{"id":131911,"date":"2010-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010"},"modified":"2017-02-27T10:31:28","modified_gmt":"2017-02-27T05:01:28","slug":"a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 23\/07\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nC.R.P.(PD)MD.No.1483 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\n\nVirudhunagar, Tirumangalam,\nPalayampatti, Periyakarisalkulam,\nKovilangulam, Five Villages,\nHindu Christian Panikkar Association,\nrepresented by its Hindu Trustees\n\n1.A.Palanichamy\n2.R.Dhas\n3.P.Jeyapandian          ... Petitioners\/Plaintiffs 1 to 3\n\nvs\n\n\nVirudhunagar, Tirumangalam,\nPalayampatti, Periyakarisalkulam,\nKovoilangulam, Five Villages\nSriman Narayanamadam Panickkar Community,\nrepresented by its Christian Trustees\n\n1.C.Ponraj\n2.W.David Soundarajan\n3.J.Stanley Jones\n4.Inspector of Police,\n  Virudhunagar West Police Station     ...  Respondents\/D1 to 4\n\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\nPrayer\n\nCivil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the\nConstitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order, dated\n27.07.2009 made in I.A.No.81 of 2006 in O.S.No.37 of 2004, on the file of the\nSub Court, Virudhu Nagar.\n\n!For Petitioners   ... Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar\n^For Respondents   ... Mr.G.R.Swaminathan\n                       for S.Parthasarathy\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard both sides<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The plaintiffs 1 to 3 in O.S.No.37 of 2004, on the file of the Sub<br \/>\nCourt, Virudhunagar, are the revision petitioners herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The revision petitioners herein filed a suit in the representative<br \/>\ncapacity, representing Virudhunagar, Tirumanagalam, Palayampatti,<br \/>\nPeriyakarisalkulam, Kovilangulam, Five Villages Hindu-Christian Panicker<br \/>\nAssociation, for injunction that till the completion of construction is over,<br \/>\nthe defendants\/respondents should not interfere with the management of the trust<br \/>\nby them.  The defendants in the above suit are representing the Christian<br \/>\nTrustees of the said Association.  It is seen from the plaint allegations and it<br \/>\nis not in dispute between the parties that as per scheme framed in O.S.No.15 of<br \/>\n1945, on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram,  the Panickkar Community<br \/>\nbelonging to Hindu and Christian religion residing in the above five villages<br \/>\nare entitled to manage the affairs of the properties of their community and once<br \/>\nin five years, three representatives from Hindu and Christian religions would be<br \/>\nelected to manage the affairs of the property and as per the resolution of the<br \/>\nSangam, dated 12.04.1947, the name of Committee has been approved as<br \/>\nVirudhunagar, Tirumanagalam, Palayampatti, Periyakarisalkulam, Kovilangulam,<br \/>\nFive Villages belonging to Pannickar community consisting of Hindu and<br \/>\nChristian, Paripallana Management Committee. Since then, the properties are<br \/>\nmanaged by the said Committee consisting of three representatives from Hindu and<br \/>\nthree representatives from Christian holding office for a period of five years.<br \/>\nIt is further admitted that there is an internal arrangements between the<br \/>\ntrustees once in six months that the affairs of the Committee will be managed by<br \/>\nthe trustees, representing one religion and as per the said arrangement, from<br \/>\n21.05.2001 to 01.11.2001, the affairs of the Committee was managed by the Hindu<br \/>\ncommunity trustees and at that time, some construction works were undertaken and<br \/>\ntherefore, the representatives of Hindu community trustees wanted to continue in<br \/>\nmanagement till the completion of the construction work undertaken by them and<br \/>\nas the same was objected by the Christian community trustees, the suit was filed<br \/>\nby the trustees, representing Hindu religion for injunction restraining the<br \/>\nChristian trustees from interfering with their management.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The respondents\/defendants filed the statement disputing the claim of<br \/>\nthe revision petitioners and trial has commenced in that suit and PW1 was<br \/>\nexamined on the side of the revision petitioners.  Thereafter, the revision<br \/>\npetitioners filed I.A.No.81 of 2006 under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the<br \/>\ncause title stating that a general body meeting was convened on 29.05.2005 and<br \/>\nin that general body meeting, a resolution was passed to change the name of the<br \/>\nCommittee as  Virudhunagar, Tirumanagalam, Palayampatti, Periyakarisalkulam,<br \/>\nKovilangulam, Five Villages Sriman Narayanamadam Panickkar community properties<br \/>\nManagement Committee, represented by a Hindu Trustees and Christian trustees.<br \/>\nThis was opposed by the respondents stating that no such resolution was passed<br \/>\nin the meeting held on 29.05.2005 and as per scheme decree, the parties have to<br \/>\napproach the Sub Court, Virudhu Nagar, for effecting any change in the name and<br \/>\nwithout that, the name cannot be changed. The respondents also disputed the<br \/>\nfactum of resolution passed in the general body meeting held on 29.05.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The learned Sub Judge allowed the amendment application and aggrieved by<br \/>\nthe same, the respondents filed CRP No.547 of 2007, on the file of this Court<br \/>\nand this Court, by order, dated 11.06.2008 allowed the revision petition and<br \/>\nremanded the matter for fresh disposal holding that without exhibiting the<br \/>\nresolution, dated 29.05.2005, the Court should not have proceeded with the<br \/>\nmatter and allowed the application and gave liberty to the parties to let in<br \/>\nevidence and directed the lower Court to consider the matter afresh.<br \/>\nThereafter, the revision petitioners examined one witness and marked eight<br \/>\ndocuments and the respondents examined one witness and marked the scheme decree<br \/>\npassed in O.S.No.15 of 1945. The learned Sub Judge on a careful consideration of<br \/>\nthe oral and documentary evidence, held that the amendment sought for by the<br \/>\nrevision petitioners cannot be allowed and aggrieved by the same, this civil<br \/>\nrevision petition is filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision<br \/>\npetitioners submitted that there is no need to get permission from the Sub Court<br \/>\nto change the name of the Committee and the scheme was framed only in respect of<br \/>\nmanagement of the Committee and for effecting change the same can be done by<br \/>\npassing a resolution in the general body meeting and as a matter of fact, even<br \/>\nin the year 1947, without getting permission from the Court, the name was<br \/>\nchanged by resolution and therefore, the contention of the respondents that<br \/>\nwithout getting permission from the Court, which framed this scheme, the name<br \/>\ncannot be changed cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.He further submitted that on 29.05.2005, the general body meeting was<br \/>\nconvened and the representatives of Christian religion, who are arrayed as<br \/>\nrespondents also participated in the said meeting and they also signed in the<br \/>\nregister and attended the meeting and therefore, they are estopped from<br \/>\ncontending that the name cannot be changed as they also participated in the<br \/>\ngeneral body meeting and they are also parties to the resolution.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.The learned counsel further submitted that as per Ex.P5, the signature<br \/>\nof the respondents, who represented the Christian religion, participated in the<br \/>\ngeneral body meeting and the lower Court has also held that page 61 to 71,<br \/>\ncontain the names of 226 members participated in the meeting and therefore, it<br \/>\ncan be presumed that the change of name was validly passed in the meeting held<br \/>\non 29.05.2005. He, therefore, submitted that the lower Court erred in dismissing<br \/>\nthe application for amendment and it is to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents,<br \/>\nMr.G.R.Swaminathan submitted that the proposed amendment has nothing to do with<br \/>\nthe scope of the suit and the factum of the resolution alleged to have passed in<br \/>\nthe said meeting, dated 29.09.2005 is in dispute and as matter of fact,<br \/>\nO.S.No.237 of 2006 was filed by two persons, representing the Christian<br \/>\nreligion, for declaration that the change of name allegedly to have been passed<br \/>\nin the meeting held on 29.05.2005 is null and void and when the resolution<br \/>\nitself is in dispute, the lower Court correctly dismissed the amendment<br \/>\napplication.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr.G.R.Swaminathan<br \/>\nfurther brought to my notice that on the basis of the alleged change of name,<br \/>\nvarious suits were filed in the new name in O.S.Nos.81, 82, 83 of 2007 and<br \/>\nO.S.No.280 of 2008, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar and<br \/>\nin all these suits, the defendants raised a plea that the plaintiffs have no<br \/>\nright to file the suit and the properties belongs to Hindu community residing in<br \/>\nfive villages and it does not belong to Narayanamadam Panickkar and that would<br \/>\nalso prove that the community people did not accept the change of name.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.Mr.R.Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the revision<br \/>\npetitioners submitted that subsequent events would also prove that the<br \/>\nrespondents have accepted the change of name and submitted that on 28.05.2006,<br \/>\nannual general body meeting was convened in the new name and all the community<br \/>\noffice bearers have participated in the said meeting and therefore, the<br \/>\nrespondents and other religion trustees belonging to Christian religion have<br \/>\naccepted the change of name and therefore, the amendment ought to have been<br \/>\nallowed before the lower Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by both<br \/>\nthe counsels.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.In this case, the amendment sought for is to change the cause title on<br \/>\nthe basis of the resolution passed in the general body meeting.  The suit is<br \/>\nfiled for injunction restraining the trustees belongs to Christian community<br \/>\nfrom interfering with the management of the Committee by the Hindu trustees,<br \/>\ntill the work undertaken by the Hindu trustees is completed.  Therefore, having<br \/>\nregard to the nature of the suit and the relief prayed for in that suit, we will<br \/>\nhave to see whether the amendment can be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.The Honourable Supreme Court in AIR 1961 SC 325, in the case of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/900028\/\">Purushottam Umedbhai and Co., vs. M\/s.ManilaL &amp; Sons<\/a> held that amendment of the<br \/>\nplaint to enable a proper description of the plaintiffs to appear in it, in<br \/>\norder to assist the court in determining the real question or issue between the<br \/>\nparties can be allowed. It is further held that it is a well settled rule that<br \/>\nall amendment should be permitted as may be necessary for the purpose of<br \/>\ndetermining the real question in controversy between the parties, unless by<br \/>\npermitting the amendment, injustice will result to the other side. Therefore, we<br \/>\nwill have to see whether the amendment will help the Court to determine the<br \/>\nissue involved in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.As stated supra, the suit was filed for injunction restraining the<br \/>\nChristian religion trustees from interfering with the management of the trust,<br \/>\nby the Hindu trustees. Therefore, the amendment will not in anyway help the<br \/>\nCourt to decide the controversy.  Further, admittedly, a suit is field in<br \/>\nO.S.No.237 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar, for<br \/>\ndeclaration that the change of name is null and void and in that suit, it can be<br \/>\ndecided whether there was a proper resolution passed on 29.05.2005 and depending<br \/>\nupon the result of the suit, the parties can change the name and by allowing the<br \/>\namendment in a pending suit, a wrong signal will be given as if the court has<br \/>\naccepted the resolution passed on 29.05.2005 for change of name.  As held by the<br \/>\nHonourable Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above, the amendment has to<br \/>\nbe considered in the light of the relief prayed for and to determine the<br \/>\ncontroversy in issue. In my opinion, the proposed amendment will not help the<br \/>\nCourt to decide the controversy in dispute and hence, considering the fact that<br \/>\nsuit is also pending, challenging the change of name the Court below has rightly<br \/>\ndismissed the application for amendment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.Hence, I do not find any infirmity to interfere with the order of the<br \/>\nlower Court. Accordingly, this civil revision is dismissed.  Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>er<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nVirudhu Nagar.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23\/07\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN C.R.P.(PD)MD.No.1483 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 Virudhunagar, Tirumangalam, Palayampatti, Periyakarisalkulam, Kovilangulam, Five Villages, Hindu Christian Panikkar Association, represented by its Hindu Trustees 1.A.Palanichamy 2.R.Dhas 3.P.Jeyapandian &#8230; Petitioners\/Plaintiffs 1 to [&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-131911","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>A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010 - 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\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-27T05:01:28+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\\\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-27T05:01:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1706,\"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\\\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010\",\"name\":\"A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-27T05:01:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010 - 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\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-27T05:01:28+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\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-27T05:01:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010"},"wordCount":1706,"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\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010","name":"A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-27T05:01:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-palanichamy-vs-c-ponraj-on-23-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Palanichamy vs C.Ponraj on 23 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/131911","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=131911"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131911\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131911"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131911"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131911"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}