{"id":112298,"date":"2009-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-05-23T02:56:04","modified_gmt":"2017-05-22T21:26:04","slug":"j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 08\/09\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nCRP(NPD)No.1708 of 2007\n\nJ.Josephine Christobell\t\t\t\t...\tPetitioner\n\nVs\n\nP.Subramanian\t\t\t\t\t\t...\tRespondent\n\nPrayer\n\nThis Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order made in\nRCA.12\/2007 passed by the learned Rent Control Appellate Authority on the file\nof the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli dated 21.9.2007 reversing the order passed\nby the learned Rent Controller in RCOP.No.63\/2004 dated 19.1.2007 on the file of\nPrincipal District Munsif, Tirunelveli.\n\n!For Petitioner\t    ...\tMr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram\n^For Respondent     ...\tMr.S.Kumar\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p> \t\tThe landlord is the revision petitioner herein. This Civil Revision<br \/>\nPetition has arisen out of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease<br \/>\nand Rent Control) Act (herein after referred to as the Act) for eviction of the<br \/>\nrespondent\/tenant from the property belonging to the petitioner\/landlord under<br \/>\nSections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.  The petition mentioned premises is a non residential one and the<br \/>\nlandlord had purchased the same from her predecessors through their Power Agent<br \/>\nnamely E.Kailasam by a registered sale deed dated 31.5.2004.  The respondent is<br \/>\nthe tenant even with the predecessors of the petitioner from 28.2.1990 and<br \/>\nattorned his tenancy to the petitioner from 1.6.2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.  The case of the petitioner is that she has been carrying on<br \/>\ntailoring business under the name and style of Venus Tailors in a rental<br \/>\nbuilding on a monthly rent of Rs.1200\/- in the same area and for the purpose of<br \/>\naccommodating her staff and to keep the thread stock she had taken another<br \/>\nbuilding on a monthly rent of Rs.1800\/- and in all, she has been paying a sum of<br \/>\nRs.3000\/- p.m. as rent  and to develop her business and to augment her income,<br \/>\nshe need the petition mentioned premises.  Further the petition mentioned<br \/>\npremises is more than 70 years old and it is in a dilapidated condition and<br \/>\ntherefore, she wants to demolish the premises in question and reconstruct it.<br \/>\nShe has stated that she has got sufficient means and obtained necessary plan<br \/>\nfrom the Municipality concerned for putting up a new construction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.  The trial court upheld the requirements of the landlord and<br \/>\npassed an order of eviction on two grounds under Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and<br \/>\n14(1)(b) of the Act, which was reversed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority<br \/>\nat the instance of the tenant.  The Rent Control Appellate Authority held that<br \/>\nthere was no bona fide requirement for her own occupation to carry on the<br \/>\ntailoring business and the case for demolition and reconstruction was not made<br \/>\nout. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Control Appellate Authority, this Civil<br \/>\nRevision Petition has been filed by the landlord.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. Though the eviction was sought for on the ground of wilful<br \/>\ndefault, but the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is not<br \/>\npressing the said ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that<br \/>\nthe appellate authority had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had<br \/>\nfailed to prove that she is running the tailoring business in a rental building<br \/>\nwithout considering the admission made by the respondent\/tenant that the<br \/>\nlandlord is running the business in a rental premises which situate four shops<br \/>\nahead of the petition premises. The Rent Controller has referred to the said<br \/>\nadmission made by the respondent in his cross examination that the landlord is<br \/>\nrunning the tailoring business in a rented shop lying in the same street and the<br \/>\nextent is also very small.  The landlord filed Ex.P10 cards to show that she is<br \/>\ncarrying on tailoring business and it is not the case of the respondent that it<br \/>\ndoes not relate to the said premises. Even in the petition filed by the landlord<br \/>\nfor eviction, her address is given as Venus Tailors at Door No.84, South Mada<br \/>\nStreet, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District which is not her own building. This<br \/>\naspect has not been disputed by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.  It is the case of the petitioner that she does not own any non<br \/>\nresidential building than the petition premises. In her evidence she has only<br \/>\nstated that she owns a residential building in KTC Nagar, which cannot be said<br \/>\nthat it is suitable for her to run the tailoring business.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.  Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner is running  her<br \/>\ntailoring business in a rented premises and she does not have any other non<br \/>\nresidential premises available within the city to satisfy her requirement. The<br \/>\nrequest of the landlord, who is already engaged in  a commercial activities but<br \/>\nin a rental building cannot be said to be not acting bona fide when she claims<br \/>\nthe tenancy premises of her own to satisfy her own requirement for continuing<br \/>\nher tailoring business by shifting the same to the petition mentioned premises.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.  In the decision of the Principal Bench of this Court rendered in<br \/>\nthe case of  S.V.Janardanam and another Vs. D.Kivraj Sowkar and two others<br \/>\n[2002-2-LW-611], it is held that when the landlord, who owns the property filed<br \/>\nan application  under Sections 10(3)(a)(i) or 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act, the<br \/>\nauthorities under the Act  have to draw a presumption in favour of the bona fide<br \/>\nrequirements of the landlord.  It is further held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It is now well settled that when an application  is filed under Section<br \/>\n10(3)(a)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) and the requirements of the provisions are<br \/>\nsatisfied, it is not for the tenant to say that the property is suitable or not<br \/>\nsuitable to the petitioners&#8217; requirement. Further when the landlord who owns the<br \/>\nproperty filed an application  under Sections 10(3)(a)(i) or 10(3)(a)(iii) of<br \/>\nthe Act, the authorities under the Act  have to draw an presumption in favour of<br \/>\nthe bona fide requirement of the landlord  &#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It is the same view of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Ahuja<br \/>\nVs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [1998-III-CTC-679], wherein the<br \/>\nHonourable Supreme Court has dealt with the bona fide requirement of the<br \/>\nlandlord in paragraph 14 of the judgement and has held thus:-<br \/>\n&#8220;14.  The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act<br \/>\nis that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises<br \/>\nmust be bona fide.  When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for<br \/>\nhis own occupation, The Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption<br \/>\nthat the requirement is not bona fide.  When other conditions of the clause are<br \/>\nsatisfied  and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the<br \/>\nRent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is<br \/>\nbona fide.  It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate<br \/>\nterms to the landlord as to who else he can adjust himself without getting<br \/>\npossession of the tenants premises.  While deciding the question of bona fides<br \/>\nof the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour<br \/>\nas to who else the landlord could have adjusted himself.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. It is pertinent to point that in so far as the non residential<br \/>\nbuilding is concerned, the Act does not say that if the landlord owned more than<br \/>\none building, he or she would not be entitled to an order of eviction.  It is<br \/>\nentirely upon the petitioner\/landlord to choose which building he or she would<br \/>\nrequire for occupation for his or her sons to carry on their business.<br \/>\nTherefore, I am unable to agree with the findings of the Rent Control Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority that there is no bona fide requirement of the petitioner to carry on<br \/>\nthe business.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.  As regards the other ground that the petition mentioned<br \/>\npremises is a very old building and there is a requirement to demolish the same<br \/>\nand further the petitioner needs the building to carryon on her tailoring<br \/>\nbusiness after putting up a new construction, in the petition she has averred<br \/>\nthat she had taken steps to get plan sanctioned from the Municipality concerned<br \/>\nand had already applied for approval of the plan. She has further stated that<br \/>\nshe has made arrangements for getting loan from the Bank and so, in all respects<br \/>\nhad taken steps to demolish the existing superstructure and put up a new<br \/>\nconstruction to suit her requirement.  In her evidence, she has reiterated the<br \/>\nsame.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. The petition premises is 70 years old according to the landlord<br \/>\nand the respondent has not specified about the age of the building in his cross<br \/>\nexamination except stating that it would be of 60 years old. The Advocate<br \/>\nCommissioner has inspected the building and filed his report, which has been<br \/>\nmarked as Exs.C1 and C2 and the Engineer&#8217;s Report has been marked as Ex.C3.  The<br \/>\nEngineer in Ex.C3 has given the age of the building as 70 years and has found<br \/>\ncracks on the walls.  Above said reports of the Advocate Commissioner and the<br \/>\nEngineer clearly indicate that the building is a old building and it requires<br \/>\ndemolition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12. It is settled law that the report of the Commissioner is part of<br \/>\nthe records and that therefore, the report cannot be overlooked or rejected<br \/>\nwithout any justification.  Exs.P11 to P14 are the deposits made by the<br \/>\npetitioner in the  Nationalized Bank and Post Office and it would prove her<br \/>\nmeans to erect a new building.  That apart, her husband is employed in the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Transport Corporation and the petitioner is also getting sizeable income<br \/>\nfrom the tailoring business.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13.  When the building is 60 to 70 years old, which requires<br \/>\nimmediate demolition, there is nothing wrong  in the petitioner proposing to<br \/>\ndemolish such an old building and instead construct a modern and spacious<br \/>\ncomplex so as to make better use of the property and augment her income. There<br \/>\nis no  reason to assume that the need for demolition and reconstruction deposed<br \/>\nto by the landlord is unnatural or lacking in sincerity and there is no material<br \/>\non record to hold that she was merely attempting to find out a pretent or ruse<br \/>\nto get rid of the tenant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14.  The reasoning adopted by the Rent Control Appellate Authority<br \/>\nwas under a factual misappropriation of evidence. It is seen that the Rent<br \/>\nControl Appellate Authority  was much impressed by the fact that the respondent<br \/>\nfiled a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner not to dispossess<br \/>\nhim except under due process of law and this had been taken as a factor to hold<br \/>\nthat the petitioner&#8217;s intention was only to evict the tenant.  It is brought to<br \/>\nthe notice of this court by the petitioner that she filed a memo conceding that<br \/>\nshe would not disturb his possession except under due process of law and it does<br \/>\nnot mean that the petitioner should not file a eviction petition against the<br \/>\ntenant and she had filed it only with a mala fide intention.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t15. Another factor, which the Rent Control Appellate Authority has<br \/>\nadverted to, is with regard to the demolition of common walls of the adjacent<br \/>\nowners, which according to the Rent Control Appellate Authority without getting<br \/>\nconsent  of the adjacent owners, the commons walls cannot be demolished and<br \/>\ntherefore, it is not possible to demolish the petition mentioned premises does<br \/>\nnot merit acceptance. It is the case of the petitioner that except the common<br \/>\nwalls on the northern and southern sides, the other portions could be<br \/>\ndemolished, for which the consent of the adjacent owners is not necessary. In<br \/>\nfact necessary plan has been sanctioned by the Municipality concerned under<br \/>\nEx.P7 proceedings to erect a new building without demolishing the compound wall<br \/>\non the northern and southern side.  Therefore, the Rent Control Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority has wrongly assumed that the entire structure cannot be demolished<br \/>\nwithout getting consent from the adjacent owners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t16.  To make out a case under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the<br \/>\nlandlord has to satisfy the authorities that the building is bona fidely<br \/>\nrequired by the landlord for immediate purpose of demolishing it and the purpose<br \/>\nof such demolition is to erect a new building on the site of the building sought<br \/>\nto be demolished.  On being satisfied the authorities shall direct the tenant to<br \/>\ndeliver possession of the building to the landlord.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t17.  The Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in the<br \/>\ncase of Vijay Singh Vs. Vijayalakshmi Ammal [1996-6-SCC-475] has held that for<br \/>\nrecording a finding that the requirement of the landlord was bona fide, the<br \/>\nauthorities have to take into account (i) the bona fide intention of the<br \/>\nlandlord far from the sole object only to get rid of the tenant, (ii) the age<br \/>\nand condition of the  building and (iii) the financial position of the landlord<br \/>\nto demolish and erect a new building according to the statutory requirements of<br \/>\nthe Act. It also added that no court can fix any limit in respect of the age and<br \/>\ncondition of the building, which is the factor to be taken into consideration<br \/>\nalong with the other factors.  The term &#8220;immediate&#8221; as qualifying demolition<br \/>\nsuggests a proximity of purpose and not proximity of time or the urgency of<br \/>\ndemolition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t18.  In the case of S.Venugopal Vs. A.Karruppusamy and another<br \/>\n[2006-2-CTC-615], the Honourable Supreme Court has held that as regards the bona<br \/>\nfide requirement for demolition and reconstruction, the condition of the<br \/>\nbuilding is not material when the landlord wants to demolish the  owned<br \/>\nstructure in order to build a multi-storeyed building so as to get better return<br \/>\nof the investment.  It held that even if the landlord had not given the details<br \/>\nregarding funds for construction, it will not militate against his claim, since<br \/>\nraising funds for constructing commercial structure is not difficult as the Bank<br \/>\nand Financial Institutions are willing to advance such funds.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t19. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of<br \/>\nRamniklal Pitambardardas Mehta Vs. Indradaman Amratlal Shekh [AIR-1964-SC-1676]<br \/>\nthat where the case pleaded by the landlord is that he wants to demolish and<br \/>\nreconstruct the tenancy premises before occupying the same for his own<br \/>\nrequirement, the nature of requirement pleaded would be one of the bona fide<br \/>\nrequirements.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t20. The law is well settled that if the authorities failed to<br \/>\nconsider the materials placed before it, this court can interfere under Section<br \/>\n25 of the Act to decide as to whether the authority below approached the<br \/>\nquestion from proper angle.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t21. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the<br \/>\nconsidered view that the reasoning of the Rent Control Appellate Authority that<br \/>\nthe requirement of the petitioner is not bona fide and no case is made out for<br \/>\ndemolition and reconstruction is not sustainable and hence, the impugned order<br \/>\nof the Rent Control Appellate Authority is liable to be set aside and<br \/>\naccordingly, it is set aside.  Relief of eviction is granted in favour of the<br \/>\npetitioner\/landlord by allowing this Civil Revision Petition both on the grounds<br \/>\nunder Sections under Sections 10(2)(i), 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) of the Act.<br \/>\nNo costs. Considering his occupation of the premises for long years, the tenant<br \/>\nis given two months time to vacate the premises from the date of this order on<br \/>\ncondition that he should file an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks from<br \/>\ntoday to that effect, failing which the time granted to vacate the premises<br \/>\nshall stand automatically vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>Srcm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli<\/p>\n<p>2. The Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08\/09\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRP(NPD)No.1708 of 2007 J.Josephine Christobell &#8230; Petitioner Vs P.Subramanian &#8230; Respondent Prayer This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order made in RCA.12\/2007 passed by the learned [&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-112298","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>J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009 - 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\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-22T21:26:04+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T21:26:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2485,\"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\\\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009\",\"name\":\"J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-22T21:26:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009 - 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\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-22T21:26:04+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T21:26:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009"},"wordCount":2485,"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\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009","name":"J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-22T21:26:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/j-josephine-christobell-vs-p-subramanian-on-8-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"J.Josephine Christobell vs P.Subramanian on 8 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/112298","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=112298"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112298\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112298"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112298"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112298"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}