{"id":86489,"date":"2007-02-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007"},"modified":"2014-03-21T19:54:27","modified_gmt":"2014-03-21T14:24:27","slug":"bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Bhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Bhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA No. 1175 of 2006()\n\n\n1. BHASKARAN, S\/O.KUMARAN NAIR,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. BABY, D\/O.KUMARAN NAIR,\n3. VALSALA, D\/O.KUMARAN NAIR,\n4. RADHAKRISHNAN, S\/O.KUMARAN NAIR,\n5. CHANDRAN, S\/O.KUMARAN NAIR,\n6. A.M. MOHAMMADKUNHI, S\/O.ANDUKKAI ALIAS\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. K. ABOOBACKER, S\/O.HASSINAR,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. MOHAMMAD HANEEFA, S\/O.MAKKAKADAN KOMAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :19\/02\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n\n\n                  ------------------------------------------\n\n                    R.S.A .NO. 1175  OF  2006\n\n                  ------------------------------------------\n\n\n                  Dated   19th   February   2007\n\n\n\n\n                              J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
             Appellants are defendants in O.S.209\/1991 on<\/p>\n
the   file   of   Munsiff   court,   Kasargod.   First   respondent<\/p>\n
is   the   plaintiff   and   second   respondent   second<\/p>\n
defendant.      First         respondent               filed         suit         seeking<\/p>\n
recovery   of   possession   of   plaint   schedule   properties<\/p>\n
from the appellants. According to   appellants plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule   property   having   an   extent   of   4.40   acres   was<\/p>\n
obtained   by   plaintiff   by   oral   kuzhikanam   marupattom<\/p>\n
from   Kodoth   Kunhambu   Nair,   original     landlord   and<\/p>\n
later   under   Ext.A1   sale   deed     dated   21\/5\/1965   he<\/p>\n
purchased     the   jenmom   right   also     and   in   Taluk   Land<\/p>\n
Board   proceedings     No.763\/73   his   right     over   the<\/p>\n
property covered under Ext.A1 sale deed was upheld and<\/p>\n
appellants   have   no   manner   of   right   or   title   to   the<\/p>\n
properties   trespassed   upon   by   him   and   therefore<\/p>\n
respondent   is   entitled   to   the   decree   for   recovery   of<\/p>\n
possession sought for.\n<\/p>\n
      2.    Appellants             in         their         written          statement<\/p>\n
                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
disputed   the   title   and   contended   that   they   are   not<\/p>\n
parties   to   the   Taluk   Land   Board   proceedings   and   that<\/p>\n
proceedings   is   not   binding   on   them   and   respondent   has<\/p>\n
only   title   over   1.65   acres   in   R.S.No.23\/1   of   Kolathur<\/p>\n
village which consists of  vast extent of  land. It was<\/p>\n
contended that in 1990 when respondent   began to claim<\/p>\n
right   over   the   properties   in   the             possession   of<\/p>\n
appellants on the strength of Ext.A1 sale deed, dispute<\/p>\n
arose     and   Ext.B6     settlement   was   arrived   at   in   the<\/p>\n
intervention   of   mediators   whereunder   respondent   agreed<\/p>\n
that   he   will   pay   a   consideration   at   the   rate   of<\/p>\n
Rs.3,000\/-   per   acre   and   appellants   will   convey     the<\/p>\n
respective   portions   in   their   possession   to   respondent<\/p>\n
therefore   respondent   is   not   entitled   to   a   decree   for<\/p>\n
recovery   of   possession.   It   was   also   contended   that<\/p>\n
appellants   have   perfected   their   title   by   adverse<\/p>\n
possession   in   respect   of   properties   described                in<\/p>\n
schedules   X,   Y   and   Z   in   the   written   statement   and   at<\/p>\n
any   rate,   respondent   is            estopped   from   claiming<\/p>\n
recovery     of   possession   from   appellants   in   view   of<\/p>\n
Ext.B6 agreement.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     Learned Munsiff on the evidence of PW1 on the<\/p>\n
side of respondent and defendants 2 and 1 as Dws.1 and<\/p>\n
4   and   two   witnesses   as   Dws.2   and   3   and   Exts.A1   to   A6<\/p>\n
                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
and   Exts.B1   to   B6   and   Exts.C1   and   C2,   found   that<\/p>\n
respondent  has   title   to   plaint   schedule   property   under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1.   It   was   further   found   that   though   respondent<\/p>\n
claimed   title   to   4.40   acres   under     Ext.A1   sale   deed,<\/p>\n
property   available   is   only   3.27   acres   as   reported   by<\/p>\n
the  Commissioner   under   Ext.C1   and   demarcated   in   Ext.C2<\/p>\n
plan.   It   was   also   found   that   under   Ext.B6   settlement<\/p>\n
will not  prohibit  respondent from getting  a decree  for<\/p>\n
recovery   of   possession   based   on   the   strength   of   title<\/p>\n
and   granted   a   decree   in   his   favour.   Appellants<\/p>\n
challenged   decree   and   judgment   before   Sub             court,<\/p>\n
Kasargod   in   A.S.14\/1999.   Learned   Sub   Judge   on   re-\n<\/p>\n
appreciation   of   evidence   confirmed   the   decree   and<\/p>\n
dismissed the appeal which is challenged in this second<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    Learned   counsel   appearing   for   appellants   was<\/p>\n
heard.\n<\/p>\n
      5.    Learned   counsel   appearing   for   appellants<\/p>\n
relying on  the  decisions of Apex  court in  Commissioner<\/p>\n
of Income Tax, Bombay v. Royal Western India Turf Club<\/p>\n
Ltd.     (AIR<\/a>   1954     SC   85),     Commissioner   of   Income   Tax,<\/p>\n
Madras    v.  Indian  Bank  Ltd.    (AIR     1965  SC  1473)    and<\/p>\n
Division   Bench   decision   of   High   Court   of   Assam   in<\/p>\n
                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
Tinsukia Municipal Board & another  v. Harikissen Lohia<\/p>\n
and others   (AIR   1957 Assam   10)   argued that   Ext.B6<\/p>\n
settlement   operates   against   respondent   from   claiming<\/p>\n
recovery of possession as under Ext.B6 he has agreed to<\/p>\n
pay consideration of Rs.3,000\/- per acre  to appellants<\/p>\n
and   therefore   courts   below   should   have   found   that<\/p>\n
respondent   was   estopped   from   claiming   the   decree.\n<\/p>\n
Learned   counsel   argued   that   Ext.B6   establish   that<\/p>\n
appellants   are     in   possession   of   the   property   and<\/p>\n
though they perfected their title by adverse possession<\/p>\n
by   the   agreement   they   agreed   to   sell   the   property   in<\/p>\n
favour   of   respondent   for   the   consideration   stipulated<\/p>\n
therein   and   by   agreeing   for   the   said   settlement,<\/p>\n
appellants   have     given   a   go   by   to   the   claim   for   title<\/p>\n
perfected         by         adverse         possession         and         therefore<\/p>\n
respondent   cannot   be     permitted   to   seek   decree   for<\/p>\n
recovery   of   possession   as   it   is   barred   by   principles<\/p>\n
of estoppel  as provided  under Section 115 of Evidence<\/p>\n
Act.   It   was   argued   that   courts   below   did   not   properly<\/p>\n
appreciate   the   case   and   the   decree   and   judgment<\/p>\n
warrants   interference.   It   was   also   argued   that   though<\/p>\n
under   Ext.A1   respondent   obtained   4.40   acres,   Ext.C1<\/p>\n
report   and   Ext.C2   plan     show     the   extent   is   only   less<\/p>\n
                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
and   courts   below   should   have   been   found   that   plaint<\/p>\n
schedule   property         has   not   been   identified   and<\/p>\n
therefore  the decree is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
      6.    On   hearing   learned   counsel   and   going   through<\/p>\n
the   judgments   of   courts   below,   I   do   not   find   any<\/p>\n
substantial question  of  law is involved  in the  appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Under Ext.A1 respondent purchased the property from its<\/p>\n
previous   owner   Kunhambu   Nair.   In   Taluk   Land   Board<\/p>\n
proceedings   Ext.A1   was   produced.   The   right   of<\/p>\n
respondent   was   upheld   in   the   proceedings.     Title   of<\/p>\n
Kunhambu Nair  to  the properties was  not disputed.  Even<\/p>\n
if the oral lease alleged was not proved, under Ext.A1<\/p>\n
the title  of  Kunhambu Nair was  assigned to  respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Hence   respondent   has   title   to   the   property   covered   by<\/p>\n
Ext.A1.   Though   under   Ext.A1   4.40   acres   have   been<\/p>\n
assigned   in   favour   of   respondent,   courts   below   on   the<\/p>\n
evidence   found   that   total   extent     available   is   only<\/p>\n
3.27 acres. Respondent was found to be in possession of<\/p>\n
only   1.65   acres   and   appellants   are   in     possession   of<\/p>\n
balance extent. Having established the title respondent<\/p>\n
is   entitled   to   get   recovery   of   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
property   in   the   possession   of   appellants,   unless   that<\/p>\n
title is not barred or appellants are protected  by any<\/p>\n
other   law   or     principles   of   estoppel   as   pleaded   by<\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
them.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    Though   appellants   contended   that   title   of<\/p>\n
respondent   was   barred   by   adverse   possession   and<\/p>\n
limitation,   courts   below   on   the   evidence   found   that<\/p>\n
there   is   no   evidence   to   prove   that   appellants   have<\/p>\n
perfected  their   title   by   adverse   possession.   When   suit<\/p>\n
is     for   recovery   of   possession   based   on   strength   of<\/p>\n
title,   respondent   need   not   prove   that   he   has   been   in<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property   within   12   years   from   the<\/p>\n
date   of   filing   of        suit.   Instead   burden   is   on<\/p>\n
appellants   to   prove   that   they   have   been   in   possession<\/p>\n
of   the   plaint   schedule   properties   for   more   than   12<\/p>\n
years   before   institution   of   suit   and   that   too   adverse<\/p>\n
to   the   true   owner.   Courts   below   following   the   law   as<\/p>\n
laid   down   in  A.B.Patil   v.   B.B.Patil   (AIR   1995   SC   895)<\/p>\n
rightly   found   that   it   is   for   appellants   to   prove   that<\/p>\n
their   possession   was   hostile   to   the   true   owner     and<\/p>\n
appellants   failed   to   prove   the   same.   Courts   below   on<\/p>\n
the   evidence   found   that   there   is   no   evidence   to   prove<\/p>\n
that   appellants   have   perfected     the   title.   More   over,<\/p>\n
Ext.B6   agreement   produced   by   appellants   establish   that<\/p>\n
title   of   respondent   to   the   properties   was   admitted   by<\/p>\n
appellants.  In   such   circumstances,     appellants   are   not<\/p>\n
entitled   to   contend   that   they   have   perfected   their   by<\/p>\n
                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
adverse   possession   or   the   title   of   respondent   was<\/p>\n
barred by adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    It   was   argued   that   in   view   of   Ext.B6<\/p>\n
agreement,   respondent   was   estopped   from   claiming<\/p>\n
recovery   of   possession.   Question   is   whether   it   is   so.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.B6   agreement   shows   that     it   was   the   result     of<\/p>\n
settlement   arrived   at   by   mediators.   It   recites   that<\/p>\n
when 4.40  acres   belonging to  respondent was  measured,<\/p>\n
it   was   found   that   appellants   are   respectively   in<\/p>\n
possession of 54 cents, 37 cents and 64 cents  and 6.08<\/p>\n
cents.   It   was   further   recited   that   appellants   would<\/p>\n
execute   a   sale   deed   in   favour   of   respondent   for<\/p>\n
consideration   of   Rs.3,000\/-   per   acre.   It   also   shows<\/p>\n
that   document   is   to   be   executed   before   26\/12\/1990.\n<\/p>\n
Question   is   whether   this   would   operates   as   estoppel<\/p>\n
against  claim of respondent for recovery of possession<\/p>\n
on   the   strength   of   title.   If   respondent   is   not   paying<\/p>\n
the   amount   as   shown   in   the   agreement,   agreement   does<\/p>\n
not   provide   for   any   remedy   to   appellants.     True,   it<\/p>\n
shows   that   respondent   had   agreed   to   pay   value   at   the<\/p>\n
rate of  Rs.3,000\/-  per acre to  appellants. Question  is<\/p>\n
whether   by   this   agreement   respondent   is   barred   from<\/p>\n
claiming recovery  of  possession on the  strength of  his<\/p>\n
title.   There   is   nothing   in   Ext.B6   agreement             to<\/p>\n
                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
establish   that   because   of   the   agreement   respondent   is<\/p>\n
not   entitled   to   seek   recovery   of     possession   on   the<\/p>\n
strength     of   his   title.   Ext.B6   will   not   convey   the<\/p>\n
title   of   plaint   schedule   properties   to   appellants.   It<\/p>\n
is not clear from Ext.B6  as to what is the right to be<\/p>\n
purchased   from   appellants   by   respondent.   Appellants<\/p>\n
have no title except the factum of right of possession.\n<\/p>\n
Ext.B6   agreement   will   not     prohibit   respondent   from<\/p>\n
seeking   decree   for   recovery   of   possession   on   the<\/p>\n
strength of his title. As it was found that respondent<\/p>\n
has   got   title   and   that   title   is   not   barred   by   adverse<\/p>\n
possession   and         appellants   have   no   better   title,<\/p>\n
respondent   is   entitled   to   the   decree   granted   by   court<\/p>\n
below.   I   find   no   substantial   question   of   law   is<\/p>\n
involved in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       Appeal is dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n
                                            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,<\/p>\n
                                                           JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
uj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Bhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA No. 1175 of 2006() 1. BHASKARAN, S\/O.KUMARAN NAIR, … Petitioner 2. BABY, D\/O.KUMARAN NAIR, 3. VALSALA, D\/O.KUMARAN NAIR, 4. RADHAKRISHNAN, S\/O.KUMARAN NAIR, 5. CHANDRAN, S\/O.KUMARAN NAIR, 6. A.M. MOHAMMADKUNHI, S\/O.ANDUKKAI ALIAS Vs 1. K. ABOOBACKER, […]<\/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-86489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 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\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-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=\"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-21T14:24:27+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\\\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-21T14:24:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1471,\"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\\\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Bhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-21T14:24:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 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":"Bhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 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\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-21T14:24:27+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\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-21T14:24:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007"},"wordCount":1471,"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\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007","name":"Bhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-21T14:24:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-k-aboobacker-on-19-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhaskaran vs K. Aboobacker on 19 February, 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\/86489","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=86489"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86489\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}