{"id":96514,"date":"2001-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001"},"modified":"2014-10-11T19:53:39","modified_gmt":"2014-10-11T14:23:39","slug":"jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001","title":{"rendered":"Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sankarasubban<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Sankarasubban, S Marimuthu<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p>S. Sankarasubban, J.<\/p>\n<p>1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 34 of 1997<br \/>\nof the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. Original proceeding is R.C.P. No.<br \/>\n51 of 1994 of the Rent Control Court, Thrissur. Revision petitioner is the tenant. The<br \/>\nfacts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Building No. 13\/296 of Thrissur Municipality was taken on lease by the petitioner<br \/>\non 6.3.1989 for a monthly rent of Rs. 450\/- from the predecessor of the respondents<br \/>\nfor a period of one year. The petitioner executed a rent deed on 4.3.1989 in favour of<br \/>\nthe original landlord. The rental arrangement continued under the same terms and<br \/>\nconditions. Allegations are that the tenant kept rent of the room in arrears from<br \/>\nFebruary, 1994 and also that the adjacent premises in which the landlord resides with<br \/>\nhis family was insufficient for their use and that the room occupied by the tenant is<br \/>\nbonafide needed for additional accommodation of the landlord and by carrying out<br \/>\nnecessary repairs and alterations the tenanted premises can be made suitable for the<br \/>\nadditional accommodation.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Ext. A2 notice was issued to the tenant. The landlord filed petition under<br \/>\nSections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(8) of the Kerala Building (Lease &amp; Rent Control) Act<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;). The tenant opposed the application by filing<br \/>\nobjection stating that there was no rent in arrears. The necessity for getting eviction<br \/>\nfor additional accommodation was also denied by the tenant. It was also contended<br \/>\nthat the tenanted premises is used as a workshop and it is from the income derived<br \/>\nfrom the workshop that the tenant and his family live and that no other building is<br \/>\navailable anywhere near the tenanted premises.\n<\/p>\n<p>4. Before the Rent Control Court, the petitioner was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to<br \/>\nA3 were marked on the side of the petitioner. Respondent was examined as RW1.<br \/>\nTwo other witnesses, RWs 2 and 3 were also examined. Exts. B1 to B4 were marked<br \/>\non the side of the respondent. Exts. X1 to X2 are court Exhibits. Eviction<br \/>\nunder Sections  11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Act was rejected. The Rent Control Court ordered<br \/>\neviction under Section  11(8) of the Act. The respondent preferred appeal, R.C.A. No. 34<br \/>\nof 1997. The appeal who also dismissed. It is against that the present revision is filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that eviction is ordered<br \/>\nunder Section  11(8) of the Act, and the relief is granted only for additional accommodation.<br \/>\nThe landlord died before the proceedings were closed. According to him, the need<br \/>\nhas already lapsed and the proceedings cannot be continued. According to him,<br \/>\nunfortunately, both the Courts did not consider this. Learned counsel submitted that<br \/>\nafter the death of the original landlord, the need under Section  11(8) of the Act cannot be<br \/>\nclaimed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that what<br \/>\nthe landlord wanted is to accommodate the members of his family and that continues<br \/>\neven now.\n<\/p>\n<p>6. Before we go into the point to be decided, we shall extract what is stated in the<br \/>\nRent Control Petition:\n<\/p>\n<p>It is now admitted that the ground raised is under Section  11(8) of the Act and on that basis<br \/>\nboth the Authorities granted eviction. Section  11(8) of the Act is as follows: &#8220;A landlord<br \/>\nwho is occupying only a part of a building, may apply to the Rent Control Court for an<br \/>\norder directing any tenant occupying the whole or any portion of the remaining part of<br \/>\nthe building to put the landlord in possession thereof, if he requires additional<br \/>\naccommodation for his personal use&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>7. In Arjuna v. Eranu, 1991 (2) KLT 279, this Court held that the words &#8220;if he<br \/>\nrequires additional accommodation for his personal use&#8221; are not confined to the landlord<br \/>\nalone, but will also include the use by the members of his family, who want to live with<br \/>\nhim. In Shamsudeen v. District Court, 1997 (2) KLT 630, it was held as follows:<br \/>\n&#8220;The invocation of Section  11(8) arises only if the landlord is occupying a portion of the<br \/>\nbuilding and the rest of the building is required for additional accommodation. The<br \/>\nword &#8216;occupation&#8217; has to be understood differently from the word &#8216;possession&#8217;. Unless<br \/>\nthe landlord is physically present for a substantial period of time, it cannot be said that<br \/>\nhe was in occupation. Where the landlord after discontinuing his business had dumped<br \/>\nsome of his belonging in one room and so that room was not let out to the tenant, the<br \/>\napplication for eviction cannot be said to be one under Section  11(8)&#8221;. Thus, occupation of<br \/>\nthe landlord in a portion of the building in sine qua non for invoking the provision<br \/>\nunder Section  11(8) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. The question whether bona fide need can be urged by the surviving member<br \/>\nof the landlord came up for consideration before this Court, especially eviction under<br \/>\nSection 11(3) of the Act, in Padmanabhan Nair v. Ulahannan, 1982 KLT 872. There<br \/>\neviction was ordered on the ground of personal need of the landlord. Pending execution,<br \/>\nthe landlord died. It was held that as the right to sue does not survive the legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives are not entitled to get impleaded to continue the proceedings. <a href=\"\/doc\/1124782\/\">In<br \/>\nPapanna v. Padmanabhaiah, AIR<\/a> 1994 SC 1577, it was held that when eviction has<br \/>\nbecome final and the landlord died thereafter in execution petition the contention cannot<br \/>\nbe raised. In Shantilal v. Chimanlal, AIR 1976 SC 2358, it was held that the right to<br \/>\nsue does not survive after the death of the landlord. But there is a distinction that<br \/>\nbonafide need can be for the landlord or in favour of the family. Depending on him<br \/>\nand as need can be continued even after the death of the landlord. But so far as<br \/>\nSection 11(8) of the Act is concerned, what is stated in the Section is &#8220;for the personal need<br \/>\nof the landlord&#8221;. <a href=\"\/doc\/1124782\/\">In P.V. Papanna v. K. Padmanabhaiah, AIR<\/a> 1994 SC 1577, the<br \/>\nSupreme Court has held that events which take place subsequent to the filing of an<br \/>\neviction petition under any Rent Act can be taken into consideration for the purpose of<br \/>\nadjudication until a decree is made by the final court determining the rights of the<br \/>\nparties but any event takes place after the decree becomes final cannot be made a<br \/>\nground for reopening the decree. The finality to the dispute culminating in the decree<br \/>\ncannot be reopened by the executing court for readjudication on the ground that some<br \/>\nevent or the other has altered the situation. As a corollary thereto it must also be held<br \/>\nthat once the decree became final it becomes a part of the estate of the landlord and<br \/>\ntherefore the legal representatives of the deceased landlord would be entitled to execute<br \/>\nthe same. <a href=\"\/doc\/132651\/\">In Hasmat Raj v. Raghunath Prasad, AIR<\/a> 1981 SC 1711, it was held<br \/>\nthus: &#8220;it is well settled now that in a proceeding for the ejectment of a tenant on the<br \/>\nground of personal requirement under a statue controlling the eviction of tenants,<br \/>\nunless the statute prescribes to the contrary, the requirement must continue to exist on<br \/>\nthe date when the proceeding is disposed of either in appeal or revision, by the relevant<br \/>\nauthority&#8221;. In S. Sivasubramanya Iyer v. S.H. Krishnaswamy, AIR 1981 Kerala 57, a<br \/>\ndistinction was made between Section  11(3) and Section  11(8) of the Act. Subramonian Poti, J.<br \/>\n(as he then was) observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;If the landlord feels that additional accommodation is necessary and if there are sufficient<br \/>\ngrounds or justification in support of it and therefore, if he seeks recovery of the part of the<br \/>\nbuilding let out to a tenant under Section  11(8) of the Act, then, it is not for the court to find out whether<br \/>\neven without such additional accommodation, the landlord could somehow manage to carry on.<br \/>\nIt may not be that if he could manage to carry on, his claim is not bona fide. If on the other hand<br \/>\nhe is intending to seek additional accommodation not to provide such additional accommodation<br \/>\nto his own family members, and if the evidence indicates so, then of course his claim under<br \/>\nSection 11(8) will not be bona fide. In other words, the bona fides of the claim does not normally depend<br \/>\nupon the court being satisfied of the genuineness of the need of additional accommodation.<br \/>\nThen, what has to be considered first is whether the additional accommodation is required for<br \/>\nthe personal use of the landlord. Personal use in this context is not necessarily use by himself<br \/>\nbut by the members of his family who want to live with him&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>Thus, the words &#8220;to accommodate the members of the family&#8221; are taken as personal<br \/>\nuse. We are highlighting this because, learned counsel for the respondents submitted<br \/>\nthat since the need urged is to accommodate the members of the family there is a right<br \/>\nto sue even after the death of the landlord. But what is stated is for the additional<br \/>\naccommodation of the landlord. Stress is for the additional accommodation of the<br \/>\nlandlord. Purpose may be accommodate the members of the family. Learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondents brought to our notice a decision of the Supreme Court<br \/>\nreported in <a href=\"\/doc\/231653\/\">Kamleshwar Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal, AIR<\/a> 1997 SC 2399,<br \/>\nwherein it was observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;That apart, the fact that the landlord needed the premises in question for starting a<br \/>\nbusiness which facts has been found by the appellate authority. In the eye of law, it must be that<br \/>\non the day of application for eviction which is the crucial date, the tenant incurred the liability<br \/>\nof being evicted from the premises. Even if the landlord died during the pendency of the Writ<br \/>\nPetition in the High Court the bonafide need cannot be said to have lapsed as the business in<br \/>\nquestion can be carried on by his widow or any elder son&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>The facts of that are different from the facts of this case. There, the landlord<br \/>\nwas alive when the proceedings are pending before the Authorities. He died only<br \/>\nwhen the matter was taken under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was in that<br \/>\ncontext that Supreme Court made the above observation.\n<\/p>\n<p>9. Taking into consideration all the aspects, we are of the view that the bonafide<br \/>\nneed of the landlord under Section  11(8) of the Act cannot survive the landlord. In this<br \/>\ncase, the landlord died during the pendency of the petition. Hence, according to the<br \/>\npetitioner, the petition  ought to have been dismissed on the ground that the need does<br \/>\nnot perverse the orders of the court below. Hence, we set aside the order passed<br \/>\nunder Section  11(8) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>10. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001 Author: S Sankarasubban Bench: S Sankarasubban, S Marimuthu ORDER S. Sankarasubban, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the judgment in R.C.A. No. 34 of 1997 of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thrissur. Original proceeding is R.C.P. No. 51 of 1994 of the [&hellip;]<\/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-96514","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2001-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-11T14:23:39+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-11T14:23:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001\"},\"wordCount\":1773,\"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\\\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001\",\"name\":\"Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-11T14:23:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-11T14:23:39+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001","datePublished":"2001-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-11T14:23:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001"},"wordCount":1773,"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\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001","name":"Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-11T14:23:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-komalavally-on-29-october-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jose vs Komalavally on 29 October, 2001"}]},{"@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\/96514","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=96514"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96514\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96514"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96514"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96514"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}