{"id":90615,"date":"2007-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007"},"modified":"2018-05-09T16:00:19","modified_gmt":"2018-05-09T10:30:19","slug":"palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Palliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Palliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 406 of 1994()\n\n\n\n1. PALLIPARAMBATH MARIYUMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. ABDUL AZEEZ\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :14\/11\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n                   ...........................................\n                    S.A.No. 406             OF 1994\n                   ............................................\n       DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2007\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Defendant in O.S.223 of 1988 on the file of Munsiff Court,<\/p>\n
Taliparamba is the appellant. Husband of the deceased plaintiff<\/p>\n
is the respondent. Plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a decree<\/p>\n
for permanent prohibitory injunction contending that plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property belongs to him under Ext.A1 gift deed dated<\/p>\n
26.11.1956 and plaint B schedule property is the western portion<\/p>\n
of plaint A schedule property and plaintiff is in possession of the<\/p>\n
property which lies further west of plaint B schedule property<\/p>\n
and she has no right over the B schedule property and she is<\/p>\n
attempting to trespass into the plaint schedule property. It was<\/p>\n
contended that appellant has attempted to demolish the<\/p>\n
boundary ridge separating plaint B schedule property from the<\/p>\n
property of appellant.             A Commission was taken out.<\/p>\n
Commissioner submitted Ext.C2 report. Thereafter plaint was<\/p>\n
got amended claiming a decree for mandatory injunction and<\/p>\n
damages contending that appellant has completely demolished<\/p>\n
the boundary ridge and also cut and removed trees standing<\/p>\n
there and thereby caused damages. Appellant resisted the suit<\/p>\n
SA 406\/1994                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
contending that plaintiff has right only over the property in<\/p>\n
R.s.26\/11 and the property of appellant is in R.S.26\/12 and there<\/p>\n
was dispute regarding the survey boundary which was settled by<\/p>\n
Taluk Surveyor and it was found that the disputed property is the<\/p>\n
property of appellant and appellant did not attempt to trespass<\/p>\n
into the said property or commit any damages as alleged and the<\/p>\n
suit is only    to be dismissed. Commissioner subsequently<\/p>\n
inspected the property once again and submitted Ext.C3 report<\/p>\n
and C1 plan. Plaint A schedule property was demarcated as plot<\/p>\n
C and plaint B schedule property as plot A1 and property of<\/p>\n
appellant as plot A. Trial court, on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2,<\/p>\n
DW1, Ext.A1 and A2 and Ext.B1 to B4, dismissed the suit holding<\/p>\n
that appellant did not establish her right and possession over<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property. Respondent challenged the decree<\/p>\n
and judgment before Sub Court, Payyannur in A.S.107 of 1990.<\/p>\n
When the appeal was pending, original plaintiff died and<\/p>\n
respondent husband being the legal heir was impleaded as<\/p>\n
additional second appellant. Appellant filed a cross-objection<\/p>\n
contending that trial court should have granted cost also while<\/p>\n
dismissing the suit. First appellate court as per judgment dated<\/p>\n
24.2.1994 found that plaint B schedule property is plot A1 as<\/p>\n
SA 406\/1994                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
marked in Ext.C1 plan and reports of the Commissioner show<\/p>\n
that a ridge was existing on the western boundary of plot A1<\/p>\n
separating plot A and property of appellant and trees were<\/p>\n
standing therein and the ridge was demolished and the trees<\/p>\n
were cut by appellant and the ridge was the separating boundary<\/p>\n
between the property of appellant and respondent and plaintiff<\/p>\n
has been in possession of the disputed plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property namely plot A1 and therefore she is entitled to the<\/p>\n
decree for mandatory and prohibitory injunction. Appeal was<\/p>\n
allowed and suit was decreed.     It is challenged in the second<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     2. Second appeal was admitted formulating the following<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n
1) Is not the burden on the plaintiff to prove possession of the<\/p>\n
property to get a decree for prohibitory injunction.<\/p>\n
2)Whether first appellate court was correct in granting a decree<\/p>\n
for injunction in respect of R.S.26\/12, which is not the subject<\/p>\n
matter of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
3)Whether first appellate court was justified in granting a<\/p>\n
mandatory injunction in the absence of evidence to prove the<\/p>\n
existence of the alleged ridge on the western boundary of the<\/p>\n
SA 406\/1994                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
disputed property.\n<\/p>\n
     3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant and respondent<\/p>\n
were heard. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
appellant is that respondent has no right over any portion of the<\/p>\n
property comprised in R.S.26\/12 and under Ext.A1, he has title<\/p>\n
to only the property in R.S.26\/11 and plaint B schedule property<\/p>\n
which is the disputed plot is in R.S.26\/12 and therefore first<\/p>\n
appellate court should have found that respondent has no right<\/p>\n
over the plaint schedule property and the disputed property<\/p>\n
forms part of the property of appellant and therefore the decree<\/p>\n
granted is unsustainable. It was also argued that there is no<\/p>\n
evidence to prove that a ridge was existing separating the two<\/p>\n
properties or that it was demolished by appellant and in such<\/p>\n
circumstances, the decree granted is unsustainable.<\/p>\n
     4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents pointed out<\/p>\n
that first appellate court elaborately appreciated the evidence<\/p>\n
and relying on Ext.C2 and C3 reports, it was found that a ridge<\/p>\n
was in existence on the western boundary of the disputed plaint<\/p>\n
B schedule property, which was serving as the boundary<\/p>\n
separating the property of respondent and appellant. It was<\/p>\n
pointed out that existence of the trees, which were admittedly<\/p>\n
SA 406\/1994                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
cut by appellant was proved by Ext.C2 and C3 reports and it<\/p>\n
establish that the ridge was demolished subsequently by<\/p>\n
appellant to anex the disputed portion of the property and<\/p>\n
appellant has no right to do so and first appellate court rightly<\/p>\n
granted the decree and appeal is only to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
     5. True, under Ext.A1, the original plaintiff obtained the<\/p>\n
property comprised in R.S.26\/11. But Ext.A1 shows that though<\/p>\n
the property is in R.S.26\/11, it is comprised within the<\/p>\n
boundaries and within the measurements of 19 = X 23 = six<\/p>\n
feet koles. The western boundary of the property covered under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 is shown as the property in the possession of appellant.<\/p>\n
Appellant did not produce the document relating to her property.<\/p>\n
Learned Sub Judge, on appreciation of evidence, found that a<\/p>\n
ridge was serving as the boundary separating the property<\/p>\n
obtained by respondent under Ext.A1 and the property of<\/p>\n
appellant which lies to its west. The fact that trees were existing<\/p>\n
on the ridge probabilise the case of respondent that the ridge<\/p>\n
was a common boundary between the two properties. Ext.C2<\/p>\n
report submitted by the Commissioner after inspection of the<\/p>\n
property on the date of institution of the suit, establish that an<\/p>\n
attempt was made just before the institution        of the suit to<\/p>\n
SA 406\/1994                      6<\/span><\/p>\n
remove the ridge by cutting the trees. Ext.C3 report submitted<\/p>\n
by    the Commissioner later shows that when Commissioner<\/p>\n
inspected the property subsequently ridge was completely<\/p>\n
removed and the area to the east of western ridge and plot C was<\/p>\n
tilled. Ext.C3 report also shows that before the Commissioner<\/p>\n
appellant admitted cutting of the trees from the ridges and tilling<\/p>\n
of the soil was carried out by appellant. In such circumstances,<\/p>\n
no further evidence is necessary to prove that ridge was<\/p>\n
demolished and trees on the ridge were cut and removed by<\/p>\n
appellant. It is on that basis first appellate court found that the<\/p>\n
demolition of the ridge was by appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      6. Added to this, first appellate court found that Ext.B3<\/p>\n
adangal extract as well as tax receipts produced by appellant<\/p>\n
show that appellant has been in possession of only 80 cents. Plot<\/p>\n
A is admittedly in the possession of appellant. It is having an<\/p>\n
extent of 80 cents. If the disputed plot A1, having an extent of 1<\/p>\n
> cents is also taken as part of the property of appellant, the<\/p>\n
total extent would be 81 > cents. Therefore payment of tax by<\/p>\n
appellant for 80 cents as shown in the adangal extract prove that<\/p>\n
appellant is in possession of only 80 cents. The existence of a<\/p>\n
ridge separating the disputed plot A1 from plot A, as rightly<\/p>\n
SA 406\/1994                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
found by first appellate court, establish that the demolished<\/p>\n
ridge which was existing on the western boundary of Ext.A1 was<\/p>\n
the common boundary separating the property of appellant and<\/p>\n
respondent. The property which lies to the east of that ridge has<\/p>\n
been in the possession of the plaintiff as part of the property<\/p>\n
obtained under Ext.A1. Therefore though the disputed plot A1 is<\/p>\n
in R.S.26\/12 and Ext.A1 only shows that the property is in<\/p>\n
R.S.26\/11, evidence establish that respondent has been in<\/p>\n
possession of the disputed portion comprised in R.s.26\/12 also. It<\/p>\n
is on that basis the decree was granted. I do not find any merit in<\/p>\n
the appeal. It is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/-\n<\/p>\n
SA 406\/1994    8\n\n                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J\n\n\n\n\n                  SA 406\/1994\n\n\n\n\n                  JUDGMENT\n\n\n\n\n                  14.11.2007\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Palliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 406 of 1994() 1. PALLIPARAMBATH MARIYUMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. ABDUL AZEEZ … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR For Respondent :SRI.T.A.RAMADASAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :14\/11\/2007 O R D E […]<\/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-90615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPalliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 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\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Palliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-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=\"2007-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-09T10:30:19+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Palliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T10:30:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1371,\"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\\\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Palliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T10:30:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Palliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 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":"Palliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 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\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Palliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-09T10:30:19+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Palliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T10:30:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007"},"wordCount":1371,"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\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007","name":"Palliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T10:30:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/palliparambath-mariyumma-vs-abdul-azeez-on-14-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Palliparambath Mariyumma vs Abdul Azeez on 14 November, 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\/90615","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=90615"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90615\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90615"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}