{"id":229057,"date":"2005-09-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-09-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005"},"modified":"2017-02-24T15:52:57","modified_gmt":"2017-02-24T10:22:57","slug":"gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005","title":{"rendered":"Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 10\/09\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM           \n\nS.A.NO.252 OF 1994   \n\n1.Gopalakrishnan \n2.B.Srinivasan                                  ..  Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nBalasubramaniam                                ..  Respondent\n\n        This second appeal is preferred under Section 100 of CPC  against  the\njudgment and decree dated 28.7.1993 passed in AS No.193 of 1991 on the file of\nthe  learned  Additional District Judge, Salem against the judgment and decree\ndated 12.10.1988 passed in OS No.1421 of 1986  on  the  file  of  the  learned\nDistrict Munsif at Namakkal.\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanandam \n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.Subramanian  \n                for Mr.K.Jayaram\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n<p>        Aggrieved  over  the  judgment  of  the  learned I Additional District<br \/>\nJudge, Salem made in AS No.193 of 1991, wherein  the  judgment  of  the  trial<br \/>\ncourt,  namely  the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal, made in OS No.1421 of<br \/>\n1986 was affirmed, the defendants have preferred this second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.It was a suit filed by the respondent\/plaintiff, seeking declaration<br \/>\nof title in respect of landed property shown in  the  &#8216;A&#8217;  schedule  and  also<br \/>\ndeclaration  in  respect  of  +  share in the pooja right of Varadarajaperumal<br \/>\ntemple shown as &#8216;B&#8217; schedule and consequently, for partition.  The plaintiff&#8217;s<br \/>\ncase as could be seen from the pleadings can be stated shortly thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The plaint described &#8216;A&#8217; schedule property originally belonged to  one<br \/>\nAppasamy Iyer @ Eswara Iyer and in the year 1919, he executed a Will in favour<br \/>\nof  plaintiff&#8217;s  father Padmanaba Iyer and his wife Maragadammal and following<br \/>\nthe same, on the death of Eswara Iyer, the  property  came  to  the  hands  of<br \/>\nPadmanaba Iyer  and his wife Maragadammal.  Since Padmanaba Iyer had no issues<br \/>\nthrough Maragadammal, he married Dhanalakshmi in the year 1944 as  the  second<br \/>\nwife.  Maragadammal  died  intestate.  Thus, the property came to the hands of<br \/>\nPadmanaba Iyer.  In the year 1953, the plaintiff was born  to  Padmanaba  Iyer<br \/>\nand  his  second  wife  Dhanalakshmi  and  on the death of Padmanaba Iyer, the<br \/>\nproperty came to the hands of his wife Dhanalakshmi.    The  lands  originally<br \/>\nbelonged to Temple.  Since the property could not be cultivated and in view of<br \/>\nthe  fact that the plaintiff was a child, the immovable properties, which were<br \/>\ngiven to the plaintiff&#8217;s family for the service rendered to temple and  the  +<br \/>\nshare  in the pooja ri ght, which was being enjoyed by the plaintiff&#8217;s family,<br \/>\nwere entrusted to the defendants for being taken care of till the  plaintiff&#8217;s<br \/>\nmother returns  to  the  village  with  the  plaintiff.  Then, the plaintiff&#8217;s<br \/>\nmother took the plaintiff to outside the place and  on  return,  there  was  a<br \/>\ndemand  and exchange of notices and on refusal, the plaintiff filed a suit for<br \/>\ndeclaration asked for and stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.The suit was resisted by the  defendants  stating  that  the  landed<br \/>\nproperty  found  in the schedule to the plaint is an Inam land and belonged to<br \/>\nVaradarajaperumal temple, in which neither Easwara Iyer nor anybody, including<br \/>\nthe plaintiff, could claim  any  right,  interest  or  title;  that  the  Will<br \/>\nexecuted  by  Easwara Iyer was not valid; that apart from that even as per the<br \/>\nallegation in the plaint, Padmanaba Iyer married Dhanalakshmi during the  life<br \/>\ntime of his first wife and it was also illegal and patta has also been granted<br \/>\nin  favour  of  the temple, on enquiry and thus, the plaintiff cannot make any<br \/>\nclaim over &#8216;A&#8217; schedule landed properties and equally &#8216;B&#8217; schedule pooja right<br \/>\nexclusively belonged to the defendants, in which  also  the  plaintiff  cannot<br \/>\nclaim  any  right,  alleging that it was an ancestral one and under the stated<br \/>\ncircumstances, the suit has got to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.The trial court has framed necessary issues and on trial,  the  suit<br \/>\nwas decreed.  The aggrieved defendants have preferred an appeal and on appeal,<br \/>\nthe judgment of the trial court was affirmed.  Hence, the second appeal at the<br \/>\ninstance of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.At  the time of admission, the following substantial question of law<br \/>\nwas formulated for consideration:\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Whether the suit is barred by limitation?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.This Court has heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also<br \/>\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.The learned counsel for the appellant inter-alia would  submit  that<br \/>\n&#8216;A&#8217;  schedule  landed  property belonged to Varadarajaperumal temple, in which<br \/>\nthe plaintiff cannot make any claim and patta has also been issued  in  favour<br \/>\nof  temple;  that  the  suit  was  also  barred  by limitation; that there was<br \/>\nexchange of notices, in which the right of the plaintiff was denied; and  that<br \/>\nspecific  point  of time is prescribed in the Limitation law and the plaintiff<br \/>\nshould have filed the suit within the time, but he has not  done  so.    Added<br \/>\nfurther  the  learned  counsel  that  insofar  as &#8216;B&#8217; schedule pooja right was<br \/>\nconcerned, the defendants have been enjoying the same all along, as of  right,<br \/>\nin which   the   plaintiff  cannot  make  any  claim.    But,  without  proper<br \/>\nappreciation of both factual  and  legal  positions,  the  courts  below  have<br \/>\ngranted decree, which has got to be set aside by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.Heard   the   learned  counsel  for  the  respondent  on  the  above<br \/>\ncontentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.It was a suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking declaration  of  title<br \/>\nin  respect  of  &#8216;A&#8217;  schedule  landed  property and 1\/2 share in pooja right in<br \/>\nrespect of &#8216;B&#8217; schedule to the plaint.  It is not in controversy that the suit<br \/>\nland was originally belonged to Varadarajaperumal temple.  It is also  not  in<br \/>\ncontroversy  that  the  suit landed properties were under the enjoyment of the<br \/>\ndefendants.  The specific case of the  plaintiff  is  that  the  property  was<br \/>\nactually  given  to the father-in-law of Padmanaba Iyer, by name Easwara Iyer,<br \/>\nfor the service rendered by him  in  the  said  temple  and  he  has  been  in<br \/>\nenjoyment of  the  same.  In the year 1919, he executed a Will under Ex.A.1 in<br \/>\nfavour of Padmanaba Iyer and Maragadammal.  It is pertinent to point  of  that<br \/>\nthe  defendants  never questioned the truth, genuineness or validity of Ex.A.1<br \/>\nWill.  But, what were all contended was that the properties belonged to Temple<br \/>\nand Easwara Iyer had no right over the same.  Both the courts have pointed out<br \/>\nthat there is sufficient evidence available, indicating the enjoyment of  same<br \/>\nby  Easwara Iyer and on his death, by Padmanaba Iyer and Maragadammal and even<br \/>\nduring the life time of Maragadammal,  Padmanaba  Iyer  married  Dhanalakshmi,<br \/>\nthrough whom  the  plaintiff  was  born.   On the death of Padmanaba Iyer, the<br \/>\nproperty devolved upon Dhanalakshmi.  Evidence has been recorded to the effect<br \/>\nthat the said landed properties  were  handed  over  by  Dhanalakshmi  to  the<br \/>\ndefendants,  taking  into  consideration the fact that the plaintiff was minor<br \/>\nthen and that she could not carry on  cultivation  and  apart  from  that  the<br \/>\nplaintiff  could  not carry on pooja and she went away from the village and on<br \/>\nreturn, there was exchange of notices.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.It is pertinent to point out that even in the reply notice, it  has<br \/>\nbeen  specifically  admitted  by  the defendants that the property belonged to<br \/>\nTemple.  It is  also  pertinent  to  point  out  at  this  juncture  that  the<br \/>\ndefendants  have  not  produced  any  material  to show that how they got into<br \/>\npossession of the land, except the mere allegations in the  written  statement<br \/>\nand  assertion through witnesses and they did not have any material except the<br \/>\ndefence plea that they have been in possession on their own right.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.In the instant case, the contention put  forth  by  the  defendants<br \/>\nthat  the  suit  was  barred  by  limitation has got to be stated only for the<br \/>\npurpose of  rejection.    The  possession  of  the  service  holder  was  only<br \/>\npermissive  possession  and  it cannot be adverse to that of true owner and in<br \/>\nthe instant case, the plaintiff has not disputed the fact  that  the  property<br \/>\nbelonged  to  Temple,  but  it  has  been  given to Easwara Iyer and he was in<br \/>\nenjoyment of same and thereafter, by his family and the plaintiff is  entitled<br \/>\nto be in possession and to continue the same.  The contention put forth by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the appellants that they were appointed as Trustees by the<br \/>\nH.R.  &amp;  C.E.  in respect of temple and therefore, they could contest the suit<br \/>\nwould be of no avail, since there are specific allegations and proof that both<br \/>\nlanded properties and the pooja right were handed over  by  the  plaintiff&#8217;  s<br \/>\nmother to  the defendants.  Under the stated circumstances, such a plea cannot<br \/>\nbe raised by the defendants at any stretch of imagination.  Hence, this  Court<br \/>\nis  of  the  considered  opinion  that  all  the  contentions put forth by the<br \/>\nappellants&#8217; side have been rightly rejected by both  the  courts  below.    As<br \/>\nregards  the  question  of limitation, this Court is of the considered opinion<br \/>\nthat the suit is not barred  by  limitation  for  the  reasons  stated  above.<br \/>\nHence, the  second  appeal  fails  and the same is dismissed.  The parties are<br \/>\ndirected to bear their costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>vvk<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.I Addl.  District Judge, Salem\n<\/p>\n<p>2.District Munsif, Namakkal<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/09\/2005 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM S.A.NO.252 OF 1994 1.Gopalakrishnan 2.B.Srinivasan .. Appellants -Vs- Balasubramaniam .. Respondent This second appeal is preferred under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 28.7.1993 passed in [&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-229057","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005 - 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\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-24T10:22:57+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\\\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-24T10:22:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1389,\"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\\\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005\",\"name\":\"Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-09-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-24T10:22:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005 - 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\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-24T10:22:57+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\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005","datePublished":"2005-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-24T10:22:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005"},"wordCount":1389,"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\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005","name":"Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-09-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-24T10:22:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishnan-vs-balasubramaniam-on-10-september-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gopalakrishnan vs Balasubramaniam on 10 September, 2005"}]},{"@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\/229057","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=229057"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229057\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229057"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229057"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229057"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}