{"id":176159,"date":"2007-02-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007"},"modified":"2016-08-12T23:24:47","modified_gmt":"2016-08-12T17:54:47","slug":"subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Subramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Subramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n                              \n                      Dated:26.02.2007\n                              \n                            Coram\n                              \n    The Honourable Mr.Justice A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN\n                              \n                Second Appeal No.254 OF 1997\n                              \n\nSubramaniyan                                   ..Appellant\n\n                              vs.\n\n\nDhayalan                                   ..Respondent\n\n\n      This  second appeal is filed against the judgment  and\n\ndecree  dated 27.10.1994 made in A.S.No.105 of 1990  on  the\n\nfile   of   the  Court  of   Subordinate  Judge,  Tindivanam\n\nconfirming  the  decree and Judgment in  O.S.No.88  of  1989\n\ndated  31.10.1990  on  the file of the  Court  of   District\n\nMunsif, Gingee.\n\n\n          For Appellant      :   Mr.S.Bharathkumar\n                                 for Mr.V.S.Jagadeesan\n\n          For Respondent      :   Mr.T.Dhanasekaran\n                              for Mr.N.Maninarayanan\n                             ---\n\n\n                           JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and<\/p>\n
decree  in  A.S.No.105 of 1990 on the file of the  Court  of<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.  The defendant, who has  lost<\/p>\n
his  defence  before  the  Courts below,  is  the  appellant<\/p>\n
herein. The suit is for money under Ex A1 promissory note.<\/p>\n
      2.    The  averments in the plaint for the purpose  of<\/p>\n
deciding  this  appeal sans irrelevant  particulars  are  as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
The  defendant  has  executed a suit  promissory  note   for<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/-  for  a valuable consideration on 14.11.1988  at<\/p>\n
Mettuvailamur  Village.  In spite of  repeated  demands  for<\/p>\n
the  return of the above said debt amount, the defendant has<\/p>\n
not  repaid the same.  Hence the plaintiff has issued a suit<\/p>\n
notice   on  2.2.1989.  The defendant had  sent  an  earlier<\/p>\n
notice  dated 27.1.1989 only to defraud the amount  advanced<\/p>\n
by  the plaintiff under the promissory note .  The defendant<\/p>\n
has not sent any reply to the suit notice.  The averment  in<\/p>\n
the  notice issued by the defendant dated 27.1.1989 are  all<\/p>\n
false.   The  allegation that the suit promissory  note  was<\/p>\n
executed  by  the defendant on behalf of his  brother-in-law<\/p>\n
Chellaperumal  in  connection with  the  land  purchased  by<\/p>\n
Chellapperumal(D.W.2)  and thereafter  a  release  deed  was<\/p>\n
executed  by  Anandayeeammal,  after  receiving  the  amount<\/p>\n
towards  her  share are all not admitted by  the  plaintiff.<\/p>\n
The  allegation  that  the  suit promissory  note  has  been<\/p>\n
discharged in lieu of the execution of the release  deed  is<\/p>\n
not  true.  There is no connection between the said  release<\/p>\n
deed  and  the  suit promissory note because  the  defendant<\/p>\n
himself has admitted that one week prior to 14.11.1988  ie.,<\/p>\n
the  issuance  of  notice,  the  suit  promissory  note  was<\/p>\n
executed in favour of the plaintiff.  The fact that the suit<\/p>\n
promissory note was executed on 14.11.1988 itself will go to<\/p>\n
show  that there is no connection between the suit debt  and<\/p>\n
the sale of above said lands in favour of Chellaperumal, the<\/p>\n
brother-in-law  of  the defendant.  If  the   suit  debt  is<\/p>\n
discharged  after the executiion of the release  deed,  then<\/p>\n
the  defendant would have got back the suit promissory  note<\/p>\n
from  the  plaintiff.  There is no endorsement made  by  the<\/p>\n
defendant on the promissory note in lieu of the discharge of<\/p>\n
the  suit debt. The above said Rajamanickam also died  under<\/p>\n
suspicious circumstances. Hence the plaintiff has  preferred<\/p>\n
a  complaint  againat the defendant and  his  brother-in-law<\/p>\n
Chellaperumal  on  account  of  that  there  was  an  enmity<\/p>\n
prevailing between the plaintiff and the defendant and  only<\/p>\n
to  defraud the plaintiff, the defendant had sent  a  notice<\/p>\n
dated 27.1.1989.  The defendant after receiving the valuable<\/p>\n
consideration  under Ex A1 had executed  a  suit  promissory<\/p>\n
note.   The defendant is liable to pay 9% interest  for  the<\/p>\n
suit debt, since he is an agriculturist. Hence the suit.<\/p>\n
     3. The defenant in  his written statement would contend<\/p>\n
that  the  defendant has not received any amount  under  the<\/p>\n
suit  promissory note dated 14.11.1988.  The suit promissory<\/p>\n
note is not supported by consideration. The averment in  the<\/p>\n
plaint that the defendant  had borrowed Rs 10,000\/- from the<\/p>\n
plaintiff  in  order to purchase bullock cart is  not  true.<\/p>\n
On  14.11.1988,  no  consideration  passed  under  the  suit<\/p>\n
promissory note only under the following circumstances,  the<\/p>\n
suit  promissory  note came into existence. The  plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
mother-in-law   Anandayeeammal  had  a   brother   by   name<\/p>\n
Rajamanickam.    The   defendant’s   brother-in-law    viz.,<\/p>\n
Chellaperumal entered into an agreement of sale in favour of<\/p>\n
the said Rajamanickam in respect of the land in Konamangalam<\/p>\n
Village  for  a  sale  consideration  of  Rs.29,500\/-.    In<\/p>\n
pursuance  of  the said sale agreement , a  registered  sale<\/p>\n
deed was executed on 28.10.1988. After the executiion of the<\/p>\n
sale  deed,  the  plaintiff’s  mother-in-law  Anandayeeammal<\/p>\n
claiming  that  she  is entitled to  a  share  in  the  land<\/p>\n
purchased  by  Rajamanickam, threatened  Chellaperumal,  the<\/p>\n
vendee  in   order  to extract money from him  and  only  to<\/p>\n
create  document,  she took her brother Rajamanicka  Gounder<\/p>\n
also  to  Mettuvailamur Village and approached the defendant<\/p>\n
in  the  presence of mediators.  There was a mediation  took<\/p>\n
place  on  14.11.1988 in the presence of  panchayatars   and<\/p>\n
also  in  the presence of Anandayeeammal.  In the panchayat,<\/p>\n
the panchayatars have decided and directed Chellaperumal  to<\/p>\n
pay  Rs.11,000\/-  to Anandayeeammal and that  Anandayeeammal<\/p>\n
after receiving the said amount,executed a release deed   in<\/p>\n
favour  of  Chellaperumal.  On the date of compromise,  ie.,<\/p>\n
14.11.1988,  Chellaperumal  had  only  Rs.4,000\/-  which  he<\/p>\n
handed  over to Anandayeeammal and in respect of the balance<\/p>\n
amount,  the  maternal  uncle  of  Chellaperumal  viz.,  the<\/p>\n
defendant  came forward to execute the promissory  note  for<\/p>\n
Rs.10,000\/-  as a guarantor.  The plaintiff has also  agreed<\/p>\n
to  the  said  course.  Only under such  circumstances,  the<\/p>\n
defendant had executed the suit promissory note in favour of<\/p>\n
the  plaintiff.  Later, the brother-in-law of the defendant,<\/p>\n
viz.,  Chellaperumal  proceeded  to  Konamangalam  with  the<\/p>\n
balance  amount of Rs.7,000\/- and handed over  the  same  to<\/p>\n
Anandayeeammal and also obtained a release deed from her  as<\/p>\n
agreed to between the parties before the Panchayatars.  When<\/p>\n
the  defendant  asked  Anandayeeammal  to  return  the  suit<\/p>\n
promissory note,she gave  some lame excuse for the return of<\/p>\n
the  same .  The defendant waited for nearly two months  and<\/p>\n
thereafter issued a notice on 27.1.1989 to Anandayeeammal to<\/p>\n
direct  the  plaintiff to return the suit  promissory  note.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff had sent a reply raising false contentions and<\/p>\n
only  to get wrongful gain, the suit has  been filed by  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff.   The defendant is not liable to pay  any  amount<\/p>\n
under  the  suit  promissory note.  The  plaintiff  has  not<\/p>\n
stated in the suit notice that  the suit promissory note was<\/p>\n
executed  one  week prior to the date of mediation  ie.,  on<\/p>\n
14.11.1988. Only at the instance of Anandayeeammal, the suit<\/p>\n
promissory note was executed by the defendant in  favour  of<\/p>\n
the  plaintiff.   This fact was also stated  in  the  notice<\/p>\n
issued by the defendant to the plaintiff. Anandayeeammal  is<\/p>\n
also a necessary party to the suit. Hence the suit is liable<\/p>\n
to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.    On the above pleadings, the learned trial  Judge<\/p>\n
has  framed  three  issues   for trial.  The  plaintiff  has<\/p>\n
examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited Exs A1 and A2.   The<\/p>\n
first  defendant  has  examined  himself  as  D.W.1  besides<\/p>\n
examining  another witness as D.W.2.(it is wrongly mentioned<\/p>\n
in  the printed copy of the judgment of the trial Court  and<\/p>\n
also  in  the fair copy of the Judgment that no witness  was<\/p>\n
examined on the side of the defendant). Ex B1  notice  dated<\/p>\n
27.1.1989 was marked on the side of the defendant.<\/p>\n
      5.  After  considering both the oral  and  documentary<\/p>\n
evidence  let  in before the trial Court, the learned  trial<\/p>\n
Judge  has  come  to  a  conclusion that  the  plaintiff  is<\/p>\n
entitled  to  the  relief  asked  for  in  the  plaint   and<\/p>\n
consequently,  decreed the suit with costs  as  prayed  for,<\/p>\n
giving  six  months time to the defendant to  discharge  the<\/p>\n
suit  amount.   Aggrieved by the Judgement  of  the  learned<\/p>\n
trial  Judge,  the  defendant has   preferred an  appeal  in<\/p>\n
A.S.No.105   of   1990    before  the   Subordinate   Judge,<\/p>\n
Tindivanam.  The  learned first appellate  Judge   has  also<\/p>\n
dismissed  the  appeal  thereby confirming  the  decree  and<\/p>\n
Judgment  of  the  learned trial Judge.  The  learned  first<\/p>\n
appellate  Judge also dismissed I.A.No.98 of 1992  filed  by<\/p>\n
the  defendant to receive the additional documents.  Against<\/p>\n
the  findings  of  the  learned first appellate  Judge,  the<\/p>\n
defendant has preferred this second appeal.<\/p>\n
      6.  The substantial questions of law involved in  this<\/p>\n
appeal are<\/p>\n
         ”  1. Whether the Courts below are right<\/p>\n
         in   dismissing  I.A.No.98  of  1992  in<\/p>\n
         A.S.No.105  of  1990.I.A.No.98\/1992  was<\/p>\n
         filed  by  the appellant to receive  the<\/p>\n
         release deed and sale deed as additional<\/p>\n
         documents?\n<\/p>\n
         2.  Whether the Courts below have  given<\/p>\n
         importance  to  the  admission  made  on<\/p>\n
         behalf  of the respondent regarding  the<\/p>\n
         release deed etc.,?\n<\/p>\n
         3.   Whether   the  Courts  below   have<\/p>\n
         considered  the  aspecpt  of  burden  of<\/p>\n
         proof correctly?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.  Heard Mr.S.Bharathkumar, learned counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for  the  appellant and Mr.T.Dhanasekaran,  learned  counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for the respondent and considered their respective<\/p>\n
submissions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     8.The Points:\n<\/p>\n
The  entire  case of the appeal  revolves on  Ex  B1  notice<\/p>\n
dated  27.1.1989  sent  to the plaintiff  Dhayalan  and  his<\/p>\n
mother-in-law Anandayeeammal.  Accoding to the defendant, Ex<\/p>\n
A1  promissory Note was not supported by consideration,  but<\/p>\n
the same was executed by him, as a guarantor for his brother-<\/p>\n
in-law  Chellaperumal, who had purchased the land  from  one<\/p>\n
Rajamanickam,the   brother  of  Anandayeeammal   in   Survey<\/p>\n
Nos.158\/2,167\/2,166,200\/7C,167\/4, and Natham  Survey  No.196<\/p>\n
in  Konamangalam Village and that a registered sale deed was<\/p>\n
executed by Chellaperumal in favour of<\/p>\n
Rajamanickam   for  a  sale  consideration  of  Rs.25,500\/-.<\/p>\n
Subsequent   to   the   execution   of   the   sale    deed,<\/p>\n
Anandayeeammal,   the   sister  of  Rajamanickam   went   to<\/p>\n
Konamangalam  Village and threatened Chellaperumal  claiming<\/p>\n
that  she is also having a share in the properties  sold  to<\/p>\n
him under the sale deed dated 28.10.1988. In connection with<\/p>\n
this,  a panchayat was held at Mettuvailamur Village in  the<\/p>\n
presence of panchayatars wherein it has been decided by  the<\/p>\n
panchayatars  that  Chellaperumal  has  to  pay  a  sum   of<\/p>\n
Rs.11,000\/- to Anandayeeammal  and after receiving the  said<\/p>\n
amount,  the  said Anandayeeammal had to execute  a  release<\/p>\n
deed and that since  Chellaperunmal had only Rs.4,000\/-,  he<\/p>\n
paid  the  same  to Anandayeeammal and for  the  balance  of<\/p>\n
Rs.7,000\/-  , he had agreed to pay  the same within  one  or<\/p>\n
two  weeks and only as a guarantor, the suit promissory note<\/p>\n
for   Rs.10,000\/-   was  executed  by  the   defendant   for<\/p>\n
Chellaperumal in favour of the plaintiff  Dhayalan.<\/p>\n
      9.  The other part of the defence by the defendant  is<\/p>\n
that on 14.11.1988 itself in the presence of witnesses,  the<\/p>\n
said  Chellaperumal  had paid the balance of  Rs.7,000\/-  to<\/p>\n
Anandayeeammal and got the release deed from her  in respect<\/p>\n
of   her  claim  over  the  properties  sold  in  favour  of<\/p>\n
Rajamanickam  by Chellaperumal.  But the said  release  deed<\/p>\n
was  not  produced before the trial Court. Only  before  the<\/p>\n
first  appellate  Court, the said document was  filed  along<\/p>\n
with  I.A.No.98  of 1992.  But the learned  first  appellate<\/p>\n
Judge has dismissed I.A.No.98 of 1992 on the ground that  EX<\/p>\n
A1  was executed for Rs.10,000\/- and there was no sufficient<\/p>\n
reason  given by the petitioner for non productiion  of  the<\/p>\n
said  document before the trial Court to mark  the  same  by<\/p>\n
examining  the  relevant witness. Further the said  document<\/p>\n
was  not  a  registered  one. The  defendant  has  also  not<\/p>\n
examined Anandayeeammal before the trial Court to prove  the<\/p>\n
said  release deed. Further if the release deed is true  and<\/p>\n
genuine,  then immediately the defendant would  have  issued<\/p>\n
notice  to  the  plaintiff demanding the  return  of  Ex  A1<\/p>\n
promissory Note. Ex B1 notice is dated 27.1.1989 .  There is<\/p>\n
no acceptable reasoning  given in Ex B1 notice for the delay<\/p>\n
in  sending  Ex B1 even after the execution of  the  alleged<\/p>\n
release  deed dated 14.11.1988. If the payment of Rs.7,000\/-<\/p>\n
to   Anandayeeammal  by  Chellaperumal  was  true  then  the<\/p>\n
defendant  ought to have issued notice to Chellaperumal  and<\/p>\n
also  for  return of the promissory note by  the  plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Under  such circumstances, the findings of the learned first<\/p>\n
appellate  Court  regarding the dismissal of  I.A.No.98\/1992<\/p>\n
does not require any interference from this Court.<\/p>\n
      10. If we come to Ex A1 promissory note, the defendant<\/p>\n
has  admitted in Ex B1 notice itself that only for a sum  of<\/p>\n
Rs.7,000\/-,<\/p>\n
Ex  A1  was  executed  by him in favour  of  Dhayalan  as  a<\/p>\n
guarantor  for  the amount to be paid by his  brother-in-law<\/p>\n
Chellaperumal in favour of the plaintiff. The  plaintiff  as<\/p>\n
P.W1  would  also admit Ex B1 notice. Nodoubt under  Section<\/p>\n
118  of the Negotiable Instruments Act,the presumption under<\/p>\n
Ex  A1  is that it was executed for a valuable consideration<\/p>\n
but under Section 118(g) of the Negotiable Instruments Act ,<\/p>\n
it  is only a rebuttal presumption, if the defendant is able<\/p>\n
to  prove that a fraud has been played upon in executing the<\/p>\n
promissory  note then the earlier presumption under  Section<\/p>\n
118   Negotiable  Instruments  Act  cannot  be  sustainable.<\/p>\n
Section 118(g) of the said Act runs as follows:<\/p>\n
          ” That holder is a holder in due course-<\/p>\n
          that   the   holder  of   a   negotiable<\/p>\n
          instruments  is a holder in due  course,<\/p>\n
          provided that where the instrument   has<\/p>\n
          been contained from its lawful owner, or<\/p>\n
          from  any person in lawful custody there<\/p>\n
          of,  by means of an offence or fraud  or<\/p>\n
          has  been  obtained from  the  maker  or<\/p>\n
          acceptor  thereof  by  reasons   of   an<\/p>\n
          offence   or  fraud,  or  for   unlawful<\/p>\n
          consideration,  the  burden  of  proving<\/p>\n
          that  the  holder  is a  holder  in  due<\/p>\n
          course lies upon him.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      11. A mere reading of recitals in ExA1 promissory note<\/p>\n
will go to show that no consideration was passed on the date<\/p>\n
of execution of EX A1 promissory note. The exact recitals in<\/p>\n
Ex A1 runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          “VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED”\n<\/p>\n
From  the evidence of D.W.2, it is clear that under  Ex  A1,<\/p>\n
only  a  sum of Rs.7,000\/- was passed towards consideration.<\/p>\n
D.W.2  is  Chellaperumal. Only for him, the  defendant   had<\/p>\n
executed  EX  A1  in favour of the plaintiff  for  the  said<\/p>\n
amount.  D.W.2 is liable to pay the amount to Anandayeeammal<\/p>\n
in  respect  of the land purchased by him from Rajamanickam,<\/p>\n
the  brother of Anandayeeammal.  But D.W.2 would depose that<\/p>\n
he  repaid  the  said amount of Rs.7,000\/- to Anandayeeammal<\/p>\n
and   obtained   a  release  deed.   But  on  the  date   of<\/p>\n
examination  before the trial Court, D.W.2 has not  produced<\/p>\n
the  said  release  deed.  So under such circumstances,  the<\/p>\n
inference  will  be  that  EX  A1  is  valid  for   a   sale<\/p>\n
consideration  of Rs.7,000\/- and there was no  release  deed<\/p>\n
executed by  Anandayeeammal in favour of D.W.2 Chellaperumal<\/p>\n
in   discharge  of  the  debt  under  Ex  A1.   Under   such<\/p>\n
circumstances, I am of the view that the Courts  below  have<\/p>\n
erred  in  decreeing  the suit for Rs.10,000\/-  with  future<\/p>\n
interest  under Ex A1 because in my opinion Ex A1  is  valid<\/p>\n
only for Rs.7,000\/-. Under such circumstances, this Court is<\/p>\n
necessarily  to inferfere with the findings of  the  learned<\/p>\n
trial  Judge  in respect of the amount as indiciated  above.<\/p>\n
The points are answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12.  In fine, the appeal is allowed in part and decree<\/p>\n
and  Judgment of the first appellate Court in A.S.No.105  of<\/p>\n
1990  on  the  file  of  the  Court  of  Subordinate  Judge,<\/p>\n
Tindivanam,is  set  aside and the suit  is  decreed  for  Rs<\/p>\n
.7,000\/-  with 9% interest per annum from the  date  of  the<\/p>\n
suit  till  the date of decree and  with future interest  at<\/p>\n
the  rate  of 6% per annum from the date of decree till  the<\/p>\n
date   of   realisation   on  the  principle   amount   with<\/p>\n
proportionate costs. Time for payment two months.<\/p>\n
sg<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.\n<\/p>\n
2. The District  Munsif,
\n   Gingee<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Subramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:26.02.2007 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN Second Appeal No.254 OF 1997 Subramaniyan ..Appellant vs. Dhayalan ..Respondent This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 27.10.1994 made in A.S.No.105 of 1990 on the file […]<\/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-176159","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSubramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007 - 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\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-12T17:54:47+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T17:54:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2431,\"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\\\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Subramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-12T17:54:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Subramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007 - 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\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-12T17:54:47+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T17:54:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007"},"wordCount":2431,"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\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007","name":"Subramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-12T17:54:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramaniyan-vs-dhayalan-on-26-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subramaniyan vs Dhayalan on 26 February, 2007"}]},{"@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\/176159","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=176159"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176159\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176159"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176159"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176159"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}