{"id":257570,"date":"2007-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007"},"modified":"2017-12-01T10:41:20","modified_gmt":"2017-12-01T05:11:20","slug":"vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 06\/09\/2007\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nCrl.O.P.(MD).No.5590 of 2006\nand\nM.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2006\n\n\nVijayakanth\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\n\nVs\n\n\nP.Mariammal\t\t\t... Respondent\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nPetition filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1679850\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 482<\/a> of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to\ncall for the records in C.C.No.207 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial\nMagistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur and quash the same.\n\n\n!For Petitioner  \t\t... Mr.A.Shivaji\n\n\n^For Respondent  \t\t... Mr.K.Vinayagam\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tThis petition has been filed to call for the records in C.C.No.207 of 2006<br \/>\non the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur and quash<br \/>\nthe same.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t2. Heard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition as stood exposited<br \/>\nfrom the records could be portrayed and parodied thus:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\tThe case in C.C.No.207 of 2006 emerged on the file of the learned Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur, consequent upon the complaint lodged by<br \/>\nMariammal, the respondent\/complainant through his power agent for the offences<br \/>\npunishable under <a href=\"\/doc\/1099980\/\" id=\"a_1\">Sections 420<\/a>, <a href=\"\/doc\/664789\/\" id=\"a_2\">406<\/a> read with <a href=\"\/doc\/37788\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 34<\/a> I.P.C as against A.1,<br \/>\nL.K.Sudeesh and A.2, Vijayakanth, the petitioner herein.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the method and manner in<br \/>\nwhich cognizance has been taken, the petitioner\/A.2 has filed this petition on<br \/>\nthe main ground that he had nothing to do with the alleged contract or promise<br \/>\nwhich allegedly emerged between A.1 and the complainant concerned; the Central<br \/>\nBoard of Film Certificate relating to the film &#8220;Narasimma&#8217; would demonstrate<br \/>\nthat the applicant for obtaining such certificates, was one Ms.Captain Cine<br \/>\nCreations and the Producer was L.K.Sudeesh;  there was no promise at all by the<br \/>\npetitioner to the respondent that in the event of the complainant incurring any<br \/>\nloss in distributing the film &#8216;Narasimma&#8217; for screening in theatres, the<br \/>\npetitioner would reimburse her and the ingredients of <a href=\"\/doc\/1436241\/\" id=\"a_4\">Section 420<\/a> I.P.C have not<br \/>\nbeen made out as against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue by drawing the<br \/>\nattention of this Court to the photocopy of the certificate issued by the<br \/>\nCentral Board of Film Certification that the name of the petitioner is not found<br \/>\ntherein;  over and above that initially the advocate notice dated 11.07.2003<br \/>\nissued by the Advocate Pachayappan on behalf of the complainant did not refer to<br \/>\nthe name of the petitioner herein or his alleged role in entrustment of the<br \/>\ndistributorship to the complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t6. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent would deny and<br \/>\nrefute the allegations\/averments made on the side of the petitioner and contend<br \/>\nthat M\/s.Captain Cine Creations is a partnership firm composed of both the<br \/>\naccused Nos.1 and 2 and in fact, the petitioner who happened to be the actor in<br \/>\nthat film also happened to be the producer virtually even though, in the Central<br \/>\nBoard of Film Certification, the name of L.K.Sudeesh is shown as producer and<br \/>\nthe said L.K.Sudeesh(A.1) is none but the brother-in-law of the petitioner<br \/>\nherein.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this<br \/>\nCourt to the paragraph No.3 of the complaint and it is extracted hereunder for<br \/>\nready reference:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t&#8220;3) kDjhh; i\\ Kfthpapy; trpj;J tUfpwhh;.  vjph;kDjhh;fs; i\\ Kfthpapy;<br \/>\nbjhHpy; bra;J tUfpd;whh;fs;.  2K; vjph;kDjhh; eoj;J btspte;j  eurpk;kh vd;w<br \/>\njkpH; jpiug;glj;ij jkpH;ehl;oy; jpUbey;ntyp khtl;l Vhpahtpy; jhd; tpdpnahfk;<br \/>\nbra;a tpUk;g[tjhf kDjhh; fle;j 2001k; Mz;L nfl;lhh;.  U:.55&gt;00&gt;000-00 buhf;fkhf<br \/>\nbfhLf;f ntz;Lk; vd vjph;kDjhh;fs; bjhptpj;jdh;.  mjd; bgahpy; kDjhh; jdJ fzth;<br \/>\nv];.gyuhkd; K:ykhf U:.55&gt;00&gt;000-00 (U:gha; Ik;gj;ije;J yl;rk;) jpiuauq;F<br \/>\nchpikahsh;fs; K:yk; tR{y; bra;J mjid 1k; vjph;kDjhh; trk; nehpy;<br \/>\njpUtpy;ypg[j;J}hpy; cs;s jdJ fzth; tPl;oy; itj;J&gt; kDjhh;&gt; 1k; vjph;kDjhhplk;<br \/>\ned;dk;gpf;ifapd; bgahpy; xg;gilj;jhh;.  i\\ jpiug;glj;jpd; 10 gpujpfis bfhLf;f<br \/>\nvjph;kDjhh;fs; xg;g[f;bfhz;ldh;.  2K; vjph;kDjhh; bjhiyngrp K:yk; ,e;j tptuq;fis<br \/>\nxg;g[f;bfhz;lhh;.  gzj;ij bgw;Wf; bfhs;Sk; nghJ tR{yhFk; bjhifapy; kDjhuUf;F 20%<br \/>\nbfhLg;gJ vd ,Ujug;gpYk; xg;g[f;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ.  mr;rkak; kDjhuhplk; vGjhj<br \/>\ngj;jpuq;fspy; 1k; vjph;kDjhh; ifbahg;gk; bgw;whh;.  mtw;wpy; xg;ge;jk; vGjp mjd;<br \/>\ngpujpapid kDjhuUf;F tHq;Ftjhf ,U jug;gpYk; xg;g[f;bfhs;sg;gl;lJ.  Mdhy; ,d;W tiu<br \/>\ntHq;fg;gltpy;iy.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\t8. Placing reliance on the aforesaid extract, he would develop his<br \/>\nargument that even though along with the first accused, the petitioner was not<br \/>\npresent at the time of Mariammal entrusting a sum of Rs.55,00,000\/- (Rupees<br \/>\nfifty five lakhs only) to A.1, yet over telephone, the petitioner subsequently<br \/>\nconfirmed to the arrangement and hence, in these circumstances, it cannot be<br \/>\nstated that the petitioner had no mens rea to cheat the complainant.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\t9. In this factual matrix, it has to be seen whether ex facie and prima<br \/>\nfacie the petitioner could be held to have had requisite mens rea in cheating<br \/>\nthe complainant so as to compel him to undergo the ordeal of trial?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t10. At the earliest point of time, the complainant in the said notice<br \/>\ndated 11.07.2003, made no whisper at all about the petitioner herein as the one<br \/>\nwho telephonically confirmed the alleged oral agreement entered into between the<br \/>\nfirst accused and the complainant relating to reimbursement of the loss.  To<br \/>\nconstitute an offence of cheating, at the time of promise, there should be mens<br \/>\nrea to cheat and for which there should be at least sufficient averments in the<br \/>\ncomplaint or in the earlier advocate notice, but it was not so.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t11. To the risk of repetition without being tautologous, I would hold that<br \/>\nin the earlier notice dated 11.07.2003 issued by the complainant through her<br \/>\nadvocate, absolutely there was no whisper about the role of he petitioner in<br \/>\nallegedly cheating the complainant.  The last paragraph of the notice is<br \/>\nreproduced hereunder for ready reference:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">\t&#8220;You are hereby called upon to settle the losses suffered by my client to<br \/>\nthe tune of Rs.26,00,000\/- either by way of making the payment of through issue<br \/>\nof the distribution right for the forth coming Vijayaganth Film &#8220;THENNAVAN&#8221;<br \/>\nforth with the receipt of this notice failing which my client will be<br \/>\nconstrained to take appropriate legal action against you and both civil and<br \/>\ncriminal and further holding you liable for all the cost and consequences<br \/>\narising thereon.  And also liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,000\/- towards the cost of<br \/>\nthis notice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">\t12. In fact, the complainant wanted the distributorship for one other film<br \/>\nso as to get herself compensated and as such, the sum and substance of the<br \/>\nnotice would convey that there was some alleged breach of contract.  Had there<br \/>\nbeen real cheating, it is not known as to what prevented or deterred her not to<br \/>\nset the criminal law in motion at the earliest point of time without negotiating<br \/>\nfor obtaining distributorship for one other film &#8216;Thennavan&#8217;.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">\t13. Be that as it may, this is a matter between the first accused and the<br \/>\ncomplainant which shall be decided by the trial Court.  Here, relating to the<br \/>\npetitioner, absolutely there is no incriminating version in that notice and even<br \/>\nin the complaint also as set out supra, there is nothing to fasten the<br \/>\npetitioner\/A.2 that he had mens rea at the relevant time to cheat the<br \/>\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">\t 14. In the said notice dated 11.07.2003, M\/s.Captain Cine Creations is<br \/>\ndescribed as Proprietary concern represented by A.1, L.K.Sudeesh and in such a<br \/>\ncase, it is not known as to how it could be argued on the side of the<br \/>\ncomplainant that M\/s.Captain Cine Creations is a partnership firm in which the<br \/>\npetitioner herein is also one of the partners.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">\t15. For the purpose of deciding this Criminal Original Petition, this<br \/>\nCourt is not very much particular as to whether M\/s.Captain Cine Creations is a<br \/>\nProprietary firm or a partnership firm.  There is nothing found expounded or<br \/>\nexpatiated, detailed or delineated, portrayed or narrated that the<br \/>\npetitioner\/A.2 lulled the complainant to believe that he would compensate even<br \/>\nthough he had no intention to compensate.  No circumstance also is found set out<br \/>\nin the notice or complaint.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">\t16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also cited the decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in <a href=\"\/doc\/1246577\/\" id=\"a_5\">Ganesan v. State<\/a> reported in 1995 Crl.L.J. 1303.  An excerpt from it,<br \/>\nwould run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">\t&#8220;14. In the circumstances, there could be no doubt that the impugned<br \/>\ncomplaint either by itself or read along with FIR in Crime No.1291\/89 and the<br \/>\ntelegram dated 18.10.1989 does not disclose any offence under <a href=\"\/doc\/1436241\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section 420<\/a> I.P.C.<br \/>\nFacts necessary to satisfy the ingredients so constitute an offence under<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1436241\/\" id=\"a_7\">Section 420<\/a> I.P.C are absent in the said complaint.  In the absence of any<br \/>\nmaterial to hold that there was intention to deceive on the part of the quash<br \/>\npetitioner when he had received the sum of Rs.1,15,000\/- from the complainant,<br \/>\nproceeding further with the investigation of the case would not serve any<br \/>\npurpose.  Evidently there is nothing in the complaint to show that the<br \/>\npetitioner had either dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the<br \/>\ncomplainant parted with the money.  So, this is a fit case where the proceedings<br \/>\nare to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under <a href=\"\/doc\/1679850\/\" id=\"a_8\">Section<br \/>\n482<\/a> Cr.P.C.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">\t17. The aforesaid decision is applicable to this case.  At the relevant<br \/>\ntime of alleged promise, there should have been intention to cheat, but for the<br \/>\nforegoing reasons, I do not see that there is any prima facie case available as<br \/>\nper the records and in such a case, the prosecution as against the petitioner in<br \/>\nC.C.No.207 of 2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,<br \/>\nSrivilliputtur, is quashed and as against the first accused, the trial Court is<br \/>\nat liberty to proceed further and dispose of the matter as per law.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">\t18. With the above observations, this petition is disposed of.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputtur.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06\/09\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.O.P.(MD).No.5590 of 2006 and M.P(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2006 Vijayakanth &#8230; Petitioner Vs P.Mariammal &#8230; Respondent Prayer Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to [&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-257570","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007 - 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\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-01T05:11:20+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T05:11:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1644,\"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\\\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-01T05:11:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007 - 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\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-01T05:11:20+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T05:11:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007"},"wordCount":1644,"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\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007","name":"Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-01T05:11:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vijayakanth-vs-p-mariammal-on-6-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vijayakanth vs P.Mariammal on 6 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/257570","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=257570"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257570\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}