{"id":249240,"date":"2011-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011"},"modified":"2017-03-10T02:46:13","modified_gmt":"2017-03-09T21:16:13","slug":"stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:31\/10\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nS.A(MD)No.1672 of 2001\n\n1. Stephen\n2. Austin\n3. John\t\t\t\t   ... Appellants\/Defendants\n\nVs.\n\n1. Paranjothi\n2. Gnanaprakasam\n3. Durairaj\t   \t\t   ... Respondents\/Plaintiffs\n\nPrayer\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code\nagainst the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.169 of 1998 on the file of the\nPrincipal District Judge, Tuticorin dated 10.10.2000 confirming the judgment and\ndecree made in O.S.No.423 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court,\nSrivaikundam dated 21.08.1998.\n\n!For Appellants ... Mr.S.Kadarkarai\n^For Respondents... Mr.M.P.Senthil for\n\t\t    A.Kanagasundaram\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tThis Second Appeal is focussed by the original defendants animadverting<br \/>\nupon the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2000, passed in A.S.No.169 of 1998 by<br \/>\nthe learned Principal District Judge, Tuticorin in confirming the judgment and<br \/>\ndecree dated 21.08.1998, passed in O.S.No.423 of 1991 by the learned District<br \/>\nMunsif, Srivaikundam.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder<br \/>\naccording to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t3. Narratively but precisely, broadly but briefly, the relevant facts<br \/>\nabsolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\tThe plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the reliefs of declaration and<br \/>\npermanent injunction in respect of the suit property on the main ground that the<br \/>\nsuit property and the adjacent properties originally belonged to their father<br \/>\nviz., Arumuganainar Nadar, who subsequently came to be known as Arulprakasam<br \/>\nNadar and after his death, they inherited the properties and got the properties<br \/>\npartitioned among themselves under Ex.A1. While so, the defendants without any<br \/>\nmanner of right whatsoever started laying claim over the suit property found set<br \/>\nout in the plaint, which necessitated the plaintiffs to file a suit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t4. The defendants resisted the claim by filing the written statement<br \/>\naverring as though there is a pathway in the suit property, dedicated for the<br \/>\nuse of the villagers, including the students and the defendants herein.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t5. Whereupon, relevant issues were framed by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t6. During trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, Exs.A.1 to A.8 were<br \/>\nmarked, however no oral evidence was let in. On the side of the defendants, the<br \/>\nsecond defendant examined himself as D.W.1, however no documentary evidence was<br \/>\nproduced. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as C.W.1 and through him<br \/>\nExs.C.1 to C.4 were marked.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t7. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit as against which, the<br \/>\nappeal was filed by the defendants for nothing but to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees of<br \/>\nthe Courts below, the defendants preferred this Second Appeal on various<br \/>\ngrounds, suggesting the following substantial questions of law:<br \/>\n&#8220;(a) Whether the findings of the Lower Appellate Court not vitiated in law by<br \/>\nthe failure to consider the entire evidence on record and fails to apply the<br \/>\ncorrect principle of law?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\t(b) Is it the first Appellate Court has not exercised its jurisdiction<br \/>\nvested on it under order 41 Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code properly?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\t(c) Whether the Judgment and Decree of the courts below are vitiated for<br \/>\nnot considering the Exhibits C1 and C2?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t(d) Whether the Judgement and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court below<br \/>\nare vitiated for failing to considering the Additional evidence produced before<br \/>\nit, though it found it is relevant to the suit property?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t(e) Is in law the plaintiff can rely on the defendant&#8217;s, to prove his<br \/>\ncase?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">\t(f) Whether a self serving document will support the case of a party, when<br \/>\nthe person relies on it has failed to prove it?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">(Extracted as such)\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">\t9. I would like to fumigate my mind with the following principles as found<br \/>\nenunciated and enshrined in the following decisions of the Honourable Apex<br \/>\nCourt:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">\t(i) <a href=\"\/doc\/1881196\/\" id=\"a_1\">Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal<\/a> reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court<br \/>\nCases 545.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">\t(ii) <a href=\"\/doc\/502470\/\" id=\"a_1\">Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh and another<\/a> reported in 2008 (4) SCALE\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">300.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">\t(iii) <a href=\"\/doc\/1539259\/\" id=\"a_2\">State Bank of India and others v. S.N.Goya<\/a> reported in 2009-1-L.W.1.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">\t10. A bare poring over and perusal of the said decisions would<br \/>\nunambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight the fact that unless any<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law is involved, the question of entertaining a Second<br \/>\nAppeal would not arise. Accordingly, I proceed to find out whether there is any<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law is involved in this Second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">\t11. The learned counsel for the appellants\/ defendants would put forth and<br \/>\nset forth his arguments thusly:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">\tBoth the Courts below failed to take note of the fact that the suit<br \/>\nproperty has been used by the villagers including the defendants as path way,<br \/>\nwhich fact was not taken note of by the Courts below. They failed to consider<br \/>\nthe entire evidence available on record. Exs.C1 and C2 were ignored by the<br \/>\nCourts below. The first appellate Court failed to entertain additional evidence<br \/>\nunder Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellants would pray for setting aside the judgment and decree<br \/>\nof both the Courts below and for dismissing the original suit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">\t12. In a bid to mince meat, and torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put<br \/>\nforth and set forth on the side of the defendants, the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nplaintiffs would advance his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set<br \/>\nout thus:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">\tBoth the Courts below appropriately and appositely, correctly and<br \/>\nconvincingly after going through the oral and documentary evidence gave findings<br \/>\nbased on facts to the effect that the defendants themselves did not claim any<br \/>\nright over the suit property, however, they claimed mere right of easement, in<br \/>\nother words a right to use the suit property as a pathway by themselves and by<br \/>\nthe villagers and according to them such usage had been in force for a pretty<br \/>\nlong time. The additional documents sought to be filed are in no way necessary<br \/>\nto decide the lis as they do not evidence that there is any public pathway in<br \/>\nthe suit property; the plaintiffs documents would unambiguously and<br \/>\nunequivocally establish and prove that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit<br \/>\nproperty and the plaintiffs father viz., Arumuganainar Nadar @ Arulprakasam<br \/>\nNadar owned it and after his death, his sons viz., the plaintiffs enjoyed it as<br \/>\nabsolute owners and got it partition among themselves.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_25\">\t13. At the outset, it has to be found out as to whether there is any<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law is involved. Both the Courts below placed reliance<br \/>\non Ex.A1 &#8211; the partition deed dated 16.03.1981, which emerged among the three<br \/>\nplaintiffs and found that the suit property is included in it as their absolute<br \/>\nproperty. Ex.A2 is a gift deed dated 28.08.1934 executed by Gnanamuthu Nadar in<br \/>\nfavour of Tirunelveli Diocese Trust Association and that property is situated to<br \/>\nthe North of the suit property and there is no indication about any pathway to<br \/>\nthe South of that property. No representative suit has also been filed by any<br \/>\none claiming pathway right over the suit property. Both the Courts below taking<br \/>\ninto consideration the Commissioner&#8217;s Report and sketch and also the relevant<br \/>\ndocuments gave a clear finding that absolutely there is no evidence to show that<br \/>\nthere is a path way in the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_26\">\t14. Exs.C1 and C2 were dealt with by both the Courts below and found that<br \/>\nthe observation of the Commissioner are against the defendants&#8217; claim. I could<br \/>\nsee no perversity or illegality in the findings given. It has not been<br \/>\nhighlighted as to how the additional documents viz., the field map and the<br \/>\nNatham Land Tax Scheme adangal extract would in any way prove the case of the<br \/>\ndefendants. The first appellate Court clearly in para No.11 of its judgment<br \/>\npointed out that the defendants candidly stated that they were having no revenue<br \/>\nrecords or documents or any other public document to establish any path way<br \/>\nexisting in the suit property. The first appellate Court also observed that<br \/>\nthose additional documents were even though available with the plaintiffs, they<br \/>\nhad not chosen to file them in trial Court. Both the Courts below have also held<br \/>\nindubitably and indisputably that the defendants admitted candidly and<br \/>\ncategorically that they do not have title over the suit property. Hence,<br \/>\nconsidering all these facts, I am of the view that there is no perversity or<br \/>\nillegality in the judgment and decree of the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_27\">\t15. On balance, I do not see any question of law, much less any<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law is involved in this matter and the Second Appeal<br \/>\ndeserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_28\">\t16. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_29\">sj<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_30\">1. The Principal District Judge,<br \/>\n   Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_31\">2. The District Munsif Court,<br \/>\n   Srivaikundam.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:31\/10\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A(MD)No.1672 of 2001 1. Stephen 2. Austin 3. John &#8230; Appellants\/Defendants Vs. 1. Paranjothi 2. Gnanaprakasam 3. Durairaj &#8230; Respondents\/Plaintiffs Prayer Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure [&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-249240","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011 - 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\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-09T21:16:13+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\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-09T21:16:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1353,\"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\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-09T21:16:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011 - 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\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-09T21:16:13+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\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-09T21:16:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011"},"wordCount":1353,"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\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011","name":"Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-09T21:16:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stephen-vs-paranjothi-on-31-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Stephen vs Paranjothi on 31 October, 2011"}]},{"@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\/249240","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=249240"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249240\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}