 2nd defendant as per a registered<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
  Sale Deed dt.29.8.1980. But the sale deed was executed for the<\/p>\n
  then minor plaintiff’s benefit also and the consideration recited in<\/p>\n
  the document is correct and reasonable. The first defendant is a<\/p>\n
  bonafide purchaser.     Out of the total consideration paid, an<\/p>\n
  extent of 1.50 acres of property with improvements in R.S.370 of<\/p>\n
  Periya Village at a place called Kannoth was purchased in the<\/p>\n
  name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in possession of the<\/p>\n
  same. It is incorrect to state that he has not seen the property.<\/p>\n
  The alienation is not void and was in the better interest of the<\/p>\n
  minor plaintiff. To clear of Kunhiraman Nair’s debt the sale<\/p>\n
  was necessary. Alternatively, it was also contended that the first<\/p>\n
  defendant has effected valuable improvements in the property<\/p>\n
  on the bonafide belief that she is the exclusive owner and is<\/p>\n
  entitled to the value of the same. Besides, it was also contended<\/p>\n
  that the suit is barred by limitation, since the plaintiff was aware<\/p>\n
  of the sale long back and the plaintiff has filed the suit in<\/p>\n
  collusion with the second defendant.\n<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
        6.  After amendment of the plaint, an additional statement<\/p>\n
  was filed to the effect that the plaintiff’s right, if any, is barred<\/p>\n
  by averse possession and limitation. By way of an amendment<\/p>\n
  to the written statement it was also contended that in case the<\/p>\n
  court finds that the sale deed No.3527\/80 is voidable and liable<\/p>\n
  to be set aside, the 1st defendant is entitled to the value of<\/p>\n
  improvements in the plaintiff’s share, since she was making<\/p>\n
  improvements on the bonafide belief and that the property<\/p>\n
  exclusively belongs to her. It was also contended that the first<\/p>\n
  defendant is entitled to the property purchased as per Deed No.<\/p>\n
  3528\/80 since the sale consideration for that was paid by the<\/p>\n
  appellant and the plaintiff is liable to restore that benefit and to<\/p>\n
  compensate the appellant in the event of a decree for setting<\/p>\n
  aside the document. The first defendant therefore prayed for<\/p>\n
  dismissal of the suit.  The second defendant plaintiff’s mother<\/p>\n
  remained ex parte.\n<\/p>\n
        7. In the Sub Court, PWs. 1 and 2 and DWs. 1 to 4 were<\/p>\n
  examined. Exts.A1 to A5 and B1 were marked. The learned<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
  Sub Judge, on considering the evidence, decreed the suit and a<\/p>\n
  preliminary decree for partition was passed in the following<\/p>\n
  manner.\n<\/p>\n
              “Ext.A1 sale is set aside as far as the<\/p>\n
        plaintiff’s half share is concerned.     The plaint<\/p>\n
        schedule property will be divided into two equal<\/p>\n
        shares and the plaintiff and 1st defendant are<\/p>\n
        entitled to one such share each. The 1st defendant<\/p>\n
        has not paid court fee and if she pays court fee at<\/p>\n
        the time of final decree, she will be allotted her<\/p>\n
        share separately. The plaintiff is entitled to future<\/p>\n
        profits from the date of the plaint till delivery of<\/p>\n
        possession the quantum of which will be decided<\/p>\n
        at the time of passing final decree.       The first<\/p>\n
        defendant is liable for such profits. The cost of<\/p>\n
        sharers shall come out of the estate. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
        is at liberty to move the court for passing final<\/p>\n
        decree. Addl. Issue No.6 with regard to value of<\/p>\n
        improvements is left open for consideration at the<\/p>\n
        time of passing final decree.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  Against that judgment and decree the first defendant filed this<\/p>\n
  appeal.\n<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
        8.   The plaintiff filed cross objection challenging the<\/p>\n
  finding on Addl. Issue No.6 to the effect that the question of<\/p>\n
  compensation for the value of improvements made by the first<\/p>\n
  defendant will be considered at the final decree stage.<\/p>\n
        9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the first<\/p>\n
  respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        10. The plaint schedule Item No.1 property has an extent of<\/p>\n
  2.5 acres, comprised in Re-survey 103 of Beloor Village and the<\/p>\n
  extent of plaint schedule     Item No.2 property is 45 cents,<\/p>\n
  comprised in R.S. 110\/1 of the same Village. The plaintiff is the<\/p>\n
  son of Kunhiraman Nair and the second defendant. The plaint<\/p>\n
  schedule properties originally belonged to Kunhiraman Nair and<\/p>\n
  his sister Karthiyayani jointly. After his death, his half share<\/p>\n
  devolved upon the plaintiff and his mother, who is the second<\/p>\n
  defendant, Narayani. As per partition decree in O.S.No.123 of<\/p>\n
  1978 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Hosdurg the plaint<\/p>\n
  schedule properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
  second defendant. There is no dispute that the first defendant<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
  purchased that property as per Sale Deed No.3527\/80 of S.R.O.<\/p>\n
  Hosdurg dt.29.8.1980. The second defendant executed that Sale<\/p>\n
  Deed for herself and also as the guardian of the plaintiff, who was<\/p>\n
  then a minor, aged 7 years. Ext.A1 is the copy of that Sale Deed.<\/p>\n
  It is also an admitted fact that the second defendant sold the share<\/p>\n
  of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule properties without<\/p>\n
  obtaining previous permission of the Court.<\/p>\n
         11. The main prayer in the suit is to set aside the Sale Deed<\/p>\n
  No.3527\/80 of S.R.O. Hosdurg dt. 29.8.80 in respect of the<\/p>\n
  plaintiff’s share over the plaint schedule properties. The second<\/p>\n
  prayer in the plaint is to partition the plaint schedule properties<\/p>\n
  into two equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiff with<\/p>\n
  mesne profits. The main question to be considered is whether the<\/p>\n
  original of Ext.A1 Sale Deed is void or voidable. The Hon’ble<\/p>\n
  Supreme Court in Vishwambhar v. Laxminarayan<\/a> ((2001) 6<\/p>\n
  SCC 163) held that :\n<\/p>\n
               ” sale effected without taking permission of<\/p>\n
         the court under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
       and Guardianship Act, 1956 was voidable at the<\/p>\n
       instance of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were<\/p>\n
       required to get the alienation set aside if they<\/p>\n
       wanted to avoid the transfer and recover the<\/p>\n
       property from the purchasers.       If a prayer for<\/p>\n
       setting aside the alienation is not made, then the<\/p>\n
       suit    seeking   possession     would     not    be<\/p>\n
       maintainable.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       12. In Nagappan v. Ammasai Gounder ((2004) 13 SCC<\/p>\n
  480) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :\n<\/p>\n
              “Reading Section 8 itself shows that the sale<\/p>\n
       made by the natural guardian in contravention of<\/p>\n
       sub-sections (1) and (2) is voidable at the instance<\/p>\n
       of the minor. If the requirement of law is to have<\/p>\n
       the alination set aside before making any claim in<\/p>\n
       respect of the property sold then a suit without such<\/p>\n
       a prayer would be of no avail.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       13. In view of that position of law, it is clear that the<\/p>\n
  original of Ext.A1 Sale Deed is voidable at the instance of the<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
  plaintiff as it was executed by the natural guardian in<\/p>\n
  contravention of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 8 of the<\/p>\n
  Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.<\/p>\n
        14. Article 60 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of<\/p>\n
  3 years for setting aside a transfer of property made by the<\/p>\n
  guardian of a ward, by the ward, who has attained majority and<\/p>\n
  the period is to be computed from the date when the ward attains<\/p>\n
  majority. In the present case, the date of birth of the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
  5.2.1974, which is evident from Ext.A4, extract of admission<\/p>\n
  register. The plaintiff attained majority on 5.2.1992. He gets<\/p>\n
  three years period to file the suit from the date of his attaining<\/p>\n
  majority, i.e. on or before 5.2.1995.      The present suit was<\/p>\n
  originally filed on 5.4.1994. Therefore, the suit is not barred by<\/p>\n
  limitation.\n<\/p>\n
        15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that<\/p>\n
  even though the suit for setting aside the Sale Deed was filed on<\/p>\n
  5.4.1994, the prayer for partition was incorporated only on<\/p>\n
  6.11.1996 and therefore that prayer is barred by limitation. That<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
  argument cannot be accepted in view of the fact that it is only an<\/p>\n
  ancilliary relief and no specific period is prescribed in the<\/p>\n
  Limitation Act for the relief of partition by a co-owner.<\/p>\n
        16. In Ext.A1, copy of sale Deed No.3527\/80 dt.29.8.80, it<\/p>\n
  is stated that the total consideration of the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
  properties is Rs.6,000\/- It is stated in the document that the first<\/p>\n
  defendant purchaser already paid Rs.4,000\/- to the          second<\/p>\n
  defendant in order to discharge         the debts of her husband,<\/p>\n
  Kunhiraman Nair and for the expenses of the minor plaintiff and<\/p>\n
  the balance of sale consideration of Rs.2,000\/- was paid by the<\/p>\n
  first defendant for purchasing the property in R.S. 370 in the<\/p>\n
  name of minor plaintiff from Kuttiyan. Ext.B1 is the copy of the<\/p>\n
  Sale Deed No.3528\/80 dt.29.8.80 executed by Kuttiyan in the<\/p>\n
  name of minor plaintiff in respect of 1 acre 50 cents in R.S. 370.<\/p>\n
  In that document the second defendant is shown as guardian of<\/p>\n
  minor plaintiff.   In Ext.B1, the sale consideration shown        is<\/p>\n
  Rs.2,000\/- and it is stated in that document that the sale<\/p>\n
  consideration was received from the sale consideration of Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
  From Exts.A1 and B1 it is evident that originals of those<\/p>\n
  documents were executed on the same day, one after the other.<\/p>\n
  The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the original<\/p>\n
  of Ext.A1 Sale Deed is set aside, the property covered by the<\/p>\n
  original of Ext.B1 Sale Deed has to be returned to the first<\/p>\n
  defendant.\n<\/p>\n
       17.    Under Section 33 of the Specific Relief Act, on<\/p>\n
  adjudging the cancellation of an instrument, the court may require<\/p>\n
  the party, to whom such relief is granted, to make any<\/p>\n
  compensation to the other which justice may require. The learned<\/p>\n
  counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the decision<\/p>\n
  reported in Chacko v. Sreeja<\/a> (1991 (1) KLT 191), in which it<\/p>\n
  was held:\n<\/p>\n
              “In cancelling the documents, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
          need only surrender benefits received as justice<\/p>\n
          may require.   Such benefit required by the justice<\/p>\n
          is the actual benefit received under the impugned<\/p>\n
          transaction, which is avoided.    It may not be<\/p>\n
          conducive to justice to allow the minor to have<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
         double advantage by avoiding the transaction and<\/p>\n
         at the same time retaining its benefits. “Benefit”<\/p>\n
         or ‘advantage’ referred to in Ss. 64 and 65 of the<\/p>\n
         Contract Act, do not relate to profit derived from<\/p>\n
         the investment of the benefit.      Sometimes the<\/p>\n
         investment may result in loss also. In a given<\/p>\n
         case, the benefit may be only the actual<\/p>\n
         consideration and its interest.    But, where the<\/p>\n
         consideration for the impugned transaction itself is<\/p>\n
         the purchase of another property in the name of<\/p>\n
         the minor, that property must be taken as the<\/p>\n
         benefit derived by the minor and it must be<\/p>\n
         directed to be returned. Value of properties might<\/p>\n
         have gone up and return of the consideration in<\/p>\n
         money alone may work out injustice to the<\/p>\n
         defendant purchaser and undue gain to the minor.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       18. Therefore, the legal position is that whether the Sale<\/p>\n
  Deed is void or voidable, the minor seeking to set aside it cannot<\/p>\n
  claim interference of a Court of law without making restitution.<\/p>\n
  The law is clear that if a person sells or mortgages another’s<\/p>\n
  property having no legal or equitable right to do so and that other<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n
  benefits by transaction the latter cannot have it set aside without<\/p>\n
  making restitution to the person whose money has been applied<\/p>\n
  for the benefit of the estate. The principle of restitution in such<\/p>\n
  cases is based on the equitable maxim “he who seeks equity must<\/p>\n
  do equity”. No person, who is entitled to avoid a transaction<\/p>\n
  ought to be allowed to do so in such a manner as to enable him to<\/p>\n
  recover the property which would be otherwise lost to him and at<\/p>\n
  the same time to keep the money or other advantages which he<\/p>\n
  has obtained under it.   Therefore, if a transfer by a guardian is<\/p>\n
  set aside, as having been made without previous permission of the<\/p>\n
  Court, equity requires that the minor        should restore to the<\/p>\n
  transferee any benefit he may have received under the transfer<\/p>\n
  before the minor can take the benefit of any decree in his favour.<\/p>\n
        19. In the present case, the plaintiff is not prepared to give<\/p>\n
  back the property covered by original of Ext.B1 Sale Deed,<\/p>\n
  which was purchased in his name utilising the portion of sale<\/p>\n
  consideration given by the first defendant while purchasing the<\/p>\n
  plaint schedule properties as per the original of Ext.A1 Sale<\/p>\n
A.S.No. 357 of 1997
\n                                    15<\/span><\/p>\n
  Deed. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get a decree to set<\/p>\n
  aside the original of Ext.A1 Sale Deed and partition the<\/p>\n
  plaintiff’s half share. In view of the above aspects of the matter, I<\/p>\n
  find that the learned Sub Judge is not justified in decreeing the<\/p>\n
  suit.\n<\/p>\n
        20. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and<\/p>\n
  decree in O.S.No. 10 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court,<\/p>\n
  Hosdurg is set aside and that suit is dismissed without cost. The<\/p>\n
  cross objection filed by the first respondent is also dismissed.<\/p>\n
  The parties are directed to suffer their respective cost in this<\/p>\n
  appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                         (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
\n                                                     Judge
\n  tm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court P.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 357 of 1997() 1. P.V.MADHAVI … Petitioner Vs 1. P.V.BALAKRISHNAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN For Respondent :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS Dated :10\/06\/2009 O R D E R M.L. JOSEPH […]<\/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-85747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 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\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-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=\"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-11T15:46:29+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T15:46:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2659,\"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\\\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009\",\"name\":\"P.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-11T15:46:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 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":"P.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 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\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-11T15:46:29+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T15:46:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009"},"wordCount":2659,"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\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009","name":"P.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-11T15:46:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-v-madhavi-vs-p-v-balakrishnan-on-10-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.V.Madhavi vs P.V.Balakrishnan on 10 June, 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\/85747","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=85747"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85747\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}