{"id":11222,"date":"2008-08-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008"},"modified":"2014-03-22T10:01:57","modified_gmt":"2014-03-22T04:31:57","slug":"m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\/M.Dharmaraja Alias &#8230; on 27 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\/M.Dharmaraja Alias &#8230; on 27 August, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 27\/08\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN\n\nSecond Appeal No.765 of 2008\n\nM.K.Gulam Rasul\t\t\t..\tAppellant\n\nVs.\n\nA\/M.Dharmaraja alias Dhrowapathi Amman Temple,\nrep. by its Secretary,\nAyyampettai,\nThanjavur.\t\t\t\t..\tRespondent\n\n\t\n\tAppeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the decree and judgment\npassed in A.S. No.64\/2007 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur dated\n13.11.2007 reversing the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No.68\/2006 on the\nfile of District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru dated 23.04.2007.\n\n!For Appellant\t... Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan\n\n^For Respondent ... Mr.V.Chandrasekar\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal is directed against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.<br \/>\nNo.64\/2007 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur dated 13.11.2007<br \/>\nreversing the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No.68\/2006 on the file of<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru dated 23.04.2007, raising the following<br \/>\nsubstantial questions of law:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;a) When the Executive Officer of A\/M.Dhrowapathi Amman Temple has no power to<br \/>\nfile suit for recovery of possession in respect of A\/M.Dharmaraja Temple&#8217;s<br \/>\nproperty whether the decree and judgment of lower appellate court is correct in<br \/>\nlaw?\n<\/p>\n<p>b) When the respondent had not pressed the earlier suit against the appellant<br \/>\nfor the same relief in O.S. No.251\/2004 in respect of same property without the<br \/>\npermission of court to file fresh suit on the same cause of action whether the<br \/>\ndecree and judgment of lower appellate court are liable to be reversed for not<br \/>\nconsidering the same?\n<\/p>\n<p>c) Whether the decree and judgment of lower appellate court are liable to be<br \/>\nreversed for not framing proper points for consideration?\n<\/p>\n<p>d) Whether the decree and judgment of lower appellate court are liable to be<br \/>\nreversed for not considering the relevant evidence on record?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The appellant is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff<br \/>\nbefore the Trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S. No.68 of 2006 on the file of<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru praying for a direction to the defendant to<br \/>\nhand over vacant possession after removing the super structure within the time<br \/>\nfixed by this Court; to pay Rs.16,000\/- towards arrears of rent and also to pay<br \/>\ndamages and use and occupation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Before the Trial Court, P.W.1 and D.W.1 were examined and Ex.A1 to A11<br \/>\nand Ex.B1 to B6 were marked.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. On consideration of the materials and evidence on record, the Trial<br \/>\nCourt dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Challenging the judgment of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in<br \/>\nA.S. No.64\/2007 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Thanjavur.  The Appellate<br \/>\nCourt allowed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Challenging the judgment of the Appellate Court, the present Second<br \/>\nAppeal has been filed by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Heard the learned counsel on either side.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. It was argued before the Trial Court that the plaintiff, who is an<br \/>\nExecutive Officer of the Arulmighu Dharmaraja @ Dhrowapathi Amman Temple, has no<br \/>\npower to file a suit for recovery of possession.  So, the competency and<br \/>\ncapacity of the Executive Officer was questioned. The suit property belongs to<br \/>\nthe plaintiff&#8217;s temple, Arulmighu Dharmaraja Temple. Learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant argued that notice was sent by the Executive Officer of the Temple<br \/>\nunder Ex.A4.  Ex.A5 is the reply notice sent by the defendant&#8217;s counsel to the<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s counsel.  The appellant has admitted in that notice that the suit<br \/>\nproperty belongs to Arulmighu Dharmaraja Temple and his father was a tenant.<br \/>\nSo, the appellant is the tenant under Arulmighu Dharmaraja Temple.  But the<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant argued that the suit was filed by Arulmighu Dharmaraja<br \/>\n@ Dhrowapathi Amman Temple by the Thakkar \/ Executive Officer of the said<br \/>\nTemple.  The counsel further submitted that there is no temple by name Arulmighu<br \/>\nDharmaraja @ Dhrowapathi Amman Temple.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. P.W.1 spoke that, in the Revenue Records, there was an entry in<br \/>\nrespect of Dharmaraja Temple and it was called as Dhrowapathi Amman Temple also.<br \/>\nEx.A2 is the Chitta given by the Assistant Tahsildar of Papanasam, which would<br \/>\nshow that Dharmaraja Temple has got the property.  Even in Ex.A4-notice sent by<br \/>\nthe plaintiff&#8217;s counsel to the defendant, it is averred that the temple is<br \/>\ncalled Arulmighu Dharmaraja @ Dhrowapathi Amman Temple, which has been replied<br \/>\nunder Ex.A5.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The question is whether the temple is Arulmighu Dharmaraja Temple or<br \/>\nArulmighu Dharmaraja @ Dhrowapathi Amman Temple.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Ex.A1 is the Proceedings issued by the Joint Commissioner of HR &amp; CE,<br \/>\nThanjavur, dated 08.04.1997.  Even in Ex.A1, the name of the temple was referred<br \/>\nas Arulmighu Dharmaraja @ Dhrowapathi Amman Temple only.  Ex.A1 was issued long<br \/>\ntime prior to the dispute in the year 1997.  Learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nrelied on Page-4 of Ex.A1 and submitted that the Proceedings was addressed to<br \/>\nthe trustee, Dhrowapathi Amman Temple, Ayyampettai and not Arulmighu Dharmaraja<br \/>\n@ Dhrowapathi Amman Temple. It was stated by P.W.1 that both Arulmighu<br \/>\nDharmaraja Temple and Dhrowapathi Amman Temple are one and the same and<br \/>\nDharmaraja is the deity of the temple in Moolasthanam and the Goddess is known<br \/>\nas Dhrowapathi Amman.  Usually temples are called either by the name of the God<br \/>\nor Goddess, but it will not change the nature of the temple.  Even in Madurai,<br \/>\nthe temple is called as Arulmighu Meenakshi Amman Temple in which Sundareswarar<br \/>\nis the deity. Merely calling the temple as Meenakshi Amman Temple would not mean<br \/>\nthat there is no deity by name Sundareswarar. In the same way, Arulmighu<br \/>\nDharmaraja Temple can be called as Dharmaraja Temple or Dhrowapathi Amman<br \/>\nTemple.  There is no motive for the Joint Commissioner to give a false<br \/>\nstatement.  Hence it is clear that the temple is called Arulmighu Dharmaraja @<br \/>\nDhrowapathi Amman Temple.  Merely because the copy of the Proceedings was issued<br \/>\nby the Joint Commissioner to the trustee&#8217;s address mentioning Arulmighu<br \/>\nDhrowapathi Amman Temple, the nature of the temple cannot be altered. It is true<br \/>\nthat an earlier suit was filed under the name Arulmighu Dhrowapathi Amman Temple<br \/>\nand the same was dismissed.  But that will not be a bar to say that the name of<br \/>\nthe temple is Arulmighu Dharmaraja @ Dhrowapathi Amman Temple.  Hence it is<br \/>\nestablished that the temple is called Arulmighu Dharmaraja @ Dhrowapathi Amman<br \/>\nTemple.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Learned counsel for the appellant claimed that the erstwhile trustee<br \/>\nmortgaged the suit property in favour of him under Ex.B1. Except Ex.B1, there is<br \/>\nno evidence to show that this suit property was mortgaged by the erstwhile<br \/>\ntrustee in favour of the vendor of the defendant.  The trustee cannot mortgage<br \/>\nthe property of the temple of his own.  Even D.W.1 admitted that the property<br \/>\nbelongs to Arulmighu Dharmaraja Temple and his father was a tenant.  In the<br \/>\nchief examination, he stated that the property belongs to Dharmaraja Temple and<br \/>\nin the cross examination he denied the case of the plaintiff.  Ex.A3 is the<br \/>\nletter sent by the appellant to the Executive Officer of the plaintiff enclosing<br \/>\na Demand Draft for Rs.550\/- towards rent.  So, he admitted the tenancy. Having<br \/>\nadmitted the tenancy, it is not for him now to state that the plaintiff is not a<br \/>\nlandlord.  Further, Ex.B5 and B6 would show that the appellant paid rent to the<br \/>\ntemple.  Ex.B3 is the letter sent by Goodyear India Limited to M\/s.Bawa Cycle<br \/>\nMart.  This will not be helpful to the appellant to improve his case. Further<br \/>\nEx.B2-Notice for Property Tax and Ex.B4-Demand Notice for House Tax, were issued<br \/>\nfor Salai Street and this property is not situated in Salai Street.  So, it will<br \/>\nnot strengthen the case of the appellant.  Therefore, the appellant is the<br \/>\ntenant of the suit property and he is liable to pay the rent.  The claim of the<br \/>\ndefendant that Dharmaraja temple and Dhrowapathi Amman Temple are different,<br \/>\nfalls to the ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The counsel for the appellant questioned the status of the Executive<br \/>\nOfficer to file the suit.  For this, he relied on the decisions of this Court in<br \/>\nthe case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1336393\/\">Sri Arthanareeswarar of Tiruchengode v. T.M.Muthuswamy Padayachi,<\/a><br \/>\netc. &amp; others, 2003-1-L.W.386 and in the case of Dayalu Naidu v. A\/m<br \/>\nArunachaleswarar Thirukoil, etc., 2007-4-L.W.376 and argued that the Executive<br \/>\nOfficer must be empowered by the Commissioner to institute a suit and in the<br \/>\nabsence of authorisation, the Executive Officer cannot institute the suit. No<br \/>\ndoubt, the principles laid down in the above judgments of this Court are not in<br \/>\ndispute.  But, in the present case, it is clear from Ex.A1 that the Joint<br \/>\nCommissioner has removed the erstwhile trustee and the Executive Officer was<br \/>\nappointed as Thakkar, the fit person.  For this, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant relied on Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious &amp; Charitable<br \/>\nEndowments Act, 1959 which deals with putting Trustee or Executive Officer in<br \/>\npossession. Absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that the erstwhile<br \/>\ntrustee resisted the order of the Joint Commissioner and the temple property was<br \/>\nnot handed over to the Executive Officer.  Furthermore, under Ex.A3, the<br \/>\nappellant sent a letter to the Executive Officer enclosing a Demand Draft for<br \/>\nRs.550\/- towards rent.  Further, Ex.B5 and B6 would show that the appellant paid<br \/>\nrent to the temple. This all would go to show that the Executive Officer is<br \/>\nempowered to look after the temple.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. Now we have to find out whether the Executive Officer is entitled to<br \/>\nfile a suit.  In 2003-1-L.W.386 (supra), this Court, in Paragraph-50 held that<br \/>\nthe Board of Trustees or the Fit Person are the competent people to initiate<br \/>\nlegal proceedings.  As per the decision of the above Division Bench Judgment of<br \/>\nthis Court, the Executive Officer of this temple is entitled to initiate legal<br \/>\nproceedings. In the present case, the Executive Officer was appointed as Thakkar<br \/>\nunder Ex.A1 by the Joint Commissioner.  So, in the light of the above Division<br \/>\nBench judgment of this Court, the Executive Officer of the temple is entitled to<br \/>\nfile a suit.  Hence the statement of the appellant that the Executive Officer is<br \/>\nnot entitled to file the suit is not correct.  The plaintiff is entitled to file<br \/>\nthe suit.  The suit is in order.  The defendant has not paid the rent and hence<br \/>\nhe must surrender possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. In view of the reasons stated above, the respondent \/ plaintiff has<br \/>\nproved the case.  Therefore, the case of the appellant is bound to fail.<br \/>\nAccordingly, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration of this<br \/>\nCourt and hence the judgment of the Appellate Court is confirmed and the Second<br \/>\nAppeal is dismissed.  Consequently, M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2008 is closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>km<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Additional Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\n  Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Munsif,<br \/>\n  Thiruvaiyaru.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\/M.Dharmaraja Alias &#8230; on 27 August, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27\/08\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN Second Appeal No.765 of 2008 M.K.Gulam Rasul .. Appellant Vs. A\/M.Dharmaraja alias Dhrowapathi Amman Temple, rep. by its Secretary, Ayyampettai, Thanjavur. .. Respondent Appeal filed under Section [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\/M.Dharmaraja Alias ... on 27 August, 2008 - 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\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\/M.Dharmaraja Alias ... on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-22T04:31:57+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\\\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\\\/M.Dharmaraja Alias &#8230; on 27 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-22T04:31:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1718,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008\",\"name\":\"M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\\\/M.Dharmaraja Alias ... on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-22T04:31:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\\\/M.Dharmaraja Alias &#8230; on 27 August, 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":"M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\/M.Dharmaraja Alias ... on 27 August, 2008 - 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\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\/M.Dharmaraja Alias ... on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-22T04:31:57+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\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\/M.Dharmaraja Alias &#8230; on 27 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-22T04:31:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008"},"wordCount":1718,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008","name":"M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\/M.Dharmaraja Alias ... on 27 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-22T04:31:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-gulam-rasul-vs-am-dharmaraja-alias-on-27-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.K.Gulam Rasul vs A\/M.Dharmaraja Alias &#8230; on 27 August, 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\/11222","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=11222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11222\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}