{"id":200243,"date":"2006-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006"},"modified":"2019-01-28T22:49:28","modified_gmt":"2019-01-28T17:19:28","slug":"st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006","title":{"rendered":"St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 22\/06\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN       \n\nC.R.P.(NPD) No.680 of 2006  \n\nSt.Mark's Educational Trust by its\nManaging Trustee \nPrince Babu Rajendran \n143, Radha Nagar Main Road  \nChromepet,Chennai  \n                                                .. Petitioner\n                                -Vs-\n\n1.Mrs.Sakunthala \n\n2.G.Saptharishi\n                                                .. Respondents\n\n        Revision  Petition  filed against the order dated 14.3.2006, passed in\nE.A.  In unnumbered S.R.No.10591\/2005 in E.P.No.99\/2005, in O.S.No.209\/1988 on   \nthe file of the District Munsif Court Alandur.\n\n!For Petitioner         :  Mr.N.S.Nandakumar\n^For Respondent         :  Mr.R.Subramanian\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        The  judgment-debtor  in the E.P.No.99\/2005 in O.S.No.209\/1988, on the<br \/>\nfile of the learned District Munsif Court, Alandur, is the Revision Petitioner<br \/>\nbefore this Court.  The respondents herein filed  O.S.No.209\/1988  before  the<br \/>\nSub-Court, Poonamallee fo declaration that the &#8216;B&#8217; schedule property mentioned<br \/>\nin   the  schedule  is  his  absolute  property  and  for  directing  the  1st<br \/>\ndefendant\/Revision Petitioner to put the  the  decree  holders\/respondents  in<br \/>\nvacant possession  of  the  suit  property.    By  judgment  and de cree dated<br \/>\n31.10.1995, the trial court decreed the suit for title and dismissed the  same<br \/>\nfor possession.    The  respondents\/plaintiffs herein alone filed an appeal in<br \/>\nA.S.No.1363\/1995 before this Court and a Division Bench of this court  by  its<br \/>\nelaborate  ju dgment dated 29.3.2005 allowed the appeal and granted the decree<br \/>\nfor possession also.  Against the judgment and  decree  dated  29.3.2005,  the<br \/>\nRevision Petitioner  filed  Special  Leave  Petition.    But the same was also<br \/>\ndismissed by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court on 13.5.2005.   The  respondents\/decree<br \/>\nholders  filed  E.P.No.99\/2005  to  execute the decree and after receiving the<br \/>\nnotice  in  the  execution  proceedings,  the  Revision  Petitioner  filed  an<br \/>\nExecution  Application  under  Sec.47  and  with  a prayer to declare that the<br \/>\ndecree dated 31.10.1995 is null and void and not executable against him.   The<br \/>\nexecution  court  by  order  dated 14.3.2006 in unnumbered SR No.10591\/2005 in<br \/>\nE.P.No.99\/2005 rejected the same and challenging the  order  dated  14.3.2006,<br \/>\nthe above Revision Petit ion has been filed by the Revision Petitioner herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and also the<br \/>\nlearned counsel  for the respondents.  I have also perused the documents filed<br \/>\nin support of their submissions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Learned counsel for the Revision  Petitioner  contended  that  the<br \/>\nexecution court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction to decide the issue in<br \/>\naccordance  with  Sec.47  of  C.P.C., read with Rule 143 of the Civil Rules of<br \/>\nPractice.  He further submitt hat the Revision Petitioner had no  occasion  to<br \/>\nbring  it to the notice of the court during the hearing of the suit and appeal<br \/>\nabout the fraud played by the decree  holder  against  the  courts  and  other<br \/>\nauthorities which came to light when he took steps to ob ey and to give effect<br \/>\nto the decree in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the<br \/>\nexecuting  court  has rightly rejected the Sec.47 application as the executing<br \/>\ncourt cannot go behind the decree and reopen the matter afresh.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  It is the case of the Revision Petitioner that he pursued the suit<br \/>\nand appeal bonafidely without realising that  the  respondents  herein  played<br \/>\npremeditated fraud by making and fabricating successive documents and obtained<br \/>\norders  suppressing  the ic records with the calculated intention to cheat the<br \/>\nreal owner and legally interested persons.  Therefore, according to  him,  the<br \/>\ndecree in  O.S.No.209\/1988 is a nullity and unenforceable.  It is the revision<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s further case that  the  decree  is  not  executable  against  the<br \/>\npetitioner  in  view  of  the inherent defect in the title of the property and<br \/>\nalso description of the property mentioned in  the  schedule  in  the  decree.<br \/>\nLearned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in (2001) 6<br \/>\nSCC 534  <a href=\"\/doc\/1766988\/\">(Dhurandhar  Prasad Singh v.  Jai Prakash University)<\/a> to contend that<br \/>\nobjection under Sec.47 about the executability of the decree can be allowed if<br \/>\nit is found that the decree is a nullity.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  In the above judgment, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court  has  elaborately<br \/>\ndealt  with  the power of the executing court under Sec.47 of C.P.C., and held<br \/>\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;23.  Under Section 47 of the Code, all questions arising between the  parties<br \/>\nto  the  suit in which the decree was passed or their representatives relating<br \/>\nto the  execution,  discharge  or  satisfaction  of  decree  have  got  to  be<br \/>\ndetermined by the court executi ng the decree and not by a separate suit.  The<br \/>\npowers  of  the  court  under Section 47 are quite different and much narrower<br \/>\nthan its powers of appeal, revision or review.  A first appellate court is not<br \/>\nonly entitled but obliged under law to go into the  qu  estions  of  facts  as<br \/>\nwell, like the trial court, apart from questions of law.  Powers of the second<br \/>\nappellate  court  under different statutes like Section 100 of the Code, as it<br \/>\nstood before its amendment by Central Act 104 of 1976 with effect from  1.2.19<br \/>\n77, could  be exercised only on questions of law.  Powers under statutes which<br \/>\nare akin to Section 100 of  the  Code,  as  amended  and  substituted  by  the<br \/>\naforesaid  Central  Act,  have  been  further  narrowed down as now in such an<br \/>\nappeal only a substantial ques tion of law can be considered.  The  powers  of<br \/>\nthis  Court  under  Article  136  of  the Constitution of India, should not be<br \/>\nexercised simply because substantial question of law arises  in  a  case,  but<br \/>\nthere  is  further  requirement  that  such question must be of general public<br \/>\nimportance and it requires decision of this Court.  Powers of  revision  under<br \/>\nSection  115  of the Code cannot be exercised merely because the order suffers<br \/>\nfrom legal infirmity or substantial question of law arises, but such an  error<br \/>\nmust suffer with the vice of error of jurisdiction.  Of course, the revisional<br \/>\npowers  exercisable  under  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure and likewise in<br \/>\nsimilar statutes stand on enti rely different footing and are  much  wider  as<br \/>\nthere  the  court  can  go  into the correctness, legality or propriety of the<br \/>\norder and regularity of proceeding of the inferior court.  It  does  not  mean<br \/>\nthat  in  each  and  every  case  the  revisional court is obliged to consider<br \/>\nquestions of facts as well like a first appellate court,  but  the  court  has<br \/>\ndiscretion  to  consider  the  same  in appropriate cases whenever it is found<br \/>\nexpedient and not in each and every  case.    Discretion,  undoubtedly,  means<br \/>\njudicial discretio  n  and  not  whim, caprice or fancy of a Judge.  Powers of<br \/>\nreview cannot be invoked unless it is shown that there is  error  apparent  on<br \/>\nthe face of the record in the order sought to be reviewed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        24.   The  exercise  of  powers  under  Section  47  of  the  Code  is<br \/>\nmicroscopic and  lies in a very narrow inspection hole.  Thus it is plain that<br \/>\nexecuting court can allow objection under  Section  47  of  the  Code  to  the<br \/>\nexecutability  of  the  decree if it is fou hat the same is void ab initio and<br \/>\nnullity, apart from the ground that the decree is  not  capable  of  execution<br \/>\nunder  law either because the same was passed in ignorance of such a provision<br \/>\nof law or the law was promulgated making a  decree  inexecutable  aft  er  its<br \/>\npassing.   In  the  case  on hand, the decree was passed against the Governing<br \/>\nBody of the College which was the defendant without seeking leave of the court<br \/>\nto continue the suit against the University upon  whom  the  interest  of  the<br \/>\noriginal defendant  devolved  and  impleading  it.  Such an omission would not<br \/>\nmake the decree void ab initio so as to invoke application of  Section  47  of<br \/>\nthe Code  and  entail  dismissal of execution.  The validity or otherwise of a<br \/>\ndecree may be challenged by filing a properly constituted suit or  taking  any<br \/>\nother  remedy  available  under  law on the ground that the original defendant<br \/>\nabsented himself from the proceedings of the suit after appearance as  he  had<br \/>\nno  longer  any  interest in the subject of dispute or did not purposely t ake<br \/>\ninterest in the proceedings or colluded with the adversary or any other ground<br \/>\npermissible under law.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  From the above judgment, it is very clear that the powers  of  the<br \/>\ncourt  under  Sec.47  are much narrower than the powers of appeal, revision or<br \/>\nreview.  The executing court can allow objections under Sec.47 of the Code  to<br \/>\nthe executability of the de if it is found that the same is void ab initio and<br \/>\na  nullity,  apart from the ground that the decree is not capable of execution<br \/>\nunder law either because the same was passed in ignorance of such a  provision<br \/>\nof  law  or  the  law as promulgated making the d ecree inexecutable after its<br \/>\npassing.  The validity or otherwise of a decree may be challenged by getting a<br \/>\nproperly instituted suit or taking any other remedy under law.  The  executing<br \/>\ncourt  cannot  go behind the decree except when the decree is a nulli ty or is<br \/>\nwithout jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment of  the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme  Court  reported  in  (2005)  8  SCC  41 <a href=\"\/doc\/1254898\/\">(TCI Finance Ltd.  v.<br \/>\nCalcutta Medical Centre Ltd.)<\/a> to submit that the Hon&#8217;ble High Court should not<br \/>\nenlarge the scope of the execu proceeding and treat it as a  Full-blown  suit.<br \/>\nIn the above judgment, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;7.   In  support  of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellant submitted<br \/>\nthat a new dimension has been  given  by  the  Division  Bench.    Admittedly,<br \/>\nRespondent  1  does  not  claim  any  right  of  ownership  over  the attached<br \/>\nproperties.  No claims of the nature  s  et  forth  by  Respondent  1  can  be<br \/>\nexamined in  terms  of  Section  47  or Order 21 Rule 58 CPC.  By the impugned<br \/>\njudgment, the High Court has enlarged the scope of the  execution  proceedings<br \/>\nand  has treated it as a full-blown suit without even recording any rea son as<br \/>\nto how Respondent 1 has any adjudicable interest  in  the  proceedings.    The<br \/>\nquestion of tenancy of tenancy cannot be decided by the executing court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;10.  The  executing court cannot go beyond the decree.  It is settled<br \/>\nposition in law which flows from Section 38 CPC, except when the decree  is  a<br \/>\nnullity or  is  without jurisdiction.  The crucial expression in Section 47 is<br \/>\n&#8220;All  questions  arising  bet   the   parties   to   the   suit&#8221;   &#8220;or   their<br \/>\nrepresentatives&#8221;.   Order  21  Rule  54  deals  with  attachment  of immovable<br \/>\nproperty, while Rule 58 deals with adjudication of claims to, or objections to<br \/>\nattachment of property.  Case of Respondent 1is not covered by Secti on 47  or<br \/>\nOrder 21  Rule 54 or Rule 58.  The High Court misconceived the nature of claim<br \/>\nset up by Respondent 1.  Learned Single Judge rightly noted that Respondent  1<br \/>\nwas not  having  independent right to the properties.  It found that the right<br \/>\nclaimed was as assignee under the judgment-debtor.  The agreement, if any,  in<br \/>\nthat  regard  was  not  produced  before the Court and, therefore, the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge drew adverse inference.  Before the Division Bench, the stand  of<br \/>\nRespondent 1was  that  it  was a tenant .  Without indicating any reason as to<br \/>\nhow the reasoning of the learned Single Judge was  wrong  the  Division  Bench<br \/>\nenlarged  the  scope  of  the  controversy and directed the executing court to<br \/>\ndecide the question of tenancy, which is legally impermissible.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  In the light of the well settled legal principles,let  me  examine<br \/>\nthe case on hand.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   It is not in dispute that having suffered a decree, the Revision<br \/>\nPetitioner did not  file  a  regular  appeal  questioning  the  title  of  the<br \/>\nrespondents herein.  It is only the respondents who filed an appeal before the<br \/>\ncourt challenging the disallow ortion in the decree.  The trial court rendered<br \/>\na  finding  that  the  revision  petitioner herein is a trespasser and he is a<br \/>\nperson in possession without any authority.   This  finding  was  not  at  all<br \/>\nchallenged by  the revision petitioner and the same reached i ts finality.  In<\/p>\n<p>such circumstances it is not for the revision  petitioner  herein  to  contend<br \/>\nthat the respondent by creating and fabricating documents is thus cheating the<br \/>\ntrue and real owner and legally interested persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  The  revision petitioner herein filed Sec.  47 application on the<br \/>\nground that the respondent herein did not have proper title and the  documents<br \/>\nhe filed  before the trial court to prove the title are bogus documents.  Such<br \/>\nkind of plea cannot be al d to be raised for the first time by the  petitioner<br \/>\nin  Sec.47  application and if it is allowed to be raised the same will defeat<br \/>\nthe very decree itself and in such a case the executing court  has  to  travel<br \/>\nbeyond  the  scope  of  the  decree  which is not permi ssible that too at the<br \/>\ninstance of a trespasser.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  The court below has considered the entire facts and rightly  came<br \/>\nto  the conclusion that all the documents relied on by the revision petitioner<br \/>\nrelated to his defence in relation to the declaration relief sought for by the<br \/>\nrespondent herein  which  already  held  against  the  petitioner.    In  such<br \/>\ncircumstances,  I  do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and the same<br \/>\nis liable to be dismissed.    Accordingly,  the  Civil  Revision  Petition  is<br \/>\ndismissed.  No costs.  C.M.P.No.5602\/2006 is also dismisse d.\n<\/p>\n<p>sks\/sgl<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe District Munsif Court,<br \/>\nAlandur.\n<\/p>\n<p>Office to note:Issue order copy on 26.6.06<br \/>\ncla<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 22\/06\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(NPD) No.680 of 2006 St.Mark&#8217;s Educational Trust by its Managing Trustee Prince Babu Rajendran 143, Radha Nagar Main Road Chromepet,Chennai .. Petitioner -Vs- 1.Mrs.Sakunthala 2.G.Saptharishi .. [&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-200243","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>St.Mark&#039;S Educational Trust By ... vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006 - 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\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"St.Mark&#039;S Educational Trust By ... vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-28T17:19:28+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-28T17:19:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2109,\"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\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006\",\"name\":\"St.Mark'S Educational Trust By ... vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-28T17:19:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"St.Mark'S Educational Trust By ... vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006 - 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\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"St.Mark'S Educational Trust By ... vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-28T17:19:28+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-28T17:19:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006"},"wordCount":2109,"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\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006","name":"St.Mark'S Educational Trust By ... vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-28T17:19:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-mrs-sakunthala-on-22-june-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs Mrs.Sakunthala on 22 June, 2006"}]},{"@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\/200243","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=200243"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200243\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}