{"id":190427,"date":"2009-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-19T07:13:15","modified_gmt":"2017-07-19T01:43:15","slug":"sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 01\/12\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nCRP(PD)No.521 of 2009\n\n1.Sakkarayan\n2.Rajathi\t\t\t\t...\tPetitioner\n\nVs\n\nK.Subramani\t\t\t\t...\tRespondent\n\nPrayer\n\nThis Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal\norder passed in IA.No.13\/2008 in OS.No.23\/2006 by the learned  Additional\nDistrict Judge (FTC) Periyakulam dated 30.12.2008.\n\n!For Petitioner\t...\tMr.V.Raghavachari\n^For Respondent\t...\tMr.A.Thirumurthy\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p> \t\tThis Civil Revision Petition is filed against the  order passed in<br \/>\nIA.No.13\/2008 in OS.No.23\/2006 by the learned  Additional District Judge (FTC)<br \/>\nPeriyakulam dated 30.12.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The Respondent\/Plaintiff had filed the above said suit for<br \/>\nspecific performance of an agreement to sell dated 24.11.2004 and the<br \/>\nPetitioners had filed a Written Statement refuting the allegations made in the<br \/>\nplaint.  Pending the said suit, the Petitioners\/Defendants  filed an application<br \/>\nin IA.NO.13\/2008 under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC to dismiss the suit on the ground<br \/>\nthat the Respondent\/ Plaintiff had already filed two suits in OS.No. 122\/2005 on<br \/>\nthe file of the District Munsif, Periyakulam and in OS.No.269\/2006 on the file<br \/>\nof the District Munsif, Theni.  OS.No.122\/2005 was filed for the relief of<br \/>\npermanent injunction restraining the Petitioners from interfering with his<br \/>\npossession and also restraining them from encumbering the suit property in any<br \/>\nmanner either by way of creating lease or sale of the suit property to third<br \/>\nparties. The said suit was decreed exparte on 13.7.2005 and the Respondent filed<br \/>\nEP.No.139\/2005 against the Petitioners for contempt, as the Petitioners<br \/>\ncontinued to violate the decree granted by the court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.  In the mean while, the Petitioners again attempted to alienate<br \/>\nthe suit property to third parties and the Respondent submitted an objection to<br \/>\nthe Sub Registrar, Theni, who in turn is said to have issued a certificate that<br \/>\nthe  Respondent may seek his remedy in the court of law.  Thereafter, the<br \/>\nRespondent had field a suit in OS.No.269\/2006 against the Petitioners, the Sub<br \/>\nRegistrar, Theni and the District Collector, Theni for permanent injunction<br \/>\nrestraining the Authorities from registering any document in respect of the suit<br \/>\nproperty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. In the mean while, the Petitioners had entered into a sale<br \/>\nagreement with one P.Jeyaraj, 6th Defendant in the suit in OS.No.23\/2006.<br \/>\nAccording to the Respondent, the Petitioners failed to execute the sale deed in<br \/>\nspite of several demand made by him and hence, he had filed the suit in<br \/>\nOS.NO.23\/2006 for specific performance of the agreement dated 24.11.2004 and for<br \/>\npermanent injunction restraining the 6th Defendant the subsequent agreement<br \/>\nholder  not to encumber the suit property in any manner. The Petitioners had<br \/>\nfiled their Written Statement contesting the said suit refuting the allegations<br \/>\nmade therein. Pending the suit, the Petitioners had filed an application in<br \/>\nIA.No.13\/2008 under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and Section 151 of CPC to dismiss the<br \/>\nabove said suit. The learned  Additional District Judge (FTC) Periyakulam<br \/>\ndismissed the said application as against which the unsuccessful Petitioner has<br \/>\nfiled this Civil Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.  Mr.V.Raghavachari, the learned counsel for the Petitioner<br \/>\nstrenuously contended that the Respondent willfully omitted and relinquished to<br \/>\nsue for larger and wider relief of specific performance even at the time of<br \/>\ninitiation of the first suit and having failed to avail the course of action for<br \/>\nfiling a suit for a larger relief, he cannot be allowed to maintain the present<br \/>\nsuit under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. He placed reliance on the decisions of this<br \/>\ncourt rendered in the cases of Kumarayee Ammal and 10 others Vs. M.Ramanathan by<br \/>\nhis Power Agent S.P.Kathiresan [2007-4-LW-319], Bhagawath Devi Vs. Aswin C.Jain<br \/>\n[2009-3-LW-456] and M\/s.Raptakos Brett and Company Private Limited Vs M\/s.Modi<br \/>\nBusiness Centre Private Limited [CDJ-2006-MHC-1661] in support of his<br \/>\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. On the other hand, Mr.A.Thirumurthy, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nRespondent submitted that when both the earlier suit and the subsequent suit are<br \/>\nbased on different causes of action, the provision of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC are<br \/>\nnot attracted.  Further, in the present case, there was no omission on the part<br \/>\nof the Respondent to sue in respect of the claim for specific performance of the<br \/>\nagreement,  as the cause of action for instituting a suit for specific<br \/>\nperformance had not accrued at the time of filing of the previous suits.  He<br \/>\nwould submit that the cause of action for initiating the present suit had arisen<br \/>\nwhen there was failure to execute the sale deed.  He placed reliance on the<br \/>\ndecisions of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Kunjan Nair<br \/>\nSivaraman Nair Vs. Narayanan Nair and others [2004-3-SCC-277], M\/s.Bengal<br \/>\nWaterproof Limited Vs. M\/s.Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and another<br \/>\n[AIR-1997-SC-1398], HMA Data Systems Private Limited, Chennai Vs. SSI Limited by<br \/>\nits authorised signatory R.Rangarajan, Chennai [2009-5-MLJ-1174] and Ramajayam<br \/>\nand others Vs. Lakshmi Mills Co. Limited by its Managing Director [2009-6-MLJ-<br \/>\n310] in support of his contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.  In the present case, the Respondent had filed the first suit in<br \/>\nOS.No.122\/2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Periyakulam for permanent<br \/>\ninjunction restraining the Petitioners and their legal heirs from alienating the<br \/>\nsuit property to third party on the basis of the agreement of sale dated<br \/>\n24.11.2004 entered into between them and the said suit had been decreed exparte.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.  It is alleged that the Petitioners had received a sum of Rs.2<br \/>\nlakhs from the Respondent towards advance amount and handed over possession of<br \/>\nthe property to the Respondent.  It is further alleged that the balance amount<br \/>\nof Rs.16 lakhs should be paid on or before 23.9.2005 and the Petitioners should<br \/>\nexecute a registered sale deed in favour of the Respondent.  There is a specific<br \/>\nclause in the agreement that the Petitioners should execute a registered general<br \/>\nPower of Attorney in favour of the Respondent and the terms and conditions in<br \/>\nthe sale agreement is extracted below:-\n<\/p>\n<p>@,J Kjy; ehsJ njjpapypUe;J tUfpw 23\/09\/2005k; njjpf;Fs; nkw;go fpuaj; bjhiff;F<br \/>\n1tJ ghh;l;oahhpd; brhe;j brytpy; gj;jpu&#8217;;fs; th&#8217;;fp nkw;go 1tJ ghh;l;oahUf;fhtJ<br \/>\nnkw;goahh; nfhUk; egh;fSf;fhtJ fpuag; gj;jpuk; vGjp g{h;j;jp bra;J nkw;go<br \/>\ngj;jpuj;jpy; 2tJ ghh;l;oahh;fs; ifbaGj;J bra;J g{h;j;jp bra;J ghf;fpj; bjhifia<br \/>\nbgw;Wf;bfhz;L gj;jpuk; gjpt[ bra;J bfhLj;J tpl ntz;oabjd;Wk;. moapw;fz;l ,lj;jij<br \/>\nek;kpy; 1tJ ghh;l;oahhpd; brhe;j brytpy; gpshl;Lfs; nghl;L mth; ,c&amp;;lk; nghy<br \/>\nghifs; mikj;J gpshl;Lfis jhd; tpUk;g[k; egh;fSf;F vf;hpbkz;l; bra;tjw;F 2tJ<br \/>\nghh;l;oahh;fs; ve;jtpj Ml;nrgida[k;  bra;af;Tlhbjd;wk; nkw;go tha;jh njjpf;Fs;<br \/>\nmoapw;fz;l ,lj;jpy; gpshl; nghl;L tpw;gid bra;a[k;nghJ Vw;gLk; muR rk;ge;jg;gl;l<br \/>\nmidj;jJ rfytpjkhd fhhpa&#8217;;fis bra;tjw;F kl;Lk; ek;kpy; 1tJ ghh;l;oahh; bgahpy;<br \/>\n2tJ ghh;l;oahh;fs; gth; vGjpf;bfhLj;J tpl ntz;oabjd;Wk;\/@\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. According to the Respondent, he approached the Petitioners on<br \/>\n12.3.2005 and 15.3.2005 for execution of general power deed for obtaining layout<br \/>\napproval from the Director of Town Planning in accordance with the terms of the<br \/>\nagreement, but the Petitioners delayed the execution of the said deed and hence,<br \/>\nhe had to file the suit in OS.No.122\/2005.  Subsequently, as the Petitioners<br \/>\nattempted to encumber the suit property, he had filed the second suit in<br \/>\nOS.NO.269\/2006 and thereafter and  the Petitioners failed to execute the sale<br \/>\ndeed, he had filed the present suit for specific performance.  It is seen that<br \/>\nthe cause of action for the relief of specific performance not accrued, when the<br \/>\nfirst suit for injunction was instituted, as there was time till 23.9.1995 even<br \/>\nas per the agreement.  The Respondent has pleaded in the present suit that he<br \/>\napproached the Petitioners to perform the agreement, but they failed to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The provision in Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC is based on the principle that<br \/>\na party should not be vexed twice for the same cause.  It is directed against<br \/>\nthe splitting of claims and remedies.  It, however, does not require that<br \/>\nseparate and distinct causes of action should be combined in one suit.  Not only<br \/>\nthe commonality of parties, but even that of the causes of action is an<br \/>\nessential pre-requisite for invoking the provision of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. Therefore, it is clear that in order that a plea of a bar under<br \/>\nRule 2 Order 2 of CPC to succeed,  the Defendant who raises the plea must make<br \/>\nout that the 2nd suit was in respect of the same cause of action, on which the<br \/>\nprevious suit was based and that in respect of the cause of action, the<br \/>\nPlaintiff was entitled to more than one relief. Unless there is identity between<br \/>\nthe cause of action on which the earlier suit was filed and on which the claim<br \/>\nin the later suit is based, there would be no scope for the application of the<br \/>\nbar.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12.  In the present case, the cause of action for instituting a suit<br \/>\nfor specific performance had not accrued, when the Respondent filed a suit for<br \/>\npermanent injunction to restrain the Petitioners from alienating the property in<br \/>\ndispute to any one else and the cause of action for initiating the present<br \/>\nproceedings had arisen, as there was failure to execute the sale deed.<br \/>\nTherefore, I am of the considered view that the causes of action are different<br \/>\nand hence, the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC are not attracted to the<br \/>\nfacts of this case.  Still further, a bare perusal of the provision shows that<br \/>\nthe Plaintiff must omit or intentionally relinquish a portion of his claim<br \/>\nbefore he can be debarred from suing in respect thereof.  But, in the present<br \/>\ncase, there is no omission on the part of the Respondent  to sue in respect of<br \/>\nthe claim for specific performance of the agreement, when he filed the earlier<br \/>\nsuit that arose on different causes of action.  Therefore, I am of the<br \/>\nconsidered view  that the decision of the court below cannot be assailed and<br \/>\nthere are no merits in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13.  In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No<br \/>\ncosts.  Consequently, the connected MP is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Srcm<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Additional District Judge (FTC) Periyakulam<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 01\/12\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRP(PD)No.521 of 2009 1.Sakkarayan 2.Rajathi &#8230; Petitioner Vs K.Subramani &#8230; Respondent Prayer This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in IA.No.13\/2008 in OS.No.23\/2006 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190427","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009 - 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\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-19T01:43:15+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-19T01:43:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1689,\"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\\\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-19T01:43:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009 - 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\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-19T01:43:15+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-19T01:43:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009"},"wordCount":1689,"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\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009","name":"Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-19T01:43:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sakkarayan-vs-k-subramani-on-1-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sakkarayan vs K.Subramani on 1 December, 2009"}]},{"@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\/190427","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=190427"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190427\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190427"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190427"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190427"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}