{"id":93555,"date":"2009-10-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-10T05:27:48","modified_gmt":"2016-01-09T23:57:48","slug":"k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 13 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
K.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 13 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 9620 of 2008(T)\n\n\n1. K.JAYAVARMA, ADVOCATE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS\n\n3. K.RAVEENDRAN (MEMBER NO. 56187)\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :13\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.\n             --------------------------------------------------\n                 W.P.(C) NO.9620 OF 2008 (T)\n             --------------------------------------------------\n          Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      In the election that was held on 6.11.2004 to the Board of<\/p>\n
Directors of the Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank, the petitioner<\/p>\n
was elected and later he was also elected as the President of the<\/p>\n
said Bank. The term of the Managing Committee is to expire on<\/p>\n
5.11.2009. While he was thus continuing as President, the 3rd<\/p>\n
respondent filed a complaint before the Ist respondent that the<\/p>\n
petitioner was a member of the Board of Directors of the<\/p>\n
Mallappally Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. at the time of his<\/p>\n
election   and therefore, suffered ineligibility           to become a<\/p>\n
member of the Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank in view of the<\/p>\n
provisions contained in Section 28(2)(a) of the Kerala Co-<\/p>\n
operative Societies Act, here-in-after referred to as `the Act’ for<\/p>\n
short.\n<\/p>\n
      2. On receipt of the said complaint, the first respondent<\/p>\n
issued Ext.P5, a show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner as<\/p>\n
to why, in view of the ineligibility he suffered under Section 28(2)<\/p>\n
(a) and Rule 44(1)(a) of the Co-operative Societies Rules he shall<\/p>\n
WPC.No.9620\/08
\n                                :2 :<\/span><\/p>\n
not be disqualified as the member of the Committee of the<\/p>\n
Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank exercising the powers under<\/p>\n
Rule 44(3) of the Rules. On receipt of Ext.P5, the petitioner filed<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 explanation, complaining that he was not given copies of<\/p>\n
the complaint filed by the 3rd respondent and the report of the<\/p>\n
Assistant Registrar dated 10.3.2008 relied on in Ext.P5 show<\/p>\n
cause notice. It was also contended that the Mallapally Housing<\/p>\n
Co-operative Society and the Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank,<\/p>\n
do not fall under the same type of Societies in order to attract<\/p>\n
Section 28(2)(a) of the Act and Rule 44(1)(a) of the Rules. He also<\/p>\n
relied on the definition of `Urban Co-operative Bank’ as provided<\/p>\n
in Section 2(ta) of the Act to contend that Thiruvalla East Co-<\/p>\n
operative Bank being an Urban Co-operative Bank, it did not fall<\/p>\n
under the same type of Societies to justify the proceedings as<\/p>\n
proposed in Ext.P5. The acknowledgment in Ext.P6 reply shows<\/p>\n
that this was delivered in the office of the Joint Registrar on<\/p>\n
17.3.2008, much before 19.3.2008 to which date hearing of<\/p>\n
Ext.P5 was scheduled. Immediately thereafter he filed this writ<\/p>\n
petition challenging the show cause notice.\n<\/p>\n
      3. This writ petition came up for admission on 24.3.2008<\/p>\n
and an interim order to maintain status quo was passed. In the<\/p>\n
WPC.No.9620\/08
\n                                :3 :<\/span><\/p>\n
meanwhile, on 19.3.2008, the counsel for the petitioner appeared<\/p>\n
before the first respondent and filed Ext.P8 Vakalath along with<\/p>\n
Ext.P9 application seeking adjournment by one month for filing a<\/p>\n
detailed objection and arguments. Endorsement on Exts.P8 and<\/p>\n
P9 referred to above show that these were received by the first<\/p>\n
respondent on 19.3.2008 itself.\n<\/p>\n
      4.     However, Ext.P7 order was passed by the first<\/p>\n
respondent on 19.3.2008. It is stated in Ext.P7 that based on the<\/p>\n
averments in the complaint and the report of         the Assistant<\/p>\n
Registrar dated 10.3.2008, he was satisfied that the Mallappally<\/p>\n
Taluk Housing Co-operative Society and the Thiruvalla East Co-<\/p>\n
operative Bank are societies of the same type and that while<\/p>\n
being a member of Mallappally Taluk Housing Society, petitioner<\/p>\n
contested in the election held to the Board of Directors of the<\/p>\n
Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank and became a member of the<\/p>\n
Board of the latter Bank, attracting the ineligibility provided in<\/p>\n
Section 28(2)(a) read with Rule 44(1)(a) of the Rules. It is stated<\/p>\n
that it was in view of this he was issued Ext.P5 show cause notice<\/p>\n
and that in response, though the petitioner did not appear in<\/p>\n
person, he filed Ext.P6 objection. Proceeding further it is stated<\/p>\n
that, based on the materials available, he was satisfied that the<\/p>\n
WPC.No.9620\/08
\n                                  :4 :<\/span><\/p>\n
Mallappally Housing Co-operative Society is incorporated with the<\/p>\n
main object of giving housing finance and that one of the main<\/p>\n
objects of Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank is giving housing<\/p>\n
loans and therefore both the societies are of the same type. On<\/p>\n
this basis, holding that the ineligibility provided under Section 28<\/p>\n
(2)(a) of the Act     read with Rule 44(2) of the Co-operative<\/p>\n
Societies Rules is attracted,      exercising his powers under Rule<\/p>\n
44(3) of the Rules the petitioner was disqualified to be member of<\/p>\n
the Committee of Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank.<\/p>\n
     5. Referring to Ext.P7(a), the cover under which Ext.P7 was<\/p>\n
sent, the petitioner submits that it was after communicating the<\/p>\n
satus quo order passed by this court that Ext.P7 order was<\/p>\n
dispatched from the office of the first respondent on 26.3.2008.<\/p>\n
Thereupon the petitioner got the writ petition amended<\/p>\n
incorporating challenge against Ext.P7 also.       Thus    as     at<\/p>\n
present, the writ petition contains prayers for quashing Exts.P5<\/p>\n
and P7 and to declare that being a member of the Board of<\/p>\n
Directors of the Urban Co-operative Bank, shall not disentitle him<\/p>\n
for being elected as a member of the committee of the Housing<\/p>\n
Society. Though there is a further prayer to declare Rule 15 of the<\/p>\n
Co-operative Societies Rule as amended by SRO.No.380\/00 to the<\/p>\n
WPC.No.9620\/08
\n                                 :5 :<\/span><\/p>\n
extent it clubs Urban C0-operative Bank and Housing Society<\/p>\n
together as ultravires the rule making power of the State<\/p>\n
Government and therefore is unconstitutional. When the matter<\/p>\n
was taken up for hearing, Senior counsel for the petitioner did<\/p>\n
not press the prayer against Rule 15 of the Rules.<\/p>\n
      6. On behalf of the petitioner, Sr. Counsel Sri. P. Ravindran<\/p>\n
contended that in Ext.P7 order, points raised by the petitioner, in<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 objections filed against Ext.P5 show cause notice, were<\/p>\n
not considered. It was also contended that under Rule 44(3), the<\/p>\n
petitioner is entitled to have an opportunity to file his objections<\/p>\n
and also an opportunity of hearing. Despite having filed Ext.P8<\/p>\n
Vakalath and Ext.P9 application for adjournment, declining an<\/p>\n
opportunity makes his representations,        and without even<\/p>\n
mentioning the filing of Exts.P8 and P9, ExtP7 order was passed<\/p>\n
in violation of the statutory provisions and also the principles of<\/p>\n
natural justice. It was also contended that the ineligibility under<\/p>\n
Section 28(2)(a) is only against membership in another society of<\/p>\n
the same type. According to the learned Sr. counsel, in view of<\/p>\n
the definition Urban Co-operative Bank as provided in Section 2<\/p>\n
(ta) and Primary Co-operative Society in Section 2(ob) read with<\/p>\n
Rule 182 and Appendix III of the Rules, the Thiruvalla East Co-<\/p>\n
WPC.No.9620\/08
\n                                 :6 :<\/span><\/p>\n
operative Bank and the Mallapally Housing Co-operative Society<\/p>\n
fall under different types of societies and if so the ineligibility<\/p>\n
provided in Section 28 of the Act and Rule 44 is not attracted.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel also referred to me Rule 15 of the Rules and<\/p>\n
contended that the categorization of different types of societies<\/p>\n
is contrary to the categorization in Appendix III and the provisions<\/p>\n
contained in Section 2 of the Act, which defines different types of<\/p>\n
societies. On this basis it was argued that it was unsafe to rely<\/p>\n
entirely on the categorization under Rule 15 of the Rules.<\/p>\n
      7. On behalf of the first respondent, the learned Advocate<\/p>\n
General contended that in paragraph 11 of the writ petition the<\/p>\n
petitioner has admitted that going by the categorization provided<\/p>\n
under Rule 15, Housing Societies and Urban Co-operative Banks<\/p>\n
are credit societies. It is stated that, in view of the admitted fact<\/p>\n
that these societies of which the petitioner is a member of the<\/p>\n
committee, fall under the same type of societies, the ineligibility<\/p>\n
as provided under Section 28(2) is squarely attracted.          It is<\/p>\n
contended that even if the petitioner is taken to have been not<\/p>\n
given an opportunity of hearing, still having regard to the fact of<\/p>\n
the case, since no other conclusion is possible in this case and<\/p>\n
no prejudice is proved to have been caused to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
WPC.No.9620\/08
\n                                  :7 :<\/span><\/p>\n
complaint regarding violation of the    principles of natural justice<\/p>\n
has no substance.\n<\/p>\n
      8.   On behalf of the 3rd respondent, the complainant at<\/p>\n
whose instance proceedings were initiated, a counter affidavit<\/p>\n
has been filed and the learned counsel made extensive reference<\/p>\n
to the averments in paragraphs 10,11 and 16 of the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit. According to him, both the banks        carry on similar<\/p>\n
business and      having regard to its     main objects    and the<\/p>\n
categorization of Rule 15 of the Rules, these societies are credit<\/p>\n
societies. According to him the issue has to be decided referring<\/p>\n
to Rule 15 of the Rules only. In so far as the contention regarding<\/p>\n
the violation of principles of natural justice, the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the 3rd respondent contended that since the petitioner has not<\/p>\n
established any prejudice, the petitioner cannot plead that<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice has been violated.<\/p>\n
      9.   First I shall deal with the contention of the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was denied         an<\/p>\n
opportunity of hearing      before Ext.P7 order was passed by the<\/p>\n
first respondent. I choose to adopt this course, for the reason<\/p>\n
that, in case I accept the contention of the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner, necessarily, the matter should be reconsidered and<\/p>\n
WPC.No.9620\/08
\n                                 :8 :<\/span><\/p>\n
decided by the statutory authority and it is for that authority to<\/p>\n
deal with the contentions on merits.\n<\/p>\n
     10. The power exercised by the Joint Registrar is conferred<\/p>\n
by Rule 44(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, which<\/p>\n
provides that if a person becomes disqualified to be a member of<\/p>\n
the Committee of a Society, the Registrar may in the<\/p>\n
circumstances pointed out in the Rule Boban J. Olasa, by order<\/p>\n
in writing declare that the person has ceased to be a member of<\/p>\n
the committee of the society concerned from the date of such<\/p>\n
disqualification. Rule 44(1) further provides that no member of<\/p>\n
the Society shall be eligible for being elected and appointed as<\/p>\n
member of the committee of the Society if he is disqualified under<\/p>\n
Section 28. Since, what is canvassed against the petitioner in this<\/p>\n
case is the ineligibility under Section 28(2)(a), if the ineligibility is<\/p>\n
proved, it is open to the Registrar to pass orders invoking his<\/p>\n
powers under Rule 44(3).\n<\/p>\n
     11. However Rule 44(3) further provides that before passing<\/p>\n
an order the Registrar shall give      the   person against whom<\/p>\n
proceedings are initiated, an opportunity to state his objections, if<\/p>\n
any, against the proposed action and if the person wishes to be<\/p>\n
heard, he shall be given an opportunity to be heard also. In this<\/p>\n
WPC.No.9620\/08
\n                                :9 :<\/span><\/p>\n
case, Ext.P5 show cause notice       was issuing relying on the<\/p>\n
complaint filed by the 3rd respondent and also the report of the<\/p>\n
Assistant Registrar dated 10.3.2008. A reading of the show cause<\/p>\n
notice shows that the first respondent had given the petitioner an<\/p>\n
opportunity to file his objections and to appear before him on<\/p>\n
19.3.2008 for hearing. Ext.P6 is the objection that was filed. In<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 petitioner has complained of not having given him a copy<\/p>\n
of the complaint and also the copy of the report submitted by the<\/p>\n
Registrar. On merits also the petitioner raised his objections.<\/p>\n
According to him the societies do not fall within the same type to<\/p>\n
invoke the power of the Registrar under Rule 44(3) of the Rules.<\/p>\n
     12. On 19.3.2008 by filing Exts.P8 Vakalath and P9<\/p>\n
application, counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment.<\/p>\n
However, without passing any order on Ext.P9 application for<\/p>\n
adjournment and without making even a reference to Ext.P8 and<\/p>\n
P9, Ext.P7 order has been passed by Registrar on 19.3.2008. In<\/p>\n
Ext.P7, although it is stated that Ext.P6 objection was filed by<\/p>\n
the petitioner, the contentions raised in Ext.P6 are also not dealt<\/p>\n
with in the order.   Moreover, in Ext.P7 order, it is also stated<\/p>\n
that, grant of housing loan, is one of the main objects of the<\/p>\n
Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank.      This finding    is factually<\/p>\n
WPC.No.9620\/08
\n                                 :10 :<\/span><\/p>\n
erroneous,    in as much as Ext.R1(a) bye laws of the Bank<\/p>\n
containing its objects show that there is no such object<\/p>\n
incorporated in the bye laws. Be that as it may, fact remains that<\/p>\n
it was without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,<\/p>\n
without making reference to any of the contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
petitioner in Ext.P6 and with even referring to Ext.P9 that Ext.P7<\/p>\n
has been passed.\n<\/p>\n
      13. Further it is an elementary principle of natural justice<\/p>\n
that when a complaint or report is sought to be used against a<\/p>\n
person, a copy there of should be given or at least, the contends<\/p>\n
of the complaint or report should be disclosed to him. In this<\/p>\n
case, in Ext.P6 reply, the petitioner has raised a complaint in this<\/p>\n
respect and that aspect is also not addressed by the Ist<\/p>\n
respondent.      Thus Ext.P7 order is passed not only in violation<\/p>\n
of the principles of natural justice but is in violation of the<\/p>\n
provisions contained in Rule 44(3)      of the Rules. If   there is<\/p>\n
violation of the statutory rules, the question of prejudice or proof<\/p>\n
of prejudice, in my view, does not arise at all. Therefore I am<\/p>\n
satisfied that the order Ext.P7 has been passed in violation of the<\/p>\n
principles of natural justice and statutory rules and      for that<\/p>\n
reason the order is liable to be set aside and I do so. The first<\/p>\n
WPC.No.9620\/08
\n                                :11 :<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent shall disclose the materials which are proposed to be<\/p>\n
used against the petitioner     and pass fresh orders giving the<\/p>\n
petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is clarified that this court<\/p>\n
has not dealt with the merits of the contentions raised by both<\/p>\n
sides and it is entirely for the Ist respondent to deal with these<\/p>\n
issues.\n<\/p>\n
      Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P7<\/p>\n
and leaving open the first respondent to decide the matter afresh,<\/p>\n
in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made<\/p>\n
above. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any<\/p>\n
rate, within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the<\/p>\n
judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        (ANTONY DOMINIC)
\n                                              JUDGE
\nvi\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court K.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 13 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 9620 of 2008(T) 1. K.JAYAVARMA, ADVOCATE, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP.SOCIETIES … Respondent 2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS 3. K.RAVEENDRAN (MEMBER NO. 56187) For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN […]<\/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-93555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 13 October, 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\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-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=\"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-09T23:57:48+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 13 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T23:57:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2291,\"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\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009\",\"name\":\"K.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T23:57:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 13 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"K.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 13 October, 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\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-09T23:57:48+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 13 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T23:57:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009"},"wordCount":2291,"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\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009","name":"K.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 13 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T23:57:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-jayavarma-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-13-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Jayavarma vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 13 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/93555","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=93555"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93555\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93555"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93555"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93555"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}