{"id":9494,"date":"2010-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-01-24T23:34:02","modified_gmt":"2017-01-24T18:04:02","slug":"chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Chellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 6854 of 2008(N)\n\n\n1. CHELLAMMA, W\/O LATE BHASKARAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SEBASTIAN S\/O VARKEY, AGED 51 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. LISSY, AGED 48, W\/O SEBASTIAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.C.DEVASSIA\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :16\/02\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n                ----------------------------------------------------\n                      W.P.(C)No.6854 of 2008\n                ---------------------------------------------------\n           Dated this the 16th day of February, 2010\n\n                                JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
             Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.91\/04 on the<\/p>\n
file of the Sub Court, Kattapana. Suit is one for specific performance<\/p>\n
of an agreement for sale, and the respondents are the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
Parties entered into Ext.P1 agreement dated 31.7.2003 by which the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs agreed to exchange their property having an extent of 4.59<\/p>\n
acres in lieu of 3.81 acre owned and possessed by the defendants.<\/p>\n
Out of the 4.59 acres belinging to the plaintiff, 3 acres of land was<\/p>\n
registered holding and the rest 1.59 acres of land was covered by a<\/p>\n
new patta.      Similarly out of the 3.81 acres belonging to the<\/p>\n
defendant, she had a patta only over 1.60 acres and the rest was<\/p>\n
non-patta land with possessory right. The parties resolved to register<\/p>\n
transfer deeds in terms of the exchange of their properties agreed<\/p>\n
upon, on or before 31.7.2003, executing Ext.P1 agreement. Later, by<\/p>\n
Ext.P2 agreement dated 1.8.2003, the time for registration of the<\/p>\n
conveyance deeds was extended up to 31.10.003. On 30.10.2003<\/p>\n
parties executed Ext.P3 agreement extending the time to effect<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.6854 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n
registration by 31.01.2004. There is no dispute between the parties<\/p>\n
that on execution of Ext.P1 agreement they had exchanged the<\/p>\n
properties covered by that agreement.           In Ext.P3 agreement<\/p>\n
providing for extension of time up to 31.10.2003, an additional<\/p>\n
covenant was also entered into that in the event of non-correction of<\/p>\n
the re-survey records relating to the property exchanged by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs to the defendants, the defendants will return the extent of<\/p>\n
land specified which had been obtained from the plaintiffs to rectify<\/p>\n
that deficiency. Alleging that in view of the default of the defendant,<\/p>\n
the registration of the conveyance in terms of the excharge could not<\/p>\n
be carried out plaintiffs laid the above suit for a decree for specific<\/p>\n
performance of Exts.P1 and P3 agreements.\n<\/p>\n
              2. Resisting the suit claim petitioner\/defendant filed a<\/p>\n
written statement traversing the allegations raised in the plaint and<\/p>\n
impeaching the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the decree sought for.<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 is the copy of the written statement filed on 5.10.2004.<\/p>\n
Petitioner\/defendant later filed Ext.P5 amendment application to the<\/p>\n
written statement canvassing a counter claim seeking a declaration<\/p>\n
that Exts.P1 and P3 agreement are void. The declaration by way of<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.6854 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
setting forth a counter claim amending the written statement was<\/p>\n
sought for by the defendant contending that there was fraud and<\/p>\n
mis-representation in entering into the agreements insofar as the<\/p>\n
new patta land having an extent of 1.59 acres of land belonging to<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs could not have been conveyed by them in view of the<\/p>\n
Assignment Rules.      Similarly, the non-patta land of 2.21 acres<\/p>\n
belonging to the 1st defendant, according to her, is also inalienable.<\/p>\n
In the affidavit sworn to in support of the amendment of the written<\/p>\n
statement to raise the counter claim, the petitioner\/1st defendant has<\/p>\n
averred that the fruad with respect to Exts.P1 and P3 agreements<\/p>\n
came to her knowledge only on 4.10.2004.          Amendment of the<\/p>\n
written statement sought for by the 1st respondent was resisted by<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs filing Ext.P6 objections, in which among other<\/p>\n
contentions, it was contended that the amendment sought for is<\/p>\n
barred by limitation. The learned Sub Judge, after considering Ext.P5<\/p>\n
application in the light of Ext.P6 objections and hearing counsel on<\/p>\n
both sides, dismissed that application by Ext.P7 order holding that<\/p>\n
the claim for amendment is barred by limitation.         Propriety and<\/p>\n
correctness of Ext.P7 is challenged in the writ petition, invoking the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.6854 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                 :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the<\/p>\n
Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
             3. I heard the counsel on both sides.\n<\/p>\n
             4. Inviting my attention to Article 59 of the Limitation<\/p>\n
Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner\/1st defendant contended<\/p>\n
that the court below went wrong in holding that the proposed<\/p>\n
amendment is barred by limitation. Reliance is also placed on Prem<\/p>\n
Singh v. Birbal<\/a> {2006(2) K.L.T. 863 (SC)} by the counsel to<\/p>\n
urge that the proposed amendment raising the counter claim moved<\/p>\n
within a period of three years from the date of knowledge contending<\/p>\n
that the agreement is inexecutable in view of the interdictions placed<\/p>\n
under law, and that the agreements are void, is perfectly<\/p>\n
maintainable.    On the other hand, the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs submitted that if the amendment is allowed, the counter<\/p>\n
caim will relate back to three years from the date of filing of the<\/p>\n
original written statement, and in that case, serious prejudice and<\/p>\n
hardship would be caused to the plaintiffs in the suit. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the plaintiffs also contended, placing reliance on Order<\/p>\n
VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, that a counter claim<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.6854 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                    :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n
could be raised by the defendants only in respect of any cause of<\/p>\n
action accruing in their favour against the plaintiffs either before the<\/p>\n
filing of the written statement or the time provided for delivering<\/p>\n
their evidence. At any rate, according to the learned counsel, in the<\/p>\n
given facts of the case, no interference with Ext.P7 order is<\/p>\n
warranted, invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this<\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
             5.   I have considered the submissions made by the<\/p>\n
counsel with reference to Ext.P7 order and the exhibits produced in<\/p>\n
the writ petition. First of all, it has to be pointed out that a counter<\/p>\n
claim can be raised in a suit as againstthe plaintiff under Order VIII<\/p>\n
Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of any cause of<\/p>\n
action which had accrued in favour of the defendant before the filing<\/p>\n
of the written statement or delivering of his defence. What is of<\/p>\n
significance is the cause of action and not the filing of the written<\/p>\n
statement, nor the time fixed for delivering of the defence. So much<\/p>\n
so, even after filing of the written statement, it is open to the<\/p>\n
defendant to raise a counter claim in the very same suit, provided<\/p>\n
the cause of action for raising such counter claim has arisen before<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.6854 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                  :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
the filing of the written statement        or before the time fixed for<\/p>\n
delivery of the defence.\n<\/p>\n
             6. Perusing Ext.P5 amendment application, it is noticed<\/p>\n
that the date of knowledge when the petitioner\/defendant got<\/p>\n
knowledge of the legal hurdle in registering of the conveyance deed<\/p>\n
in termsof the agreement was stated only in the affidavit and not in<\/p>\n
the proposed amendment to the written statement. It is also noticed<\/p>\n
that previous written statement was filed on 5.10.2004. The date of<\/p>\n
knowledge of such legal bar is shown in the affidavit as 4.10.2004.<\/p>\n
No particulars as to the circumstances under which the defendant got<\/p>\n
knowledge of the inalienability of the portion of the land belonging to<\/p>\n
her and also that of the plaintiffs is stated in the affidavit, leave alone<\/p>\n
in the proposed amendment. Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure is only an enabling provision empowering the defendant to<\/p>\n
raise in the very same suit any claim against the plaintiff, subject to<\/p>\n
the conditions imposed by the rule for having adjudication of all<\/p>\n
disputes between the parties in the very same suit. No defendant is<\/p>\n
having any statutory right to insist that his counter claim should be<\/p>\n
entertained in the suit filed by the other, as he has an alternate<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.6854 of 2008<\/p>\n
                               :: 7 ::\n<\/p>\n
efficacious remedy of filing a suit against the opposite party as<\/p>\n
provided by law. In the given facts of the case where the parties<\/p>\n
have exchanged their properties soon after exection of Ext.P1<\/p>\n
agreement, and the registration of the document was extended by<\/p>\n
mutual agreement by the parties from time to time, the proposed<\/p>\n
amendment to the written statement already filed to set up a counter<\/p>\n
claim cannot be considered as bona fide especially where particulars<\/p>\n
how the knowledge of the inexecutability of the conveyance deeds<\/p>\n
was obtained are not stated in the affidavit sworn to in the<\/p>\n
amendment application. Though I do not approve of the reasoning<\/p>\n
of the court below in Ext.P7 order holding that the amendment<\/p>\n
application is barred by limitation, I find that declining the<\/p>\n
entertainment of the amendment application cannot be found fault<\/p>\n
with.   I do express such a view for the reason that in case the<\/p>\n
proposed amendment canvassed is entertained, it will complicate the<\/p>\n
issues involved in the suit as questions may arise whether even on<\/p>\n
the plea of fraud the first agreement Ext.P1 could have been<\/p>\n
impeached by the defendant after she had filed her written statement<\/p>\n
on 5.10.2004. On the date of the amendment, if a fresh suit was<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)No.6854 of 2008<\/p>\n
                                  :: 8 ::\n<\/p>\n
filed in view of the previous written statement already filed by the<\/p>\n
defendant, a plea of fraud canvassed for entertaining the relief<\/p>\n
canvassed necessarily has to be examined with reference to the<\/p>\n
contentions advanced in the written statement. When that be so, a<\/p>\n
challenge against Ext.P1, after filing of Ext.P4 written statement, to<\/p>\n
contend that it is vitiated by fraud on the entertainability of such a<\/p>\n
new defence by way of amendment belatedly, may call for serious<\/p>\n
scrutiny.\n<\/p>\n
             7. I find no interference with Ext.P7 order declining the<\/p>\n
amendment of the written statement canvassed by the petitioner\/1st<\/p>\n
defendant by the court below is warranted invoking the writ<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of this court.\n<\/p>\n
             Writ petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                     (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
\n                                                JUDGE<\/p>\n
sk\/-\n<\/p>\n
                      \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Chellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 6854 of 2008(N) 1. CHELLAMMA, W\/O LATE BHASKARAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. SEBASTIAN S\/O VARKEY, AGED 51 YEARS, … Respondent 2. LISSY, AGED 48, W\/O SEBASTIAN, For Petitioner :SRI.A.C.DEVASSIA For Respondent :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR The Hon’ble MR. […]<\/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-9494","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010 - 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\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-24T18:04:02+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\\\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-24T18:04:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1577,\"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\\\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Chellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-24T18:04:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Chellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010 - 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\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-24T18:04:02+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\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-24T18:04:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010"},"wordCount":1577,"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\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010","name":"Chellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-24T18:04:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chellamma-vs-sebastian-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chellamma vs Sebastian on 16 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/9494","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=9494"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9494\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9494"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9494"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9494"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}