{"id":129030,"date":"2008-12-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008"},"modified":"2017-09-13T05:19:20","modified_gmt":"2017-09-12T23:49:20","slug":"k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 10\/12\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN\n\nS.A.(MD)No.1028 of 2000\n\n1.K.Sivakami\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\/Appellant\/\n\t\t\t\t\t   Defendant\nVs.\n\nS.Krishnan\t\t\t\t.. Respondent\/Respondent\n\t\t\t\t\t   Plaintiff\n\nPRAYER\n\nThis Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the\njudgment and decree in A.S.No.165 of 1999 dated 22.03.2000 on the file of\nPrincipal District Judge, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and degree passed in\nO.S.No.60\/96 dated 24.12.1998 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.\n\n!For Appellant\t ... Mr.Saravanan, Advocate\n\t \t     for M\/s.LA LAW\n^For Respondent  ... Mr.P.Vairava Sundaram\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tThe appeal has been directed against the decree and judgment in<br \/>\nA.S.No.165 of 1999, on the file of Court of Principal District Judge, Dindigul.<br \/>\nThe unsuccessful defendant before the Courts below is the appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The suit promissory note is alleged to have been executed by the<br \/>\ndefendant in favour of the plaintiff on 10.01.1993 for a sum of Rs.35,000\/- with<br \/>\ninterest at 12% per annum.  The defendant had failed to repay the debt, the<br \/>\nplaintiff issued suit notice, dated 24.08.1993.  The defendant has issued a<br \/>\nreply notice, dated 20.09.1993 containing frivolous contentions.  The suit<br \/>\npromissory note was not executed as a security, for the loan borrowed by the<br \/>\ndefendant&#8217;s husband, from Mangalam Finance Chit Corporation at Palani, as<br \/>\nalleged in the reply notice. The defendant&#8217;s husband had no transaction with the<br \/>\nMangalam Finance at Palani, at any point of time.  The defendant is an Income<br \/>\nTax Assessee.  Hence, the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.The defendant in his written statement would contend that the<br \/>\ndefendant had not executed the suit promissory note on 10.01.1993 after<br \/>\nreceiving a consideration of Rs.35,000\/-, as alleged in the plaint.  The<br \/>\ndefendant does not know the plaintiff at any point of time.  The defendant had<br \/>\nnot executed any promissory note after receiving Rs.35,000\/-, as alleged in the<br \/>\nplaint. At the instance of her husband, C.A.Kumar, the defendant had signed in<br \/>\nan unwritten promissory note.  The plaintiff has concocted the suit promissory<br \/>\nnote only for the purpose of this case.  The defendant had married one<br \/>\nC.A.Kumar, some 6-1\/2 years back. The defendant is working as a Professor in a<br \/>\nCollege, was getting more than Rs.5,000\/- per month, towards her salary.  The<br \/>\ndefendant&#8217;s husband, C.A.Kumar, was not in cordial term with this defendant.<br \/>\nThe defendant&#8217;s husband, C.A.Kumar, had joined in a chit by name, &#8216;Mangalam<br \/>\nFinance&#8217;, at Palani, had borrowed several loans from the said &#8216;Mangalam Finance&#8217;<br \/>\nand had also executed several promissory notes.  The defendant&#8217;s husband has no<br \/>\nmeans to pay the said loan amount.  Since the defendant was working as a<br \/>\nProfessor and was earning to realise the loan amount from the defendant&#8217;s<br \/>\nhusband, the plaintiff had threatened the defendant&#8217;s husband to get a<br \/>\npromissory note from this defendant as a security for the loan borrowed by him<br \/>\n(C.A.Kumar).  Only at the instance of her husband, C.A.Kumar, the defendant had<br \/>\nsigned in an unfilled promissory note.  The defendant&#8217;s husband also threatened<br \/>\nto commit suicide, if the defendant refused to sign in the said unfilled<br \/>\npromissory note.  Only under such circumstances, the defendant had signed in the<br \/>\nunfilled promissory note. The defendant is living separately from her husband<br \/>\nfrom May-1993.  After knowing this fact, the plaintiff only to realise the suit<br \/>\namount, has filed this suit against this defendant, who had not received any<br \/>\namount under the suit promissory note from the plaintiff much less Rs.35,000\/-.<br \/>\nFor the suit notice received by her, the defendant had sent a suitable reply,<br \/>\ndated 20.09.1993. Both the execution and passing of consideration in respect of<br \/>\nthe suit promissory note is denied by this defendant.  In the Mangalam Finance<br \/>\nat Palani, apart from the plaintiff one N.M.Natarajan, S.M.Vairam, Pandian,<br \/>\nJeganathan, Dhandapani are also partners.  So far the defendant&#8217;s husband had<br \/>\npaid Rs.26,925\/- to the Mangalam Finance in order to discharge the loan from the<br \/>\nsaid Mangalam Finance by him. The suit promissory note is a forged one, and<br \/>\nhence, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.The plaintiff has filed a reply statement denying the averment in<br \/>\nthe written statement, contending that under the suit promissory note a sum of<br \/>\nRs.35,000\/- was received by the defendant and that only to discharge the debt<br \/>\nborrowed by the defendant&#8217;s husband, the suit promissory note was executed by<br \/>\nthe defendant in favour of the plaintiff and that there was no connection<br \/>\nbetween the plaintiff and the defendant&#8217;s husband, C.A.Kumar.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.The defendant has filed an additional written statement contending<br \/>\nthat she is not known to M.N.Natarajan and in his presence no amount was paid to<br \/>\nher, as contented by the plaintiff.  On the above pleadings, the learned trial<br \/>\nJudge has framed two issues for trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1<br \/>\nbesides examining one of the witnesses of Ex.A1, suit promissory note, viz.,<br \/>\nThiru.Natarajan as P.W.2 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A3.  On the side of the<br \/>\ndefendant, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.  The<br \/>\nletter written by the defendant&#8217;s husband, C.A.Kumar to D.W.2, Muthumanickam<br \/>\nwere exhibited as Exs.X1 to X3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the<br \/>\nlearned trial Judge, has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to<br \/>\na decree on the basis of suit promissory note, has decreed the suit as prayed<br \/>\nfor.  Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the defendant has<br \/>\npreferred an appeal in A.S.No.165 of 1999, before the learned Principal District<br \/>\nJudge, Dindigul, who, after giving due deliberations to the submissions made by<br \/>\nthe learned counsel on both sides and after scanning the evidence let in before<br \/>\nthe trial Court, finding no reasons to interfere with the judgment of the<br \/>\nlearned trial Judge, has dismissed the appeal, thereby, confirming the decree<br \/>\nand judgment of the learned trial Judge, which necessitated the defendant to<br \/>\napproach this Court by way of this Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.The following substantial question of law are involved in the<br \/>\nSecond Appeal:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t&#8220;1.Whether the conditional admission of the signature alone in the<br \/>\npromissory note will lead to the presumption of passing of consideration also<br \/>\nunder Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.Will the burden of proof shift to the plaintiff if the normal<br \/>\npresumption as to consideration is rebutted by the evidence of the defence.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>9.Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1&amp; 2:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of Ex.A1, promissory<br \/>\nnote, alleging that the same was executed by the defendant on 10.01.1993 after<br \/>\nreceiving the consideration of Rs.35,000\/- agreeing to pay interest at the rate<br \/>\nof 12% per annum.  The defence taken by the defendant is that her husband,<br \/>\nC.A.Kumar, had borrowed the loan from Mangalam Finance, Palani, on very many<br \/>\noccasions and only as a security for the loan borrowed from the plaintiff by her<br \/>\nhusband C.A.Kumar, the suit promissory note was executed by the defendant and<br \/>\nthat no consideration was passed on to her but only to her husband C.A.Kumar.<br \/>\nThe learned trial Judge relying on the judgment in Bharat Barrel Vs. Amin Chand<br \/>\nPyarelal reported in (1999 1 CTC 497) has held that once execution of promissory<br \/>\nnote is admitted by the defendant, the presumption under Section 118(a) of the<br \/>\nNegotiable Instrument Act, is that the amount promissory note is valid by<br \/>\nconsideration, unless the plaintiff has rebutted the said presumption by letting<br \/>\nin further evidence on his side.  Apart from examining himself as P.W.1, the<br \/>\nplaintiff has also examined one of the witnesses to Ex.A1, suit promissory note.<br \/>\nThiru.Natarajan as P.W.2,  in his evidence, has categorically deposed that Ex.A1<br \/>\npromissory note was executed in his presence by the defendant in favour of the<br \/>\nplaintiff and at the time of execution of Ex.A1, the plaintiff had handed over<br \/>\nRs.35,000\/- to the defendant, who had received the same.  There is no recital in<br \/>\nEx.A1 as to the effect that only for a security, as a loan borrowed by the<br \/>\ndefendant&#8217;s husband C.A.Kumar from Mangalam Finance, Palani, the suit promissory<br \/>\nnote was executed by the defendant.  As rightly contended by the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the respondent that even after filing of the suit, the defendant<br \/>\nhad not sent any notice.  The plaintiff contended that the suit promissory note<br \/>\nwas executed only as a security for the loan borrowed by her husband C.A.Kumar<br \/>\nfrom Mangalam Finance at Palani and that no demand was made by the defendant<br \/>\nfrom the plaintiff for return of the suit promissory note, Ex.A1.  Further, the<br \/>\ndefendant, as D.W.1, would admit in her deposition in the cross-examination that<br \/>\nshe has not filed any document to show that Mangalam Finance was conducting the<br \/>\nchit and that her husband was the subscriber of the said chit and had incurred a<br \/>\ndebt with the said Mangalam Finance.  The defendant would depose in her evidence<br \/>\nthat only at the instance of her husband, as a security, she had signed in the<br \/>\nsuit promissory note.  But, the evidence of P.W.2, Natarajan is that the<br \/>\ndefendant had executed the promissory note in the house of the plaintiff and<br \/>\nEx.A1 is supported by consideration to the tune of Rs.35,000\/-.  There is<br \/>\nabsolutely no material placed before the trial Court on the side of the<br \/>\ndefendant to show that Ex.A1, suit promissory note was not supported by<br \/>\nconsideration. There is no rebuttal evidence let in by the defendant to show<br \/>\nthat Ex.A1, promissory note was not supported by consideration.  On the other<br \/>\nhand, under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the presumption is<br \/>\nthat once the execution of the promissory note is admitted, then it follows that<br \/>\nit is supported by consideration.  Both the Courts below have concurrently held<br \/>\nthat Ex.A1 is supported by consideration and the defendant is liable to pay the<br \/>\nsuit amount.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend<br \/>\nthat the trial Court has awarded 12% future interest for the suit promissory<br \/>\nnote and admittedly, the suit loan was not for any commercial purpose.  Under<br \/>\nSection 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff can claim only 6%<br \/>\nfuture interest for the amount due under the suit promissory note, which was<br \/>\nadmittedly executed to discharge the family debt and also to meet the family<br \/>\nexpenses.  Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the plaintiff is<br \/>\nentitled to only 6% future interest for the suit amount from the date of decree<br \/>\ntill the date of realisation. Substantial Questions of Law Nos.1 &amp; 2 are<br \/>\nanswered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.In fine, the appeal is partly allowed with the following<br \/>\nmodification in the judgment of the learned trial Judge.  The plaintiff is<br \/>\nentitled to 6% future interest from the date of decree till the date of<br \/>\nrealisation.  In other respects, the decree of the first Appellate Judge in<br \/>\nA.S.No.165 of 1999, on the file of Court of Principal District Judge, Dindigul,<br \/>\nis confirmed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Mpk<\/p>\n<p>To,<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Principal District Judge,<br \/>\n    Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\n    Dindigul.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10\/12\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN S.A.(MD)No.1028 of 2000 1.K.Sivakami .. Appellant\/Appellant\/ Defendant Vs. S.Krishnan .. Respondent\/Respondent Plaintiff PRAYER This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree [&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-129030","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 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\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-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=\"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-12T23:49:20+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-12T23:49:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1797,\"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\\\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008\",\"name\":\"K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-12T23:49:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 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":"K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 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\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-12T23:49:20+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-12T23:49:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008"},"wordCount":1797,"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\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008","name":"K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-12T23:49:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivakami-vs-s-krishnan-on-10-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Sivakami vs S.Krishnan on 10 December, 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\/129030","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=129030"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129030\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129030"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129030"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129030"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}