{"id":1124,"date":"2009-08-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009"},"modified":"2019-01-16T01:53:39","modified_gmt":"2019-01-15T20:23:39","slug":"k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 20\/08\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nCRP(PD)No.499 of 2009\nMP.Nos.1 and 2\/2009\n\n1.  K.Suriyamurthi\n2.  K.Shanmugam\n3.  K.Rengaraj\n4.  G.Chellamuthu\t\t\t\t\t\tPetitioners\n\nVs\n\nS.Arockiyamery by Power Agent\nA.Charles\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent\n\nPrayer\n\nThis Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the\nConstitution of India to set aside the fair and decretal order in CMA.No.1\/2008\ndated 20.1.2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Pudukkottai and allow this civil\nrevision petition.\n\t\t\n!For Petitioners\t...\tMr.N.Balakrishnan\n^For Respondent \t...\tMrs.AL.Ganthimathi\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p> \t\tThis Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants against the<br \/>\norder passed by the Sub Court, Pudukkottai, dated 20.1.2009 in CMA.No.1\/2008,<br \/>\ngranting temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction, reversing the<br \/>\norder of the learned Principal District Munsif dated 27.4.2007 in IA.No.208\/2007<br \/>\nin OS.No.96\/2007.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The brief facts are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe respondent\/plaintiff filed the above said suit for permanent<br \/>\ninjunction restraining the petitioners\/ defendants from interfering with his<br \/>\nright to use the pathway described in the B-Schedule property on the basis that<br \/>\nhe had purchased the property described in A-Schedule to the plaint by way of a<br \/>\nregistered sale deed dated 4.8.2005 from one Karuppan, the father of the<br \/>\ndefendants 1 to 3\/petitioners 1 to 3 herein, in which the cart track is recited<br \/>\nas northern boundary and further the said Karuppan had also executed a consent<br \/>\ndeed on the same date giving his consent  to use the cart track by the<br \/>\nrespondent on the eastern end of S.Nos.166 and 167 to reach the A-Schedule<br \/>\nProperty comprised in S.Nos.168\/3, 168\/4 and 169\/7A.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.  Pending the suit, the respondent has filed an application in<br \/>\nIA.No.208\/2007 for temporary injunction against the petitioners restraining them<br \/>\nfrom obstructing the suit B-Schedule Cart track to reach the suit A-Schedule<br \/>\nproperty and the petitioners contested the said application on the ground that<br \/>\nthere is no pathway as alleged by the respondent and it does not find a place in<br \/>\nthe revenue records at any point of time and pleaded that the consent deed dated<br \/>\n4.8.2005 is a fabricated one. After considering the contentions of both sides,<br \/>\nthe learned Principal District Munsif dismissed the said application by order<br \/>\ndated 27.4.2007, as against which, the respondent had filed CMA.No.1\/2008 before<br \/>\nthe Sub Court, Pudukkotai, who granted an order of interim injunction in favour<br \/>\nof the respondent by order dated 20.1.2009, which is challenged in this civil<br \/>\nrevision petition by the defendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.  Mr.N.Balakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioners would<br \/>\ncontend that no pathway or cart track existed prior to the sale deed executed in<br \/>\nfavour of the respondent by their father and the entire extent in S.Nos.166 and<br \/>\n167 was in possession and enjoyment of the said Karuppan and his family members<br \/>\nand no pathway existed on ground at any point of time on the eastern side or in<br \/>\nany part of the survey numbers 166 and 167 and further it does not find a place<br \/>\nin the revenue records namely, FMP and &#8220;A&#8221; Register, etc. As regards the consent<br \/>\ndeed relied on by the respondent, the learned counsel would contend that it is<br \/>\ninadmissible in evidence, as it is neither stamped or registered as required by<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.  The learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on<br \/>\nthe decisions of this court rendered in the case of S.Kaladevi Vs.<br \/>\nV.R.Somasundaram and two others [2009-1-TLNJ-540-Civil] in support of his<br \/>\ncontention that if the document is inadmissible in evidence for want of<br \/>\nregistration, the terms cannot be admitted in evidence.  He would further submit<br \/>\nthat unless the property is identifiable, no injunction could be granted and in<br \/>\nsupport of the said contention, he relied on an another decision of this court<br \/>\nrendered in the case of Rathinasamy @ Rathinavelu Vs. P.S.Rajendran [2008-3-<br \/>\nTLNJ-591-Civil].\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.  Yet another contention was put forth by the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioners that interim injunction having the effect of granting a final<br \/>\nrelief should not be granted and the learned counsel for the petitioners would<br \/>\nrely upon the decisions of the Division Bench of the Principal Bench of this<br \/>\nCourt rendered in the cases of Dr.M.Thirunavukkarasu Vs. Indian Psychiatric<br \/>\nSociety Tribunal by its Chairman, Prof.Shridhar Sharma and others [2008-2-CTC-<br \/>\n51] and the Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Limited, Mumbai Vs. Spartex Ceramic India<br \/>\nLimited, Chennai-28 and others [2007-3-CTC-11].\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.  Per contra, Mrs.AL.Ganthimathi, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent would submit that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India could be exercised for keeping the subordinate courts<br \/>\nwithin the bounds of their jurisdiction and it is not available for correcting<br \/>\nmere errors of fact or law and available only when (1) error is manifest and<br \/>\napparent on the face of records and (2) grave injustice or gross failure of<br \/>\njustice has been occasioned thereby.  The learned counsel placed reliance on the<br \/>\ndecision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Surya Dev Rai<br \/>\nVs. Ram Chander Rai and others [2003-6-SCC-675] and drew the attention of this<br \/>\ncourt to the relevant paragraph No.38 of the said decision. The relevant portion<br \/>\nis extracted as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;4. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised<br \/>\nfor keeping the subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When<br \/>\na subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has<br \/>\nfailed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though<br \/>\navailable is being exercised by the court in a manner not permitted by law and<br \/>\nfailure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may<br \/>\nstep in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.  A patent error is an error which is self-evident i.e. Which can be perceived<br \/>\nor demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a<br \/>\nlong drawn process of reasoning.  Where two inferences are reasonably possible<br \/>\nand the subordinate court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be<br \/>\ncalled gross or patent.\n<\/p>\n<p>8. The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not<br \/>\nconvert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or<br \/>\nevaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors<br \/>\nof mere formal or technical character.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>By referring to the above said observations of the Honourable Supreme Court, the<br \/>\nlearned counsel would contend that if the High Court intervenes in the pending<br \/>\nproceedings, then there is bound to be a delay in termination of proceedings and<br \/>\nthe facts and circumstances of this case does not warrant interference by the<br \/>\ncourt, as no grave injustice or gross failure has been occasioned.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.  In the instant case, on facts the pathway\/cart track is recited<br \/>\nin the sale deed, which is acknowledged by the vendor in the consent deed dated<br \/>\n4.8.2005.  The vendor has given reasons for permitting the respondent to use the<br \/>\npathway, stating that for ingress and egress there is no other pathway for the<br \/>\nuse of the respondent and that has necessitated him to permit the respondent to<br \/>\nuse the pathway as alleged in the consent deed.  It is pertinent to point out<br \/>\nthat the respondent has relied on the consent deed only for collateral purpose<br \/>\nto show that the vendor permitted him to use the cart track for all purposes.<br \/>\nWhether a document is admissible in evidence or not depends upon the nature and<br \/>\ncontents of the document and also facts and circumstances of each case and the<br \/>\nHonourable Supreme Court in the case of Bondar Singh and others Vs. Nihal Singh<br \/>\nand others  [2003-4-SCC-161] has observed that if under law a document is<br \/>\nrequired to be properly stamped and registered, even though not admissible in<br \/>\nevidence can be looked into for collateral purposes.  In the present case, the<br \/>\ncollateral purpose to be seen is whether the usage of pathway\/carat track is<br \/>\nacknowledged by the vendor to the respondent. Hence, the contention of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioners that it cannot be admitted in evidence for<br \/>\nnon registration does not merit acceptance.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.  In the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company ltd<br \/>\nand another [2003-2-CTC-122], the Honourable Supreme Court, while dealing with<br \/>\nthe scope and ambit of supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Court<br \/>\nunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has held that in exercising<br \/>\nsupervisory power, the High Court cannot act as an appellate court and it is not<br \/>\npermissible for the High Court to review or reweigh the evidence, upon which<br \/>\ninferior courts pass an order or to correct errors of law, while exercising<br \/>\njurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.  The first appellate court, after hearing both sides and<br \/>\nanalysing elaborately the materials and documents placed on record, granted an<br \/>\norder of interim injunction after considering the balance of convenience and<br \/>\nhardship caused to the respondent. In such a case, bearing in mind the<br \/>\nprinciples enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decisions cited<br \/>\nsupra, this court, while exercising the revisionary power under Article 227 of<br \/>\nthe Constitution of India, will not interfere with the findings based on facts.<br \/>\nIn this case, no serious question of law is involved and the first appellate<br \/>\ncourt, by factual analysis, has granted the order of interim injunction.  Hence,<br \/>\nI am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any<br \/>\nillegality or infirmity and no interference with the findings of the first<br \/>\nappellate court is warranted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.  In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No<br \/>\ncosts. Consequently, the connected MPs are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Srcm<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Sub Court, Pudukkottai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20\/08\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRP(PD)No.499 of 2009 MP.Nos.1 and 2\/2009 1. K.Suriyamurthi 2. K.Shanmugam 3. K.Rengaraj 4. G.Chellamuthu Petitioners Vs S.Arockiyamery by Power Agent A.Charles Respondent Prayer This Civil Revision [&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-1124","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>K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 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\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-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=\"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-15T20:23:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-15T20:23:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1519,\"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\\\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009\",\"name\":\"K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-15T20:23:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 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":"K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 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\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-15T20:23:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-15T20:23:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009"},"wordCount":1519,"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\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009","name":"K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-15T20:23:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-suriyamurthi-vs-s-arockiyamery-by-power-agent-on-20-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Suriyamurthi vs S.Arockiyamery By Power Agent on 20 August, 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\/1124","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=1124"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1124\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1124"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1124"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1124"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}