{"id":110540,"date":"2007-09-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007"},"modified":"2014-11-04T18:21:02","modified_gmt":"2014-11-04T12:51:02","slug":"chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Chandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Chandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 619 of 1994(F)\n\n\n\n1. CHANDRAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SIMON\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :07\/09\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n               M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n                   S.A.619 OF 1994\n\n   Dated, this the 7th day of September, 2007\n\n                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    Plaintiff in O.S.407\/1990 on the file of<\/p>\n
Munsiff Court, Wadakkancherry is the        appellant.<\/p>\n
Defendant   is   the     respondent.         Appellant<\/p>\n
instituted  the   suit     seeking     a  decree   for<\/p>\n
realisation  of   Rs.15,000\/-      due  under   Ext.A1<\/p>\n
promissory  note.        It     was   contended   that<\/p>\n
respondent borrowed Rs.15,000\/- on 3.10.1989 and<\/p>\n
executed  Ext.A1  promissory       note  promising  to<\/p>\n
repay  the  same  on    demand       and  subsequently<\/p>\n
Rs.5000\/-  was   repaid     as     per  cheque   dated<\/p>\n
19.4.1990 and inspite of notice balance was not<\/p>\n
paid and therefore appellant is entitled to the<\/p>\n
decree.  Respondent resisted suit contending that<\/p>\n
he did not execute the      promissory note and did<\/p>\n
not  borrow  Rs.15,000\/-      as  alleged.     It  was<\/p>\n
contended  that  appellant       and  respondent  were<\/p>\n
S.A.No.619\/1994              2<\/span><\/p>\n
  working       as  shop   managers  under  an   Abkari<\/p>\n
  contractor and when respondent wanted a transfer<\/p>\n
  from      one   branch  to   another,  he  approached<\/p>\n
  appellant who demanded Rs.5000\/- for arranging<\/p>\n
  the      transfer and for that purpose a cheque was<\/p>\n
  obtained from respondent along with      signed blank<\/p>\n
  papers and      signed stamp papers and respondent is<\/p>\n
  not liable to pay the amount claimed.<\/p>\n
        2.    Learned Munsiff on evidence of PWs. 1 and<\/p>\n
  2 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 granted a decree<\/p>\n
  holding that respondent borrowed Rs.15,000\/- and<\/p>\n
  executed as Ext.A1 promissory note and repaid<\/p>\n
  Rs.5000\/- evidenced by Ext.A2 and the balance is<\/p>\n
  due.         Respondent  challenged  the  decree  and<\/p>\n
  judgment      before   District  Court,  Thrissur  in<\/p>\n
  A.S.193\/1992.          Learned   District  Judge   on<\/p>\n
  reappreciation of evidence set aside the decree<\/p>\n
  and dismissed suit holding that Ext.A1 is a<\/p>\n
  concocted document and respondent did not execute<\/p>\n
  the promissory note or borrowed the amount as<\/p>\n
  claimed by appellant.        It is challenged in the<\/p>\n
S.A.No.619\/1994               3<\/span><\/p>\n
  appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        3.       Appeal  was  admitted  formulating  the<\/p>\n
  following substantial questions of law.<\/p>\n
        1.     Whether first appellate court was right<\/p>\n
  in not applying the presumption under section 118<\/p>\n
  of N.I. Act as respondent admitted his signature<\/p>\n
  in Ext.A1.\n<\/p>\n
        2.     Whether on evidence first appellate court<\/p>\n
  was justified in holding that respondent did not<\/p>\n
  borrow Rs.15,000\/- or execute Ext.A1 promissory<\/p>\n
  note,      when  respondent  did  not  establish   the<\/p>\n
  defence case.\n<\/p>\n
        4.     Learned counsel appearing for appellant<\/p>\n
  was heard.\n<\/p>\n
        5.     The argument of learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
  for appellant is that the reasons given by first<\/p>\n
  appellate court to reverse the finding of trial<\/p>\n
  court are unsustainable.       Learned counsel argued<\/p>\n
  that respondent admitted his signature in Exts.A1<\/p>\n
  and     A2    and  did  not  establish  that  he  had<\/p>\n
  handedover signed blank paper or stamp paper to<\/p>\n
S.A.No.619\/1994              4<\/span><\/p>\n
  the appellant for the purpose of a transfer as<\/p>\n
  alleged and in such circumstance first appellate<\/p>\n
  court      was  not  justified  in  disbelieving  the<\/p>\n
  evidence of appellant or reversing the decree of<\/p>\n
  trial court.\n<\/p>\n
        6.     The trial court accepted the evidence of<\/p>\n
  PWs.1       and  2   and   disbelieved  evidence   of<\/p>\n
  respondent      as  DW1  and  found  that  respondent<\/p>\n
  borrowed       Rs.15,000\/-   and    executed   Ext.A1<\/p>\n
  promissory      note   and  repaid     Rs.5000\/-   as<\/p>\n
  evidenced by Ext.A2.       Learned District Judge on<\/p>\n
  reappreciation of evidence found that Ext.A2 is<\/p>\n
  not genuine as the factum of execution of Ext.A2<\/p>\n
  or payment of Rs.5000\/- towards consideration of<\/p>\n
  Ext.A1 were not mentioned in Ext.A3 lawyer notice<\/p>\n
  demanding the whole       amount covered under Ext.A1<\/p>\n
  promissory note and if Ext.A2 was genuine, it<\/p>\n
  would have been definitely mentioned in Ext.A3.<\/p>\n
  Learned District Judge also found that if Ext.A1<\/p>\n
  promissory      note   was  genuine,  there  was   no<\/p>\n
  necessity      to   create  Ext.A2  and  instead   an<\/p>\n
S.A.No.619\/1994              5<\/span><\/p>\n
  acknowledgement      would  have  been  obtained  in<\/p>\n
  Ext.A1      itself and     disbelieved the  case  of<\/p>\n
  appellant.      The question is whether appreciation<\/p>\n
  of evidence by first appellate court is perverse<\/p>\n
  warranting      reappreciation   of     evidence  in<\/p>\n
  exercise of powers of this court under section<\/p>\n
  100 of C.P.C. Ordinarily finding of fact by first<\/p>\n
  appellate court is final.\n<\/p>\n
        7.     Ext.A2 is an acknowledgement  allegedly<\/p>\n
  executed by respondent on 29.3.1990, undertaking<\/p>\n
  to     repay   the   balance  covered  under  Ext.A1<\/p>\n
  promissory note.      Ext.A3 lawyer notice was sent<\/p>\n
  on     1.10.1990.     As   rightly  found  by  first<\/p>\n
  appellate      court,  there  is  no  whisper  about<\/p>\n
  execution of Ext.A2 or repayment of Rs.5000\/- in<\/p>\n
  Ext.A3 lawyer notice.       Added to that what was<\/p>\n
  demanded under Ext.A3 is not the amount covered<\/p>\n
  under Ext.A1 less the payment made under Ext.A2<\/p>\n
  but     the   entire  amount  covered  under  Ext.A1<\/p>\n
  indicating that Ext.A2 acknowledgement was not in<\/p>\n
  existence on 1.10.1990 as otherwise appellant<\/p>\n
S.A.No.619\/1994             6<\/span><\/p>\n
  would have mentioned about Ext.A2 in A3 notice<\/p>\n
  and        demanded      only the   balance  amount.<\/p>\n
  Therefore the view taken by first appellate court<\/p>\n
  that Ext.A2 is a concocted document is definitely<\/p>\n
  a reasonable and possible view that could be<\/p>\n
  taken on the      evidence. In any event, it cannot<\/p>\n
  be    said   to  be  a  perverse  appreciation    of<\/p>\n
  evidence.        The  question  is   if  Ext.A2   is<\/p>\n
  concocted, what is its effect on Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
        8. As rightly found by first appellate court<\/p>\n
  if a portion of the amount covered under Ext.A1<\/p>\n
  was paid, ordinarily an acknowledgement will be<\/p>\n
  made in Ext.A1.        Instead of that Ext.A2 was<\/p>\n
  concocted to make it appear that respondent had<\/p>\n
  paid     Rs.5000\/-  towards  the  amount  due  under<\/p>\n
  Ext.A1.      If that be so, the view taken by first<\/p>\n
  appellate court that Ext.A2 was created for the<\/p>\n
  purpose of strengthening Ext.A1 promissory note<\/p>\n
  is also a reasonable and possible view.     If that<\/p>\n
  be so, in appreciating the entire evidence, the<\/p>\n
  view      taken  by   first  appellate  court   that<\/p>\n
S.A.No.619\/1994              7<\/span><\/p>\n
  respondent did not execute Ext.A1 promissory note<\/p>\n
  is also a possible and reasonable view which<\/p>\n
  cannot       be  interfered  by   reappreciating the<\/p>\n
  evidence. Presumption provided under section 118<\/p>\n
  of Negotiable Instruments Act can be drawn only<\/p>\n
  if execution of the promissory note is proved.<\/p>\n
  In the nature of the evidence and facts of the<\/p>\n
  case, no such presumption could be drawn.       Suit<\/p>\n
  was rightly dismissed by the first appellate<\/p>\n
  court.      There is no merit in the appeal.<\/p>\n
        Appeal is    dismissed. No cost.\n\n\n                           M.Sasidharan Nambiar\n                                Judge\n  Tpl\/-\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Chandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 619 of 1994(F) 1. CHANDRAN … Petitioner Vs 1. SIMON … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.N.P.SAMUEL The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :07\/09\/2007 O R D E R M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. S.A.619 OF […]<\/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-110540","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-04T12:51:02+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-04T12:51:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":993,\"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\\\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Chandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-04T12:51:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-04T12:51:02+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-04T12:51:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007"},"wordCount":993,"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\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007","name":"Chandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-04T12:51:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandran-vs-simon-on-7-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandran vs Simon on 7 September, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110540","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=110540"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110540\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110540"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110540"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110540"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}