{"id":226654,"date":"2008-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008"},"modified":"2017-10-02T03:14:06","modified_gmt":"2017-10-01T21:44:06","slug":"s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"S.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:05\/12\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nC.R.P(PD)(MD)NO.956 of 2008\nand\nM.P(MD)No.1 of 2008\n\n1.  S.N.Kasilingam\n\n2.  K.Muthulakshmi\n\n3.  K.Shanmugavelu\t        ...Petitioners\/defendants\n\t\t\nvs\n\n1.  S.N.M.Ramachandran\n\n2.  R.Gandhimathi\t        ...Respondents\/plaintiffs\n\nPRAYER\n\nCivil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of\nIndia, praying to call for the records  relating to the order and decreetal\norder made in I.A.No.381 of 2007 in O.S.No.59 of 2007, dated 20.03.2008, on the\nfile of the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakkottai and to set aside the same.\n\n!For Petitioner  ...Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan\n^For Respondent  ...Mr.M.S.Velusamy\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.59 of 2007, on the file of
\nthe Sub-Court, Devakkottai. It is a suit filed by the respondents herein,
\nseeking for the relief of rendition of accounts in a shop under the name and
\nstyle of “Revathi Pathirakadai” and also for a direction to grant the shares in
\nfavour of the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The second petitioner has already filed another case on the file of the
\nsame court in O.S.No.26 of 2007, for the relief of dissolution of  a partnership
\nfirm known as “Rajan Vadakai Pathirakadai Niruvanam” which was formed on
\n02.02.1990, to direct the share of 25% in favour of the plaintiffs and also for
\nrendition of the accounts.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  The first pettioner herein was not a party in O.S.No.26 of 2007.  In
\nO.S.No.59 of 2007, it is stated that the first plaintiff and the first defendant
\nare brothers, second plaintiff is wife of the first plaintiff, second defendant is
\nthe wife of first defendant and third defendant is first defendant’s son.  It is
\nalleged in O.S.No.59 of 2007 that the joint family contained all the members of
\nthe family engaged in the business and in 1990 the parties to the suit resolved
\nto constitute the vessels rental business in Devakkottai and they also fixed
\ncertain amount payable by each of the parties.  However, the first plaintiff was
\nworking in the shop. It is further stated that originally the firm was started
\nin the name and style of “Rajan Vadakai Pathira Nilayam” and the income derived
\nfrom the said business was utilized to launch identical business in various
\nplaces like Thiruvadanai, Kalayarkoil and Karaikudi and likewise in Devakkottai,
\nunder the name “Kasiram Revathi”.  The Revathi Vessels Rental shop was started
\nin the year 2001, out of the income obtained from Rajan Vessels Rental Shop and
\nthat the things in the Revathi Vessels Rental Shop constitute the vessels taken
\nfrom the Rajan Vessels Rental Shop.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. As far as the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned,
\nO.S.No.27 of 2007 is a comprehensive suit which would include all the affairs of
\nthe partnership firms in which the parties to the suit are the partners and
\nthere is no necessity to file a subsequent suit for an identical relief which is
\nagainst the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code and that the
\nsubsequent suit has to be rejected.  His contention is two-folded. One is, the
\nplaintiffs in O.S.No.57 of 2007 have raised inconsistent pleas, which the
\nplaintiffs are not entitled to raise in the suit and another one is, the absence
\nof cause of action in O.S.No.59 of 2007. It is his contention that having
\nalleged in one place in O.S.No.59 of 2007 that Revathi Partnership firm is a
\nsister concern and pleading in another place  in the same plaint that it is a
\nseparate partnership firm  is mutually destructive plea and hence the plaintiffs
\nare not entitled to raise them and on that ground, the planit has to suffer
\nrejection.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.  His next contention is with reference to the
\nabsence of cause of action. He says that already the affairs of the absence of
\nrights and liabilities of the partners in the firm Rajan Vessels Rental Shop are
\nall pleaded by both the parties in their respective pleadings  in the plaint and
\nwritten statement in O.S.No.26 of 2007 and having exhausted all the defenses in
\nthe written statement filed in O.S.No.26 of 2007, the defendants in O.S.No.26 of
\n2007 have filed their plaint in O.S.No.59 of 2007 with the same allegations as
\ncontained in the written statement in the earlier suit and a careful reading of
\nthe plaint would not disclose any cause of action.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners
\nrelies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in I.T.C.Limited .vs. Debts Recovery
\nAppellate Tribunal and others reported in (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 70,
\nwherein their Lordships  have observed that:\n<\/p>\n
“…while the court scrutinize the plaint, it has to ascertain whether the
\nplaint created an illusion of cause of action by clever drafting and the role
\nplayed by the pleading with reference to cause of action is the major element in
\na suit to be considered under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.”\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan also draws
\nattention of this court to a decision of this Court in Nesammal and  another
\n.vs. Edward and another reported in  1998(III) CTC 165, wherein, the learned
\nJudge has expressed his opinion as,<\/p>\n
\t“grounds for rejection of the  Plaint stated in this affidavit are
\nillustrative and not exhaustive-Provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 are not exhaustive
\nand Court has got inherent powers to see that vexatious litigations are not
\nallowed to consume the time of the court – Court can reject plaint for
\nallegations in plaint reveals abuse of process of law”.\n<\/p>\n
With this authority, the learned counsel also submits that as per the above said
\ndecision, this Court widened the scope of the order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure
\nCode and any aspect incidental  to the ingredients found under Order 7 Rule 11
\nof Civil Procedure Code would be considered by the Court and it can be
\nascertained whether the plaint deserves for rejection. He also garners support
\nfrom another decision in A.Sreedevi .vs. Vicharapu Ramakrishna Gowd reported in
\n(2006) 1 MLJ 116 in which this Court has held that:\n<\/p>\n
\t“…if  on a meaningful, not formal reading of plaint or petition, it is
\nmanifestly vexatious and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear right
\nto sue, the trial court should exercise its power under Order 7 Rule 11 of
\nC.P.C.”.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. It is the following observations and conclusions of this Court which
\nread as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t” It is the duty of the trial Court to read the plaint, not formally, but
\non meaningful way and on such reading if it is manifestly vexatious and
\nmeritless in the sense of not disclosing a fair right to sue, it should exercise
\nits power exercisable under order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C taking care to see that  the
\ngrounds mentioned therein are fulfilled and if clear drafting has created the
\nillusion of cause of action, nip it in the bud.  The Penal Code is also
\nresourceful enough to meet such men, and must be triggered against them.”\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr.M.S.Velusamy opened his
\nargument by referring to Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code and contended
\nthat  if the court finds that any of the contentions raised by the petitioners
\ndoes not come under the four ingredients contained in the said rule, it is out
\nof the scope of the rule and it cannot be considered for a moment.  It is
\nprofitable to extract Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure
\nCode for better understanding of the subject:\n<\/p>\n
\t11.  Rejection of plaint:– The plaint shall be rejected in the following
\ncases:–\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being
\nrequired by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the
\nCourt, fails to do so;\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) where the relief claimed  is properly valued but the plaint is written
\nupon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required bythe
\nCourt to supply the requisite stamp paper within a time to befixed by the Court,
\nfails to do so;\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred
\nby any law;\n<\/p>\n
\t((e) where it is not filed in duplicate;)<\/p>\n
\t((f) where the plaintiff fails to comply withthe provisions of rule 9.)
\n\t(Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction  ofthe
\nvaluation or supplying of the requisite stamp-papers shall not be extended
\nunless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff
\nwas prevented by any  cause of  an exceptional nature from correcting the
\nvaluation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within
\nthe time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause
\ngrave injustice to the plaintff.)
\n\tHIGH COURT AMENDMENT (MADRAS); For clause(c) substitute the following:\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint  is
\nwritten on paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff does not make good
\nthe deficiency within the time, if any, granted by the Court.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.  As per this provision, if the plaint does not disclose the cause of
\naction or if the relief is under-valued or if the plaintiffs failed to perform
\nthe function as directed by the Court with reference to the supply of deficit
\nstamp or if it is barred by law, then only the Court can exercise its powers to
\nventure to reject the plaint and in the absence of the  above said factors, the
\nCourt is left with no other option, except to dismiss the application filed by
\nthe defendants for
\nrejection of the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.  The other side contends that inconsistent pleas are available in the
\nplaint  and it may constitute a good ground for them to agitate the same at the
\ntime of trial and it will not form basis for the court to reject the plaint. In
\nhis view, in the present suit O.S.No.59 of 2007, the necessary causes of action
\nhave been incorporated and the very reading of the plaint would show the same.
\nIt transpires that on filing of suit in O.S.No.26 of 2007, the court below
\nappointed an Advocate Commissioner to take  inventory in Rajan Vessels Rental
\nShop, he inspected and took inventory of the account books and the vessels as
\nwell, found therein and he filed the Inventory Report before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The learned counsel for the respondents would show  that the very
\nfiling of the Inventry Report has become the cause of action for his filing the
\nsubsequent suit in O.S.No.59 of 2007 which is evident from the list of documents
\nannexed to O.S.No.59 of 2007, which shows that a copy of the inventory was also
\nproduced along with the plaint. This Court sees considerable force in his
\narguments.  Even though, there is no specific mention about the appointment  of
\na Commission in the earlier suit and he has taken inventory as pleaded in the
\nplaint as well the annexure of the copy of the Commissioner’s Inventory Report
\nwould make it clear that it also forms part of cause of action.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In general, a conscious reading of the pleading in O.S.No.59 of 2007
\nwould candidly show that relevant particulars are there which duly constitute
\nthe cause of action for filing of the suit.  If the suit is weak enough or if
\nthe plaintiff is taking any inconsistent pleas, it is for the defendants, these
\npetitioners to agitate the same before the trial court at the time of the final
\nhearing of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.  The learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contention
\nhas placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in Metson Education and
\nDevelopment Association(P) Limited, represented by its President .vs. The Church
\nof South India Trust Association, through its Power of Attorneys, The
\nRt.Rev.Dr.V.Devasagayam, 226, Cathedral Road, Chennai-86 and another  reported
\nin 2008(1) CTC 521, wherein the learned Judge has observed that:\n<\/p>\n
\t “…non-filing of document on which cause of action rests and missing of
\nCourt records are only detrimental to plaintiff’s case and will only benefit
\nDefendant and do not warrant rejection of the Plaint”.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.  He also gained support from another decision of this Court in J. Lili
\nJabakani and others .vs. T.A.Chandrasekhar reported in 2006(5) CTC 848 in which
\nthe learned Judge after referring to a catalogue of decisions on this subject
\npronounced by the Supreme Court, reached a conclusion that a cause of action
\nmeans  bundle of facts averred in plaint that disclose right to sue and if
\nplaint does not disclose vital and valid cause of action, plaint can be rejected
\nunder Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code and that disputed questions of
\nfact cannot be taken as ground for rejection of plaint and that difference
\nexists between pleas that there exists no cause of action and that plaint does
\nnot disclose cause of action–Issue to be determined  at stage of consideration
\nof Application for rejection of Plaint is whether plaintiff has cause of action
\nto file a suit and this should be done by looking into averments contained in
\nPlaint.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.  In Prema Lala Nahata and Another .vs. Chandi Prasad Sikaria reported
\nin (2007)2 MLJ 1177(SC), the Honourable Apex Court has laid down the law as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t” On the Scheme of the Code, there is no such prohibition or a prevention
\nat the entry of a suit defective  for misjoinder of parties or of causes of
\naction.  The Court is still competent to try and decide the suit, though the
\nCourt may also be competent to tell the plaintiffs either to elect to proceed at
\nthe instance of one of the plaintiffs or to proceed with one of the causes of
\naction.  On the Scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot therefore be
\nheld that a suit barred for misjoinder of parties or of causes of action is
\nbarred by law, here the code.”\n<\/p>\n
\t17. Following illuminating judicial pronouncements of the Honourable
\nSupreme Court of India as well as the decisions rendered by this Court, this
\nCourt is of the considered view that on the basis of a study of the materials
\navailable before this Court that the order passed by the Court below does not
\nsuffer from any infirmity. If the petitioners are aggrieved by  the filing of
\nthe subsequent suit by the plaintiffs, they can very well agitate  the same
\nbefore the Court below and on  the grounds set out in the petition filed under
\nOrder 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, the plaint cannot be rejected and this
\nCourt does not countenance the claim of these petitions and the Civil Revision
\nPetition deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.  In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is
\ndismissed. It is made clear that the court below will not get influenced by any
\nof the observations made by this Court in this order. Consequently, connected
\nMiscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
vsn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
The Subordinate Judge,
\nDevakkottai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:05\/12\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU C.R.P(PD)(MD)NO.956 of 2008 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2008 1. S.N.Kasilingam 2. K.Muthulakshmi 3. K.Shanmugavelu …Petitioners\/defendants vs 1. S.N.M.Ramachandran 2. R.Gandhimathi …Respondents\/plaintiffs PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the […]<\/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-226654","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 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\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-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=\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-01T21:44:06+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-01T21:44:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2396,\"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\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008\",\"name\":\"S.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-01T21:44:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"S.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 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\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-01T21:44:06+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-01T21:44:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008"},"wordCount":2396,"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\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008","name":"S.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-01T21:44:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-n-kasilingam-vs-s-n-m-ramachandran-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.N.Kasilingam vs S.N.M.Ramachandran on 5 December, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/226654","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=226654"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/226654\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=226654"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=226654"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=226654"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}