{"id":227486,"date":"2010-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010"},"modified":"2014-10-23T18:11:01","modified_gmt":"2014-10-23T12:41:01","slug":"c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"C.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
C.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 623 of 2010()\n\n\n1. C.MANI, S\/O.CHAMI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. R.RAJI, W\/O.SUBRAMANIAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :07\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
                      P.BHAVADASAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
                 ————————————-
\n                    RSA No.623 of 2010-G\n<\/p>\n
                 ————————————-\n<\/p>\n
                      Dated 7th July 2010<\/p>\n
                            Judgment<\/p>\n
           Faced with the concurrent findings against him,<\/p>\n
the defendant in OS No.228\/04 before the Munsiff’s Court,<\/p>\n
Chittur has come up in appeal. The parties and facts are<\/p>\n
hereinafter referred to as they are available before the Trial<\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
          2. The plaintiff        obtained the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property as per Ext.A1 assignment deed dated 14.11.2002.<\/p>\n
Eversince then, he has been in absolute possession and<\/p>\n
enjoyment of the property.            It is pointed out that the<\/p>\n
defendant, who is a relative of the father of the plaintiff,<\/p>\n
was allowed to reside in the property as an interim<\/p>\n
arrangement and he had no manner of right over the suit<\/p>\n
property.   He has been residing there from 23.01.2003<\/p>\n
onwards.    According to the plaintiff, the defendant had<\/p>\n
agreed to vacate the premises on demand. It is claimed<\/p>\n
RSA 623\/10                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
that on 01.05.2004, the plaintiff revoked the permission<\/p>\n
granted to the defendant and asked him to vacate the<\/p>\n
premises. But, he did not heed to the said demand made<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff. Hence the suit.\n<\/p>\n
           3. The defendant resisted the suit, pointing out<\/p>\n
that he was in possession of the property in pursuance of<\/p>\n
an agreement of sale, entered into with the father of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. According to him, the father of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
Sri.Ramankutty had agreed to sell the property to him for a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.7,500\/- and they had entered into a sale<\/p>\n
agreement dated 14.12.1991. It is submitted that due to<\/p>\n
financial difficulties, the sale deed could not be registered.<\/p>\n
Since the entire sale consideration was paid by the<\/p>\n
defendant, Sri.Ramankutty, the father of the plaintiff had<\/p>\n
agreed to register the document, as and when demanded<\/p>\n
by the defendant. The defendant submitted that for the last<\/p>\n
three years, both their families were not in good terms and<\/p>\n
so, Sri.Ramankutty was not ready to execute the sale deed<\/p>\n
in his favour and he executed it in favour of his daughter,<\/p>\n
RSA 623\/10                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
who is the plaintiff. According to the defendant, he is in<\/p>\n
possession of the property since 1975 and he has made<\/p>\n
valuable improvements to the property. On the basis of<\/p>\n
these contentions, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.<\/p>\n
           4. The Trial Court raised necessary issues for<\/p>\n
consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of<\/p>\n
PW1 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A5 from the<\/p>\n
side of the plaintiff. The defendant examined DW1 and had<\/p>\n
Exts.B1 to B13 marked.\n<\/p>\n
           5. The Trial Court on an appreciation of the<\/p>\n
evidence, came to the conclusion that the claim of<\/p>\n
possession based on agreement of sale was not<\/p>\n
established and the execution of the agreement itself was<\/p>\n
doubtful. The Trial Court observed that the possession of<\/p>\n
the property by the transferee in pursuance of an<\/p>\n
agreement for sale cannot confer title to the transferee. It<\/p>\n
was held that the defendant has no manner of right over<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule property and accordingly, the suit was<\/p>\n
decreed.\n<\/p>\n
RSA 623\/10                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
            6. The defendant carried the matter in appeal as<\/p>\n
AS No.118\/06 before the District Judge, Palakkad. The<\/p>\n
lower Appellate Court reconsidered the evidence on record<\/p>\n
and came to the conclusion that          the defendant had<\/p>\n
miserably failed to establish any manner of right over the<\/p>\n
suit property which entitles him to continue in possession of<\/p>\n
the property. Accordingly, the Judgment and decree of the<\/p>\n
Trial Court was confirmed. The said Judgment and decree<\/p>\n
are assailed in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            7. The learned counsel for the appellant raised<\/p>\n
three contentions before this Court. They are :<\/p>\n
      1) There was no notice terminating the licence, issued<\/p>\n
      to him by the plaintiff.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2) The defendant being in possession of the property<\/p>\n
      in pursuance of an agreement for sale, he cannot be<\/p>\n
      evicted in the manner as is now sought for by the<\/p>\n
      plaintiff.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3) There was no notice issue to him, claiming mesne<\/p>\n
      profits from the property.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
RSA 623\/10                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
          8. It must be said that none of the above<\/p>\n
contentions have any legal basis. It is stated in the plaint<\/p>\n
that there was a demand made by the plaintiff to give<\/p>\n
vacant possession of the premises. Even assuming there<\/p>\n
was no such notice, it does not matter because the<\/p>\n
defendant was in occupation of the property on the basis of<\/p>\n
a licence agreement and the institution of a suit amounts to<\/p>\n
notice.\n<\/p>\n
          9. As far as the second contention is concerned,<\/p>\n
both the courts below have found that the appellant was<\/p>\n
not able to establish his claim. The lower Appellate Court<\/p>\n
has noticed that the mistake committed by the Trial Court is<\/p>\n
regarding the claim based on S.53A of the Transfer of<\/p>\n
Property Act.     With regard to this matter, the lower<\/p>\n
Appellate Court stated that it is not possible to accept the<\/p>\n
plea of the defendant that he was in possession of the suit<\/p>\n
property by virtue of an agreement for sale.<\/p>\n
          10. Cogent reasons are given by the courts<\/p>\n
below for disbelieving the defendant with regard to the<\/p>\n
RSA 623\/10                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
claim of possession in pursuance of a sale agreement. It is<\/p>\n
pointed out that Ext.B1 agreement is dated 14.12.1991 and<\/p>\n
that Sri.Ramankutty had agreed to sell the property for a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.7,500\/-. The plaintiff has specifically disputed<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 agreement put forward by the defendant. There<\/p>\n
were witnesses to Ext.B1 agreement. But, for reasons best<\/p>\n
known to the defendant, he chose to examine none of<\/p>\n
those attestors.        It is also found that in the cross<\/p>\n
examination, DW1 had no clear idea regarding the<\/p>\n
execution of Ext.B1 agreement. He was even unaware as<\/p>\n
to who wrote the said agreement. The lower Appellate<\/p>\n
Court also noticed that the agreement for sale and the<\/p>\n
receipt of sale consideration were at a point of time, when<\/p>\n
the relationship between the two families was quite friendly.<\/p>\n
If that be so, it would be improbable that the defendant<\/p>\n
would not have obtained a sale deed in his favour. He<\/p>\n
comes up with a story that Sri.Ramankutty had told him<\/p>\n
that the original title deed was in the bank and that he had<\/p>\n
agreed to execute the sale deed after receiving the<\/p>\n
RSA 623\/10                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
document from the bank. This claim of the defendant was<\/p>\n
rightly declined by the first Appellate Court. It is also found<\/p>\n
that the claim of the defendant that he was in possession of<\/p>\n
the suit property from 1978 is not supported by any<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n
           11. The lower Appellate Court has independently<\/p>\n
evaluated the entire evidence on record and has come to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that there is nothing in the evidence<\/p>\n
adduced by the defendant to show that he is entitled to the<\/p>\n
protection of S.53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Equally<\/p>\n
without force is the third contention that without issuing<\/p>\n
notice, a claim of mense profits will not lie. It follows that all<\/p>\n
the three contentions raised by the appellant are without<\/p>\n
any basis. There is nothing to show that the findings of the<\/p>\n
courts below which are essentially questions of fact, are<\/p>\n
either perverse or unwarranted by the evidence on record.<\/p>\n
In the result, this Second Appeal is without merits and it is<\/p>\n
liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
RSA 623\/10                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
           12. Faced with the above situation, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant pointed out that the defendant<\/p>\n
has been in occupation of the property for a very long time<\/p>\n
and he may be given some time to vacate the premises. In<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of<\/p>\n
the fact that the defendant has been in occupation of the<\/p>\n
property for quite a long period, it is felt that four months’<\/p>\n
time may be granted to him to vacate the premises.<\/p>\n
           13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed,<\/p>\n
confirming the Judgment and decree of the courts below,<\/p>\n
on condition that the appellant files an affidavit within two<\/p>\n
weeks from today before the Trial Court to the effect that<\/p>\n
he shall unconditionally vacate the premises within a period<\/p>\n
of four months from today. Till such time, the execution of<\/p>\n
the decree shall be kept in abeyance.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE\n\nsta\n\nRSA 623\/10    9\n\nRSA 623\/10    10\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court C.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 623 of 2010() 1. C.MANI, S\/O.CHAMI, … Petitioner Vs 1. R.RAJI, W\/O.SUBRAMANIAN, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN Dated :07\/07\/2010 O R D E R P.BHAVADASAN, […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-227486","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010 - 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\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-23T12:41:01+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\\\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-23T12:41:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1343,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010\",\"name\":\"C.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-23T12:41:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"C.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010 - 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\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-23T12:41:01+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\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-23T12:41:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010"},"wordCount":1343,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010","name":"C.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-23T12:41:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-mani-vs-r-raji-on-7-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.Mani vs R.Raji on 7 July, 2010"}]},{"@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\/227486","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=227486"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/227486\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=227486"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=227486"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=227486"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}