{"id":122756,"date":"2000-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000"},"modified":"2018-08-18T04:44:20","modified_gmt":"2018-08-17T23:14:20","slug":"n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000","title":{"rendered":"N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.N. Kirpal, M B Shah.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nN.N. ABDUL RAWOOF\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPICHAMUTHU &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/02\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nB.N. Kirpal, M B Shah.,\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p> D E R<\/p>\n<p>The  only question which arises for consideration in this<br \/>\nappeal\tis  as to what is the meaning of  the  expression<br \/>\n&#8220;not  less than Rs.1200&#8221; occurring in the Timal Nadu Debt<br \/>\nRelief\tAct,  1979 (hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the  said<br \/>\nAct&#8217;).\n<\/p>\n<p>The  father of the respondent had executed a usufructuary<br \/>\nmortgage  deed in respect of a property in favour of  the<br \/>\nappellant   herein  for\t a  sum\t  of  Rs.   10,000\/-   on<br \/>\n25-12-1967.   This  property was given on lease\t to  some<br \/>\ntenants\t for more than 10 years.  Under the provisions of<br \/>\nthe said Act the respondents filed an application seeking<br \/>\ndirection   that  the  usufrucuary   mortgage  had   been<br \/>\ncompletely  discharged.\t  The respondents claimed  to  be<br \/>\ndebtors within the meaning of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant herein contended that the respondents could<br \/>\nnot  be regarded as debtors within the meaning of section<br \/>\n3 (3) of the said Act inasmuch as the rental value of the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s  property was as much if not more than  what<br \/>\nis required under the Act.  The District Munsif dismissed<br \/>\nthe respondents application which was affirmed in appeal.<br \/>\nIn  second  appeal  owever  the High Court  came  to  the<br \/>\nconclusion  that the respondents were debtors within  the<br \/>\nmeaning\t of  Section  3(3) of the Act.\tIt  came  to  the<br \/>\nconclusion  that  the annual rental value of Rs.   1200\/-<br \/>\nwas  not  enough to deprive them of the benefit of  being<br \/>\nregarded as debtors.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  admitted fact being that the annual rental value  of<br \/>\nthe  property  belonging  to the  respondents  being  Rs.<br \/>\n1200\/-\tthe  question is whether the respondents  can  be<br \/>\nregarded  as debtors.  The relevant provision of  Section<br \/>\n3(3) of the said Act reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;3(3) debtor&#8217;s means any person from whom any debt is due:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that a person shall not be deemed to be a debtor<br \/>\nif he,<\/p>\n<p>(i)  has  in both the financial years ending on the  31st<br \/>\nMarch, 1977 and the 31st March, 1978, been assessed to &#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)  income-tax\t under the Income tax Act, 1961\t (Central<br \/>\nAct  XLIII of 1961) or under the income tax law in  force<br \/>\nin any foreign country;\t or<\/p>\n<p>(b)   agricultural  income-tax\tunder\tthe  Tamil   Nadu<br \/>\nAgricultural  Income-tax  Ac, 1955 (Tamil Nadu Act  V  of<br \/>\n1955)  or  under any law in force in any other\tState  or<br \/>\nUnion territory in India) or<\/p>\n<p>(ii)  has, in both the financial years ending on the 31st<br \/>\n1978,  been  assessed  to sales ta under the  Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nGeneral\t Sales 1959) or under the Central Sales Tax  Act,<br \/>\n1956 (Central Act LXXIV of 1956);  or<\/p>\n<p>(iii)  has  in\tall  the   four\t half  years  immediately<br \/>\npreceding  the 1st March, 1978 been assessed to\t property<br \/>\nor  house tax in respect of buildings or lands other than<br \/>\nagricultural  lands,  underr  the   Tamil  Nadu\t district<br \/>\nMunicipalities\tAct, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act V of 1920), the<br \/>\nMadras\tcity Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (Tamil  Nadu<br \/>\nAct  IV of 1919), the Madurai city Municipal  Corporation<br \/>\nAct,  1958 (Tamil Nadu Act XXXV of 1958), the cantonments<br \/>\nAct,  1924 (Central Act II or 1924) or any law\tgoverning<br \/>\nmunicipal  or local bodies in this State or in any  other<br \/>\nState  or  Union Territory in India.  provided\tthat  the<br \/>\naggregate  annual  rental  valule of such  buildings  and<br \/>\nlands wheter let out or in the occupation ofthe owner, is<br \/>\nnot  less than repees one thousand and two hundred.&#8221;  the<br \/>\nOn  a  careful reading f the said provision,  it  appears<br \/>\nthat  any  person from whom debt is due is regarded as\ta<br \/>\ndebtor.\t  The proviso to sub-section (3) exclused certain<br \/>\ncategories  of\tpersons from being regarded  as\t debtors.<br \/>\nAccording  to  sub clause (iii) a person who  owes  money<br \/>\nshall  not be deemed to be a debtor if he has in all  the<br \/>\nfour  halft years preceeding 1st March 1978 been assessed<br \/>\nto  property  of house tax provided the aggregate  annual<br \/>\nvalue  of  such buildings or lands in not less\tthan  Rs.<br \/>\n1200\/-.\t  Owner\t of  a\tproperty is  thus  sought  to  be<br \/>\nexcluded  from\tthe definition of debtor, but  not  every<br \/>\nowner  is  excluded as persons whon own\t property  having<br \/>\nless  rental  value  will  continue  to\t be  regarded  as<br \/>\ndebtors.\n<\/p>\n<p>As  already noticed what has to be seen is as to what  is<br \/>\nthe  meaning  of  the  expression  is  &#8221;  not  less  than<br \/>\nRs.1200\/-&#8221;  occurring inthe aforesaid proviso,\tAccording<br \/>\nto  the High Court the respondents would get the  benefit<br \/>\nand  would be regarded as debtors even though the  annual<br \/>\nrental value of the property owned by them is Rs.  1200\/-<br \/>\nThe implication of the decision of the High Court is that<br \/>\nit  is\tonly if the rental value was more than Rs.   1200<br \/>\nthat the proviso would have been attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>As  we\tread the said proviso it appears to us\tthat  the<br \/>\nexpression  &#8220;not  less than Rs.\t 1200\/-&#8221; means\tthat  the<br \/>\nminimum amount of rental value if it is Rs.  1,200\/- then<br \/>\nthe personn would be covered by the proviso and would not<br \/>\nbe regarded as a debtor.  In stroud&#8217;s Judicial Dictionary<br \/>\n5th  Edn.  at page 1200 it is noted that &#8221; Where a statue<br \/>\nprescribes  a penalty for an offence of &#8220;not less&#8221; than a<br \/>\nstated\tamount, that is the minimum penalty that justices<br \/>\ncan impose, notwithstanding that the section, prescribing<br \/>\nthe  penalty,  says that the offender &#8220;shall  be  liable&#8221;<br \/>\nthereto;   and the power to mitigate given by the Summary<br \/>\nJurisdiction  Act  1879\t (c.49) s.4, was in such  a  case<br \/>\nqualified  so  that  mitigation could not go  below  such<br \/>\nminimum (Osborn v.  Wood (1897) 1 Q.B.\t197).&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In  Raja Kulkarni &amp; Ors.  Vs.  State of Bombay (1954  SCR<br \/>\n384 a question arose regarding the recognition of a trade<br \/>\nunion.\t Section  13 of the Bombay Industrial  Regulation<br \/>\nAct,  1946  provided that a representative  union  should<br \/>\nhave  a\t membership of &#8220;not less than 15 per cent of  the<br \/>\ntotal number of employees.&#8221; Whillllllle interpreting this<br \/>\nprovision  it was observed at page 390 that &#8220;the  statute<br \/>\nlays  down  a  minimum qualification of 15  per\t cent  of<br \/>\nmembership   to\t enable\t the  union   to  be   called\ta<br \/>\nrepresentative union&#8230;&#8230;&#8221; After laying down the test of<br \/>\nnot  less than 15 per it was perfectly resonable &#8220;not  to<br \/>\nallow any other union such as the appellants to interpose<br \/>\nin  a dispute on behalf of the textile workers when  they<br \/>\ndid  not  command  the minimum percentage or  when  their<br \/>\nmembership  fell  below the prescribed\tpercentage.&#8221;  The<br \/>\nview  which  was expressed in Raja Kulkarni case  (Supra)<br \/>\nclearly was that when the statute used the expression not<br \/>\nless  than  a particular figure then that figure  is  the<br \/>\nminimum.\n<\/p>\n<p>In  K.P.  Varghese Vs.\tI.T.O.\t&amp; Anr., (1981) 4 SCC  173<br \/>\nthis  court  was required to interpret section 52 of  the<br \/>\nIncome\ttax Act 1961 where in sub-section (2) the  Income<br \/>\ntax  officer would get jurisdiction to acquire a  capital<br \/>\nasses if the fair market value of that asset exceeded the<br \/>\nfull  value  of consideration &#8220;by an amount of\tnot  less<br \/>\nthan 15 per cent of the value declared&#8230;&#8230;..&#8221; Analysing<br \/>\nthis  provision it was held that according to sub-section<br \/>\n(2)  the difference between the fair market value and the<br \/>\nconsideration  declared\t will have to be 15 per\t cent  or<br \/>\nmore  to  enable  the  Income  tax  Officer  to\t exercise<br \/>\njurisdication  under that section.  To the same effect is<br \/>\nthe  decision of this court in Karnail Singh &amp; Ors.   vs.<br \/>\nDarshan\t Singh &amp; Ors., 1995 Supp (1) SCC 760.  Section\t4<br \/>\nof  the\t Punjab\t Grampanchayat\t Act,  1952  enables  the<br \/>\nGovernment  to\tdeclare\t any  village  or  the\tgroup  or<br \/>\ncontiguous  villages to constitute one or more sabha area<br \/>\nif   they  had\tpopulation  of\t &#8220;not  less  than   500.&#8221;<br \/>\nInterpreting  this  provision it was held that\twhat  was<br \/>\nrequired  for the exercise of powers under said Section 4<br \/>\nwas that there should be a minimum population of 500.  In<br \/>\nother  words,  the expressing population of not less  thn<br \/>\n500  was  interpreted  to mean\tthat  minimum  population<br \/>\nshould be 500.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court has referred to the decision of this Court<br \/>\nin  The\t Pioneer  Motors Pvt.  ltd.  Vs.   The\tMunicipal<br \/>\nCouncil,  Nagercoil (1961) 3 SCR 609 where the expression<br \/>\nwas,  which was benging interpreted, &#8220;not being less than<br \/>\none  month.&#8221; This Court held that in order that a  notice<br \/>\nshould\tbe  valid the expression not being less than  one<br \/>\nmonth  would  mean that there must be notice of 30  clear<br \/>\ndays.\tThis  would be possible only if the 1st\t and  the<br \/>\nlast  day  on  which  the notice is  ussed  is\texcluded.<br \/>\nRather\tthan  helping the respondent in our  opinion  the<br \/>\nsaid  decision\tfortifies  the view which we  have  taken<br \/>\nnamely, that the period specified is the minimum perriod.<br \/>\nNot  less than one month meant that 30 clear days  notice<br \/>\nhad to be given and it is only in order to ensure that 30<br \/>\nclear  days notice is given that, basing on section 9  of<br \/>\nthe General Clauses Act, it was observed that the 1st and<br \/>\nthe last date should be excluded.\n<\/p>\n<p>Similarly,  in C.I.T.  Calcutta vs.  M\/s.  Braichwaito\t&amp;<br \/>\nCo.   Ltd.   (1993)  2\tSCC 262 where the  court  had  to<br \/>\nconsider  the  expression  &#8220;of a period not less  than\t7<br \/>\nyears&#8221;\tit  was held that the period cannot be\teven  one<br \/>\nminute\tless than 7 years.  The ratio of this decision is<br \/>\nnot  different than the decision of this court in Karnail<br \/>\nsingh,\tK.P.  Varghese and Raja kulkarni (supra).  To the<br \/>\nsame effect is the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/796212\/\">Saketh India<br \/>\nLtd.  &amp; Ors.  vs.  India Securities Ltd.<\/a>  1999 (3) SCC 1.\n<\/p>\n<p>From  the aforesaid discussion it clearly follows that if<br \/>\nthe annual rental value of the property which is owned by<br \/>\na  debtor is not less than Rs.\t1,200\/- then he would  b<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000 Bench: B.N. Kirpal, M B Shah. PETITIONER: N.N. ABDUL RAWOOF Vs. RESPONDENT: PICHAMUTHU &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/02\/2000 BENCH: B.N. Kirpal, M B Shah., JUDGMENT: D E R The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-122756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000 - 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\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-17T23:14:20+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-17T23:14:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1565,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000\",\"name\":\"N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-17T23:14:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000 - 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\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-17T23:14:20+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000","datePublished":"2000-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-17T23:14:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000"},"wordCount":1565,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000","name":"N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-17T23:14:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-n-abdul-rawoof-vs-pichamuthu-ors-on-10-february-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.N. Abdul Rawoof vs Pichamuthu &amp; Ors on 10 February, 2000"}]},{"@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\/122756","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=122756"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/122756\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=122756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=122756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=122756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}