{"id":12117,"date":"2008-11-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008"},"modified":"2016-02-12T13:18:26","modified_gmt":"2016-02-12T07:48:26","slug":"karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Karuppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Karuppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 10\/11\/2008\n\nCoram\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN\n\nS.A.No.758 of 2000\n\n1.Karuppiah\n2.Chidambaram\t     \t\t   \t... Appellants \/ plaintiffs\n\nvs.\n\nChandran\t\t\t\t... Respondent \/ Defendant\n\nPrayer\n\nThis second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the\ndecree and Judgment dated 07.02.2000 in A.S.No.193 of 1996 passed by the\nSubordinate Judge, Virudhunagar, confirming the decree and Judgment dated\n11.06.1996 in O.S.No.92 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Arupukottai.\n\n!For Appellants ...  Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Advocate (No appearance)\n^For respondent ...   Mr.M.Dhanukkodi Pandian, Advocate\n\n-----\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tNo appearance for the appellants.  This appeal has been directed against
\nthe decree and Judgment in A.S.No.193 of 1996 on the file fo the Subordinate
\nJudge, Virudhunagar, which had arisen out of the decree and Judgment in
\nO.S.No.92 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Arupukottai.  The
\nunsuccessful plaintiffs before the Courts below are the appellants herein.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The short facts on the plaint sans irrelevant particulars are as
\nfollows;-\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe plaint schedule property was purchased by the plaintiffs under a
\nsale deed dated 07.04.1992.  The predecessors in title in respect of the plaint
\nschedule property had purchased the same under a sale deed dated 07.01.1926.
\nPatta No.188 was granted in favour of the plaintiffs and before them it stood in
\nthe name of Swamitha Pillai, the vendor of the plaintiffs.  After the sale deed
\ndated 07.04.1992, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint
\nschedule property paying land tax to the Government.  The plaintiffs have also
\nprescribed title to the suit property by their long uninterrupted continuous
\npossession.  The defendant approached the vendor of the plaintiffs with an aim
\nto purchase the plaint schedule property.  But before that, the plaintiffs have
\npurchased the same from Swaminatha Pillai, the vendor under the sale deed dated
\n07.04.1992 and obtained possession.  With the help of man power and money power
\nthe defendant is now trying to interfere with the possession of the plaint
\nschedule property, which is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs.
\nHence, the suit for declaration of title and for consequential injunction.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The defendant in his written statement would contend that the alleged
\nsale deed in favour of the plaintiffs has been created for the purpose of this
\ncase.  Under the said sale deed the plaintiffs have no right or title in respect
\nof the plaint schedule property. The defendant has purchased the suit property
\non 06.03.1991 from the real owner.  Under sale deed dated 07.04.1992 no title
\nwas passed from the vendor Swaminatha Pillai S\/o.Saravana Perumal Pillai in
\nfavour of the plaintiffs.   Under the said sale deed dated 7.4.1992, the
\nplaintiff cannot claim any right or title in respect of the plaint schedule
\nproperty.  Under the sale deed dated 07.01.1926 in favour of Swaminatha Pillai,
\nhe has not derived any right or title in respect of the plaint schedule
\nproperty.  The said Swaminatha Pillai had never in possession and enjoyment of
\nthe plaint schedule property and under the sale deed dated 07.01.1926 the plaint
\nschedule property was not purchased by Swaminatha Pillai. Under the oral
\npartition Swaminatha Pillai and his six sons have partitioned their family
\nproperties and under the said partition, the plaint schedule property was
\nallotted to Shanmugam and Nagalingam, the two sons of Swaminatha Pillai.  From
\nthe said Shanmugam and Nagalaingam, the defendant had purchased the suit
\nproperty on 06.04.1992 for the valuable sale consideration and from the said
\ndate of sale the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule
\nproperty.  The plaint schedule property was comprised in Patta No.32.  The
\nplaintiffs have illegally included the plaint schedule property in Patta No.188
\nat the time of UDR proceedings.  Swaminatha Pillai never paid any land tax to
\nthe plaint schedule property.   The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of
\nthe plaint schedule property and he is paying land tax to the same.  This
\ndefendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property in
\ncontinuous uninterrupted possession for the past 25 years and thus has
\nprescribed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession.  On
\n10.05.1989 the said Swaminatha Pillai had also executed a mortgage deed in
\nrespect of the plaint schedule property for a sum of Rs.5,000\/- and handed over
\nthe possession to the defendant on the same date.  Thereafter, on 10.07.1990, he
\nhad also received another sum of Rs.5,000\/- from the defendant and executed a
\npromissory note for the interest due under the said mortgage deed and in lieu of
\nthe interest the defendant was permitted to be in possession and enjoyment of
\nthe plaint schedule property. There is also an endorsement in the promissory
\nnote to that effect.   The plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief under the
\nplaint.  Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Before the trial Court, the first plaintiff has examined himself as
\nP.W.1 besides examining P.W.2 & P.W.3. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.18 were marked on the side
\nof the plaintiffs.  On the side of the defendant, the defendant was examined as
\nD.W.1 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.8 were marked.   After scanning the evidence both oral
\nand documentary the learned trial Judge, after coming to the conclusion that the
\nrelief asked for in the plaint cannot be granted, had dismissed the suit without
\ncosts.  Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the plaintiffs
\nhave preferred an appeal in A.S.No.193 of 1996 before the Subordinate Judge,
\nVirudhunagar.   The learned first appellate Judge after giving due deliberations
\nto the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, finding no
\nmaterial to interfere with the decree and Judgment of the learned trial Judge,
\nhas dismissed the appeal, thereby confirmed the decree and Judgment of the
\nlearned District Munsif, Aruppukottai in O.S.No.92 of 1993, which necessitated
\nthe plaintiffs to approach this Court by way of this second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The following Substantial Questions of Law are involved in this Second
\nAppeal?\n<\/p>\n
\t\t1)Whether the Courts below are right in concluding that the suit
\nproperty is the joint family property and Swaminatha Pillai is the Kartha of the
\nfamily?\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2)Whether there is presumption under law that the property is a
\njoint family property for the reason that stands in the name of the father?\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3)Whether the Courts below are not right in considering that Item
\nNo.11 in the plaint schedule is the trust property in view of the recitals in
\nEx.B.8?\n<\/p>\n
The Substantial Question of Law No.3 has been recast today ie., 10.11.2008 as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t3)Whether the Courts below are not right in considering that the plaint
\nschedule property as the trust property in view of the recitals in Ex.B.8 (item
\nNo.11)?\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Substantial Question of Law No.3:-The plaint schedule property is as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t “1 acre 75 cents – 0.70.0 hectares in S.No.9\/1A situate West of S.No.9\/1
\nmeasuring 3 acres 8 cents, Dhamodarapuram Village, Thiruchuli, Kamarajar
\nDistrict (Srivilliputhur District).”\n<\/p>\n
The four boundaries given in the plaint is West of the property the remaining
\nproperty in the hands of the vendor of the plaint viz., Swaminatha Pillai, East
\nof the punja land belonging to Pooranam, D\/o.Pachayai Ammal, Punja land of
\nGettiyammal and Ponnu and others,  North of Elanoorani boundary and South of
\npunja land belonging to the vendor Swaminatha Pillai, Vellaichamy Devar and
\nMuthaiya.\tThe learned counsel appearing for the respondent\/defendant would
\ncontend that the plaint schedule property was not purchased by the plaintiffs
\nunder Ex.A.2-sale deed from their vendor Swaminatha Pillai. Ex.A.2 is the sale
\ndeed dated 07.04.1992 in favour of the first plaintiff Karuppiah and his son
\nChidambaram, the plaintiffs in O.S.NO.156 of 1992.  The said sale deed was
\nexecuted by Swaminatha Pillai, S\/o.Saravana Perumal Pillai.  The property
\nscheduled to Ex.A.2 is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“1 acres 75 cents – 0.70.0 hectares in S.No.9\/1 new UDR S.No.9\/1A (out of
\n3 acres 8 cents in Old S.No.9\/1) of Dhamodarapuram Village, Thiruchuli, Sub-
\nRegistrar District, Kamarajar District (Srivilliputhur District) comprised in
\npatta No.188.”\n<\/p>\n
The four boundaries given under Ex.A.2 is West of the punja land belonging to
\nthe trustees of Shanmuga Vinayagar Temple viz., Swaminatha Pillai,    East of
\nthe punja land belonging to the Pooranam, D\/o.Pachai Ammal, Ponnu, Pottiyammal
\nand others,  North of S.No.97 Elanoorani boundary and South of the punja land
\nbelonging to Muthaiya, S\/o.Karuppanna Devar, and Vellaichamy S\/o.Kannayeram
\nDevar and punja land of Swaminatha Pillai, the life trustee of Shanmuga
\nVinayager Temple trust punja, measuring 1 acre 75 cents inclusive of 1\/4th right
\nin the well in S.No.9\/1. The plaintiffs traced their predecessors’ title under
\nEx.A.1.  According to the plaintiffs, their vendor under Ex.A.2 viz., Swaminatha
\nPillai, S\/o.Saravana Perumal Pillai had purchased the property sold under Ex.A.2
\nin favour of the plaintiffs under Ex.A.1 dated 24.03.1926. As per the recitals
\nin Ex.A.2, the vendor under Ex.A.1 had purchased the property scheduled to
\nEx.A.1 under a Court auction in O.S.No.239 of 1924, under which a sale
\ncertificate was issued on 25.2.1995 and a delivery certificate was issued on
\n14.06.1925.  The property scheduled to Ex.A.1 runs as follows:-
\n\tEast of Karrupanna Servai’s land
\n\tNorth of the ancestral property of the vendee under Ex.A.1
\n\tWest of punja land belonging to Subbha Naicker
\n\tSouth of punja land belonging to Azhagiri Naicker
\n\tcomprised in pymash No.24 measuring 3 acres 65 cents.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would state that the property
\ncomprised in pymash No.24 measuring 3 acres 65 cents was sold under Ex.A.1 in
\nfavour of Swaminatha Pillai, S\/o.Saravana Perumal Pillai and that as per Ex.A.2,
\nthe plaintiffs have purchased 1 acre 75 cents in UDR S.No.9\/1A, and would
\nfurther contend that pymash No.24 relates to S.No.10\/1 and S.No.5\/1 and not to
\nUDR S.No.9\/1A.  In support of this contention the learned counsel for the
\nrespondent would focus the attention of this Court to       Ex.B.6-Correlation
\nDeed, which shows that pymash No.24 correlates to S.No.5\/1 and S.No.10\/1 and not
\nto UDR S.No.9\/1A, under which                      1 acre 75 cents was purchased
\nunder Ex.A.2 by the plaintiffs, do not come within pymash No.24. So, it goes
\nwithout saying that property purchased under Ex.A.1 by Swaminatha Pillai,
\nS\/o.Saravana Perumal Pillai, vendor under Ex.A.2 was not conveyed to the
\nplaintiffs under Ex.A.2.  The learned counsel for the respondent would further
\ncontend that under Ex.B.5, he has proved before the trial Court that UDR
\nS.No.9\/1A correlates pymash Nos.47\/1, 47\/2, 47\/3 and 47\/4 and not to pymash
\nNo.24, under which Swaminatha Pillai, S\/o.Saravana Perumal Pillai, had purchased
\nthe properties under Ex.A.1 measuring 3 acres 65 cents.  Reliance has been made
\nunder Ex.A.8 by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent to show that
\nSwaminatha Pillai, S\/o.Saravana Perumal Pillai had already conveyed the property
\npurchased by him under Ex.A.1 ie., the property comprised in pymash No.24 to a
\nTrust and Item No.11 to Ex.B.8 is the property purchased by Swaminatha Pillai
\nunder Ex.A.1.  Ex.B.8 is dated 16.03.1930, whereas Ex.A.2 is dated 07.04.1992.
\nSo, on the date of execution of Ex.A.2, Swaminatha Pillai had nothing to be
\nconveyed in respect of the property comprised in pymash No.24 since he had
\nalready executed Ex.B.8 in respect of the suit property in favour of the
\nTrustees viz., minor Shanmugan, minor Natarajan @ Kandasamy, minor Selvaraj @
\nShanmugam and minor Ramasamy through their guardian and father Saravana Perumal
\nPillai by Swaminatha Pillai, the vendor under Ex.A.2.  Item No.11 to Ex.B.8 is
\nthe property comprised in pymash No.24.  So after the execution of Ex.B.8
\nSwaminatha Pillai, the vendor under Ex.A.2, has no right in respect of pymash
\nNo.24 to convey the same in favour of the plaintiff under Ex.A.2 as correctly
\nheld by the Courts below. Substantial Question of Law No.3 is answered
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Substantial Question of Law Nos.1 & 2:-The question whether the plaint
\nschedule property belongs to the joint family property of Swaminatha Pillai and
\nwhether under Ex.B.8 the said Swaminatha Pillai had exclusive right to convey
\nthe entire property in favour of the Trust need not be gone into because the
\npoint to be decided in the suit is whether the plaintiffs have got right and
\ntitle in respect of the plaint schedule property under Ex.A.2-sale deed.  The
\nplaintiffs have failed to prove that under Ex.A.2-sale deed they had right and
\ntitle in respect of the plaint schedule property. On the other hand the
\ndefendant has proved that the vendor under Ex.A.2 viz., Swaminatha Pillai had no
\nright or title in respect of the property, he had purchased under Ex.A.1 to
\nconvey the same under Ex.A.2 after the execution of Ex.B.8 in respect of the
\nproperty he had purchased under Ex.A.1 (pymash No.24), which had been conveyed
\nin favour of the Trust under Ex.B.8. Further, under Ex.B.5 and Ex.B.6 also the
\ndefendant has proved that pymash No.24 does not relate to the plaint UDR
\nS.No.9\/1A, but it relates to S.No.10\/1 and S.No.5\/1 (Ex.B.6) and that UDR
\nS.No.9\/1  correlates to pymash Nos.47\/1, 47\/2, 47\/3, 47\/4 under Ex.B.5.
\nSubstantial Questions of Law Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.  Further,
\nthis Court while exercising its power under Second Appeal normally shall not
\ninterfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below unless it is shown
\nbefore this Court that the findings of the Courts below is perverse in nature
\nand the Courts below have failed to consider the documents produced before them
\nin proper perspective.  There is no material placed before this Court to show
\nthat the findings of the Courts below is perverse in nature and the Courts below
\nhave failed to consider the documents placed before them, to warrant any
\ninterference from this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.In fine, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed confirming
\nthe decree and Judgment in A.S.No.193 of 1996 on the file of the Court of
\nSubordinate Judge, Virudhunagar. In the circumstances of the case, there is no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
ssv<\/p>\n
To,\n<\/p>\n
1.The Subordinate Judge, Virudhunagar,<\/p>\n
2.The District Munsif, Arupukottai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Karuppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 10\/11\/2008 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN S.A.No.758 of 2000 1.Karuppiah 2.Chidambaram … Appellants \/ plaintiffs vs. Chandran … Respondent \/ Defendant Prayer This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the […]<\/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-12117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKaruppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008 - 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\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karuppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-12T07:48:26+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karuppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-12T07:48:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2278,\"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\\\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Karuppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-12T07:48:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karuppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Karuppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008 - 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\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karuppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-12T07:48:26+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karuppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-12T07:48:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008"},"wordCount":2278,"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\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008","name":"Karuppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-12T07:48:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karuppiah-vs-chandran-on-10-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karuppiah vs Chandran on 10 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/12117","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=12117"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12117\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}