{"id":184642,"date":"2010-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-15T20:57:34","modified_gmt":"2018-04-15T15:27:34","slug":"makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Makrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Makrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 748 of 1998(B)\n\n\n\n1. MAKRISHNAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SANTHAN\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JIJO PAUL\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :11\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n                  A.S. NO. 748 OF 1998 &\n                    A.S. NO.221 OF 2003\n                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n         Dated this the 11th day of November , 2010.\n\n                      J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
    A.S.748\/98 is an appeal preferred against<\/p>\n
the  judgment   and     decree      in    O.S.1092\/92  and<\/p>\n
A.S.221\/03 is an appeal preferred against the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree in O.S.276\/93 of the Sub<\/p>\n
Court, Thrissur.        Originally this appeal was<\/p>\n
filed before the District Judge, Thrissur and<\/p>\n
that had been withdrawn to be heard along with<\/p>\n
the other appeal.     Now the brief facts necessary<\/p>\n
for the disposal of the appeal are stated as<\/p>\n
follows.  O.S.1092\/92         is    a   suit    filed  for<\/p>\n
declaration and consequential injunction.              The<\/p>\n
case of the plaintiff is it belonged to him by<\/p>\n
virtue of a document in the year 1967 and he had<\/p>\n
made improvements in the property.            According to<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 748 OF 1998 &
\nA.S. NO.221 OF 2003
\n                           -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
him he was badly in need of money and therefore<\/p>\n
contacted the defendant who is a money lender<\/p>\n
and the defendant wanted the mortgage deed to be<\/p>\n
executed.      The plaintiff readily agreed, he had<\/p>\n
gone to the Registrar’s office and executed the<\/p>\n
document but later he came to know that the<\/p>\n
document was an out and out sale and not a<\/p>\n
mortgage.        Thereafter he contacted a social<\/p>\n
worker namely Sivaraman Nair who is also an<\/p>\n
advocate clerk and he had promised to take<\/p>\n
appropriate proceedings to get the document set<\/p>\n
aside or corrected but later he received a<\/p>\n
notice from Sivaraman Nair stating that he had<\/p>\n
agreed to sell the property to Sivaraman Nair or<\/p>\n
to return Rs.30,000\/-.        It is also contended<\/p>\n
that the defendant had taken blank signed papers<\/p>\n
and had created documents to defeat the interest<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff.       Therefore the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 748 OF 1998 &
\nA.S. NO.221 OF 2003
\n                             -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
prayed for setting aside the document and also<\/p>\n
for a permanent injunction.\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The defendant in the suit contended that<\/p>\n
it is not a mortgage it is an out out sale for<\/p>\n
proper consideration and on the strength of the<\/p>\n
document the other tenants had given rent to him<\/p>\n
and that the plaintiff had even executed a lease<\/p>\n
deed and therefore the suit is not liable to be<\/p>\n
entertained.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   The other suit O.S.276\/93 is filed by<\/p>\n
the defendant in O.S.1092\/92 for a permanent<\/p>\n
injunction wherein the plaintiff therein has<\/p>\n
requested the Court to grant an injunction. On<\/p>\n
the   strength     of   the  document filed he  had<\/p>\n
purchased     the    property   and is enjoying the<\/p>\n
property.      The defendant in the case namely the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in O.S.1092\/92 and his son had filed<\/p>\n
written statement contending that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 748 OF 1998 &
\nA.S. NO.221 OF 2003
\n                             -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
in O.S.276\/93 is not entitled to any relief and<\/p>\n
therefore had prayed for dismissal of the suit.<\/p>\n
       4. In the trial court Exts.A1 to A5(b) and<\/p>\n
B1 to B5 were marked.       PW1 and DWs.1 and 3 were<\/p>\n
marked and on analysis of the materials the<\/p>\n
trial court granted a decree in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in O.S.276\/93 and dismissed the suit<\/p>\n
O.S.1092\/92.      It is against that these decisions<\/p>\n
the present appeals are filed.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   Heard.     The crux of the matter depends<\/p>\n
upon the correctness of the document and the<\/p>\n
nature of the document executed by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
in O.S.1092\/92 in favour of the defendant in<\/p>\n
that    case.       Admittedly  the plaint  schedule<\/p>\n
property is having an extent of 2 cents with a<\/p>\n
row of rooms therein.         It is the case of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff that he wanted to borrow money from<\/p>\n
the defendant who is a money lender and as per<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 748 OF 1998 &
\nA.S. NO.221 OF 2003
\n                            -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
his request he had executed a mortgage deed but<\/p>\n
to his utter dismay he found it as a sale deed<\/p>\n
later and therefore he wanted to set aside that<\/p>\n
or to declare that the document is invalid.<\/p>\n
      6.   On the other hand, the defendant would<\/p>\n
contend     that    the  document is  a  valid  one<\/p>\n
supported by actual consideration.       The trial<\/p>\n
court has elaborately considered the matter both<\/p>\n
documentary as well as oral evidence.     It has to<\/p>\n
be    remembered     that  Ext.A1  is  a registered<\/p>\n
assignment      deed   executed  by  the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
Ramakrishnan in favour of the defendant, Santhan<\/p>\n
on 25.10.84.       Ext.A2 is the rent chit executed<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff therein to the defendant for<\/p>\n
retaining a room on rent which he was occupying.<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 series are the basic tax receipts for the<\/p>\n
property.      Ext.A4 series are the demand notices<\/p>\n
and building tax receipts issued in the name of<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 748 OF 1998 &
\nA.S. NO.221 OF 2003
\n                            -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Santhan.       Ext.A5(a) and (b) are money order<\/p>\n
receipts.       The defendant’s i.e. Ramakrishnan’s<\/p>\n
exhibits are only regarding notices and the<\/p>\n
assignment deed. It has to be stated that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not an ordinary person.        He had<\/p>\n
executed the document with both his eyes opened<\/p>\n
and it cannot be stated that he was in a<\/p>\n
position to be dominated by the other person.<\/p>\n
If really it was only a mortgage deed then there<\/p>\n
was   no    necessity    for executing Ext.A2,  the<\/p>\n
execution       of    which  is  denied   by   Sri.<\/p>\n
Ramakrishnan.        The learned trial judge found<\/p>\n
that the document has been executed and on the<\/p>\n
basis of the document Mr. Santhan has proceeded<\/p>\n
and has been enjoying the property and the suit<\/p>\n
is filed admittedly in 1992 for declaration of<\/p>\n
that document as invalid.      It is interesting to<\/p>\n
note that this Ramakrishnan has set up a case<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 748 OF 1998 &
\nA.S. NO.221 OF 2003
\n                            -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
that he had contacted one Sivaraman Nair who is<\/p>\n
an advocate clerk and according to him that<\/p>\n
advocate     clerk    has also  cheated  him   after<\/p>\n
obtaining blank signed papers and thereafter he<\/p>\n
had issued a notice to the person for assigning<\/p>\n
the property in his favour.      So the case of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, Ramakrishnan appears to be that if<\/p>\n
somebody wants some blank papers to be signed he<\/p>\n
would readily oblige them and later face the<\/p>\n
consequences.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   The trial court also found that the<\/p>\n
evidence of DW2 and DW3 are not convincing and<\/p>\n
they are closely related and it does not carry<\/p>\n
much weight.      When confronted with the rent chit<\/p>\n
he would say that he had also given blank signed<\/p>\n
papers.      This can never be the attitude at all.<\/p>\n
Similarly other persons who are all occupying<\/p>\n
the rooms as tenants after the execution of<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 748 OF 1998 &
\nA.S. NO.221 OF 2003
\n                            -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
Ext.A1 had attorned to the purchaser and had<\/p>\n
started paying rent to him.       Therefore the sum<\/p>\n
and substance of the entire materials would show<\/p>\n
that Ext.A1 is a valid assignment deed executed<\/p>\n
for consideration and possession is handed over<\/p>\n
on the basis of which Mr.Santhan had exercised<\/p>\n
acts of ownership and possession and therefore<\/p>\n
the conduct of the plaintiff that it was only<\/p>\n
intended     to   be   a mortgage  deed  cannot   be<\/p>\n
accepted by any stretch of imagination.      It has<\/p>\n
also to be remembered the transaction was as<\/p>\n
early as in 1984 and the consideration shown in<\/p>\n
the document was Rs.15,000\/- and it relates to 2<\/p>\n
cents of property in a remote place in Thrissur<\/p>\n
called      Cherpu    and therefore  the   plea   of<\/p>\n
inadequacy of consideration also does not loom<\/p>\n
large in this case.      So from these discussions I<\/p>\n
concur with the finding of the trial court and<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 748 OF 1998 &
\nA.S. NO.221 OF 2003
\n                            -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
find that the Court below has granted a decree<\/p>\n
correctly        in    O.S.276\/93   and    dismissed<\/p>\n
O.S.1092\/92.       Therefore both these appeals fail<\/p>\n
and are dismissed but without costs.<\/p>\n
                            M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
ul\/-\n<\/p>\n
A.S. NO. 748 OF 1998 &
\nA.S. NO.221 OF 2003
\n                          -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
                               M.N. KRISHNAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                              = = = = = = = = = =
\n                               A.S. No.748 OF 1998
\n                               & A.S. NO.221 OF 2003
\n                            = = = = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
                                J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
                              11th November, 2010.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Makrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 748 of 1998(B) 1. MAKRISHNAN … Petitioner Vs 1. SANTHAN … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN For Respondent :SRI.JIJO PAUL The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :11\/11\/2010 O R D E R M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = […]<\/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-184642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMakrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 2010 - 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\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Makrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-15T15:27:34+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Makrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-15T15:27:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1299,\"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\\\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Makrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-15T15:27:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Makrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 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":"Makrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 2010 - 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\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Makrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-15T15:27:34+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Makrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-15T15:27:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010"},"wordCount":1299,"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\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010","name":"Makrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-15T15:27:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/makrishnan-vs-santhan-on-11-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Makrishnan vs Santhan on 11 November, 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\/184642","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=184642"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/184642\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=184642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=184642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=184642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}