{"id":14593,"date":"2006-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006"},"modified":"2015-08-20T10:19:42","modified_gmt":"2015-08-20T04:49:42","slug":"valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED:  9.8.2006  \n\nCORAM:   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN            \n\n\nA.S.No.672 of 1993 \n\n\n\nValliyathal                                   .. Appellant\n\n                                                -Vs-\n\n\n1.Dr.Noel Doss \n\n2.Basheer Mohammed    \n\n3.Nahi Munnisa                                  ..  Respondents\n\n\n        Appeal against  the  judgment  and  decree  dated  30.4.1993  made  in\nO.S.No.252 of 1989 on the file of Sub Judge, Tiruppur.\n\n                For appellant :  Mr.V.K.Muthusami,\n                                Senior Counsel for Mr.V.Bharathidasan\n\n                For respondents :  Mr.S.Raghavan\n                                for R2 and R3.\n\nJUDGMENT    \n<\/pre>\n<p>        This  appeal  is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 30.4<br \/>\n.1993, made in O.S.No.252 of 1989 on the file of Sub  Judge,  Tiruppur.    The<br \/>\nplaintiff is the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant executed an<br \/>\nagreement of sale with her on 12.9.1985 agreeing to sell the  suit  properties<br \/>\nfor  a  sum  of  Rs.60,000\/-  and received an advance of Rs.10,00 0\/- from the<br \/>\nplaintiff on the same day and it was also agreed that the plaintiff has to pay<br \/>\nthe balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000\/- on or before 11.12.1985 and  get<br \/>\nthe sale  deed  executed.    It  is  further  stated  in the plaint that after<br \/>\nexecuting the agreement, the first defendant was evading the execution of sale<br \/>\ndeed inspite of repeated requests by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is always<br \/>\nand ready and willing to perform her part of the  agreement  by  offering  the<br \/>\nbalance  sale consideration, but still, the first defendant was postponing the<br \/>\nexecution under some pretext or other and later on the plaintiff came to  know<br \/>\nthat  the  first  defendant  executed  the  sale  deed  in favour of the third<br \/>\ndefendant conveying the properties  including  the  suit  properties  and  the<br \/>\nalleged  transaction  will  not  affect  the  agreement  of  sale  between the<br \/>\nplaintiff and the first defendant and the first defendant is bound to  execute<br \/>\nthe  sale  deed  to the plaintiff as per the agreement and the third defendant<br \/>\nhas purchased the suit properties after knowing about  the  existence  of  the<br \/>\nagreement  and  the  sale  deed  is not binding on the plaintiff and the first<br \/>\ndefendant and third defendant are bound to execute the sale deed in favour  of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff and to deliver possession of the suit properties.\n<\/p>\n<p>        It  is  further  stated by the plaintiff that though three months time<br \/>\nhas been fixed in the agreement, the time was not the essence of the  contract<br \/>\nand  the  first defendant alone is responsible for the delay in completing the<br \/>\ntransaction and the plaintiff has sought for a direction to the  defendants  1<br \/>\nand  3  to  execute  the  sale  deed  of  the suit properties in favour of the<br \/>\nplaintiff after receiving  the  balance  sale  consideration  and  to  deliver<br \/>\npossession  and in the event of their failure, the sale deed to be executed by<br \/>\nthe Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  The first defendant in his written statement as  well  as  in  the<br \/>\nadditional  written statement has admitted that the plaintiff has entered into<br \/>\na contract with him on 12.9.1985 to purchase the suit properties  for  a  sale<br \/>\nconsideration  of Rs.60,000\/- and paid a sum of Rs.10,000\/- as advance and the<br \/>\nbalance sale consideration  of  Rs.50,000\/-  has  to  be  paid  on  or  before<br \/>\n12.12.1985  and  as per the terms of the agreement, the time is the essence of<br \/>\nthe contract and the first  defendant  on  several  occasions,  expressed  his<br \/>\nintention  to  dispose  of  all  his immovable properties at Tiruppur since he<br \/>\nwanted to shift his family to Coimbatore and that is the reason for fixing the<br \/>\ntime limit for completion of the sale and the plaintiff was never ready at any<br \/>\ntime to execute the sale agreement and did not take any  step  to  extend  the<br \/>\ntime stipulated in the agreement and the first defendant in person and through<br \/>\nletters,  requested  the  plaintiff  and  her  husband to pay the balance sale<br \/>\nconsideration and get the sale deed executed and inspite of it, they were  not<br \/>\nready and  willing.    It  is  further  stated by the first defendant that the<br \/>\nplaintiff knew about the sale of the suit properties to  the  third  defendant<br \/>\nand  the  plaintiff alone committed breach of contract and she is not entitled<br \/>\nto the relief of specific performance.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The second defendant in his written statement has stated  that  he<br \/>\nhas  nothing  to do with the suit properties and he is an unnecessary party to<br \/>\nthe suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  The third defendant in her written statement has stated  that  she<br \/>\npurchased  the suit properties for a valid sale consideration of Rs.2,40,000\/-<br \/>\nfrom the first defendant under a registered sale deed dated 26.5.1986 and  she<br \/>\nis  a  bonafide  purchaser  f alue and even if the sale agreement is true, the<br \/>\nplaintiff cannot specifically enforce the same since the time had expired  and<br \/>\nthe suit is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   The  plaintiff  in  her reply statement has stated that the first<br \/>\ndefendant himself has admitted that he waited for the contract to be completed<br \/>\neven after 11.12.1985 and hence the time is not the  essence  of  contract  to<br \/>\nboth the parties and the agreement dated 12.9.1985 was never terminated by the<br \/>\nfirst  defendant and the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform her<br \/>\npart of the contract.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The Trial Court framed seven issues  and  the  plaintiff  examined<br \/>\nherself  as  P.W.1  and examined P.W.2 on her side and marked Exs.A1 to A4 and<br \/>\nthe first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and the third defendant examined<br \/>\nherself as D.W.2 and marked Exs.B1 to B24.  On a  consideration  of  oral  and<br \/>\ndocumentary  evidence,  the  Trial Court held that the time was the essence of<br \/>\nthe contract as per the sale agreement and the plaintiff  was  not  ready  and<br \/>\nwilling  to  complete  the  transaction  as  per  the  agreement and the third<br \/>\ndefendant is the bonafide  purchaser  for  value  and  the  plaintiff  is  not<br \/>\nentitled for the discretionary relief of specific performance.  Aggrieved over<br \/>\nthe judgment  and  decree, the plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.  In<br \/>\nthis Judgment, for the sake of convenience, the parties  are  referred  to  as<br \/>\narrayed in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The points for determination in this appeal are:-<br \/>\n&#8220;1.Whether time is the essence of the contract.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.Whether   the  plaintiff  was  ready  and  willing  to  perform  the<br \/>\ncontract.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        POINT Nos.1 and 2:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Mr.V.K.Muthusami, the learned Senior  Counsel  for  the  appellant<br \/>\nwould urge that time is not the essence of the contract insofar as the sale of<br \/>\nimmovable property is  concerned.    Per  contra, Mr.S.  Raghavan, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that having regard to the terms of<br \/>\nthe contract, it is clear that there was an obligation to pay the  balance  of<br \/>\nsale  consideration  of  Rs.50,000\/-  within three months from the date of the<br \/>\nagreement, more specifically commencing from 12.9.1985 on or before 11.12.1985<br \/>\nand failure to do so, would render the contract vitiated and the  parties  did<br \/>\nintend to make time the essence of the contract.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   It  is  well  settled  principle  that  in  the  case of sale of<br \/>\nimmovable property, time is never regarded as the essence of the contract.  It<br \/>\nhas to be ascertained whether under the terms of  the  contract,  the  parties<br \/>\nstipulated  any  specific  time  within  which,  it has to be completed and in<br \/>\nsubstance, it was intended that it should be  completed  within  a  reasonable<br \/>\ntime.   In other words, an intention to make time, the essence of the contract<br \/>\nmust be expressed in an unequivocal language.  Mere incorporation of a  clause<br \/>\nin  the  agreement  imposing  penalty  in  case  of default does not by itself<br \/>\nevidence an intention to make the time of the essence.  The Court should  look<br \/>\nat  all  the  relevant circumstances including the time limit specified in the<br \/>\nagreement and determine whether its discretion to grant  specific  performance<br \/>\nshould be exercised.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   The  Constitution  Bench  of the Apex Court in the case in <a href=\"\/doc\/1757550\/\">CHAND<br \/>\nRANI v.  KAMAL RANI<\/a> ((1993) 1 SCC 519) has laid down the true  principle  that<br \/>\neven where time is not the essence of the contract, the plaintiff must perform<br \/>\nhis  part  of the contract within a reasonable time and reasonable time should<br \/>\nbe determined by  looking  at  all  surrounding  circumstances  including  the<br \/>\nexpress terms of the contract and the nature of the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.   In  the  above legal background, we have to look at the terms of<br \/>\nthe suit agreement.  Ex.A1 is the Sale Agreement dated 12.9.1985 and the first<br \/>\ndefendant has admitted that he executed it agreeing  to  sell  the  properties<br \/>\nbelonging to him for Rs.60,000\/- and received an advance of Rs.10,000\/- on the<br \/>\nsame  day  and  the  plaintiff has to pay the balance of sale consideration of<br \/>\nRs.50,000\/- within a period of three months viz.,  on  or  before  11.12.1985.<br \/>\nFor  better  appreciation,  the relevant portion of the Agreement is extracted<br \/>\nbelow:\n<\/p>\n<p>                &#8220;VERNACULAR TAMIL PORTION DELETED&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>13.   The  case  of  the  plaintiff  as spoken by her as P.W.1 is that she was<br \/>\nalways ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and on  a  number<br \/>\nof  occasions, she approached the first defendant offering the balance of sale<br \/>\nconsideration to complete the sale transaction as stipulated in the agreement,<br \/>\nbut the first defendant was postponing the same under some  pretext  or  other<br \/>\nand later she came to know that the first defendant has executed the sale deed<br \/>\nin favour of the third defendant conveying the properties.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.   The  specific  case  of  the  first  defendant  is that prior to<br \/>\nagreement, he has expressed to the plaintiff his intention to dispose  of  all<br \/>\nhis immovable properties at Tiruppur and to shift his family to Coimbatore and<br \/>\nthat is why the time for execution of the sale deed was specifically mentioned<br \/>\nin  the  agreement and the plaintiff was never ready and did not take any step<br \/>\nto complete the transaction within the stipulated time and the first defendant<br \/>\nby letters demanded the execution of the agreement.  The  first  defendant  as<br \/>\nD.W.1 has adduced oral and documentary evidence in this regard.\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.   Ex.B3  is the letter dated 7.12.1985 sent by the first defendant<br \/>\nto the plaintiff requesting her to complete the sale transaction  as  per  the<br \/>\nagreement.  Ex.B2 is its certificate of posting evidencing the despatch of the<br \/>\nletter.   After  the  expiry  of time stipulated in the agreement, i.e., after<br \/>\n11.12.1985, the first defendant sent Ex.B4  letter  dated  20.12.1985  stating<br \/>\nthat  the plaintiff has not performed her part of the contract and allowed the<br \/>\ntime to expire and hence the advance amount stood forfeited.    Ex.B5  is  the<br \/>\ncertificate of posting evidencing the despatch of it to the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>        16.   Except  paying  the advance amount of Rs.10,000\/-, the plaintiff<br \/>\ndid nothing to comply with the terms of the agreement, which  require  to  pay<br \/>\nthe balance and ask for execution of the sale deed within the time stipulated.<br \/>\nIf  really  the  case  of  plaintiff  that  she approached the first defendant<br \/>\noffering the balance of sale consideration and demanded the execution is true,<br \/>\nthe same must have been reflected by a notice from her to the first  defendant<br \/>\nand  that  was  not  done  and no such notice was issued within the stipulated<br \/>\ntime.  Further, there was no reply to Exs.B3 and B4 letters sent by the  first<br \/>\ndefendant.   The  first  defendant  has  sold the suit properties to the third<br \/>\ndefendant by Ex.B18 Sale deed dated 28.5.1986 and  thereafter,  the  plaintiff<br \/>\nhas chosen to send Ex.A2 notice dated 24.9.1986 to the first defendant and the<br \/>\nsuit was filed only on 1.9.1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>        17.   The  analysis  of  evidence  shows  that the first defendant was<br \/>\nheavily indebted and with the object of discharging the loans and shifting his<br \/>\nfamily to Coimbatore, he has stipulated the time in the sale agreement and the<br \/>\nintention to make time as the essence of the contract is  evidenced  from  the<br \/>\nsurrounding circumstances.    It  is the case of total inaction on the part of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff and the Trial Court has rightly  held  that  the  plaintiff  was<br \/>\nnever  ready  and  willing  to perform her part of the contract and she is not<br \/>\nentitled to the relief of specific  performance.    The  points  are  answered<br \/>\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>        18.  There  are no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed.  No<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>vks<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nTiruppur.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Section Officer,<br \/>\nV.R.Section,<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 9.8.2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN A.S.No.672 of 1993 Valliyathal .. Appellant -Vs- 1.Dr.Noel Doss 2.Basheer Mohammed 3.Nahi Munnisa .. Respondents Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.1993 made in O.S.No.252 of 1989 on [&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-14593","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006 - 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\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-20T04:49:42+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T04:49:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1955,\"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\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-20T04:49:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006 - 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\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-20T04:49:42+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T04:49:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006"},"wordCount":1955,"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\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006","name":"Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-20T04:49:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/valliyathal-vs-dr-noel-doss-on-9-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Valliyathal vs Dr.Noel Doss on 9 August, 2006"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/14593","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=14593"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14593\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}