{"id":24504,"date":"2008-03-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008"},"modified":"2015-02-08T15:17:56","modified_gmt":"2015-02-08T09:47:56","slug":"s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 March, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 07\/03\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR\n\nC.R.P.(NPD)(SR)(MD) No.47180 of 2007\n\n\nS.Manoharan\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.T.Mayakkannan\n2.K.R.Krishnasamy\t\t\t... Respondent\n\n\n\nPrayer\n\nCivil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of\nIndia, against the order dated 28.08.2007 made in I.A.No.266 of 2007 in\nO.S.No.128 of 2005, on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track\nCourt, No.2, Madurai.\n\n!For Petitioner  \t  ... Mr.R.Suriya Narayanan\n\t\n^For 1st Respondent  \t  ... Mr.S.Ramachandran\n\nFor 2nd Respondent  \t  ... No appearance\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe plaintiff has filed the revision petition challenging the order dated<br \/>\n28.08.2007 made in  I.A.No.266 of 2007 in O.S.No.128 of 2005, on the file of the<br \/>\nAdditional District Judge, Fast Track Court, No.2, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The brief facts of the case of the revision petitioner are as follows:<br \/>\n\tThe revision petitioner filed the suit praying for decree:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.By declaring one of the defendants is a real owner\/landlord of the suit &#8220;A&#8221;<br \/>\nSchedule building, entitled to receive the rent from the plaintiff and in<br \/>\nconsequence to restrain the defendants from in any manner evicting the plaintiff<br \/>\nwithout determining the ownership of the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.Direct the defendants to pay the costs of this action.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.Such and further relives as this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in<br \/>\nthe circumstance of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is specifically pleaded by the revision petitioner\/plaintiff that he is<br \/>\nwilling to pay the rent to the rightful owner to be determined by the Court viz.<br \/>\nfirst defendant or second defendant.  The suit, therefore, was filed.  A written<br \/>\nstatement was filed by the first respondent\/Second Defendant denying the plea in<br \/>\nthe plaint. The first  respondent\/defendant has also filed I.A.No.266 of 2007<br \/>\nunder Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Order XXXV Rule 5 and Section 151 of C.P.C.<br \/>\nto reject the plaint contending that the suit is barred by law.  A counter was<br \/>\nfiled by the revision petitioner\/plaintiff. On contest the Additional District<br \/>\nJudge, Fast Track Court No.2, Madurai, for the reasons stated in the order<br \/>\nallowed the application and rejected the plaint and the suit.  Aggrieved<br \/>\nthereby, the Civil Revision Petition is filed and is before the Court<br \/>\nunnumbered. The matter is before the Court for maintainability on an objection<br \/>\nraised by the registry. The first respondent\/second defendant on notice appeared<br \/>\nthrough the counsel Shri.Ramachandran.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/1307711\/\">Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. C.M.Hariraj<\/a> reported in<br \/>\n2002(1) CTC 742 and submitted that the revision under Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India is maintainable as against the order passed under Order 7<br \/>\nRule 11 of C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. On going through the said decision reported in  2002(1) CTC 742, it is<br \/>\napparent that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution interfered with the decision of the District Munsif Court on the<br \/>\nground that the trial Court&#8217;s order rejecting the plaint is an error apparent on<br \/>\nthe face of the record.  The High Court found fault with the order of the<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif going into factual aspects without even calling upon the<br \/>\ndefendant to appear and state his defence.  The Court held that the case did not<br \/>\nfall within the parameters of Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C.  The most important fact<br \/>\nthat weighed in the mind of the Court is the rejection of the plaint by the<br \/>\nCourt below without giving notice to the opposite party.  Therefore, it held<br \/>\nthat the order of District Munsif Court is not sustainable in Law.  The reason<br \/>\nfor the High Court to resort to Article 227 is stated in paragraph 15 of the<br \/>\ndecision and it reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;15. The power under Article 227 is an extraordinary power, and it<br \/>\nrequires to be exercised sparingly and with extreme caution.  It is a power of<br \/>\nsuperintendence reserved for this Court and is subject to its discretion and it<br \/>\ncannot be claimed as of right by any party.  By now, it has been settled by<br \/>\npronouncements of the highest Court in the land as to when this Court could<br \/>\nproperly resort to and exercise the powers under Article 227.  The well accepted<br \/>\ncontingencies and features to warrant the exercise of such powers are:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) lack of jurisdiction, erroneous assumption of jurisdiction or excess of<br \/>\njurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) Grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law or error of law<br \/>\napparent on the face of the record as distinguished from a mere mistake of law<br \/>\nor an erroneous decision of law;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) Violation of the principles of natural justice;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv) perverse finding founded on no material whatsoever, and\n<\/p>\n<p>(v) arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority or discretion.&#8221;<br \/>\nHence, the Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India and interfered with the perverse order of the Court below<br \/>\nin that case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. On the contrary the learned counsel for the first respondent\/2nd<br \/>\ndefendant relied on the following decisions to state that the order rejecting<br \/>\nthe plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. is a decree and an appeal is the<br \/>\nproper remedy.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(1) <a href=\"\/doc\/431146\/\">Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad<\/a> reported in (1973) 2 Supreme Court<br \/>\nCases 524 which held as follows.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;In the present case the plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the<br \/>\nC.P.C.  Such an order amounts to a decree under Section 2(2) and there is a<br \/>\nright of appeal open to the plaintiff.  Furthermore, in a case in which this<br \/>\nCourt has granted special leave the question whether an appeal lies or not does<br \/>\nnot arise.  Even otherwise a second appeal would lie under Section 100 of the<br \/>\nC.P.C. on the ground that the decision of the first Appellate Court on the<br \/>\ninterpretation of Section 7(iv)(c) is a question of law.  There is thus no merit<br \/>\nin the preliminary objection.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2) In Satyanarayanacharlu v. Ramalingam reported in 1951 II MLJ 74 the<br \/>\nFull Bench presided over by Rajamannar, CJ (as he then was) held as follows.<br \/>\n&#8220;The Revision petition before us is against the order, dated 24th March, 1947,<br \/>\nrejecting the plaint.  Under Section 2(2), Civil Procedure Code, an order<br \/>\nrejecting a plaint shall be deemed to be a decree.  It was therefore open to the<br \/>\npetitioners to file a regular appeal against that order.  As an appeal was<br \/>\ncompetent, it follows that the Revision Petition is not maintainable and must<br \/>\ntherefore be dismissed on this ground.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In the present case, the suit is numbered and defendant filed the application<br \/>\nfor rejection of plaint. The objection raised by the  first respondent\/second<br \/>\ndefendant is that there is a specific bar under Order 35 Rule 5 of C.P.C. Such<br \/>\nobjection was considered by the Court below, which held that the provisions of<br \/>\nOrder 7 Rule 11(d) is attracted and the suit was rejected accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. On going through the order under challenge it is evident that a<br \/>\nreasoned order has been passed applying the provisions of law. It is an order on<br \/>\nmerits on contest. The plaintiff if aggrieved can file an appeal against such<br \/>\norder, as it amounts to a decree in terms of Section 2(2) of the Civil Procedure<br \/>\nCode. The decision of the Supreme Court and the Full Bench of this Court applies<br \/>\nto the facts of the present case.  The revision petitioner has not made out a<br \/>\ncase for invoking the extraordinary power of this Court conferred by Article 227<br \/>\nof the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. One other decision is relied on by the learned counsel for the revision<br \/>\npetitioner is Dr.Ravichander v. Karunakaran reported in (2000)II M.L.J.136. In<br \/>\nthat case partial rejection of the plaint was ordered and therefore it was<br \/>\ninterfered by this Court under Section 115 of C.P.C. and it is not the case in<br \/>\nthe present case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In view of the decision of the Apex Court and the Full Bench decision<br \/>\nof this Court, as against the order passed under Order 7 Rule 11, which is a<br \/>\ndecree in terms of Section 2(2), an appeal alone will lie and not this petition<br \/>\nfiled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.  This Court will refrain<br \/>\nfrom exercising its powers under Article 227 in case of this nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is rejected.  However, as<br \/>\nprayed for by the counsel for revision petitioner liberty is given to the<br \/>\nrevision petitioner\/plaintiff to contest the same in accordance with law.  The<br \/>\ncounsel for the revision petitioner sought for the return of the original order<br \/>\npassed by the Court below for the purpose of filing an appeal.  Hence, the<br \/>\nregistry is directed to return the same on acknowledgement.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>sj<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Additional District Judge,<br \/>\nFast Track Court No.2,<br \/>\nMadurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 March, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07\/03\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR C.R.P.(NPD)(SR)(MD) No.47180 of 2007 S.Manoharan &#8230; Petitioner Vs. 1.T.Mayakkannan 2.K.R.Krishnasamy &#8230; Respondent Prayer Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated [&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-24504","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>S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 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\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-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=\"2008-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-08T09:47:56+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\\\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-08T09:47:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1365,\"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-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008\",\"name\":\"S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-08T09:47:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 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":"S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 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\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-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":"2008-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-08T09:47:56+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\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-08T09:47:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008"},"wordCount":1365,"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-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008","name":"S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-08T09:47:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-manoharan-vs-t-mayakkannan-on-7-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Manoharan vs T.Mayakkannan on 7 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\/24504","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=24504"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24504\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}