{"id":210658,"date":"2008-03-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008"},"modified":"2015-04-20T08:51:19","modified_gmt":"2015-04-20T03:21:19","slug":"subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 05\/03\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nS.A.No.1349 of 2000\n\n\n1.Subramanian\n2.Palaniammal\t\t\t\t.. Appellants\n\nVs\n\n1.V.Murugesan\n2.Kanagaraj\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n  (R2-given up)\n\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the\njudgment and decree dated 31.03.2000 in A.S.No.77 of 1997 on the file of the\nlearned Additional District Munsif, Dindigul in reversing the judgment and\ndecree dated 24.12.1996 in O.S.No.485 of 1993 on the file of the learned\nSubordinate Judge, Dindigul.\n\t\n!For Appellants  \t ... Mr.R.Nandakumar\n\n^For Respondent No.1\t ... Mr.K.Elangovan\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis second appeal is focussed as against the  judgment and decree dated<br \/>\n31.03.2000 passed in A.S.No.77 of 1997 on the file of the learned Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Court, Dindigul in reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1996<br \/>\nin O.S.No.485 of 1993 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The parties are referred to hereunder in the same order as they were<br \/>\narrayed before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Precisely and pithily  the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited<br \/>\nfrom the plaint could be portrayed thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe deceased first defendant viz., S.Kulanthaivel Pillai and his son the<br \/>\nsecond defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed a sum of Rs.32,000\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees thirty two thousand only) and in consideration of the same, the suit<br \/>\npromissory note emerged undertaking to repay the amount borrowed with 12%<br \/>\ninterest per annum.  Subsequently, the defendants committed default.  The legal<br \/>\nnotice sent by the plaintiff was not replied by the defendants, despite<br \/>\nacknowledging the same.  Hence, the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Impugning and challenging, denying and refuting the<br \/>\nallegations\/averments in the plaint, the first defendant filed the refutatory<br \/>\nwritten statement before the trial Court, which was adopted by the defendant<br \/>\nNo.2; the gist and kernel of it would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe plaintiff was a stranger to the defendants, who had no financial<br \/>\nnecessity to borrow any money muchless the sum of Rs.32,000\/- (Rupees thirty two<br \/>\nthousand only) from the plaintiff.  The first defendant himself was a money<br \/>\nlendor and he obtained decrees as against several persons and in such a case,<br \/>\nthere would have been no necessity at all for the defendants to borrow such an<br \/>\namount from the plaintiff.  Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the<br \/>\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The trial Court framed the relevant issues and during trial, the<br \/>\nplaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.4<br \/>\nwere marked.  On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined<br \/>\nhimself as D.W.1 along with D.W.2 and Exs.B.1 to B.12 were marked.  The copy of<br \/>\nthe Savings Bank Account No.70\/12341 of the first defendant was marked as Ex.C1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The trial Court ultimately dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and decree of the<br \/>\ntrial Court, the plaintiff preferred the first appeal, whereupon the first<br \/>\nappellate Court reversed the Judgment and decree of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Challenging the Judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the<br \/>\nsecond appeal has been filed on the grounds interalia thus:<br \/>\n\tThe Judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is against law and<br \/>\nweight of evidence.  The first appellate Court of its own accord compared the<br \/>\ndisputed signatures in the promissory note Ex.A2 with that of the admitted<br \/>\nsignatures in the vakalath, written statement and others documents and jumped to<br \/>\nthe conclusion as though the defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed the suit promissory<br \/>\nnote.  The well reasoned Judgment of the trail Court was revered by the first<br \/>\nappellate Court without any reasonable basis.  The presumption contemplated<br \/>\nunder Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not attracted in the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances, nonetheless the first appellate Court simply ushered in<br \/>\nsuch presumption.  Accordingly, they prayed for setting aside the Judgment and<br \/>\ndecree of the first appellate Court and for upholding the dismissal decree of<br \/>\nthe trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The following substantial questions of law were framed by my learned<br \/>\nPredecessor at the time of admitting this second appeal:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;1. Whether the lower appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit<br \/>\nwithout properly considering Sec.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Whether the lower appellate Court being a final Court of fact is right<br \/>\nin ignoring the unconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses examined on<br \/>\nthe side of the plaintiff?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The substantial questions of law are taken together for discussion as<br \/>\nthey are interlinked and interwoven with one another.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The learned counsel for the appellants\/defendants would draw the<br \/>\nattention of this Court to the various aspects of the Judgments and decrees of<br \/>\nthe trial Court and the first appellate Court and develop his arguments to the<br \/>\neffect that the first appellate Court ignoring the contradictions in the<br \/>\nevidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 3 and simply described them as minor contradictions;<br \/>\nthe first appellate Court of its own accord compared the disputed signatures<br \/>\nwith that the admitted signatures and jumped to the wrong conclusion and that<br \/>\ntoo ignoring the fact that the first defendant had no necessity at all to borrow<br \/>\nthe amount from the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. Whereas the learned counsel for the first respondent\/ plaintiff<br \/>\nappositely and appropriately convincingly and correctly would draw the attention<br \/>\nof this Court to the deposition of P.W.3 and more specifically to the lost<br \/>\nsentence in the cross examination, which could be extracted here under for ready<br \/>\nreference:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;epug;gg;glhj g[BuhBehl;oy; vjph;thjpfs; ifbaGj;J bgwg;gl;L mij thjp<br \/>\nbrhd;djhy; ehd; gpd;dpl;L g{h;j;jp bra;Bjd; vd;why; rhpay;;y&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The first appellate court adverted to such extract and held that<br \/>\nduring the trial the case of the defendants got changed to the effect that the<br \/>\ndefendant Nos.1 and 2, so to say, the father and son signed the promissory note<br \/>\nin blank.  The promissory note Ex.A1 is in printed format and earlier the<br \/>\ncontention in the written statement was to the effect that they did not sign the<br \/>\npromissory note at all and it was a forged one.  But quite antithetical to their<br \/>\nstand set out in black and white in the written statement, they turned turtle<br \/>\nand by having a volte face, simply dished out a new plea that the defendants 1<br \/>\nand 2 signed in the blank promissory note format and subsequently with the help<br \/>\nof P.W.3, the scribe, the plaintiff got it filled up, which in my opinion is a<br \/>\nprevaricative stand on the part of the defendants and which is fatal to their<br \/>\ncase.  Over and above that the defendants who were in the know of things, having<br \/>\nreceived the pre suit notice, failed to reply. I would like to observe that the<br \/>\nfirst appellate Court was not justified in simply expressing its subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction based on comparing the disputed signature with the alleged post<br \/>\nlitem motam documents that the disputed signatures were that of the defendants.<br \/>\nAnte litem motam documents alone should be taken into consideration for<br \/>\ncomparison purpose, under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act.  Once a Judge<br \/>\nassures the role of an hand writing expert, he should play that role properly<br \/>\nand sincerely in a fitting manner and not perfunctory.  However, in this case,<br \/>\nthe findings recorded by the first appellate court is based on its simple<br \/>\nsubjective satisfaction.  However, de horse such lapse, it placed reliance on<br \/>\nvarious other aspects of the case correctly and rendered ultimately a discerning<br \/>\nJudgment which warrants no interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. The first appellate Court being the last Court of facts, decided based<br \/>\non the defendants admission of their signatures and by invoking Section 20 and<br \/>\n118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.  The minor contradictions as found by the<br \/>\ntrial Court were ignored by the first appellate Court correctly as the witnesses<br \/>\nmay not be able to correctly recollect all the minor events, while deposing<br \/>\nbefore the trial Court.  Accordingly, the substantial questions of law No.1 is<br \/>\nanswered that the first appellate Court correctly invoked Section 118 of the<br \/>\nNegotiable Instruments Act.  The substantial question of law No.2 is decided to<br \/>\nthe effect that the first appellate court was right in ignoring such<br \/>\nunconsistencies.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. In the result, there is no merit in the second appeal and the same is<br \/>\ndismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court.<br \/>\nHowever, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>smn<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The Additional District Munsif, Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05\/03\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A.No.1349 of 2000 1.Subramanian 2.Palaniammal .. Appellants Vs 1.V.Murugesan 2.Kanagaraj .. Respondents (R2-given up) Prayer Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree [&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-210658","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 v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 2008 - 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\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-20T03:21:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-20T03:21:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1316,\"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\\\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-20T03:21:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 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":"Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 2008 - 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\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-20T03:21:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-20T03:21:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008"},"wordCount":1316,"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\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008","name":"Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-20T03:21:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subramanian-vs-v-murugesan-on-5-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subramanian vs V.Murugesan on 5 March, 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\/210658","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=210658"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210658\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210658"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210658"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210658"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}