{"id":99877,"date":"2008-05-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2"},"modified":"2016-02-03T18:18:36","modified_gmt":"2016-02-03T12:48:36","slug":"t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"T.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 43 of 2008(E)\n\n\n1. T.A. THAMPAN, S\/O. T.C.ABRAHAM,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. T.A. SUNNY, S\/O. T.C.ABRAHAM,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M.O. MANI, S\/O. UTHUP MANI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. VALSA THAMPI, W\/O. THAMPI,\n\n3. MANI JOSHUA,\n\n4. THOMAS JOSHUA,\n\n5. ANNIE JOY, W\/O. JOY,\n\n6. ABRAHAM JOSHUA,\n\n7. SUSAN JOSHUA,\n\n8. KUTTIAMMA ABRAHAM, W\/O.T.C.ABRAHAM,\n\n9. SHYLA THOMAS, W\/O. C.A.THOMAS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI(SR)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.S.VINOD BHAT\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :28\/05\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                     M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n\n                       -------------------------------\n\n                         W.P.(C) No.43 of 2008\n\n                       -------------------------------\n\n                      Dated this the 28th May, 2008.\n\n                            J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                Petitioners are the defendants and first respondent the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in O.S.No.200\/1992, on the file of         Additional Sub Court,<\/p>\n
Kottayam. First respondent had originally claimed eviction by filing a<\/p>\n
Rent control petition, as R.C.O.P.25\/1983 under Section 11 of Kerala<\/p>\n
Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, Act 2 of 1965 (for short ‘the Act’).<\/p>\n
Petitioners disputed the title of the first respondent in the rent control<\/p>\n
petition. Rent Control Court, upholding the bona fides of the dispute<\/p>\n
of title directed first respondent to approach the Civil Court. It is<\/p>\n
thereafter O.S.No.200\/1992 was filed seeking recovery of possession.<\/p>\n
In the plaint, recovery of possession was sought contending that first<\/p>\n
respondent needs the building to conduct a printing press and binding<\/p>\n
business, which he is conducting in another building contending that<\/p>\n
that building is proposed to be acquired. Recovery of possession was<\/p>\n
also sought on the ground of arrears of rent. It was also contended<\/p>\n
that defendants are not depending on the income derived from the<\/p>\n
business being conducted in the plaint schedule building          for their<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.43\/2008<\/p>\n
                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
livelihood.    Defendants in their written statement denied the title<\/p>\n
contending that based on the unprobated Will, first respondent is not<\/p>\n
entitled to claim title. The need for recovery of possession for shifting<\/p>\n
the business was denied. Petitioners also claimed benefit under Sub-<\/p>\n
section 17 of Section 11 of the Act , contending that their predecessor<\/p>\n
have been in possession of the property prior to 1937. They also<\/p>\n
contended that they are depending for their livelihood solely on the<\/p>\n
income being derived from the business being conducted in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule building. The trial court under Ext.P3 judgment dismissed<\/p>\n
the suit holding that first respondent is not entitled to the decree as<\/p>\n
the title is based on an unprobated Will. It was challenged before<\/p>\n
District Court, Kottayam, in A.S.No.139\/2000.            Under Ext.P4<\/p>\n
judgment,     learned District Judge found that the Will need not be<\/p>\n
probated, in view of the subsequent legislation. It was found that first<\/p>\n
respondent has title.     Finding that no issue regarding the grounds<\/p>\n
provided under Section 11 of the Act was raised or considered, the<\/p>\n
learned District Judge remanded the suit for fresh disposal after<\/p>\n
framing the necessary issues restricting evidence to be recorded on<\/p>\n
the grounds for eviction, under Section 11(2) & (3) of the Act.      The<\/p>\n
order    of    remand     was   challenged   before   this   Court     in<\/p>\n
F.A.O.No.136\/2005 by defendants 1 and 3, and F.A.O.No.158\/2003 by<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.43\/2008<\/p>\n
                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
the plaintiff. Under Ext.P6 judgment, this Court confirmed the order of<\/p>\n
remand and dismissed both the appeals. Before the appeal against<\/p>\n
the   order of remand was filed, defendants filed Ext.P5 application<\/p>\n
(I.A.No.3055\/2003) under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure, to amend the written statement incorporating additional<\/p>\n
paragraphs 16 to 25. It was opposed by the plaintiff by filing Ext.P7<\/p>\n
objection.    Under Ext.P8 order,    learned Sub Judge dismissed the<\/p>\n
application finding that the order of remand only enables the parties<\/p>\n
to adduce evidence on the issues framed by the learned District Judge<\/p>\n
and there is also a direction to dispose the suit within three months<\/p>\n
from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Ext.P8 order is<\/p>\n
challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents<\/p>\n
were heard.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                3. The learned senior counsel pointed out that there<\/p>\n
was confusion as to whether in a suit instituted consequent to finding<\/p>\n
on the bona fide dispute of title under Section 11(1) of the Act, the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.43\/2008<\/p>\n
                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
grounds for eviction as provided under Section 11 of the Act, is to be<\/p>\n
established or not, and consequently the grounds for eviction as<\/p>\n
provided under Section 11 of the Act was neither raised in the plaint<\/p>\n
nor denied by the defendants in the written statement in the proper<\/p>\n
perspective. It was pointed out that claim for recovery of possession<\/p>\n
based on bona fide need of the plaintiff, though met in the written<\/p>\n
statement, necessary and relevant details were not pleaded and the<\/p>\n
fact that no issue on the grounds for eviction were framed by the trial<\/p>\n
court, and first appellate court found that parties did not decide this<\/p>\n
aspect, and, therefore, remanded the suit, establish that failure to<\/p>\n
incorporate the necessary details sought to be introduced by Ext.P5<\/p>\n
application was due to a bona fide omission, and for the sole reason<\/p>\n
that there is a direction to dispose the suit within a time limit, trial<\/p>\n
court should not have rejected the claim for amendment. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel also submitted that the plea for amendment of the written<\/p>\n
statement has to be liberally construed, and in such circumstances,<\/p>\n
amendment sought for under paragraphs 16 to 22 should have been<\/p>\n
allowed, even if the other paragraphs are not allowed.<\/p>\n
                4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents<\/p>\n
argued that there is no reason to interfere with Ext.P8 order. It was<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.43\/2008<\/p>\n
                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
argued that petitioners are attempting to introduce new plea and facts<\/p>\n
for evidence by amending the written statement. It was also argued<\/p>\n
that    order or remand does not provide for amendment of the<\/p>\n
pleadings and only permit to adduce evidence on the issues framed by<\/p>\n
the first appellate court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                5. Under Ext.P4 judgment, upheld by this Court under<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 judgment, trial court was directed to decide the issues framed<\/p>\n
in Ext.P4, viz., the issues regarding the grounds for eviction, provided<\/p>\n
under Section 11(2) & 11(3) of the Act, as well as the claim of<\/p>\n
defendants for the benefit of second proviso to Section 11(3) of the<\/p>\n
Act. In the plaint, though there is no specific plea that the need is<\/p>\n
bona fide, plaintiff has contended that there is a threat of acquisition of<\/p>\n
the building in which he is conducting the business, and, therefore, it<\/p>\n
is necessary for him to shift the business to the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
building. It was also contended that the plaint schedule building has<\/p>\n
more advantages. In the written statement, there is no specific denial<\/p>\n
of these allegations, though it was contended that plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
entitled to the recovery of possession for conducting the business. By<\/p>\n
the proposed amendment under paragraph 16, petitioners sought to<\/p>\n
plead that the need alleged is not bona fide and the advantages<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.43\/2008<\/p>\n
                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
pleaded are not available, and there is no threat of acquisition, and<\/p>\n
even if there is any acquisition,     the entire building will not be<\/p>\n
acquired, and, therefore, the need alleged is not bona fide.           As<\/p>\n
additional paragraph 17, the plea sought to be introduced is that first<\/p>\n
respondent is in possession of other buildings owned by him, and he<\/p>\n
had also obtained possession of other buildings from tenants. Under<\/p>\n
paragraph 18, plea sought to be introduced is based on second proviso<\/p>\n
to Section 11(3) of the Act, contending that they have no other means<\/p>\n
of livelihood, except the business being conducted in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule building, and no other building is available in the locality. In<\/p>\n
fact, in paragraph 15 of the original written statement, petitioners<\/p>\n
have contended that they are depending on the income being derived<\/p>\n
from the business being conducted in the plaint schedule building, and<\/p>\n
there is no other suitable building available in the locality to carry on<\/p>\n
the business.     What is sought to be introduced in paragraph 19 is a<\/p>\n
denial of the claim for arrears of rent, contending that during the<\/p>\n
connected litigations, rent was deposited and so there is no arrears.<\/p>\n
In paragraph 20 to 22, the contentions sought to be raised are that<\/p>\n
the property obtained by first respondent under the Will, was alienated<\/p>\n
and, therefore, he has no right to claim recovery of possession.<\/p>\n
Paragraphs 23 to 25 relate to the identity of the property which the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.43\/2008<\/p>\n
                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
learned senior counsel submits that petitioners are not pressing. The<\/p>\n
question is whether      defendants are to be permitted to raise the<\/p>\n
amendment sought for under paragraphs 16 to 22.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                6.   From Exts.P4 and P6 judgments, it is clear that<\/p>\n
parties originally proceeded with the trial with the impression that<\/p>\n
grounds for eviction, as provided under the Act, are not to be<\/p>\n
established.    It could only be the reason why necessary ingredients<\/p>\n
were not specifically pleaded in the plaint or in the written statement.<\/p>\n
The question whether       first respondent is entitled to a decree for<\/p>\n
recovery of possession is necessarily to be considered by the trial<\/p>\n
court, as directed in Ext.P4 judgment, after deciding the entitlement<\/p>\n
under Section 11(3) of the Act including the second proviso<\/p>\n
thereunder.     The amendment sought under paragraphs 16 and 17<\/p>\n
relate to the     bona fide need.     Even without the said pleading,<\/p>\n
petitioners-defendants-are entitled to cross examine the plaintiff on<\/p>\n
those aspects.     In such circumstances, permitting       defendants to<\/p>\n
amend the written statement, by introducing paragraphs 16 and 17<\/p>\n
will not prejudice the first respondent-plaintiff. As far as paragraph 18<\/p>\n
is concerned, those contentions were already pleaded in paragraph<\/p>\n
15. There is no necessity to allow the amendment sought for in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.43\/2008<\/p>\n
                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
paragraph 18.      As eviction under Section 11(2) of the Act is sought,<\/p>\n
contentions raised in paragraph 19 is relevant. The plea sought to be<\/p>\n
introduced is regarding payment of rent in the connected litigations<\/p>\n
and no prejudice will be caused by allowing the defendants to raise the<\/p>\n
amendment sought for as paragraph 19. Paragraphs 20 to 22 are<\/p>\n
matters for evidence. Therefore, I do not find that it is necessary to<\/p>\n
grant the permission sought for in paragraphs 20 to 22. Paragraphs<\/p>\n
23 to 25 are not pressed by the learned counsel.            Petitioners are<\/p>\n
therefore to       be permitted to amend the written statement<\/p>\n
incorporating paragraphs 16, 17 and 19.           To that extent, Ext.P5<\/p>\n
application is to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                7.        Ext.P8     order     is    therefore    quashed.\n\nI.A.No.3055\/2003 is allowed permitting         defendants to amend the\n\n<\/pre>\n
written statement incorporating additional paragraphs 16, 17 and 19.<\/p>\n
The fact that amendment sought for under paragraphs 20 to 22 were<\/p>\n
not allowed will not prevent      defendants from cross examining the<\/p>\n
plaintiff on the alienations alleged, as it will be relevant while deciding<\/p>\n
the question of bona fides. Learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose<\/p>\n
the suit, as expeditiously as possible, without any delay, bearing in<\/p>\n
mind that time limit was fixed even in Ext.P4 order of remand and<\/p>\n
W.P.(C) No.43\/2008<\/p>\n
                                    9<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.P6 judgment of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                Writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                        M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
\n                                                      JUDGE<\/p>\n
nj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 43 of 2008(E) 1. T.A. THAMPAN, S\/O. T.C.ABRAHAM, … Petitioner 2. T.A. SUNNY, S\/O. T.C.ABRAHAM, Vs 1. M.O. MANI, S\/O. UTHUP MANI, … Respondent 2. VALSA THAMPI, W\/O. THAMPI, 3. MANI JOSHUA, 4. THOMAS […]<\/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-99877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008 - 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\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2\" \/>\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=\"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-03T12:48:36+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\\\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-03T12:48:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":1720,\"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\\\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2\",\"name\":\"T.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-03T12:48:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"T.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008 - 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\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-03T12:48:36+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\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008","datePublished":"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-03T12:48:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2"},"wordCount":1720,"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\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2","name":"T.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-05-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-03T12:48:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-a-thampan-vs-m-o-mani-on-28-may-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.A. Thampan vs M.O. Mani on 28 May, 2008"}]},{"@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\/99877","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=99877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99877\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}