{"id":179720,"date":"2010-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010"},"modified":"2015-06-23T02:12:08","modified_gmt":"2015-06-22T20:42:08","slug":"madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 7037 of 2010(O)\n\n\n1. MADHAVANM AGED 73, S\/O.SANKU,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. VINJANA VARDHINI SABHA, CHERAI MURI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SECRETARY, K.K.SIDHARTHAN,\n\n3. V.C.VENU, TREASURER, AGED ABOUT 50,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :14\/12\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                              THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                            --------------------------------------\n                              W.P.(C) No.7037 of 2010\n                            --------------------------------------\n                    Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010.\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        This petition is in challenge of Ext.P11, order dated October 26, 2009 on<\/p>\n<p>I.A.No.3810 of 2009 in O.S.No.192 of 2003 of the court of learned Additional Sub<\/p>\n<p>Judge, North Paravur. Vide that application, petitioner\/plaintiff wanted to stay<\/p>\n<p>trial of O.S.No.192 of 2003 until disposal of R.F.A.No.14 of 2007 alleging that<\/p>\n<p>issue involved in both the cases are one and the same and that unless the<\/p>\n<p>subsequent suit is stayed, there is possibility of divergent finding.      Application<\/p>\n<p>was dismissed by learned Additional Sub Judge . Hence this petition.<\/p>\n<p>        2.     Petitioner was one of the office bearers of          respondent-Sabha.<\/p>\n<p>While so, respondent filed O.S.No.126 of 2002 against petitioner and others in<\/p>\n<p>the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, North Paravur for recovery of amount<\/p>\n<p>alleging that the said amount was misappropriated by petitioner and others.<\/p>\n<p>Petitioner filed Ext.P2, written statement denying the allegations and contending<\/p>\n<p>that entire records of the respondent Sabha were with its present office bearers.<\/p>\n<p>Learned Sub Judge granted a decree in favour of respondent vide Ext.P6,<\/p>\n<p>judgment.     Learned Sub Judge took the view that as office bearers the<\/p>\n<p>documents should have been in the custody of petitioner and others, they did not<\/p>\n<p>produce the said documents, and accepted case of respondent, it is contended<\/p>\n<p>by learned counsel.       That judgment and decree are under challenge              in<\/p>\n<p>WP(C) No.7037\/2010<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>R.F.A.No.14 of 2007 at the instance of petitioner and others. In the meantime,<\/p>\n<p>petitioner filed O.S.No.192 of 2003 in the court of learned Additional Sub Judge,<\/p>\n<p>North Paravur for recovery of certain amount allegedly due to him from the<\/p>\n<p>respondent based on certain advances made by petitioner for construction of<\/p>\n<p>school building and for other purposes. Trial of that suit was sought to be stayed<\/p>\n<p>until disposal of R.F.A.No.14 of 2007 which          learned Sub Judge refused<\/p>\n<p>observing that O.S.No.126 of 2002 concerned alleged misappropriation of funds<\/p>\n<p>belonging to the respondent while O.S.No.192 of 2003 concerned recovery of<\/p>\n<p>amount allegedly advanced by petitioner to the respondent and hence there is<\/p>\n<p>no nexus between the two suits.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>       3.      It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that after disposal<\/p>\n<p>of O.S.No.126 of 2002,         police under Ext.P8, mahazar seized          relevant<\/p>\n<p>documents from certain persons connected with the present administration of<\/p>\n<p>respondent . Petitioner obtained certified copy of the same and produced it in<\/p>\n<p>R.F.A.No.14 of 2007. Apprehension of petitioner is that learned Sub Judge in<\/p>\n<p>Ext.P6, judgment considered the question whether petitioner and other office<\/p>\n<p>bearers had been maintaining        proper accounts, decided the issue against<\/p>\n<p>petitioner and others and that finding will have a bearing in the decision of<\/p>\n<p>O.S.No.192 of 2003 since petitioner is relying on the very same documents to<\/p>\n<p>substantiate his claim of advancement of certain amount to the respondent.<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for respondent contends that claim in the suits are entirely<\/p>\n<p>different and hence no question of res judicata would arise by the decision in<\/p>\n<p>WP(C) No.7037\/2010<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>O.S.No.126 of 2002. According to the learned counsel, there is no reason to<\/p>\n<p>stay trial of O.S.No.192 of 2003. Learned counsel contends that in Ext.P2,<\/p>\n<p>written statement what is contended by petitioner is not that he has handed over<\/p>\n<p>the relevant documents to respondent but, handed over key of the room where<\/p>\n<p>the records are kept.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>       4.    I am not going into the question of source from which the records<\/p>\n<p>were allegedly seized by police and its relevance in the two suits. These are<\/p>\n<p>matters to be considered by the appropriate courts. But it is seen from Ext.P6,<\/p>\n<p>judgment that learned Sub Judge has considered the question in O.S.No.126 of<\/p>\n<p>2002 whether petitioner and other office bearers were maintaining the accounts<\/p>\n<p>properly and it is not disputed before me that for whatever reason it be, none of<\/p>\n<p>the documents were before learned Sub Judge while deciding O.S.No.126 of<\/p>\n<p>2002. Certainly, it would appear that it was on a finding that petitioner and<\/p>\n<p>others who ought to have produced the relevant documents did not do so that<\/p>\n<p>the finding was arrived at. The finding regarding accuracy of entries in the<\/p>\n<p>records may have a bearing on the claim of petitioner in O.S.No.192 of 2003<\/p>\n<p>which are relied on by him to substantiate his claim. In that view of the matter it<\/p>\n<p>is just and proper      that trial of O.S.No.192 of 2003 awaited       decision in<\/p>\n<p>R.F.A.No.14 of 2007. I am persuaded to think that trial of O.S.No.192 of 2003<\/p>\n<p>should await the decision in R.F.A.No.14 of 2007. This aspect of the matter has<\/p>\n<p>not been considered by the learned Sub Judge while disposing of           Ext.P9,<\/p>\n<p>application.\n<\/p>\n<p>WP(C) No.7037\/2010<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>      Resultantly this petition is allowed and Ext.P11, order is set aside.<\/p>\n<p>I.A.No.3810 of 2009 is allowed and trial of O.S.No.192 of 2003 of the court of<\/p>\n<p>learned Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur will stand stayed until disposal of<\/p>\n<p>R.F.A.No.14 of 2007. It is made clear that I have not made any observation<\/p>\n<p>regarding admissibility of any of the documents relied on by the parties which is<\/p>\n<p>a matter learned Additional Sub Judge has to decide at the time of trial.<\/p>\n<p>      I.A.Nos.4599 of 2010 and 16486 of 2010 will stand dismissed.<\/p>\n<p>                                         THOMAS P.JOSEPH,<br \/>\n                                              Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 7037 of 2010(O) 1. MADHAVANM AGED 73, S\/O.SANKU, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. VINJANA VARDHINI SABHA, CHERAI MURI, &#8230; Respondent 2. THE SECRETARY, K.K.SIDHARTHAN, 3. V.C.VENU, TREASURER, AGED ABOUT 50, For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179720","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-22T20:42:08+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-22T20:42:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":904,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-22T20:42:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-22T20:42:08+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-22T20:42:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010"},"wordCount":904,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010","name":"Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-22T20:42:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavanm-aged-73-vs-vinjana-vardhini-sabha-on-14-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madhavanm Aged 73 vs Vinjana Vardhini Sabha on 14 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179720","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=179720"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179720\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179720"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179720"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179720"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}