{"id":119498,"date":"2007-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2"},"modified":"2017-07-17T06:04:21","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T00:34:21","slug":"dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2","title":{"rendered":"Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 18\/07\/2007\n\n\nCORAM\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.NAGAMUTHU\n\n\nC.R.P NPD (MD) No.625 of 2005\nand\nC.M.P.No.4790 of 2005\n\n\nDharmaraj\t\t\t..\tPetitioner\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nRajalingam \t\t\t..\tRespondent\n\n\nPrayer in CRP 86\/04:- Revision filed under Article 227 of the constitution of\nIndia against the order and fair order made in I.A.No.189 of 2004 in O.S.No.680\nof 1995 dated 07.03.2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai.\n\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t...\tMs.Maria Roseline\n\n^For Respondent\t\t...\tMr.K.Govindarajan for\n\t\t\t\tM\/s.Sarvabhauman Associates\n\n\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner who is the 10th defendant in O.S.No.680 of 2005, on the<br \/>\nfile of the learned Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai, has come forward with this<br \/>\nrevision challenging the order dated 07.03.2005 made in I.A.No.189 of 2004. The<br \/>\nrespondent is the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The suit is for partition filed by the respondent. In the written<br \/>\nstatement, the 10th defendant has taken a stand that the suit properties are not<br \/>\navailable for partition, in view of a registered Will said to have been executed<br \/>\nby one P.Kailasam Pillai in favour of him on 05.06.1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. During the trial, in order to prove the said Will, the petitioner has<br \/>\nfiled I.A.No.189 of 2004, to examine the attesting witnesses. But,<br \/>\nunfortunately, the summon sent to those witnesses had been returned with the<br \/>\nendorsement that they have gone to Mumbai. Therefore, making a statement that<br \/>\nthe attesting witnesses are not found, the petitioner wanted to examine the<br \/>\nother persons who have got acquaintance with the handwriting of those attesting<br \/>\nwitnesses as required under Section 69 of the Evidence Act. The same was opposed<br \/>\nby the respondent. The lower Court by means of the impugned order has dismissed<br \/>\nthe said I.A. Challenging the said order of dismissal, this revision has been<br \/>\nfiled.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in order to<br \/>\nprove the registered Will as required under Section 69 of the Evidence Act, at<br \/>\nleast one attester has to be examined. But the petitioner is not in a position<br \/>\nto examine at least one such attester, in view of the fact that both the<br \/>\nattesters are not found in their place of residence and it is reported that they<br \/>\nhave gone to Mumbai and their Mumbai address could not be traced.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that<br \/>\nunless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the attesting<br \/>\nwitnesses are not found anywhere, it is not permissible to examine others to<br \/>\nprove the signatures of the attesters since, under Section 69 of the Evidence<br \/>\nAct, if no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the<br \/>\nattestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that<br \/>\nthe signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that<br \/>\nperson.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned counsel for the respondent would further rely on Order XVI<br \/>\nRule 10 C.P.C., which speaks about the procedure where the witness fails to<br \/>\ncomply with the summons. Under Order XVI Rule 10(2) C.P.C., it has been provided<br \/>\nthat if a witness intentionally either avoided service or if he fails to appear,<br \/>\nwithout any lawful excuse, then, the Court has to issue proclamation and follow<br \/>\nthe other procedure as laid down. According to the learned counsel, since no<br \/>\nproclamation has been so far made, it cannot be held that the witnesses are not<br \/>\nfound so as to permit the petitioner to invoke Section 69 of the Evidence Act.<br \/>\nHe would further rely on Judgment of a Division Bench of Patna High Court<br \/>\nreported in AIR 1928 Patna 356 (Mt.Shahzadi Begul v. Muhammad Qasim) wherein, it<br \/>\nhas been held that unless a proclamation followed by an order of attachment of<br \/>\nthe property of the witness have been made it is not possible to invoke Section<br \/>\n69 of the Evidence Act. The Court has further held that before a party is<br \/>\nentitled to rely upon Section 69 of the Evidence Act, he must ask the Court to<br \/>\nexhaust all process of the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. I have considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor both parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. It is admitted by the Learned counsel for the petitioner that during<br \/>\nexamination in chief, the petitioner has not chosen to let in any evidence to<br \/>\nthe effect that the attesting witnesses were not found in the village. To<br \/>\nexplain the same, the learned counsel would submit that when the petitioner was<br \/>\nexamined, it was not known to the respondent that the attesting witnesses were<br \/>\nnot available. He would further submit that it came to light that the witnesses<br \/>\nhave gone to Mumbai and whereabouts are not known only when the summons taken<br \/>\nout for them through the Court were returned. Thus, it is clear that so far no<br \/>\nevidence was let in to satisfy the lower Court that the attesting witnesses were<br \/>\nnot found any where, so as to invoke Section 69 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. It is to be stated that invariably in all cases, the party is not<br \/>\nrequired to let in evidence to prove that the attesting witnesses are not found.<br \/>\nInstead the party can very well follow the procedure under Order XVI Rule 10<br \/>\nC.P.C. Under the said procedure he has to make an application for proclamation<br \/>\nand for attachment of the property. If only a judicial finding is given by the<br \/>\nCourt under Order XVI Rule 10 C.P.C., that the witnesses are not really found<br \/>\nresulting in an order of attachment of properties, then only the requirement<br \/>\nunder Section 69 of the Evidence Act, that the witnesses are not found any<br \/>\nwhere, will get satisfied so as to permit the party to let in evidence to prove<br \/>\nthe signatures of the attesters through the persons who are well acquainted with<br \/>\ntheir signatures. In this case, the petitioner has not chosen to approach the<br \/>\ntrial Court under Order XVI Rule 10 C.P.C also. Thus the party has the option<br \/>\neither to let in evidence or to follow the procedure under Order XVI Rule 10<br \/>\nC.P.C., to satisfy the requirements of Section 69 of the Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, and<br \/>\nalso held by the Patna High Court, in the absence of any order of attachment<br \/>\nmade by the Court under Order XVI Rule 10 C.P.C., or in the absence of any<br \/>\nevidence about the absence of the attesters and in the absence of any finding to<br \/>\nthat effect by the lower Court, the petitioner cannot be allowed to examine any<br \/>\nperson to prove the signatures of the attesters of the Will.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that though the<br \/>\npetitioner is entitled to examine any person\/persons who is\/are well acquainted<br \/>\nwith the signatures of the attesters, the said right will accrue for on the<br \/>\npetitioner if only he satisfies the requirements of Section 69 of the Evidence<br \/>\nAct, either by means of evidence or by following the procedure under Order XVI<br \/>\nRule 10 C.P.C., and then only he can exercise the said right to summon any<br \/>\nperson as stated above. Thus the lower Court, in my considered view was right in<br \/>\ndismissing the said I.A. However, merely confirming the order of the lower Court<br \/>\nwould not meet the ends of justice, in my considered opinion. The petitioner<br \/>\nshould be given sufficient opportunity to satisfy Section 69 of the Evidence<br \/>\nAct, to invoke the said provision to examine other persons. If such liberty is<br \/>\nnot given, it may result in failure of justice and may cause serious prejudice<br \/>\nto the petitioner. In view of the above factual and legal positions, I am<br \/>\ninclined to set aside the impugned order of the lower Court with appropriate<br \/>\nliberty to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In the result, the impugned order passed by the learned Subordinate<br \/>\nJudge, Kulithalai, dated 07.03.2005 made in I.A.No.189 of 2004 in O.S.No.680 of<br \/>\n1995, is set aside. I.A.No.189 of 2004, is remanded back to the file of the<br \/>\nlearned Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai, with a liberty to the petitioner to take<br \/>\nsteps to satisfy the Court as required under Section 69 of the Evidence Act,<br \/>\neither by adducing evidence or by following procedure under Order XVI Rule 10<br \/>\nC.P.C. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the said I.A., in accordance<br \/>\nwith law after affording such opportunity to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is dismissed. NO<br \/>\ncosts. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nKulithalai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18\/07\/2007 CORAM The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice S.NAGAMUTHU C.R.P NPD (MD) No.625 of 2005 and C.M.P.No.4790 of 2005 Dharmaraj .. Petitioner Vs. Rajalingam .. Respondent Prayer in CRP 86\/04:- Revision filed under Article 227 of the [&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-119498","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>Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007 - 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\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2\" \/>\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=\"2007-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-17T00:34:21+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T00:34:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2\"},\"wordCount\":1360,\"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\\\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2\",\"name\":\"Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T00:34:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007 - 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\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-17T00:34:21+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T00:34:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2"},"wordCount":1360,"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\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2","name":"Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T00:34:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dharmaraj-vs-rajalingam-on-18-july-2007-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dharmaraj vs Rajalingam on 18 July, 2007"}]},{"@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\/119498","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=119498"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/119498\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=119498"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=119498"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=119498"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}