{"id":115954,"date":"2005-01-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005"},"modified":"2015-07-25T01:32:30","modified_gmt":"2015-07-24T20:02:30","slug":"v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 17\/01\/2005\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN\n\nC.R.P. (NPD) No. 2120 of 2004\nand\nC.M.P. No. 15979 of 2004\n\nV.K.K. Nair                            ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nMrs. Kanchan Kawar                     ... Respondent\n\n        Revision  under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the\norder and decreetal order dated 31-07-2002  on  the  file  of  VIII  Assistant\nJudge, City Civil Court,  Chennai made in I.A.  No.  6786 of 2002 in O.S.  No.\n6023 of 2001.\n\n\n!For Petitioner :       Mr.  G.  Desingu\n\n^For Respondent :       Mr.  A.  Venkatesan\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The   second   defendant\/revision   petitioner  herein  has  filed  an<br \/>\napplication under Order 37 Rule 3 (5) of CPC seeking leave to defend the suit,<br \/>\nwhich was dismissed with costs by the court below, hence this revision.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.      The respondent herein has  filed  the  suit  for  recovery  of<br \/>\nRs.28,30  0\/-,  based  on  the  promisory note dated 05-10-1998, together with<br \/>\ninterest on Rs.15,000\/- at Rs.2.50% per month from the  date  of  plaint  till<br \/>\nrealisation.   The petitioner herein has filed an application praying leave to<br \/>\ndefend the suit  by  stating  that  he  never  borrowed  any  money  from  the<br \/>\nrespondent  herein;  that  he approached one Gulecha for financial help during<br \/>\nApril 1997 and borrowed Rs.15,000\/- by executing a blank promisory note;  that<br \/>\nhe  had  discharged  the  same  and  requested  the said Gulecha to return the<br \/>\nPromisory note, who had assured him to return the same;  during  that  period,<br \/>\nthe Petitioner went to Kottayam, Kerala to attend his ailing mother and stayed<br \/>\nthere  for one year; that after his return from Kerala, the petitioner came to<br \/>\nknow that the said Gulecha died; that the respondent herein is a stranger  and<br \/>\ndenied the suit claim.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.      The  learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are<br \/>\ntriable issues involved in the suit and  therefore  the  court  below  is  not<br \/>\njustified  in dismissing the application on the ground that the petitioner has<br \/>\nnot produced any documents in support of his defence;  that  the  court  below<br \/>\nought  to  have  seen  only from the affidavit whether a reasonable defence is<br \/>\nmade out or not and which even need not be a good defence; ignoring the  same,<br \/>\nthe  court  below  erred  in  deciding the issue against the petitioner at the<br \/>\ninception itself as if the petitioner did not raise any proper issue and there<br \/>\nis no triable issue and prayed for setting aside the  order  dated  31-07-2002<br \/>\npassed by the court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.      The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of<br \/>\nthis Court reported in  (V.K.K.  Nair Vs.  D.  Shittal Kumar) 2004 (5) CTC 734<br \/>\nwherein it was held that unless the defendant is in a position to show that he<br \/>\nhas got a triable issue in such money suit and applies  on  such  summons  for<br \/>\nleave to defend such suit, he would not be permitted to defend the suit unless<\/p>\n<p>the  defendant is in a position to satisfy the Court that he has a substantial<br \/>\ndefence to raise or that the defence intended to be put to is  raised,  it  is<br \/>\nnot incumbent on the part of the Court to grant leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.      Rule 3 (5) of Order 37 CPC governs the case on hand, hence the<br \/>\nsame is extracted below.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Rule 3.   Procedure  for  appearance of defendant.  In a suit to which<br \/>\nthis order applies, the plaintiff shall, together with the summons under  Rule<br \/>\n2,  serve  on the defendant a copy of the plaint and annexures thereto and the<br \/>\ndefendant may, at  any  time  within  ten  days  of  such  service,  enter  an<br \/>\nappearance  either  in person or by pleader and, in either case, he shall file<br \/>\nin Court an address for service of notices on him.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (5)     The defendant may, at  any  time  within  ten  days  from  the<br \/>\nservice  of  such  summons  for judgment, by affidavit or otherwise disclosing<br \/>\nsuch facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such<br \/>\nsummons for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be  granted  to<br \/>\nhim  unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the Court or Judge to<br \/>\nbe just:\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided that leave to defend shall not be refused unless the Court is<br \/>\nsatisfied that the facts disclosed by the defendant do not  indicate  that  he<br \/>\nhas  a  substantial defence to raise or that the defence intended to be put up<br \/>\nby the defendant is frivolous or vexations:&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.      The said provision says that the Court has discretion to grant<br \/>\nleave and the discretion to be exercised on sound judicial  principles.    The<br \/>\ndefendant, by an affidavit or otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed<br \/>\nsufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend<br \/>\nsuch suit.    The  leave to defend may be granted unconditionally or upon such<br \/>\nterms as may appear to the Court to be just, provided the Court  is  satisfied<br \/>\nthat  the  facts  disclosed  by  the  defendant  do  indicate  that  he  has a<br \/>\nsubstantial defence to raise or that the defence intended to be put up by  the<br \/>\ndefendant is not frivolous or vexations.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.      Following the  decision  reported in (Sm.  Kiranmoyee Dassi v.<br \/>\nDr.  J.  Chatterjee) AIR 1949 Cal 479, the Honourable  Supreme  Court  in  the<br \/>\ndecision reported in <a href=\"\/doc\/209667\/\">(M\/s.  Mechelec Engineers &amp; Manufacturers v.  M\/s.  Basic<br \/>\nEquipment  Corporation)<\/a>  (1976)  4  Supreme Court Cases 687 = AIR 1 977 SC 577<br \/>\nheld in para-7 and 8 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  We need not dilate on the well established  principles  repeatedly<br \/>\nlaid  down  by  this  Court which govern jurisdiction of the High Courts under<br \/>\nSection 115 CPC.  We think that these principles were ignored by  the  learned<br \/>\nJudge  of  the  High Court in interfering with the discretionary order after a<br \/>\nvery detailed discussion of the facts of the case by the learned Judge of  the<br \/>\nHigh  Court who had differed on a pure question of fact  whether the defences<br \/>\ncould be honest and bona fide.  Any decision on such a question,  even  before<br \/>\nevidence has  been  led  by  the two sides, is generally hazardous.  We do not<br \/>\nthink that it is fair to pronounce a categorical  opinion  on  such  a  matter<br \/>\nbefore  the  evidence  of  the  parties  is taken so that its effects could be<br \/>\nexamined.  In the case before  us,  the  defendant  had  denied,  inter  alia,<br \/>\nliability to pay anything to the plaintiff for an alleged supply of goods.  It<br \/>\nis  only  in  cases where the defence is patently dishonest or so unreasonable<br \/>\nthat it could not reasonably be expected  to  succeed  that  the  exercise  of<br \/>\ndiscretion   by  the  trial  court  to  grant  leave  unconditionally  may  be<br \/>\nquestioned.  In the judgment of the High Court we are unable to find a  ground<br \/>\nof interference covered by Section 115 CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  <a href=\"\/doc\/268048\/\">In Kiranmoyee  Dassi  Smt  v.   Dr J.  Chatterjee Das, J.,<\/a> after a<br \/>\ncomprehensive review of authorities on  the  subject,  stated  the  principles<br \/>\napplicable  to  cases  covered  by  Order  17 CPC in the form of the following<br \/>\npropositions (at p.  253):\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) If the defendant satisfies the court that he has a good  defence  to  the<br \/>\nclaim  on  its  merits the plaintiff is not entitled to leave to sign judgment<br \/>\nand the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a  fair  or<br \/>\nbona  fide  or  reasonable  defence although not a positively good defence the<br \/>\nplaintiff is not entitled to sign judgment and the defendant  is  entitled  to<br \/>\nunconditional leave to defend.\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)  If  the  defendant  discloses  such  facts as may be deemed sufficient to<br \/>\nentitle him to defend, that  is  to  say,  although  the  affidavit  does  not<br \/>\npositively  and  immediately  make  it clear that he has a defence, yet, shews<br \/>\nsuch a state of facts as leads to the inference  that  at  the  trial  of  the<br \/>\naction  he  may  be  able  to establish a defence to the plaintiffs claim the<br \/>\nplaintiff is not entitled to judgment and the defendant is entitled  to  leave<br \/>\nto defend but in such a case the court may in its discretion impose conditions<br \/>\nas to the time or mode of trial but not as to payment into court or furnishing<br \/>\nsecurity.\n<\/p>\n<p>(d)  If the defendant has no defence or the defence set-up is illusory or sham<br \/>\nor practically moonshine then ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to leave to<br \/>\nsign judgment and the defendant is not entitled to leave to defend.\n<\/p>\n<p>(e) If the defendant has no defence or the defence  is  illusory  or  sham  or<br \/>\npractically  moonshine  then  although ordinarily the plaintiff is entitled to<br \/>\nleave to sign judgment, the court may protect the plaintiff by  only  allowing<br \/>\nthe  defence  to proceed if the amount claimed is paid into court or otherwise<br \/>\nsecured and give leave to the defendant on such condition,  and  thereby  show<br \/>\nmercy to the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence.<\/p>\n<p>        In this case, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that only in cases<br \/>\nwhere  the  defence is patently dishonest or so unreasonable that it could not<br \/>\nreasonably be expected to succeed that the exercise of discretion by the trial<br \/>\ncourt to grant leave unconditionally may be questioned.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.      In the decision rendered in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1823715\/\">(State  Bank  of  Saurashtra  vs.<br \/>\nM\/s.   Ashit Shipping Services (P) Ltd) AIR<\/a> 2002 Supreme Court 1993, in Para-1<br \/>\n3, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;13.    &#8230;.The appellants have made serious allegations of fraud  and<br \/>\ncollusion.   They  had  stated  that  such  a  document did not exist in their<br \/>\nrecords.  This was not a defence which could be characterised, at this  stage,<br \/>\nas sham or illusory or practically moonshine.  These triable issues should not<br \/>\nhave been summarily rejected by the trial Court and\/or the High Court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        In  the  above judgment, the appellants have raised serious allegation<br \/>\nof fraud and collusion and it is stated that the document set out do not exist<br \/>\nin the records.  While  dealing  with  the  said  allegation,  the  Honourable<br \/>\nSupreme  Court  held  that  the  defence  set  up  by  the defendant cannot be<br \/>\ncharacterised, at this stage, as sham or illusory or practically moonshine and<br \/>\nthese triable issues should not have been rejected by the trial court or  high<br \/>\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.      In the decision reported in (Mrs.  Raj Duggal v.  Ramesh Kumar<br \/>\nBansal)  AIR  1990  Supreme  Court  2218, the Honourable Supreme Court held in<br \/>\npara-3 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;3.     Leave is declined where the court is of the opinion  that  the<br \/>\ngrant  of leave would merely enable the defendant to prolong the litigation by<br \/>\nraising untenable and frivolous defences.  The test  is  to  see  whether  the<br \/>\ndefence raises a real issue and not a sham one, in the sense that if the facts<br \/>\nalleged  by  the  defendant  are  established  there would be a good or even a<br \/>\nplausible defence on those facts.  If the court is satisfied about that  leave<br \/>\nmust be  given.  If there is a triable issue in the sense that there is a fair<br \/>\ndispute to be tried as to the meaning of a document  on  which  the  claim  is<br \/>\nbased  or uncertainty as to the amount actually due or where the alleged facts<br \/>\nare of such a nature as to entitle the defendant to interrogate the  plaintiff<br \/>\nor to cross-examine his witnesses leave should not be denied.  Where also, the<br \/>\ndefendant shows that even on a fair probability he has a bona fide defence, he<br \/>\nought to  have  leave.  Summary judgments under Order 37 should not be granted<\/p>\n<p>where serious conflict as to matter of fact or where any difficulty on  issues<br \/>\nas to  law  arises.   The court should not reject the defence of the defendant<br \/>\nmerely because of its inherent implausibility or its inconsistency.\n<\/p>\n<p>        In the  above  case,  the  Honourable  Supreme  Court  held  that  the<br \/>\ndefendant  shows that even on a fair probability he has a bonafide defence and<br \/>\nhe ought to have leave.  Summary judgment under Order 37 should not be granted<br \/>\nwhere serious conflict of matter of fact or where any difficulty on issues  of<br \/>\nlaw arises.    The Court should not reject the defence of the defendant merely<br \/>\nbecause of its inherent implausibility or its inconsistency.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.     Following the above judgments  of  this  Court  and  the  Apex<br \/>\nCourt, I proceed to deal with the facts involved in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.     The  respondent  herein  has  issued  notice dated 15-09-2001,<br \/>\nprior to filing of the suit, calling upon the revision petitioner to  pay  the<br \/>\namount.   The  notice  was  received  by  the petitioner herein but he has not<br \/>\nchosen to give any reply.  It is stated by the petitioner that  the  execution<br \/>\nof  the promissory note is admitted but the same was executed in favour of one<br \/>\nGulecha; that he discharged the entire amount  payable  under  the  Promissory<br \/>\nnote  to  Gulecha;  that after his return from Kerala he tried to get back the<br \/>\npromissory note from the legal heirs of Gulecha since  he  was  dead,  but  it<br \/>\nbecame vain.    In respect of the said allegations, the trial court found that<br \/>\nthe petitioner has not placed any materials to support his case and  no  valid<br \/>\ndefence  or  triable  issue  established  by  the petitioner to consider grant<br \/>\nleave.  In my view, for the aforesaid reasons, leave to defend  could  not  be<br \/>\ngranted.   The court below is right in dismissing the application filed by the<br \/>\nrevision petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.     In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed.    No<br \/>\ncosts.  consequently, connected CMP is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsh<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nWebsite :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The VIII Assistant Judge<br \/>\nCity Civil Court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17\/01\/2005 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN C.R.P. (NPD) No. 2120 of 2004 and C.M.P. No. 15979 of 2004 V.K.K. Nair &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- Mrs. Kanchan Kawar &#8230; Respondent Revision under Section [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115954","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005 - 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\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-24T20:02:30+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-24T20:02:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2133,\"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\\\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005\",\"name\":\"V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-24T20:02:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005 - 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\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-24T20:02:30+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-24T20:02:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005"},"wordCount":2133,"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\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005","name":"V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-24T20:02:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-k-k-nair-vs-mrs-kanchan-kawar-on-17-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.K.K. Nair vs Mrs. Kanchan Kawar on 17 January, 2005"}]},{"@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\/115954","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=115954"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115954\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}