{"id":122654,"date":"2008-06-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008"},"modified":"2015-04-01T09:35:45","modified_gmt":"2015-04-01T04:05:45","slug":"e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 27\/06\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN\n\nC.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.660 of 2008\n\n1.E.R.Sathiskumar\n2.E.R.Sharmila\t\t\t\t... Petitioners\n\nVs.\n\nK.S.Krishnamoorthy\t\t\t... Respondent\n\nPRAYER\n\nCivil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of\nIndia, against the unnumbered O.S.No.... of 2007 on the file of District Munsif\nCourt, Madurai Taluk.\n\n!For Petitioners\t... Mr.T.R.Subramanian\n^\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p> ******<\/p>\n<p>\tThis civil revision petition is directed against the  order of the learned<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif, Madurai Taluk returning the plaint filed by the petitioners for<br \/>\na declaration that their brother E.R.Saravanan was dead, as his whereabouts were<br \/>\nnot known and as he has not been heard of more than 7 years.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. In the plaint, it was the contention of the petitioners that their<br \/>\nbrother E.R.Saravanan was employed in the Madurai City Municipal Corporation as<br \/>\nRecord Clerk. While so, they have received a letter dated 07.04.1999 from<br \/>\nMadurai Corporation stating that their brother Saravanan has gone on medical<br \/>\nleave from 05.02.1999 to 27.03.1999 and that he did not report for duty on<br \/>\n28.03.1999. Subsequently, the Municipal Corporation have sent a letter dated<br \/>\n23.04.1999 addressed to Saravanan directing him to report for duty within three<br \/>\ndays from the date of receipt of the letter, failing which it was indicated that<br \/>\nhe would be suspended temporarily. Since their brother Saravanan failed to<br \/>\nreport for duty before the Corporation, he was suspended as per proceedings<br \/>\ndated 30.07.1999. Subsequently, the Corporation made a paper publication in<br \/>\nMalaimurasu, dated 22.01.2002 informing the public that the said Saravanan was<br \/>\nsuspended with effect from 30.07.1999 and later he was dismissed from service,<br \/>\nas per proceedings dated 05.09.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. It was the further contention of the petitioners that their brother was<br \/>\nhaving close contact with the defendant and though they have enquired with the<br \/>\ndefendant about the whereabouts of Saravanan, the defendant stated that he has<br \/>\nno information about Saravanan from the year 1999. It was further contended in<br \/>\nthe plaint that they have not known the whereabouts of the said Saravanan for<br \/>\nseven years and as such, as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, he is<br \/>\ndeemed to be dead. A police complaint has also been given on 05.01.2000 with<br \/>\nrespect to the disappearance of Saravanan. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have<br \/>\nprayed for a declaration that their brother Saravanan is presumed to have been<br \/>\ndead, as he is not found for the past seven years.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The learned trial Judge was pleased to return the plaint on the ground<br \/>\nthat the suit against the defendant, who is none other than a relative of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs, is not maintainable for the relief asked for in the plaint. Even<br \/>\nthough there are other remarks by the learned trial Judge, those are not<br \/>\nnecessary to be considered here, as the main issue to be decided is as to<br \/>\nwhether the learned trial Judge was justified in returning the plaint on the<br \/>\nground that the suit is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. I have heard Mr.T.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrevision petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned counsel submitted that as per Section 108 of the Indian<br \/>\nEvidence Act, there is a statutory presumption that if a person is not heard of<br \/>\nfor the last seven years, he is presumed to be dead and such being the position,<br \/>\nthe trial Court committed a jurisdictional error in returning the plaint as not<br \/>\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. I have gone through the averments as found in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The mater relating to grant of a decree of declaration is provided<br \/>\nunder Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is trite that a<br \/>\ndeclaratory decree granted is binding only on the parties to the suit or persons<br \/>\nclaiming through them respectively. Therefore, it is evident that a decree of<br \/>\ndeclaration is only a right in personam and not a right in rem. The said<br \/>\nposition is clear on a plain reading of Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act.<br \/>\nSuch being the position, the relief now sought for by the petitioners in the<br \/>\nplaint is binding only on the respondent. However, the issue is as to whether<br \/>\nsuch a decree could be granted in a suit of this nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. <a href=\"\/doc\/458197\/\">In L.I.C. of India v. Anuradha<\/a> reported in AIR 2004 SC 2070, the Apex<br \/>\nCourt considered the legal presumption as embodied in Sections 107 and 108 of<br \/>\nthe Evidence Act and held thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;14&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;. The law as to presumption of death remains the<br \/>\nsame whether in Common Law of England or in the statutory provisions contained<br \/>\nin Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the scheme of<br \/>\nEvidence Act, though Sections 107 and 108 are drafted as two Sections, in<br \/>\neffect, Section 108 is an exception to the rule enacted in Section 107. The<br \/>\nhuman life shown to be in existence, at a given point of time which according to<br \/>\nSection 107 ought to be a point within 30 years calculated backwards from the<br \/>\ndate when the question arises, is presumed to continue to be living. The rule is<br \/>\nsubject to a proviso or exception as contained in Section 108. If the persons,<br \/>\nwho would have naturally and in the ordinary course of human affairs heard of<br \/>\nthe person in question, have not so heard of him for seven years, the<br \/>\npresumption raised under Section 107 ceases to operate. Section 107 has the<br \/>\neffect of shifting the burden of proving that the person is dead on him who<br \/>\naffirms the fact. Section 108, subject to its applicability being attracted, has<br \/>\nthe effect of shifting the burden of proof back on the one who asserts the fact<br \/>\nof that person being alive. The presumption raised under Section 108 is a<br \/>\nlimited presumption confined only to presuming the factum of death of the person<br \/>\nwho&#8217;s life or death is in issue. Though it will be presumed that the person is<br \/>\ndead but there is no presumption as to the date or time of death. There is no<br \/>\npresumption as to the facts and circumstances under which the person may have<br \/>\ndied. The presumption as to death by reference to Section 108 would arise only<br \/>\non lapse of seven years and would not by applying any logic or reasoning be<br \/>\npermitted to be raised on expiry of 6 years and 364 days or at any time short of<br \/>\nit. An occasion for raising the presumption would arise only when the question<br \/>\nis raised in a Court. Tribunal or before an authority who is called upon to<br \/>\ndecide as to whether a person is alive or dead. So long as the dispute is not<br \/>\nraised before any Forum and in any legal proceedings the occasion for raising<br \/>\nthe presumption does not arise.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. It is clear from the judgment of the Apex Court that so long as the<br \/>\ndispute pertaining to death of a person is not raised before any forum and in<br \/>\nany legal proceeding, an occasion for raising the presumption does not arise. In<br \/>\ncase it is the grievance of the petitioners that they are entitled to certain<br \/>\nbenefits from the Madurai City Municipal Corporation on account of the<br \/>\ntermination of service of their brother Saravanan from the service of the<br \/>\nMunicipality, they could have claimed the same from the Municipality and if it<br \/>\nwas the contention of the Municipality that there was no proof in respect of the<br \/>\ndeath of the said Saravanan, they could have filed a suit against the<br \/>\nCorporation and in such suit, the legal presumption could be taken advantage by<br \/>\nthe petitioners. The issue regarding the death of Mr.Saravanan would arise<br \/>\ndirectly in such proceedings, and a decree obtained in such suit would be<br \/>\nbinding on the Madurai Corporation, being the employer of the said Saravanan.<br \/>\nSuch being the position, I am of the view that no relief could be granted in the<br \/>\nsuit preferred by the petitioners arraying one of their relatives as defendant.<br \/>\nEven if a decree is granted in such suit, the said decree is not binding on<br \/>\nothers including the Madurai Corporation and as such, it would remain to be a<br \/>\npaper decree which cannot be carried into execution. Therefore, I am of the<br \/>\nconsidered opinion that the suit as framed is not maintainable and as such, the<br \/>\nlearned trial Judge was perfectly correct in returning the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observation.<br \/>\nHowever, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as<br \/>\nto costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>SML<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe District Munsif Court,<br \/>\nMadurai Taluk.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27\/06\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.660 of 2008 1.E.R.Sathiskumar 2.E.R.Sharmila &#8230; Petitioners Vs. K.S.Krishnamoorthy &#8230; Respondent PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the unnumbered O.S.No&#8230;. of 2007 [&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-122654","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>E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 2008 - 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\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-01T04:05:45+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\\\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-01T04:05:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1342,\"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\\\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008\",\"name\":\"E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-01T04:05:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 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":"E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 2008 - 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\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-01T04:05:45+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\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-01T04:05:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008"},"wordCount":1342,"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\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008","name":"E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-01T04:05:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-r-sathiskumar-vs-k-s-krishnamoorthy-on-27-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E.R.Sathiskumar vs K.S.Krishnamoorthy on 27 June, 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\/122654","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=122654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122654\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}