{"id":113522,"date":"2011-07-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011"},"modified":"2015-08-20T09:17:41","modified_gmt":"2015-08-20T03:47:41","slug":"t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: A K Patnaik<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik<\/div>\n
                                                                       Reportable\n\n\n\n             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n            CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1504 of 2011 \n\n       (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1585 of 2008)\n\n\nT. C. Thangaraj                                             ...... Appellant\n\n\n\n                               Versus\n\n\n\nV. Engammal & Ors.                                             ...... \n\nRespondents\n\n\n\n                               WITH\n\n\n            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1505 of 2011 \n\n       (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1589 of 2008)\n\n\nP. Suganthi & Anr.                                         ...... Appellants\n\n\n\n                               Versus\n\n\n\nV. Engammal & Ors.                                           ...... \n\nRespondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                         J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
A. K. PATNAIK, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Delay condoned in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1589 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
2.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
3.    These   are   two   appeals   against   the   order   dated <\/p>\n
26.10.2007   of   the   Madras   High   Court,   Madurai   Bench,   in <\/p>\n
                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
Criminal   Original   Petition   No.10987   of   2007   directing   that <\/p>\n
investigation   into   the   case   registered   as   Crime   No.14   of <\/p>\n
2006   with   the   District   Crime   Branch   (DCB),   Virudunagar, <\/p>\n
be   entrusted   to   the   Central   Bureau   of   Investigation, <\/p>\n
Chennai (for short `the CBI’).\n<\/p>\n
4.    The   facts   briefly   are   that   on   04.08.2006   a   complaint <\/p>\n
was   submitted   by   V.   Engammal,   who   has   been   impleaded <\/p>\n
as a respondent in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to <\/p>\n
as   `the   complainant’),   to   the   Superintendent   of   Police, <\/p>\n
Virudunagar   District,   Tamil   Nadu.     The   complainant   made <\/p>\n
following   allegations   in   the   complaint:   P.   Kalaikathiravan, <\/p>\n
appellant   no.2   in   criminal   appeal   arising   out   of   SLP   (Crl.) <\/p>\n
No.   1589   of   2008,   who   was   the   then   S.I.   of   Town   Police <\/p>\n
Station, told her and her husband that he was going to do <\/p>\n
the   business   of   real   estate   and   that   they   should   become <\/p>\n
partners   in   the   business   but   they   told   him   that   the <\/p>\n
business will not work and thereafter he asked them to give <\/p>\n
a  loan  of  Rs.3  lakh  and  they   handed  over   Rs.3  lakh  to  his <\/p>\n
wife   P.   Suganthi,   appellant   no.1   in   criminal   appeal   arising <\/p>\n
out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1589 of 2008.  P. Kalaikathiravan then <\/p>\n
introduced T.C. Thangaraj, the appellant in criminal appeal <\/p>\n
                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
arising   out   of   SLP   (Crl.)   No.   1585   of   2008,   and   one <\/p>\n
Nagendran   who   were   doing   real   estate   business.     When   P.\n<\/p>\n
Kalaikathiravan   was   transferred   to   Sethur   Krishnapuram, <\/p>\n
the complainant and her husband demanded repayment of <\/p>\n
Rs.3 lakh, but P. Kalaikathiravan asked them to collect the <\/p>\n
money   from   T.C.   Thangaraj.     T.C.   Thangaraj   accepted   the <\/p>\n
liability   and   gave   two   cheques   dated   30.01.2004   and <\/p>\n
04.02.2004   each   of   Rs.50,000\/-,   but   the   cheques   were <\/p>\n
returned   with   remarks   from   the   bank   that   there   were   no <\/p>\n
sufficient   funds   in   the   accounts.     After   P.   Kalaikathiravan <\/p>\n
came   back   to   Virudunagar   on   promotion   as   Inspector,   her <\/p>\n
husband went to him many times and demanded money but <\/p>\n
he   refused   to   pay   the   same   and   sent   him   away.     In   the <\/p>\n
complaint, the complainant requested the Superintendent of <\/p>\n
Police   to   initiate   action   against   the   Inspector,   P.\n<\/p>\n
Kalaikathiravan,   his   wife   P.   Suganthi   and   T.C.   Thangaraj, <\/p>\n
who   had   cheated   the   complainant   and   her   husband.     The <\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police sent the complaint to the Office In-\n<\/p>\n
charge   of   DCB,   Police   Station   Virudunagar,   on  04.08.2006 <\/p>\n
and   the   complaint   was   registered   as   Crime   No.14   of   2006 <\/p>\n
under   Sections   409,   420,   471   read   with   Section   34   of   the <\/p>\n
                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short `the IPC’).\n<\/p>\n
5.     When there was no progress in the investigation on the <\/p>\n
complaint, the complainant filed Crl. O.P. No.8782 of 2006 <\/p>\n
under   Section   482   of   the   Criminal   Procedure   Code,   1973 <\/p>\n
(for   short   `the   Cr.P.C.’)   before   the   Madras   High   Court, <\/p>\n
Madurai Bench, with a prayer to entrust the case to the CBI <\/p>\n
for proper investigation.   The High Court in its order dated <\/p>\n
13.04.2007  noticed  that  the  case   is  against   a  police  officer <\/p>\n
and   the   grievance   of   the   complainant   was   that   the   police <\/p>\n
department was not taking interest in pursuing the matter.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court, however, found that the matter was before <\/p>\n
the   Judicial   Magistrate   and   disposed   of   the   petition   giving <\/p>\n
liberty   to   the   complainant   to   appear   before   the   Judicial <\/p>\n
Magistrate   concerned   and   file,   if   necessary,   a   protest <\/p>\n
petition   if   the   case   has   been   treated   as   a   mistake   of   fact.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court further directed that the Judicial Magistrate <\/p>\n
shall consider the protest petition of the respondent keeping <\/p>\n
in   mind   the   seriousness   of   the   allegations   made   in   the <\/p>\n
complaint   as   well   as   in   the   affidavit   filed   before   the   High <\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
6.    Thereafter, the complainant filed Crl. O.P. No.10987 of <\/p>\n
2007 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the Madras High <\/p>\n
Court,   Madurai   Bench,   reiterating   her   prayer   to   entrust <\/p>\n
Crime   No.14   of   2006   to   the   CBI   for   proper   investigation.\n<\/p>\n
The   High   Court   in   the   impugned   order   dated   16.10.2007 <\/p>\n
took note of the fact that the complainant had received back <\/p>\n
the sum of Rs.3 lakh in question and given a receipt dated <\/p>\n
05.08.2006 but she had a grievance that her complaint had <\/p>\n
not been properly investigated and the investigating agency <\/p>\n
should file a final report in accordance with law.   However, <\/p>\n
the   High   Court   after   perusing   the   entire   case   diary   found <\/p>\n
that   some   witnesses   have   been   examined   but   the <\/p>\n
investigation had been stopped suddenly on the ground that <\/p>\n
the complainant had received back the sum of Rs.3 lakh on <\/p>\n
05.08.2006.     The   High   Court   held   in   the   impugned   order <\/p>\n
that even though the amount in question had been received <\/p>\n
back by the complainant, the investigating agency ought to <\/p>\n
have conducted proper investigation and filed a final report <\/p>\n
in   accordance   with   law,   but   the   investigating   agency   had <\/p>\n
failed   to   do   it.     The   High   Court   further   held   that   as   the <\/p>\n
accused   No.1   was   an   Inspector   of   Police,   the   investigating <\/p>\n
                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
agency   has   not   done   its   duty   properly   and   under   the <\/p>\n
circumstances, relief claimed by the complainant should be <\/p>\n
granted   and  accordingly   ordered   that Crime   No.14   of  2006 <\/p>\n
be entrusted to the CBI for investigation.\n<\/p>\n
7.     Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the <\/p>\n
reasons given by the High Court in the impugned order that <\/p>\n
the   accused   No.1   was   an   Inspector   of   Police   and   therefore <\/p>\n
the   investigating   agency   has   not   done   its   duty   properly, <\/p>\n
have   not   been   held   to   be   good   reasons   for   entrusting   the <\/p>\n
investigation   to   the   CBI   by   the   Constitution   Bench   of   this <\/p>\n
Court   in  State   of   West   Bengal   &   Ors.   v.  Committee   for  <\/p>\n
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. [(2010) 3 <\/p>\n
SCC 571].\n<\/p>\n
8.      Learned   counsel   for   the   complainant,   on   the   other <\/p>\n
hand, cited a decision of two-Judge Bench of this Court in <\/p>\n
Ramesh  Kumari  v.  State  (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors.<\/a>  reported in <\/p>\n
(2006) 2 SCC 677, in which  this Court  directed  the  CBI to <\/p>\n
register   a   case   and   investigate   into   the   complaint   of   the <\/p>\n
appellant   because   the   complaint   was   against   the   police <\/p>\n
officer   and   the   Court   was   of   the   view   that   the   interest   of <\/p>\n
                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
justice   would   be   better   served  if   the   case   is   registered  and <\/p>\n
investigated by an independent agency like the CBI.\n<\/p>\n
9.       The decision of the two-Judge Bench of this Court in <\/p>\n
Ramesh  Kumari  v.  State  (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors.<\/a>  (supra) will <\/p>\n
have to be now read in the light of the principles laid down <\/p>\n
by   the   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in  State   of   West  <\/p>\n
Bengal   &   Ors.   v.  Committee   for   Protection   of   Democratic  <\/p>\n
Rights, West Bengal & Ors. (supra).  The Constitution Bench <\/p>\n
has   considered   at   length   the   power   of   the   High   Court   to <\/p>\n
direct   investigation   by   the   CBI   into   a   cognizable   offence <\/p>\n
alleged   to   have   been   committed   within   the   territorial <\/p>\n
jurisdiction   of   a   State   and   while   taking   the   view   that   the <\/p>\n
High   Court   has   wide   powers   under   Article   226   of   the <\/p>\n
Constitution   cautioned   that  the   Courts   must   bear   in   mind <\/p>\n
certain   self-imposed   limitations.     Para   70   of  the   opinion   of <\/p>\n
the   Constitution   Bench   in  State   of   West   Bengal   &   Ors.   v.\n<\/p>\n
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal &  <\/p>\n
Ors. (supra) is extracted hereinbelow :\n<\/p>\n
      “Before   parting   with   the   case,   we   deem   it <\/p>\n
      necessary   to   emphasise   that   despite   wide   powers <\/p>\n
      conferred   by   Articles   32   and   226   of   the <\/p>\n
      Constitution,   while   passing   any   order,   the   Courts <\/p>\n
      must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations <\/p>\n
                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
       on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The <\/p>\n
       very plenitude of the power under the said articles <\/p>\n
       requires   great   caution   in   its   exercise.   Insofar   as <\/p>\n
       the   question   of   issuing   a   direction   to   CBI   to <\/p>\n
       conduct   investigation   in   a   case   is   concerned, <\/p>\n
       although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down <\/p>\n
       to   decide   whether   or   not   such   power   should   be <\/p>\n
       exercised but time and again it has been reiterated <\/p>\n
       that such an order is not to be passed as a matter <\/p>\n
       of   routine   or   merely   because   a   party   has   levelled <\/p>\n
       some   allegations   against   the   local   police.   This <\/p>\n
       extraordinary   power   must   be   exercised   sparingly, <\/p>\n
       cautiously   and   in   exceptional   situations   where   it <\/p>\n
       becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil <\/p>\n
       confidence  in  investigations   or  where  the   incident <\/p>\n
       may have national and international ramifications <\/p>\n
       or where such an order may be necessary for doing <\/p>\n
       complete   justice   and   enforcing   the   fundamental <\/p>\n
       rights.   Otherwise   CBI   would   be   flooded   with   a <\/p>\n
       large number of cases and with limited resources, <\/p>\n
       may   find   it   difficult   to   properly   investigate   even <\/p>\n
       serious cases and in the process lose its credibility <\/p>\n
       and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                       [Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
10.         It will be clear from the opinion of the Constitution <\/p>\n
       Bench quoted above that the power of the High Court <\/p>\n
       under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   to   direct <\/p>\n
       investigation   by   the   CBI   is   to   be   exercised   only <\/p>\n
       sparingly,   cautiously   and   in   exceptional   situations <\/p>\n
       and an order directing to CBI is not to be passed as a <\/p>\n
       matter   of   routine   or   merely   because   a   party   has <\/p>\n
       levelled   some   allegations   against   the   local   police.     In <\/p>\n
                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
the impugned order, the High Court has not exercised <\/p>\n
its   constitutional   powers   under   Article   226   of   the <\/p>\n
Constitution   and   directed   the   CBI   to   investigate   into <\/p>\n
the   complaint   with   a   view   to   protect   her   personal <\/p>\n
liberty   under   Article   21   of   the   Constitution   or   to <\/p>\n
enforce   her   fundamental   right   guaranteed   by   Part-III <\/p>\n
of the Constitution.   The High Court has exercised its <\/p>\n
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on a grievance made <\/p>\n
by   the   complainant   that   her   complaint   that   she   was <\/p>\n
cheated in a loan transaction of Rs.3 lakh by the three <\/p>\n
accused  persons, was not  being  investigated   properly <\/p>\n
because one of the accused persons is an Inspector of <\/p>\n
Police.     In   our   considered   view,   this   was   not   one   of <\/p>\n
those   exceptional   situations   calling   for   exercise   of <\/p>\n
extra-ordinary   power   of   the   High   Court   to   direct <\/p>\n
investigation   into   the   complaint   by   the   CBI.     If   the <\/p>\n
High Court found that the investigation was not being <\/p>\n
completed because P. Kalaikathiravan, an Inspector of <\/p>\n
Police,   was   one   of   the   accused   persons,   the   High <\/p>\n
Court   should   have   directed   the   Superintendent   of <\/p>\n
Police to entrust  the investigation to an officer senior <\/p>\n
                                             1<\/span><\/p>\n
         in rank to the Inspector of Police under Section 154(3) <\/p>\n
         Cr.P.C.   and   not   to   the   CBI.     It   should   also   be   noted <\/p>\n
         that Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure <\/p>\n
         provides   for   a   check   by   the   Magistrate   on   the   police <\/p>\n
         performing   their   duties   and   where   the   Magistrate <\/p>\n
         finds   that   the   police   have   not   done   their   duty   or   not <\/p>\n
         investigated   satisfactorily,   he   can   direct   the   Police   to <\/p>\n
         carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor <\/p>\n
         the   same.     (see  Sakiri   Vasu  v.  State   of   U.P.   &   Ors.<\/a>  –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (2008) 2 SCC 409).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
11.           For these reasons, we quash the impugned order of <\/p>\n
         the   High   Court   and   direct   that   the   Superintend   of <\/p>\n
         Police, Virudunagar District, Tamil Nadu, will entrust <\/p>\n
         the   investigation   of   Crime   No.   14   of   2006   to   a   police <\/p>\n
         officer   senior   in   rank   to   P.   Kalaikathiravan.   The <\/p>\n
         appeals are accordingly allowed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                              ……………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   (R.V.\n<\/p>\n
Raveendran)<\/p>\n
                                                              ……………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   (A.            K. \n\nPatnaik)\n\nNew Delhi,\n\nJuly 29, 2011.    \n\n\n1<\/span>\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011 Author: A K Patnaik Bench: R.V. Raveendran, A.K. Patnaik Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1504 of 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1585 of 2008) T. C. Thangaraj …… Appellant Versus V. Engammal & […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113522","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nT.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-20T03:47:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T03:47:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1783,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011\",\"name\":\"T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T03:47:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-20T03:47:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T03:47:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011"},"wordCount":1783,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011","name":"T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T03:47:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-c-thangaraj-vs-v-engammal-ors-on-29-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.C.Thangaraj vs V.Engammal & Ors on 29 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/113522","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=113522"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113522\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113522"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113522"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113522"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}