{"id":199796,"date":"2008-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008"},"modified":"2014-10-08T18:25:41","modified_gmt":"2014-10-08T12:55:41","slug":"rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Rengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Rengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED :21\/11\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nC.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1318 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD).No.2 of 2008\n\nAramanai Raman Chettiar,\nAnnadana Chatram rep.\nBy its Trustees\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n1.Rengaraju @ Raju\n2.Sethuraman\n3.Mohanram\n4.Raguraman\t\t\t\t\t...  Petitioners\n\nVs.\n\n1.Ravichandran\n2.A.R.Jeyaraman\n3.Udhayasankaran\t\t\n(The Second and third respondents were\nimpleaded vide of this Court dated\n22.07.2008 in CRP.Sr.No.25831\/2008)\n4.Vasan\n5.Rajan\t\t\t\t\t   \t...  Respondents\n\n\tCivil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of C.P.C against the order\ndated 25.04.2008 made in I.A.No.580 of 2003 in  O.S.No.199 of 2002 on the file\nthe Sub Court, Kumbakonam.\n\n!For Petitioners ... Mr.V.Sithanranjandas\n^For Respondents ... Mr.T.V.Sivakumar for R.1\n\t\t\tMr.S.Parthasaratthy\n\t\t         Senior Counsel for\n\t\t     Mr.M.S.Sureshkumar for R.2 & 3\n\t\t     Mr.R.RajaraMan for R.4 and R.5\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t1.The allegations found in the affidavit filed by the petitioners
\nare as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t1.1.\tThe petitioner is an auction purchaser conducted as per the Scheme
\nDecree dated 28.12.2003 in O.S.No.199 of 2002.  The public auction was held on
\n19.04.2003.  Since the petitioner quoted the higher sale price, the sale was
\nconfirmed in his favour.  In pursuance of the auction proceedings, as per the
\norder of this Court, dated 06.10.2003, he has deposited a sum of Rs.25,00,000\/-
\n(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only) by drawing a demand draft on Kumbakonam Union
\nBank of India dated 11.10.2003.  Further, he has also paid Rs.4\/- per square
\nfeet as agreed, apart from the sale price to the plaintiff Trust.  Since one
\nE.S.M.P.Kalil S\/o.E.M.M.Pakeer Mohammed was cultivating tenant in the suit
\nproperty, he got possession from him in the presence of the Advocate on
\n01.07.2003 and 02.07.2003 and the same was also intimated to the Trust by means
\nof an affidavit given by the tenant on 18.10.2003.\n<\/p>\n
\t1.2.\tIn pursuance of the purchase, since the petitioner has to take and
\nmaintain the property, necessary permission has to be accorded by the plaintiff
\nTrust.  Hence, it is prayed that the plaintiff Trust may be directed to sign the
\ndeclaration acknowledging the possession taken by the petitioner for dealing
\nwith all the affairs including getting lay-out approval, maintenance and
\nsecurity etc of the properties comprised in T.S.No.147\/1A in Kumbakonam Taluk.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tIn the counter filed by the fifth respondent, the following
\naverments are found:-\n<\/p>\n
2.1.\tThe petition is not maintainable. The petitioner attempts to create an
\nimpression as if these plaintiffs have filed this application.  The ranks of
\nparties found in the cause title of the petition have not been properly
\ndescribed.  The plaintiff and the defendants should have been arraigned as
\nrespondents.  On 28.01.2003, decree was passed in O.S.No.199 of 2002 permitting
\nthe Trustees to sell the suit properties in public auction.  The first plaintiff
\nby name one A.R.Bhadrusamy, who was elder among others, was authorised to look
\nafter all the affairs of the Trust.  All the plaintiffs were authorised to
\nconduct the sale and the Managing Trustee, namely the first plaintiff, alone
\ncould not act arbitrarily.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.2.On 30.03.2003, since the first plaintiff was over aged to deal with
\nthe auction proceedings, the third and fifth respondents were appointed as
\nExecutive Trustees by an unanimous resolution.  As per the decree in O.S.No.199
\nof 2002, due notifications were made in dailies, namely, Dinakaran and
\nMalaimalar, in response to which, 14 individuals presented their offers.  On
\n19.04.2003, an interview was held, but nobody was selected. Hence, it is false
\nto state that on 19.04.2003, the petitioner was confirmed as the auction
\npurchaser.  Excepting the allegation as to his participation in the auction held
\non 19.04.2003, other allegations are not correct.  He has not offered the
\nhighest price than the other bidders. In fact, his offer was Rs.81\/- per Sq.ft.
\nThe  offers of one E.S.M.P.Kalil was Rs.82\/- per Sq.ft; of S.Uthaman Rs.85\/- per
\nSq.ft; of Mohammed Rabi Rs.85\/- per Sq.ft ; of Sivaji @ Ganesan Rs.90\/- per
\nSq.ft., and of A.R.Sethuraman was Rs.90\/- per Sq.ft.  Further, A.R.Sethuraman
\ninformed the Trustees that he would also add Rs.7\/- per Sq.ft and that he would
\npay Rs.97\/- per Sq.ft.  On 19.04.2003, no decision was taken as regards auction
\nsale, so also, till today.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.3.\tOn 02.05.2003, 1,3 and 5 plaintiffs gave notice to A.R.Sethuraman to
\nhave discussion with him on 10.05.2003.  Since the first respondent did not
\nsign, the third and fifth respondents also did not sign.  The first plaintiff
\nalso agreed to have talk with A.R.Sethuraman.  It was learnt that the said
\nA.R.Sethuraman represented to the first plaintiff that he (A.R.Sethuraman)
\nwanted to abstain from the sale proceedings and signed on 13.06.2003 to that
\neffect.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.4.\tThereafter, on 10.09.2003, all the Trustees were served with notice
\nand a Trust meeting was held on 13.09.2003.  However, the first respondent did
\nnot inform that interview was held on 10.05.2003.  Even though it was decided to
\nconfirm the purchaser, yet no final decision was taken in this regard.  Without
\nsending notice to A.R.Sethuraman, the first plaintiff held an interview with
\nother four persons on 10.05.2003, for which there was no resolution from the
\nTrust Board and the said interview was not valid.  No notice was issued to
\nS.Uthaman, who offered higher price than this petitioner.  On 11.05.2003, the
\nTrust Board met and even at that time, the first respondent did not inform
\nanything about the interview.  Even afterwards, the first and the third
\nrespondents have not stated anything about the sale.  The first plaintiff
\ncolluded with this petitioner without the  knowledge of the Trust Board. He
\nacted adverse to the resolution taken by the Trust Board and he signed and filed
\npetition as if, he alone represented the Trust.  It is not sustainable.  An
\norder was obtained from the Court on 06.10.2003, by furnishing false information
\nto the Court.  Hence, it was resolved on 26.10.2003 that a proper order had to
\nbe obtained from the Court by giving correct particulars.  Merely because the
\npetitioner deposited Rs.25,00,000\/- into the Court colluding with the first
\nplaintiff, he cannot become a confirmed auction purchaser. There was no separate
\nagreement with the petitioner for payment of Rs.4\/- per Sq.ft.  That fact was
\nnot informed to the Trust Board by the first respondent.  However, it was
\nstrongly opposed.  Already E.S.M.P.Kalil entrusted possession on 02.07.2003 to
\nthe Trustees, for which he filed an affidavit through the Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.5.\tIt is false to state that on 02.07.2003, the petitioner obtained
\npossession from the tenant.  The property is not possessed by the petitioner.
\nBut it is in the possession of the Trust.  The property is being maintained by
\nthe Trust and the supervision of the Court is also there.  The petitioner has no
\nright either to maintain or manage the properties.  He has got only right to get
\nrefund of the deposit made by him.  The property is worth many crores.  But if
\nthe petition was not dismissed, there is danger of the petitioner taking over
\nthe properties for a meagre sum.  The property is to an extent of five acres and
\nodd equal to 2,24,540 Sq.ft.  If Rs.97\/- per Sq.ft is calculated, it would come
\nto Rs.2,17,80,380 and if the property was sold for Rs.81\/- per sq.ft, the trust
\nwould get Rs.1,81,87,740\/- alone.  So, the trust will incur a loss of
\nRs.35,92,640\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.6.\tIt is stated that after the period for submitting the tender was
\nover, one Bazeer offered Rs.100\/- per Sq.ft and he also undertook to pay the
\nauction amount immediately.  In the adjacent areas, named as Bharath Nagar and
\nPeriyathambi Nagar, a square feet is being sold at the rate of Rs.250\/- per
\nSq.ft.  As such, more than Rs.100\/- per Sq.ft could be fetched.  If the above-
\nsaid things are considered, it could be understood that the Trust would lose
\ncrores of rupees. Without the resolution of the Trust Board, the first
\nrespondent acted and hence, the petitioner could not be treated to be an auction
\npurchaser and he cannot get involved in any affairs of the Trust properties for
\nhis selfish activities. Because of the first plaintiff, the welfare of the Trust
\nshould not be prejudiced.  There is no bona-fide in filing the application.  The
\npetitioner has deviated from the decree and the Rules of the Trust.  The
\npetitioner is the third party and hence, he could not file any interlocutory
\napplication and obtain relief in O.S.No.199 of 2002.  Hence, the petition has to
\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tThe learned Principal Sub-Judge, Kumbakonam, on 25.04.2008 allowed
\nthe application with costs granting the reliefs as prayed for in the petition.
\nThe said order is under challenge before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.\tThe learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.V.Sitharanjandas would
\ncontend that the Court below has not considered the rate of Rs.97\/- per Sq.ft
\nquoted by A.R.Sethuraman, but approved the lower offer of Rs.81\/- per Sq.ft.
\ncited by the petitioner. It is mentioned in grounds of Revision that besides
\nother petitions, the following Interlocutory Applications are also pending:-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) I.A.No.594 of 2003 is for direction to implement the resolution dated
\n13.03.2003 passed by the Trust Board authorising the first petitioner and the
\nsecond respondent to take care of the sale transaction.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) I.A.No.595 of 2003 is for directing the first plaintiff
\nA.R.Bhadrusamy not to have direct dealing with the first respondent namely one
\nRavichandran in respect of sale transaction.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) I.A.No.596 of 2003, is to set aside the order dated 06.10.2003
\npermitting the first respondent to deposit Rs.25,00,000\/- and to refund the same
\nto him.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.\tReferring to the pendency of those petitions, the learned counsel
\nfor the petitioners would state that without disposing of the above said
\napplications, the direction issued in I.A.No.580 of 2003 is erroneous.
\n\t5.1.  In view of death of A.R.Bhadrusamy on 22.10.2005, I.A.No.595 of 2003
\nhas become infractuous.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. \tThe learned counsel for the first respondent Mr.T.V.Sivakumar would
\nrepel the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, by submitting
\nthat as per the Scheme Decree passed in O.S.No.199 of 2002, the auction was held
\nby the first petitioner and the second respondent along with deceased first
\nplaintiff \/ A.R.Bhadrusamy and hence, the action was valid, that even though
\nthere were authorised offers, excepting the first respondent, no bidder
\nsubsequently expressed his willingness to have the auction in his favour, that
\nthe market value of the property has to be considered as on the date of the
\nsale, namely on 19.04.2003 and the subsequent escalation in the price could not
\nbe considered and that the auction in favour of the first respondent was valid
\nin the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.\tThe learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.Parthasarathy, appearing for
\nMr.M.S.Suresh Kumar, for the second and third respondents would contend that
\neven though A.R.Sethuraman quoted higher price, he withdrew from the auction
\nproceedings afterwards.  The learned counsel for the respondents R.4 and R.5
\nwould submit that though the decree passed in O.S.No.199 of 2002 is a judgment
\nunder Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, a suit filed in O.S.No.114 of 2005 for setting aside
\nthe Scheme is pending and hence, further proceedings could not be taken up.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.\tRepelling the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents
\n4 and 5, the learned counsel for the first respondent would say that the 4th and
\n5th respondents have no locus standi to contend anything in this civil revision
\npetition since the petition filed by them in I.A.No.50 of 2007, under Order 1
\nRule 10 CPC, to implead them as respondents in I.A.No.580 of 2003, was dismissed
\non 25.04.2008 by the learned Principal Sub-judge, Kumbakonam, and no appeal nor
\nrevision has been preferred from the said order and the order has become final
\nand hence, the 4th and 5th respondents could not have any say in the
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.\tO.S.No.199 of 2002 was filed by Trustees of Aramanai Raman Chettiar
\nAnnadhana Chathram Trust (for short ‘the Trust’)  against the present 4th and
\n5th respondents for a decree permitting them to sell the suit Trust properties,
\nfrom which no income is derived at present, by auction sale and to deposit the
\ncorpus amount in a Nationalised Bank and to receive periodical interest to meet
\nthe charity and other expenses and to frame a Scheme and also for management of
\nthe Trust.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.\tThe defendants are the sons of one Sundaragopal, who has been
\nreportedly disqualified to be the Trustee of the Trust, and it is alleged in the
\nsuit that they were not entitled to function as Trustees.  The suit ended in a
\ncompromise.  A memo filed by the defendants for framing a Scheme to administer
\nand manage the plaintiff’s Trust after evidence, dated 10.01.2003, in which the
\ndefendants namely the 4th and 5th respondents and the learned counsel for the
\ndefendants have also singed.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.\tThe learned counsel for the first respondent also stresses a point
\nthat inasmuch as the petitioners filed I.A.No.351 of 2005 on the file of Sub-
\ncourt, Kumbakonam for the relief of appointment of a Receiver to manage the
\nTrust properties and directing him to submit the accounts once in a month,
\nimpleading the second and third respondents and also one A.R.Senthilkumar, son
\nof the second plaintiff A.R.Raghavan, in O.S.No.199 of 2002, the petition having
\nbeen dismissed on merits, and they having not preferred any appeal or revision,
\ntheir contention in the present petition is barred by res judicata and that they
\nare precluded from approaching the Court with identical contentions before the
\nCourt in this proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t12.\tA suit in O.S.No.114 of 2005 has been instituted by the present 4th
\nand 5th respondents for declaring that the decree dated 28.01.2003 made in
\nO.S.No.199 of 2002 is invalid, unsustainable and non-est and consequently to
\ncancel the same and also for granting permanent injunction restraining the
\ndefendants from in any way instituting or participating in any proceedings with
\nelection of Managing Trustee or taking any other action or step in pursuance of
\nthe decree dated 28.01.2003 in O.S.No.199 of 2002 on the file of Sub-Court,
\nKumbakonam.  Even though, these petitioners, second and third respondents were
\nimpleaded as defendants in the suit, the first respondent is not a party to the
\nsuit.  There is no stay or injunction granted in the said suit for further
\nproceedings of the auction held on 19.04.2003.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Presently, A.R.Jeyaraman is the Managing Trustee of the Trust and he
\nhas been acting in the capcity as such in the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.\tThe quintessence of the contention of the learned counsel for the
\nfirst respondent is that having invited an adverse order in I.A.No.351 of 2005
\nand the present petitioners not filed any revision or appeal from the said
\norder, now their identical contention and claim are barred by principle of res
\njudicata and that it is applicable not only to different suits between the same
\nparties, but also in the subsequent stages of the same proceedings. In order to
\nappreciate the contentions in the background of the settled legal proposition,
\nit is inevitable to have a discussion as to the decision made in I.A.No.351 of
\n2005 in the presence of pleadings of respective parties thereon.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.\tAs stated above, I.A.No.351 of 2005 was filed by the present
\npetitioners 1 to 3 and one A.R.Raghavan against the second and third respondents
\nherein and also one A.R.Senthilkumar S\/o.A.R.Ragavan praying for the relief of
\nan appointment of a Receiver to manage the Trust properties.  In the affidavit
\nannexed to the petition, these petitioners have alleged that A.R.Bhadrusamy and
\nA.R.Jeyaraman are acting against the interests of the Trust and A.R.Bhadrusamy
\nattempted to knock down the sale in favour of Ravichandran.  But,   ignoring the
\nindividuals, who cited higher sale price, 1 to 3 respondents, namely
\nA.R.Jeyaraman, A.R.Udayasankaran and Senthilkumar were assisting A.R.Bhadrusamy
\nto sell the property for a lesser price, which is worth about crores of rupees
\nand that some other properties were sold without knowledge of the petitioners,
\nthat A.R.Bhadrusamy received a sum of Rs.10,00,000\/- for expenses to meet
\nexpenses for the lay out process and the said amount was not properly accounted
\nand hence, a Receiver has to be appointed.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.\tIn the counter filed for I.A.No.351 of 2005 by the first respondent
\nA.R.Jeyaraman, adopted by the other respondents, it is stated that in I.A.No.594
\nof 2003 filed by the petitioners to appoint him (A.R.Jeyaraman) as Executive
\nTrustee and presently, they are filing a contradictory affidavit with false
\naverments and ulterior motive.  It is further stated that the petitioners are
\nscheming persons and they are dragging on the proceedings without conducting
\nenquiry.  When the Scheme Decree is not challenged under law, the petition for
\nappointing of a Receiver and for stay are not maintainable.  The averment that
\nthe letters handed over by A.R.Bhadrusamy and Jayaraman to Ravichandran, were
\nentered in the minutes on 26.10.2003 are not correct. The present petition is
\nalso against the averments made in the minutes signed by all the parties.  On
\n26.10.2003, the minutes book was snatched from A.R.Bhadrusamy and returned only
\nafter one week.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.1.\tAfter hearing both parties in I.A.No.351 of 2005, the learned Sub-
\nJudge, dismissed the application on 17.01.2006 observing that had the auction
\nbeen irregular, either the trustees \/ petitioners or the beneficiaries or the
\nindividuals, who participated in the auction should have taken legal steps and
\nno material is shown to infer that any one has applied the Court for setting
\naside the auction dated 19.04.2003 and that O.S.No.333 of 2003 filed by the
\npetitioners for a decree restraining the Sub-registrar from handing over the
\nsale deed to Ravichandran has also been dismissed, that there is no evidence to
\nshow that A.R.Bhadrusamy acted in derogation to the interests of the Trust in
\narranging sale of Trust property for a paltry sum and that however it was true
\nthat A.R.Bhadrusamy misappropriated Rs.10,00,000\/- received from Ravichandran,
\nbut there were no criminal proceedings or civil litigation to recover the money
\nfrom him, that in the Trust Board Meeting held on 30.03.2003, as per the Scheme
\nDecree, it was resolved by the petitioners and the respondents to sell the
\nproperty to Ravichandran, in which they have signed and hence, now the version
\nthat the respondents colluded with Ravichandran is not acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.2. It is further observed that the Managing Trustee A.R.Bhadrusamy was
\nresponsible to convene the Trust Board Meeting, who died on 22.10.2005 and hence
\nfor non-convening the meeting, the respondents could not be held responsible.
\nAs for bank accounts of the Trust to be operated by the first petitioner and the
\ndeceased A.R.Bhadrusamy jointly, they are also subjected to the auditing and
\nhence the contention that the accounts were not properly maintained could not be
\ncountenanced.  The petitioners filed I.A.No.184 of 2003 to appoint the first
\nrespondent as Executive Trustee and the same is pending, that there had been no
\nsteps to remove him from the Trust Board levelling allegations that he acted
\nagainst the interests of the Trust and that the clauses in the Scheme Decree
\nhave to be respected and that no ground has been made out for appointment of
\nReceiver.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.\tGoing by the pleadings of the parties and the material findings in
\nthe order passed by the learned Principal Sub-Judge as extracted above, in
\nI.A.No.351 of 2005, it is seen that the sale has been held as per the procedure
\nformulated by the Trust Board, that there was no irregularity in holding
\nauction, that the contention that A.R.Bhadrusamy acted against the interests of
\nthe Trust remains unproved and that nobody else, who participated in the
\nauction, felt aggrieved that in spite of his quoting higher price the sale was
\nnot knocked down in his favour.  It is admitted that A.R.Sethuraman after
\nquoting the highest amount had not turned up and furnished solvency to pursue
\nthe matter, so also, Kalil, S.Uthaman, Mohammed Rabi  and Sivaji @ Ganesan.  The
\nremaining bidder is only Ravichandran and he has to be termed to be the
\nsuccessful bidder.\n<\/p>\n
\t19.\tWhile the point of res judicata was covered by the arguments of both
\nsides, the learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance upon a
\nLarger Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1964) 5 SCR 946,  Arjun
\nSingh v. Mohindra Kumar<\/a>   in which it is held that if the principle of res
\njudicata is to be applicable, no new facts should have been adduced in the
\nsubsequent proceedings and the Court is precluded from making fresh
\ninvestigation.  The principles set out in the decision are as follows:-
\n“13. Thus if an application for the adjournment of a suit is rejected, a
\nsubsequent application for the same purpose even if based on the same facts, is
\nnot barred on the application of any rule of res judicata, but would be rejected
\nfor the same grounds on which the original application was refused. The
\nprinciple underlying the distinction between the rule of res judicata and a
\nrejection on the ground that no new facts have been adduced to justify a
\ndifferent order is vital. If the principle of res judicata is applicable to the
\ndecision on a particular issue of fact, even if fresh facts were placed before
\nthe Court, the bar would continue to operate and preclude a fresh investigation
\nof the issue, whereas in the Other case, on proof of fresh facts, the court
\nwould be competent, may would be bound to take those into account and make an
\norder conformably to the facts freshly brought before the court.”\n<\/p>\n
\t20.\tIt is well settled that the res judicata applies not only in
\nseparate proceedings but also subsequent stageS of the same proceedings.  The
\nLarger Bench of the Supreme Court in a decision reported in (2005) 1 SCC 787 =
\n2005 (1) CTC 368, Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar,<\/a>  referring to its earlier
\ndecisions reported in AIR 1960 SC 941, Satyadhyan Ghosal and others V.
\nSmt.Deorajin Debi and<\/a> another, in paragraphs:18, 28 and 30, has held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“18. It is now well settled that principles of res judicata apply in
\ndifferent stages of the same proceedings. (See Satyadhyan Ghosal and others v.
\nSmt. Deorajin Debi and Prahlad Singh<\/a> v. Col. Sukhdev Singh, 1987(1) scc 727
\n       In Y.B. Patil it was held:\n<\/p>\n
\t“4. ? It is well settled that principles of res judicata can be invoked
\nnot only in separate subsequent proceedings, they also get attracted in
\nsubsequent stage of the same proceedings. Once an order made in the course of a
\nproceeding becomes final, it would be binding at the subsequent stage of that
\nproceeding.”\n<\/p>\n
\t28. Res judicata debars a court from exercising its jurisdiction to
\ndetermine the lis if it has attained finality between the parties whereas the
\ndoctrine issue estoppel is invoked against the party. If such an issue is
\ndecided against him, he would be estopped from raising the same in the latter
\nproceeding. The doctrine of res judicata creates a different kind of estoppel
\nviz. estoppel by accord.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. The said dicta was followed in Barber v. Staffordshire County Council.
\nA cause of action estoppel arises where in two different proceedings identical
\nissues are raised, in which event, the latter proceedings between the same
\nparties shall be dealt with similarly as was done in the previous proceedings.
\nIn such an event the bar is absolute in relation to all points decided save and
\nexcept allegation of fraud and collusion. [See C. (A Minor) v. Hackney London
\nBorough Council”\n<\/p>\n
\t21.\tAn identical view has been echoed by the Supreme Court in the
\nfollowing other cases also. In Iswar Dutt Vs. Land Acquisition Collector and
\nanother reported in (2005) 7 Supreme Court Cases 190, in which the Supreme Court
\nin paragraphs: 14 and 27 has held thus:-\n<\/p>\n
“14. It is not in dispute that the High Court issued a writ of mandamus. It is
\nalso not in dispute that the direction of the High Court was acted upon. The
\nprinciple of res judicata, as is well known, would apply in different
\nproceedings arising out of the same cause of action but would also apply in
\ndifferent stages of the same proceedings. As the judgment and order passed in
\nCWP No. 510 of 19851 attained finality, we are of the opinion that the
\nrespondents herein could not have raised any contention contrary thereto or
\ninconsistent therewith in any subsequent proceedings.” urther noticed: (SCC p.
\n\t64, para 42)\n<\/p>\n
27…..\n<\/p>\n
“42. In Ishwardas v. State of M.P., this Court held: (SCC p.166, para 7)
\n‘In order to sustain the plea of res judicata it is not necessary that all the
\nparties to the two litigations must be common. All that is necessary is that the
\nissue should be between the same parties or between parties under whom they or
\nany of them claim.’ ”\n<\/p>\n
\t22.\tIn  Chhabil Das v. Pappu,<\/a> (2006) 12 SCC 41 = 2006(5) \tCTC 606,  in
\npara:13, it is held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“12. It is now well known that the principle of res judicata also applies in
\ndifferent stages of the same proceedings. (See Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana
\nKumar.,<\/a> 2005(1) CTC 368; 2005(1) SCC 787 and Ishwar Dutt  v. Land Acquisition
\nCollector & Anr.,<\/a> 2005 (7) SCC 190.)”\n<\/p>\n
\t23.\tEven though fraud and collusion were pleaded in the earlier
\nproceedings, the Court has negatived the same.  Having remained without
\npreferring any appeal or revision, now the respondents could not comment that
\nthe auction is tainted with fraud and collusion.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.\tIn the previously instituted proceedings namely I.A.No.351 of 2005,
\nthe first respondent was not a party.  However, his interest in the subject
\nmatter was subjected for consideration. If a person having interest in any
\naction or interest in an estate created by another, a person who derives
\ninterest from contract to which he is not himself, a party is termed as
\n“privies”.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.\tEmploying the term “privies” the Apex Court in Iswar Dutt’s case has
\nobserved as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The principle of res judicata is a species of the principle of estoppel.
\nWhen a proceeding based on a particular cause of action has attained finality,
\nthe principle of res judicata shall fully apply.  Cause of action estoppel
\narises where the cause of action in the later proceedings is identical to that
\nin the earlier proceedings, the latter having been litigated between the same
\nparties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t26.\tIn order to satisfy the terms “between the same parties”
\nincorporated in Section 11 CPC, the person who derives interest should also be
\nconsidered. The Apex Court has held that the latter proceedings shall be
\nlitigated between the same parties or their “privies” and the same subject
\nmatter be involved.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t27.\tIn the Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Iyer, Reprint 2004, the term
\n“privies” has been defined as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“PRIVIES: All who have mutual or successive relationship to the same rights ;
\npersons connected together, or having a mutual interest in the same action or
\nthing, by some relation other than that of actual contract between them; persons
\nwho are parties to, or have an interest in, any action or thing, or any relation
\nto another; persons whose interest in an estate is derived from the contract or
\nconveyance of others; those who are partakers or have an interest in any action
\nor thing, or any relation to another”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t28.\tThe first respondent could very well be brought within the
\npurview of the term “privies”.\tHence, there is no doubt about the
\napplication of principles of res judicata in this proceedings. In order to
\nsustain the plea of res judicata, it is not necessary that all the parties to
\nthe two proceedings must be common.  Necessary it is that the issue should be
\nbetween the same parties or between parties under whom or any of them derive
\nrights and claim.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.\tFollowing are the circumstances under which the auction in favour of
\nthe first respondent could be upheld. The auction was held on 19.04.2003, after
\ndue publication in the dailies as per the terms of compromise decree, by the
\nauthorised Trustees on 19.04.2003. (Para 29(i) to 29 V)<\/p>\n
\t29.(i)\t.\tEven though it is alleged in the counter in I.A.No.580
\nof 2003 that  E.S.M.P.Kalil quoted Rs.82\/- per Sq.ft ; S.Uthaman’s as Rs.85\/ per
\nSq.ft ; Mohammed Rabi’s as Rs.85\/- per Sq.ft ; Sivaji @ Ganesan’s as Rs.90\/- per
\nSq.ft., ; A.R.Sethuraman as Rs.90\/- per Sq.ft., excepting the first respondent
\nno body turned up to furnish solvency as required by the procedure to the
\nsatisfaction of the Trustees.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.(ii).   S.Uthaman filed application I.A.No.593 of 2003 to set aside the
\nsale in favour of the first respondent. After contest, the petition was
\ndismissed on 30.11.2004 and there had been no appeal nor revision.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.(iii). In the counter filed by A.R.Bhadrusamy and the second
\nrespondent, A.R.Jayaraman, it has been categorically admitted that the Court,
\nafter perusing all the records, has chosen one Ravichandran as qualified person
\nfor the auction and directed him to deposit Rs.25,00,000\/- and the same was
\ndeposited and that S.Uthaman had not produced any solvency, either on the date
\nof auction or any subsequent date.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.(iv). In I.A.Nos.594,595,596 of 2003, A.R.Bhadrusamy and A.R.Jeyaraman
\nfiled counters in which they have stated as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\tA.R.Sethuraman never agreed for Rs.97\/- per Sq.ft and gave in writing that
\nhe was prepared to pay Rs.73\/- per Sq.ft.  Afterwards, in the minute book
\ninstead of Rs.73\/-, A.R.Sethuraman wrote Rs.90\/- per Sq.ft.  It was approved by
\nA.R.Rengaraju @ A.R.R.Raju and accepted by other Trustees.  It is further
\nalleged that Sivaji @ Ganesan also did not furnish any solvency as per the
\nprocedure and that among all the bidders who were interviewed, the quotation by
\nRavichandran (the first respondent) and his others responses were found in
\nfavour of the welfare of the Trust.  He agreed and signed in the minutes and the
\nsaid minutes as well as interim report were submitted to the Court.  It is also
\nstated that it is incorrect in alleging that A.R.Jeyaraman colluded with
\nRavichandran.  In addition to quoting
\nRs.81\/- per Sq.ft, Ravichandran agreed to pay Rs.4\/- per Sq.ft in addition, for
\ngetting lay out etc and he reduced it to writing in the auction minutes and
\nsinged in the presence of the Trustees and hence, his quotation for one Sq.ft
\ncomes to Rs.85\/- A.R.Bhadrusamy did not act arbitrarily and A.R.Jeyaraman was
\nalso not assisting him.  As per the auction minutes, when the total value of the
\nproperty is calculated,  if per Sq.ft Rs.85\/- is paid, it comes to
\nRs.1,91,05,450\/- and if other expenses for getting G.O., and formation of park
\nare included, the auction purchaser has to spend considerable amount and hence
\nprice for one Sq.ft, would be Rs.100\/- and it is incorrect to state that one
\nSq.ft would fetch Rs.250\/-  It is learnt that for formation of lay outs on the
\nother three sides of the auctioned land,  approach roads with a width of 30
\nfeet, a community hall and parks, and also streets have to be provided, which
\nwould constitute 35% to 40% of the total area and thereafter, G.O. has to be
\nobtained from the Government and then only the guidelines value could be
\nprepared by the Registration Department and the above-said matters were reduced
\nto writing in which A.R.Bhadrusamy, A.R.Rengaraju @ A.R.R.Raju and A.R.Jeyaraman
\nsinged and that the petitioners are not competent to file the petition for
\ndirection to refund of Rs.25,00,000\/- to Ravichandran.\n<\/p>\n
\t29.(v).\tThe first respondent filed petition in I.A.No.90 of 2008 on
\n04.06.2008 with a prayer for direction to the Managing Trustee to execute and
\nregister sale deed in his favour, in default the same may be executed by the
\nCourt.  The said petition is pending.  A.R.Jeyaraman ( the second respondent)
\nfiled counter on 25.06.2008, to the said petition for the present third
\nrespondent also in which he has stated that in pursuance of the auction,
\nRavichandran had to pay the entire sale price by 01.04.2004 and it is not known
\nwhether it is the lapse on his part or on the part of Trustees, A.R.Raju @
\nA.R.Rengaraju, A.R.Sethuraman, A.R.Jeyachandran, A.R.Mohanram and
\nA.R.Raghuraman. If interest is calculated for Rs.1,56,05,450\/- at the rate of 8%
\nupto 30.06.2008, it would come to Rs.50,52,697\/-. Worthwhile it is to note that
\nA.R.Jeyaraman has not raised any dispute about the validity of auction.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. The above-said statements of by A.R.Jeyaraman in I.A.Nos.594, 595 and
\n596 of 2003 and I.A.No.90 of 2008 which are in favour of the first respondent
\nherein would amply show that the Trust has been recognising the auction in his
\nfavour.\n<\/p>\n
\t31.\tYet another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
\nthat when several interlocutory applications are pending before the Court below,
\nthis petition alone has been disposed of and that a direction has to be issued
\nby this Court to dispose of all the applications along with this application.
\nThis Court is unable to accept the contention for the reason that with co-
\noperation of all the parties the matter was enquired and a considered order has
\nbeen passed by the Court below in I.A.No.580 of 2003.  Hence, orders to be
\npassed in those interlocutory applications may be consequential to the orders
\npassed in I.A.No.580 of 2003 and I.A.No.351 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t32.\tIn pursuance of the order of the Court below dated 06.10.2003, the
\nfirst respondent deposited a sum of Rs.25,00,000\/- in Union Bank of India,
\nKumbakonam on 11.10.2003 in the name of the plaintiffs’ trust.  Thereafter, he
\nfiled a memo dated 28.04.2008 to permit him to deposit Rs.1,56,05,450\/- into the
\nCourt and he was permitted to deposit as such without prejudice to both parties.
\nBy means of three fixed deposits on 02.06.2008, the first respondent has
\ndeposited Rs.1,56,05,450\/- and those receipts were received by the Court below
\non 03.06.2008. It is also contended by him that he handed over Rs.10,00,000\/- to
\nA.R.Bhadrusamy, for lay out expenses, which was admitted by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t33.\tThe learned counsel for the petitioner  would submit that since the
\ndecree passed in O.S.No.199 of 2002 was not a compromise decree but the judgment
\non admission, it would require registration because the decree creates rights
\nfor the first time.  In support of his decision, he relied upon a decision of
\nthe Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1996, Bhoop Singh V. Ram
\nSingh Major and Others<\/a> in which the Apex Court has discussed the matter under
\nOrder 23 and Rule 3 and Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t34.\tIn the above said case, the suit was decreed in view of the written
\nstatement filed by the defendant admitting the claim of the plaintiff to be
\ncorrect.  Decreeing of suit in such a situation is covered by Order 12 Rule 6,
\nand not by Order 23 Rule 3, which deals with compromise of suit, whereas the
\nformer is on the subject of judgment of admission.\n<\/p>\n
\t35.\tBut the facts in the present case are distinguishable.  The judgment
\nin O.S.No.199 of 2002 was passed on the consent memo filed by the defendants
\nsubmitting that the suit may be decreed for framing a Scheme to administer and
\nmanage the plaintiff’s Trust.\n<\/p>\n
\t36.\tSince the claim of the first respondent is entertained by the Court
\nbelow, it shall expeditiously dispose of I.A.No.50 of 2008
\nfiled by him.  On the in-depth study of the records of this case, this Court is
\nof the considered view that the auction held on 19.04.2003 is a valid one and
\nthe auction purchaser, namely the first respondent, has to be extended the
\nbenefit of auction by the Trust and in this regard, the order passed by the
\nCourt below deserves to be confirmed.  It is accordingly confirmed.  The civil
\nrevision petition is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t37.\tIn fine, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently,
\nconnected M.P. is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
ssm<\/p>\n
To
\nThe Sub Court,
\nKumbakonam<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Rengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :21\/11\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1318 of 2008 and M.P.(MD).No.2 of 2008 Aramanai Raman Chettiar, Annadana Chatram rep. By its Trustees 1.Rengaraju @ Raju 2.Sethuraman 3.Mohanram 4.Raguraman … Petitioners Vs. 1.Ravichandran 2.A.R.Jeyaraman 3.Udhayasankaran […]<\/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-199796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008 - 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\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-08T12:55:41+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=\"30 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-08T12:55:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5901,\"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\\\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Rengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-08T12:55:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Rengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008 - 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\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-08T12:55:41+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":"30 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-08T12:55:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008"},"wordCount":5901,"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\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008","name":"Rengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-08T12:55:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rengaraju-raju-vs-ravichandran-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rengaraju @ Raju vs Ravichandran on 21 November, 2008"}]},{"@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\/199796","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=199796"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199796\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199796"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199796"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199796"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}