{"id":156933,"date":"1958-08-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1958-08-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958"},"modified":"2018-06-11T03:43:13","modified_gmt":"2018-06-10T22:13:13","slug":"s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958","title":{"rendered":"S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 1032, \t\t 1959 SCR 1211<\/div>\n
Author: B P Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS. VEERABADRAN CHETTIAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nE. V. RAMASWAMI NAICKER & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/08\/1958\n\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\nBENCH:\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1958 AIR 1032\t\t  1959 SCR 1211\n\n\nACT:\nInsult to Religion-Ingredients of offence--Interpretation of\nstatute-Duty  of Court-Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of  1860),\ns. 295.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe words \" any object held sacred by any class of  persons\"\noccurring in S. 295 Of the Indian Penal Code are of  general\nimport\tand cannot be limited to idols in temples  or  idols\ncarried\t on festival occasions.\t Not merely idols or  sacred\nbooks,\tbut any other object which is regarded as sacred  by\nany  class of persons, whether actually worshipped  or\tnot,\nfall within the description.\nQueen  Empress\tv. Imam Ali, (1887) I.L.R. 10 All.  150\t and\nRomesh Chunder Sannyal v. Hiru Mondal, (1890) I.L.R. 17 Cal.\n852, considered.\nConsequently, in a case where the allegation in the petition\nof  complaint was that one of the accused broke the idol  of\nGod  Ganesa in public and the two others actually aided\t and\nabetted\t him with the intention of insulting  the  religious\nfeeling\t of the complainant and his community who  held\t the\ndeity in veneration and the trial Magistrate, on receipt  of\nthe  Police  report that the alleged  occurrence  was  true,\ndismissed the complaint under S. 203 of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure holding that the breaking of a mud image of Ganesa\nwas not an offence under s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code and\nthe Sessions judge and the High Court in revision,  agreeing\nwith the view of the trial Court, refused to direct  further\nenquiry :\nHeld, that the courts below were clearly in error in  inter-\npreting\t S.  295 of the Indian Penal Code in  the  way\tthey\n(lid,  but  since  the complaint stood\tlong  dismissed,  no\nfurther enquiry need be directed into the matter.\nHeld,  further, that the Courts must be circumspect in\tsuch\nmatters and pay due regard to the religious susceptibilities\nof  different  classes of persons  with\t different  beliefs,\nwhether\t they shared those beliefs or not or  whether  those\nbeliefs in the opinion of the Court were rational or not.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
\nAppeal No. 49 of 1956.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nOctober\t 13,  1954,  of the Madras High\t Court\tin  Criminal
\nRevision Case No. 267 and 1954
\n154<\/span>
\n1212<\/span>
\n(Criminal Revision Petition No. 249 of 1954) arising out  of
\nthe judgment and order dated January 12, 1954, of the  Court
\nof  the\t District and Sessions Judge  as  Tiruchirapalli  in
\nCriminal Revision Petition No. 17 of 1953.
\nR.   Ganapathy\t Iyer\tand  G.\t Gopalakrishnan,   for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
No one appeared for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
1958.\tAugust 25.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nSINHA J.-The only question for determination in this  appeal
\nby  special  leave, is whether the  petition  of  complaint,
\ndisclosed  a prima facie offence under s. 295 of the  Indian
\nPenal  Code.  The courts below have taken the view  that  it
\ndid  not, and on that ground, it stood summarily  dismissed,
\nbefore evidence pro and con had been recorded.
\nIt appears that the appellant filed a petition of  complaint
\nin  the\t court\tof the\tAdditional  First-Class\t Magistrate,
\nTiruchirappalli,  against the respondents, three in  number.
\nThe petition of complaint alleged inter alia that the  first
\naccused\t is  the leader of Dravida Kazakam (a  community  of
\npersons who profess to be religious reformers, one of  whose
\ncreeds is to carry on propaganda against idol worship),\t and
\nas  such,  be was out to ” vilify a certain section  of\t the
\nHindu  community and do propaganda by holding  meetings\t and
\nwriting\t articles.  ” It is further alleged in the  petition
\nof  complaint that ” recently, the first  accused  announced
\nhis  intention of breaking the image of God Ganesa, the\t God
\nsacred\tto the Saiva Section of the Hindu Community on\t27th
\nMay,  1953, in a public meeting at Town Hall.\tThis  caused
\nterror-commotion  in the mind of the Saivite Section of\t the\n<\/p>\n
-Hindu Community.  ” The complainant claims to be a Saivite.
\nThe complainant further alleged in his petition that on\t May
\n27,  1953, at about 5-30 p.m., the accused broke an idol  of
\nGod  Ganesa  in public at the Town Hall Maidan,\t and  before
\nbreaking  the idol, lie made a speech, and expressly  stated
\nthat  he  intended  to\tinsult the  feelings  of  the  Hindu
\ncommunity by breaking the idol of God
\n1213<\/span>
\nGanesa.\t  The said act of breaking the idol was\t alleged  to
\nhave  been  actively abetted by instigation and aid  by\t the
\nother  two  accused persons, who also  made  speeches.\t The
\npetition  of  complaint also alleged that the  said  act  of
\nbreaking the image of God Ganesa was done with the intention
\nof  insulting the religious feelings of certain sections  of
\nthe Hindu community, who hold God Ganesa in veneration,\t and
\nthat the acts complained of, amounted to offences under\t ss.
\n295   and  295A\t of  the  Indian  Penal\t Code.\t  On   those
\nallegations, the petition of complaint (dated June 5,  1953)
\nprayed that processes might issue against the three  accused
\npersons.  In the list of witnesses appended to the petition,
\nfigured\t  the  Additional  District  Magistrate,  the\tSub-
\nDivisional  Magistrate,\t the Town Sub-Inspector\t of  police,
\nTiruchi Fort, and Sub-Magistrate, Tiruchy Town.\t On the same
\ndate,  the  learned magistrate examined the  complainant  on
\noath.\tThe  complainant made statements in support  of\t his
\nallegations  in the petition of complaint.   Thereupon,\t the
\nlearned\t magistrate directed that the petition of  complaint
\nbe  sent  to  the Circle Inspector of  police,\tTrichy,\t for
\ninquiry\t and report under s. 202, Criminal  Procedure  Code.
\nOn  June 26, 1953, on receipt of the police report  which  ”
\nshowed that though the occurrence as alleged had taken place
\nit was a point of law if the act of the accused would amount
\nto  any offence “, the learned magistrate passed his  order,
\ndismissing  the\t complaint  under s.  203  of  the  Criminal
\nProcedure  Code.   In the course of his order,\tthe  learned
\nmagistrate observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“The  mud  figure of Ganesa alleged to have been  broken  by
\naccused\t is not an object held sacred or worshipped  by\t any
\nclass  of  persons.   Simply because it\t resembled  the\t God
\nGanesa\theld in veneration by a section it cannot become  an
\nobject\thold  sacred.\tEven Ganesa idol  abandoned  by\t the
\npeople\tas unworthy of worship loses its sanctity and it  is
\nno longer an object held sacred by anybody, since such given
\nup  idols are found in several places of defilement.  It  is
\nnot  an offence if a person treads union any such  abandoned
\nidol.  Therefore the breaking of mud figure of Ganesa
\n1214<\/span>
\ndoes  not  amount to an offence under  Section\t295,  Indian
\nPenal Code.  ”\n<\/p>\n
“The  speeches delivered by the accused with deliberate\t and
\nmalicious  intention  of outraging religious feelings  of  a
\ncommunity, no doubt amount to an offence under Section\t295-
\nA, Indian Penal Code.  But for laying a complaint under this
\nsection\t the sanction of the Government is necessary.\tThis
\nsection\t has been clearly mentioned in the complaint and  it
\ncannot\tbe  said it was included by  oversight.\t  Without  a
\nproper\t sanction   an\toffence\t under\t this\tsection\t  is
\nunsustainable.\t I  therefore see no sufficient\t ground\t for
\nproceeding  with the complaint and I dismiss the same  under
\nsection 203, Criminal Procedure Code.  ”\n<\/p>\n
The   complainant  moved  the  learned\tSessions  Judge\t  of
\nTiruchirappalli, by his petition in revision, filed on\tJuly
\n9,  1953,  under ss. 435 and 436 of the\t Criminal  Procedure
\nCode,  for  setting  aside the order  of  dismissal  of\t the
\ncomplaint.   In the petition filed in the Court of  Session,
\nthe complainant stated that the petition was confined to the
\ncomplaint  in respect of the alleged offence under  s.\t295,
\nIndian\tPenal Code, and that it did not seek to\t revise\t the
\norder of dismissal of the complaint in respect of an offence
\ntinder\ts.  295-A  of the Indian Penal\tCode.\tThe  learned
\nSessions  Judge\t dismissed the petition by  an\torder  dated
\nJanuary\t 12,  1954, holding, in agreement with\tthe  learned
\nmagistrate, that the acts complained of did not amount to an
\noffence\t under s. 295, Indian Penal Code.  In the course  of
\nhis  order,  the learned Sessions Judge made  the  following
\nobservations:-\n<\/p>\n
”  I  agree  with  the\tlearned\t Magistrate  that  the\tacts
\ncomplained of do not amount to an offence.  The accused, who
\nprofess\t to  be religious reformers in\ta  campaign  against
\nidolatory organized a public meeting at which they broke  an
\nearthern  image\t of the God Ganesa.   The  particular  image
\nbroken\twas the private property of the accused and was\t not
\nin itself an object held sacred by any class of persons; nor
\ndo  I  think  that  idol  breaking  by\ta  non-believer\t can
\nreasonably  be\tregarded by a believer as an insult  to\t his
\nreligion ; and the ingredients of Section 295, Indian  Penal
\nCode, are therefore not made out.  ”\n<\/p>\n
1215<\/span><\/p>\n
The complainant then moved the High Court in its  revisional
\njurisdiction under s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
\nThe  matter  was  heard by a learned single  Judge  of\tthat
\nCourt.\tThe learned single Judge also agreed with the courts
\nbelow  in  the\treasons given by  them\tfor  dismissing\t the
\npetition of complaint, and refused to order further inquiry.
\nIn  the\t course of his judgment, he discussed  the  question
\nwhether a mud image of God Ganesa, came within the scope  of
\nthe words ” any object held. sacred by any class of  persons
\n”  in s. 295, and he answered the question in the  negative.
\nIn this connection, he referred to the judgment of the\tFull
\nBench  of  the\tAllahabad High Court in the  case  of  Queen
\nEmpress v. Imam Ali (1), which is directly an authority\t for
\nthis  proposition only that the word ‘object’ in s.  295  of
\nthe  Indian  Penal Code, does not include  animate  objects.
\nThat  case dealt with the complaint of killing a cow.\tEdge
\nC.  J.\tin the course of his judgment, made  an\t observation
\nthat  the  word\t ‘ object ‘ should  be\tinterpreted  ejusdem
\ngeneris with the words ‘place of worship’, and by way of  an
\nexample\t of such an inanimate object, he mentioned an  idol.
\nThat   observation,   if  anything,  is\t not   against\t the
\ncomplainant.  The learned single Judge also referred to\t the
\ncase  of  Romesh Chunder Sannyal v. Hiru Mondal\t (2),  which
\nalso is not in point inasmuch as it dealt with the case of a
\ndedicated  bull.  But the learned Judge seemed to draw\tfrom
\nthose  cases  the inference which may be stated in  his\t own
\nwords, as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
”  Interpreted\tlike that, it would mean  that\tthe  section
\nwould  apply  only  to cases where an idol in  a  temple  is
\nsought to be destroyed, damaged, or defiled.  The words ‘any
\nobject\theld sacred by any class of persons’ even  otherwise
\nwill  apply  only  to idols in a temple\t or  when  they\t are
\ncarried\t out  in  processions on  festival  occasions.\t The
\nobject\theld  sacred’ will mean only the  idols\t inside\t the
\ntemple\tand  when  they\t are taken  out\t in  processions  on
\nfestival occasions.  In such circumstances as in the present
\ncase the breaking is nothing more than a doll taken from the
\nshop.\n<\/p>\n
(1) (1887) I.L.R. 10 All. 150.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1890) I.L.R. 117 Cal. 852.\n<\/p>\n
1216<\/span><\/p>\n
Though the intention of the respondents may be to decry\t the
\nfeelings  and wound the susceptibilities of a large  section
\nof  the people, still the intention alone is not  sufficient
\nunless\tit is carried out by an act which must\tfall  within
\nthe  scope of this section.  The dolls in the  shop,  though
\nthey  may  resemble several of the deities  in\tthe  temple,
\ncannot\tbe  held to be objects held sacred by any  class  of
\npersons.  In modern society there are several images of\t the
\ndeities\t in the drawing rooms of several houses.  It  cannot
\nfor a moment be suggested that these images are objects held
\nsacred.\t These have got to be distinguished from the objects
\nheld sacred, which can only be when they are duly  installed
\nin  a temple and from which they are subsequently taken\t out
\nin  procession\ton  festival  occasions.   What\t was  broken
\ntherefore  by  the respondents is nothing more than  a\tdoll
\ntaken  either from a shop or made for the occasion,  and  it
\ncannot\tby any means be called ail object held sacred.\t The
\noffence\t is  not  made out and the  dismissal  is  therefore
\njustified.”\n<\/p>\n
The  petitioner\t moved\tthe High  Court\t for  the  necessary
\ncertificate  of fitness for making an appeal to this  Court.
\nThe  learned Judge, who had heard the case on  merits,\talso
\ndealt  with  this application, and refused to  certify\tthat
\nthis  was  a fit case for appeal to this  Court\t under\tArt.
\n134(1)(c)  of the Constitution.\t The petitioner\t moved\tthis
\nCourt and obtained the necessary special leave to appeal.
\nIt  is\tregrettable that the respondents  have\tremained  ex
\nparts in this Court.  The learned counsel for the  appellant
\nhas  urged that the courts below had unduly  restricted\t the
\nmeaning\t of the words of s. 295, particularly, the  words  ”
\nany  object held sacred by any class of persons “, and\tthat
\nthe  words have been used in their fullest amplitude by\t the
\nLegislature,  in order to include any object consecrated  or
\notherwise, which is held sacred by any class of persons, not
\nnecessarily belonging to a different religion or creed.\t  In
\nthe  first place, whether any object is held sacred  by\t any
\nclass of persons, must depend upon the evidence in the case,
\nso  also  the effect of the words ” with  the  intention  of
\nthereby insulting the religion of any class
\n1217<\/span>
\nof  persons or with the knowledge that any class of  persons
\nis likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement
\nas  an\tinsult to their religion.” In this case,  the  facts
\nalleged\t in  the  petition,  do\t not  appear  to  have\tbeen
\ncontroverted,  but  the\t learned  magistrate,  as  also\t the
\nlearned\t Sessions  Judge and the learned Judge in  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\thave thrown out the petition of complaint solely  on
\nthe  ground  that the image of God Ganesa,  treated  by\t the
\nrespondents as alleged by the complainant, could not be said
\nto  be held sacred by any class of persons.  In the  instant
\ncase, the insult alleged was by destruction of the image  of
\nGod Ganesa.  Apart from the question of evidence, which\t had
\nyet  to be adduced, it is a well-knonwn fact that the  image
\nof Lord Ganesa or any objective representation of a  similar
\nkind,  is  held sacred by certain classes  of  Hindus,\teven
\nthough the image may not have been consecrated.
\nThe  learned  Judge in the Court below, has given  much\t too
\nrestricted a meaning to the words any object held sacred  by
\nany  class  of\tpersons “, by holding  that  only  idols  in
\ntemples\t  or  idols  carried  in  processions  on   festival
\noccasions,  are\t meant to be included  within  those  words.
\nThere  are no such express words of limitation in s. 295  of
\nthe Indian Penal code, and in our opinion, the learned Judge
\nhas clearly misdirected himself in importing those words  of
\nlimitation.  Idols are only illustrative of those words.   A
\nsacred\tbook,  like the Bible, or the Koran, or\t the  Granth
\nSaheb,\tis clearly within the ambit of those general  words.
\nIf  the courts below were right in their  interpretation  of
\nthe  crucial  words  in s. 295,\t the  burning  or  otherwise
\ndestroying  or\tdefiling such sacred books,  will  not\tcome
\nwithin\tthe ‘Purview of the penal statute.  In our  opinion,
\nplacing\t such  a restricted interpretation on the  words  of
\nsuch  general import, is against all established  canons  of
\nconstruction.\tAny object however trivial or  destitute  of
\nreal value in itself, if regarded as sacred by any class  of
\npersons would come within the meaning of the penal  section.
\nNor is it absolutely necessary that the object, in order
\n1218<\/span>
\nto be held sacred, should have been actually worshipped.  An
\nobject\tmay  be held sacred by a class\tof  persons  without
\nbeing worshipped by them.  It is clear, therefore, that\t the
\ncourts\tbelow  were rather cynical in  so  lightly  brushing
\naside  the  religious  susceptibilities\t of  that  class  of
\npersons\t to  which the complainant claims  to  belong.\t The
\nsection\t  has  been  intended  to  respect   the   religious
\nsusceptibilities   of\tpersons\t  of   different   religious
\npersuasions   or  creeds.   Courts  have  got  to  be\tvery
\ncircumspect  in such matters, and to pay due regard  to\t the
\nfeelings  and  religious emotions of  different\t classes  of
\npersons\t  with\tdifferent  beliefs,  irrespective   of\t the
\nconsideration  whether or not they share those\tbeliefs,  or
\nwhether\t they are rational or otherwise, in the\t opinion  of
\nthe court.\n<\/p>\n
As  a result of’ these considerations, it must be held\tthat
\nthe  courts below have erred in their interpretation of\t the
\ncrucial\t words of s. 295 of the Indian Penal Code.  But\t the
\nquestion  still remains whether, even after  expressing\t our
\nstrong\tdisagreement with the interpretation of the  section
\nby  the\t courts below, this Court should  direct  a  further
\ninquiry\t into the complaint, which has stood  dismissed\t for
\nthe  last about 5 ),ears.  The action complained of  against
\nthe accused persons, if true, was foolish, to put it mildly,
\nbut  as the case has become stale, we do not direct  further
\ninquiry\t into this complaint.  If there is a  recurrence  of
\nsuch  a foolish behaviour on the part of any section of\t the
\ncommunity, we have no doubt that those charged with the duty
\nof  maintaining\t law and order, will apply the\tlaw  in\t the
\nsense in which we have interpreted the law.  The appeal\t is,
\ntherefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
1219<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958 Equivalent citations: 1958 AIR 1032, 1959 SCR 1211 Author: B P Sinha Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P. PETITIONER: S. VEERABADRAN CHETTIAR Vs. RESPONDENT: E. V. RAMASWAMI NAICKER & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/08\/1958 BENCH: SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P. BENCH: […]<\/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-156933","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958 - 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\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958\" \/>\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=\"1958-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-10T22:13:13+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958\",\"datePublished\":\"1958-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-10T22:13:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958\"},\"wordCount\":2533,\"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\\\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958\",\"name\":\"S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1958-08-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-10T22:13:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958\"}]},{\"@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":"S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958 - 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\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1958-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-10T22:13:13+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958","datePublished":"1958-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-10T22:13:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958"},"wordCount":2533,"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\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958","name":"S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1958-08-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-10T22:13:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-veerabadran-chettiar-vs-e-v-ramaswami-naicker-others-on-25-august-1958#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Veerabadran Chettiar vs E. V. Ramaswami Naicker & Others on 25 August, 1958"}]},{"@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\/156933","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=156933"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/156933\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=156933"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=156933"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=156933"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}