{"id":127835,"date":"1955-09-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1955-09-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955"},"modified":"2017-06-16T07:07:20","modified_gmt":"2017-06-16T01:37:20","slug":"chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955","title":{"rendered":"Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 799, \t\t 1955 SCR (2) 477<\/div>\n
Author: T V Aiyyar<\/div>\n
Bench: Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHATTANATHA KARAYALAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMACHANDRA IYER AND ANOTHER.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n19\/09\/1955\n\nBENCH:\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nBENCH:\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\n\nCITATION:\n 1955 AIR  799\t\t  1955 SCR  (2) 477\n\n\nACT:\n   Election   Dispute-Returned\tcandidate  alleged   to\t  be\ndisqualified  for  being chosen as  a  member--Hindu  father\nentering  into Government contract, if does so on behalf  of\nthe  undivided\tfamily-Presumption of Hindu  Law-Finding  of\nbenami,\t if liable to be interfered with in Special  appeal-\nRepresentation of the People Act (XLIII of 1951), ss.  7(d),\n9(2).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n  There\t is  no\t presumption in Hindu Law  that\t a  business\nstanding  in the name of a member of the Hindu joint  family\nis  joint  family  business, even when that  member  is\t the\nmanager or the father.\nThere is this difference between the position of the  father\nstarting  a  new business and a mere manager doing  so\tthat\nwhile  the debts contracted by the father in  such  business\nare  binding  on  the sons on the theory of  a\tson's  pious\nobligation  to pay his father's -debt, those  contracted  by\nthe latter are not binding on the other\n478\nmembers of the family unless, at least, it can be shown that\nthe starting of the business was necessary.\nRam  Nath  v.  Chiranii Lal, ([1934] I.L.R.  57\t All.  605),\nChhotey Lal Chaudhury v. Dalip Narain Singh, ([1938]  I.L.R.\n17  Patna 386), Hayat Ali Shah v. Nem Chand  (A.I.R.  [1946]\nLah. 169), referred to.\nBut  this  distinctive position of the father  does  not  by\nitself make the new business started by him a joint business\nof the undivided family.\n The  question\tof benami is a question of  fact  and  where\nthere  is evidence to support a finding that a person  is  a\nbenamidar for another, the Supreme Court in a Special appeal\nwill not interfere with it.\n  Consequently,\t in a case where an election was  challenged\non the ground that the candidate returned was interested  in\na contract entered into by his father, benami in the name of\nanother,   with\t the  Government  for  felling\t trees\t and\ntransporting  timber and as such disqualified to  stand\t for\nelection   under   s.  7(d)  read  with\t s.  9(2)   of\t the\nRepresentation of the People Act and the Tribunal -found  on\nevidence that the father was the real contracting party\t but\nwithout\t considering the evidence on the other point  which,\nif  believed,  might sustain a finding that the\t father\t was\nmeting on behalf of the family, presumed as a matter of\t law\nthat  the ion had interest in the contract and declared\t the\nelection void,\nHeld,  that the Tribunal took an erroneous view of  the\t law\nand  made a wrong presumption, so its decision must  be\t set\naside,\tand as the findings are not sufficient for  disposal\nof  the matter the case must be remitted back for  rehearing\non the evidence on record.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
   CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  136  of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby Special Leave from the Judgment and\tOrder  dated
\nthe  15th  November 1954 of the Election  Tribunal,  Quilon,
\nTravancore-Cochin, in Election Petition No. 18 of 1954.
\nS.   Mohan  Kumara  Mangalam,  H. J.  Umrigar  and  Rajinder
\nNarain, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
T. R. Balakrishnan, for respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
1955.\tSeptember  19.\t The  Judgment\tof  the\t Court\t was
\ndelivered by
\nVENKATARAMA  AYYAR  J. -This is an appeal by  special  leave
\nagainst the order of the Election Tribunal, Quilon declaring
\nthe election of the appellant to the Legislative Assembly of
\nthe State of Travancore-\n<\/p>\n
479<\/span><\/p>\n
Cochin\tfrom the Shencottah Constituency void on the  ground
\nthat he was disqualified to stand for election under section
\n7(d) read with section 9(2) of Act No. XLIII of 1951.
\n   Under  section 7(d), a person is disqualified  for  being
\nchosen\tas a member of the Legislative Assembly of a  State,
\nif he is interested in any contract for the supply of  goods
\nor for the execution of any works for the Government of that
\nState.\tSection 9(2) declares that if any such contract\t has
\nbeen  entered  into  by or on behalf of\t a  Hindu  undivided
\nfamily,\t every\tmember\tthereof\t shall\tbe  subject  to\t the
\ndisqualification mentioned in section 7(d); but that if\t the
\ncontract  has been entered into by a member of an  undivided
\nfamily carrying on a separate business in the course of such
\nbusiness,  other  members of the family having no  share  or
\ninterest  in that business shall not be\t disqualified  under
\nsection 7(d).\n<\/p>\n
   The contract in the present case was for felling trees in
\na  Government forest and transporting them for\tdelivery  at
\nthe places specified therein.  There is now no dispute\tthat
\nthis  contract is one that falls within section 7(d) of\t the
\nAct.   The  point  in  controversy  is\tsimply\twhether\t the
\ncontract  with the Government was entered into on behalf  of
\nthe  joint family, of which the appellant is a member.\t The
\nagreement  stands in the name of one  Kuppuswami  Karayalar,
\nand  the allegations in the petition are that he is  a\tmere
\nname-lender  for  one  Krishnaswami Karayalar,\twho  is\t the
\nmanager\t of  a joint family consisting of  himself  and\t his
\nsons,  the appellant being one of them, and that he  entered
\ninto  the  contract  in question on behalf of  and  for\t the
\nbenefit of the joint family.  The case of the appellant,  on
\nthe other hand, is that Kuppuswami whose name appears in the
\ncontract  was  the person solely entitled  to  the  benefits
\nthereof,  that\the was not a  name-lender  for\tKrishnaswami
\nKarayalar, and that further neither he nor the joint  family
\nhad any interest in the contract.  Certain other pleas\twere
\nalso put forward by him, but they are not now material.\n<\/p>\n
61<\/span>
\n480<\/span><\/p>\n
The following issues were framed on the above con-
\ntentions:\n<\/p>\n
”  (2) Is the said joint family the owner of the  right\t and
\nbenefits  of  the contract for the felling  and\t removal  of
\ntimber from Coupe No. 4, Nedumangad Taluq, entered into with
\nthe  Forest  Department, Travancore-Cochin State?   Has\t the
\njoint family -any interest in the said contract?
\n (3) Is\t Mr. Kuppuswami Karayalar whose name appears as\t the
\ncontractor only a name-lender for the joint Hindu family  of
\nwhich the respondent is a member?”\n<\/p>\n
 On issue 3, the Tribunal found that Krishnaswami  Karayalar
\nwas  the real contracting party, and that Kuppuswami  was  a
\nbenamidar  for\thim, and on issue 2, that the  contract\t was
\nentered\t into  on behalf of the joint family, of  which\t the
\nappellant was a member.\t On these findings, it held that the
\nappellant  was\tdisqualified under section  7(d)  read\twith
\nsection 9(2), and declared his election void.  The appellant
\nquestions  the\tcorrectness  of this order  firstly  on\t the
\nground\tthat the finding that Kuppuswami is a benamidar\t for
\nKrishnaswami Karayalar is not warranted by the evidence, and
\nsecondly  on the ground that the finding  that\tKrishnaswami
\nentered\t into the contract on behalf of the joint family  is
\nbased on a mistake of law and is unsustainable.
\n  On   the  first  question,  Mr.  Kumaramangalam  for\t the
\nappellant  admitts that there is evidence in support of -the
\nconclusion that Kuppuswami was a benamidar for Krishnaswami,
\nbut contends that it is meagre and worthless.  The  question
\nwhether\t a  person is a benamidar or not, is purely  one  of
\nfact,  and  a finding thereon cannot be interfered  with  in
\nspecial\t appeal, if there is evidence on which it  could  be
\nbased.\t We  must,  therefore, accept  the  finding  of\t the
\nTribunal  that\tit  was\t Krishnaswami,\tthe  father  of\t the
\nappellant,  who\t was  the  real\t contracting  party  to\t the
\nagreement with the Government.\n<\/p>\n
 The next question is whether Krishnaswami entered into\t the
\ncontract  in his own personal capacity or as manager of\t the
\njoint family.  The Tribunal found
\n\t\t\t    481<\/span>
\nas  a  fact  that  the\tbusiness  started  by\tKrishnaswami
\nKarayalar was a new venture, and instead of proceeding\tnext
\nto  consider  on the evidence whether in entering  into\t the
\ncontract  he acted for himself or for the joint\t family,  it
\nentered into a discussion whether under the Hindu law  there
\nwas  a presumption that a business started by  a  coparcener
\nwas  joint family business.  After observing that there\t was
\nno such presumption “in the case of an ordinary manager”, it
\nheld that “the law is different when the manager happens  to
\nbe also the father”.  It then referred to certain  decisions
\nin which it had been held that the sons were liable for\t the
\ndebts  incurred by the father for a new business started  by
\nhim,  and  held\t “on the above authorities  that  the  joint
\nfamily\tof  the\t respondent is the owner of  the  right\t and
\nbenefit of the present contract”.\n<\/p>\n
  The  appellant contends that the statement of law  by\t the
\nTribunal  that\tthere is a presumption that a  new  business
\nstarted by the father is joint family business is erroneous,
\nand  that  its finding that the joint family  of  which\t the
\nappellant  was a member had an interest in the\tcontract  of
\nKrishnaswami could not be supported, as it was based  solely
\non the view which it took of the law.  This criticism is, in
\nour opinion, well founded.  Under the Hindu law, there is no
\npresumption  that  a business standing in the  name  of\t any
\nmember\tis a joint family one even when that member  is\t the
\nmanager\t of the family, and it makes no difference  in\tthis
\nrespect\t that the manager is the father of the\tcoparceners.
\nIt  is\tno doubt true that with reference to a\ttrade  newly
\nstarted\t there is this difference between the position of  a
\nfather\tand  a\tmanager, that  while  the  debts  contracted
\ntherefor  by the former would be binding on the sons on\t the
\ntheory\tof  pious obligation, those incurred  by  a  manager
\nwould  not be binding on the members, unless at least  there
\nwas necessity for the starting of the trade, as to which see
\nRam Nath v. Chiranji Cal(1), Chotey Lai v. Dulip Narain\t (2)
\nand Hayat Ali v. Nem Chand(3).\tBut
\n(1)  [1994] I.L.R. 57,All. 605.\t (2) [1988] I.L.R. 17  Patna\n<\/p>\n
386.
\n\t\t (3) A.1,R. 1945 Lab. 169,
\n482<\/span>
\nit  is\tone thing to say that the sons are  liable  for\t the
\ndebts contracted by the father in the trade newly started by
\nhim, and quite another thing to treat the trade itself as  a
\njoint family concern.  We are therefore unable to accept the
\nfinding\t of the Tribunal that the contract  of\tKrishnaswami
\nKarayalar should, as a matter of law, be held to be a  joint
\nfamily business of himself and his sons.\n<\/p>\n
  This conclusion, however, is not sufficient to dispose  of
\nthe  matter.  The case of the respondent  that\tKrishnaswami
\nentered into the contract with the Government of Travancore-
\nCochin\ton behalf of the joint family rests not merely on  a
\npresumption  of\t law  but  on  evidence\t as  to\t facts\t and
\ncircumstances  which,  if accepted, would be  sufficient  to
\nsustain a finding in his favour.  In the view it took of the
\nlaw  on\t the  question, the Tribunal  did  not\tdiscuss\t the
\nevidence bearing on this point or record a finding  thereon.
\nIt is therefore necessary that there should be a remittal of
\nthe  case  for\t‘a consideration of  this  question  on\t the
\nevidence.\n<\/p>\n
  The appellant contends that there is only the evidence  of
\nthe respondent in support of the plea that the contract\t was
\nentered into by Krishnaswami on behalf of the joint  family,
\nand  that this Court could itself record a finding  thereon.
\nBut  it\t is argued by the respondent that there are  in\t the
\njudgment  of the Tribunal several observations\twhich  would
\nsupport the conclusion that the contract was entered into on
\nbehalf of the joint family.  Thus’ it is pointed out that in
\npara   5  of  the  judgment  the  Tribunal   observes\tthat
\nKrishnaswami Karayalar started this new business with a view
\nto discharge the family debts.\tIt further observes in\tpara
\n6 that the business required an initial investment of  about
\nRs.  25,000 to Rs. 30,000, and that while there is  evidence
\nthat  about  Rs.  7,000 had been  borrowed  by\tKrishnaswami
\nKarayalar, there is no evidence bow the balance was made up.
\nThe  contention\t of the respondent is that  this  must\thave
\nproceeded from the joint family funds, and that implicit  in
\nthe  finding of the Tribunal.  It is this is also  mentioned
\nin the judgment of the Tribunal that
\n483<\/span>
\nKrishnaswami  was  anxious to support his son,\tthe  present
\nappellant,   and  that\tmany  of  the  witnesses  whom\t the
\nrespondent  was obliged to examine, were really\t anxious  to
\nhelp  the  appellant. (Vide para 12).  We do  not,  however,
\ndesire\tto express any opinion on these contentions,  as  we
\npropose to leave them to the decision of the Tribunal.
\n    We accordingly set aside the order of the Tribunal,\t and
\ndirect\tthat  the Election Commission  do  reconstitute\t the
\nTribunal   to\thear  and  decide   the\t  question   whether
\nKrishnaswami  Karayalar entered into the contract  with\t the
\nGovernment  of\tTravancore-Cochin  on behalf  of  the  joint
\nfamily\tor for his own personal benefit, on a  consideration
\nof the evidence on record.  It is made clear that no further
\nevidence  will be allowed.  The parties will bear their\t own
\ncosts in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t  Case remitted for hearing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955 Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 799, 1955 SCR (2) 477 Author: T V Aiyyar Bench: Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama PETITIONER: CHATTANATHA KARAYALAR Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMACHANDRA IYER AND ANOTHER. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19\/09\/1955 BENCH: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA BENCH: AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA BOSE, VIVIAN […]<\/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-127835","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955 - 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\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955\" \/>\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=\"1955-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-16T01:37:20+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955\",\"datePublished\":\"1955-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-16T01:37:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955\"},\"wordCount\":1706,\"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\\\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955\",\"name\":\"Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1955-09-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-16T01:37:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955\"}]},{\"@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":"Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955 - 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\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1955-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-16T01:37:20+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955","datePublished":"1955-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-16T01:37:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955"},"wordCount":1706,"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\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955","name":"Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1955-09-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-16T01:37:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chattanatha-karayalar-vs-ramachandra-iyer-and-another-on-19-september-1955#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chattanatha Karayalar vs Ramachandra Iyer And Another on 19 September, 1955"}]},{"@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\/127835","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=127835"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127835\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127835"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127835"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127835"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}