{"id":40385,"date":"2002-06-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-06-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002"},"modified":"2014-07-05T17:49:50","modified_gmt":"2014-07-05T12:19:50","slug":"k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002","title":{"rendered":"K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 10\/06\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\n\nS.A.No.1800 of 1989\n\n\nK.Sethurathinam        ..                              Appellant\n\nversus\n\nSubramanian            ..                              Respondent\n\n        Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.1989 made  in\nA.S.No.169   of   1988   on   the  file  of  the  learned  Subordinate  Judge,\nTiruchirapalli, confirming the judgment and decree  dated  24.6.1988  made  in\nO.S.No.344 of 1987 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Musiri.\n\n\n!For appellant                          :       No appearance\n\n^For respondent                         :       Mr.K.V.Sundarrajan\n                                                for Mr.M.Rajasekaran\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The  unsuccessful  plaintiff in O.S.No.344 of 1987 is the appellant in<br \/>\nthis second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The appellant\/plaintiff laid a money suit in O.S.No.344 of 1987 on<br \/>\nthe file of the learned District Munsif, Musiri, for a decree to  recover  the<br \/>\nmoney based on a promissory note dated 9.2.1985.  But the suit was resisted by<br \/>\nthe respondent\/defendant, denying the very execution of the promissory note.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Appreciating the evidences on record, the learned District Munsif,<br \/>\nMusiri, by  judgment  and decree dated 24.6.1988 made in O.S.  No.344 of 1987,<br \/>\ndismissed the suit, finding that the signature in the promissory note  is  not<br \/>\nthat  of  the  respondent\/defendant,  as  he  did not know to sign his name in<br \/>\nEnglish, except to put his initial in English; that the  thumb  impression  of<br \/>\nthe  respondent\/defendant  was also not bona fide; and that the depositions of<br \/>\nP.Ws.1 to 4 do not corroborate with each other, and therefore, held  that  the<br \/>\npromissory  note  dated  9  .2.1985  is  not  valid,  which  was, on appeal in<br \/>\nA.S.No.169  of   1988,   confirmed   by   the   learned   Subordinate   Judge,<br \/>\nTiruchirapalli, by  order dated 19.1.1989.  Hence, the plaintiff in O.S.No.344<br \/>\nof 1987 has filed the above second appeal, and the same was admitted  by  this<br \/>\nCourt on 1 8.1 1.1989, on the following substantial questions of law:\n<\/p>\n<p>i.  Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law in throwing the burden<br \/>\non the plaintiff?\n<\/p>\n<p>ii.   Whether  the  lower  appellate  Court  overlooked  the presumption under<br \/>\nSection 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   Of  course,  there  is  no  representation  on  behalf   of   the<br \/>\nappellant\/plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  The Substantial questions of law, referred to above, relate to the<br \/>\nburden of proving the execution of the promissory note dated 9.2.19 85 and the<br \/>\nconsequential  statutory  presumptions  under  Section  118  of the Negotiable<br \/>\nInstruments Act, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\u201c Section 118:  Presumptions as to negotiable instruments of consideration.&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) of consideration \u2013- that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for<br \/>\nconsideration, and that every such instrument,  when  it  has  been  accepted,<br \/>\nendorsed,  negotiated  or  transferred,  was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or<br \/>\ntransferred for consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) as to date \u2013- that every negotiable instrument bearing a date was made  or<br \/>\ndrawn on such date;\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)  as  to  time  of  acceptance  \u2013- that every accepted bill of exchange was<br \/>\naccepted within a reasonable time after its date and before its maturity;\n<\/p>\n<p>(d) as to time of transfer -\u2013 that every transfer of a  negotiable  instrument<br \/>\nwas made before its maturity;\n<\/p>\n<p>(e)  as  to  order  of  endorsements \u2013- that the endorsements appearing upon a<br \/>\nnegotiable instrument were made in the order in which they appear thereon;\n<\/p>\n<p>(f) as to stamps \u2013- that a lost promissory note, bill of  exchange  or  cheque<br \/>\nwas duly stamped;\n<\/p>\n<p>(g)  that  holder  is a holder in due course \u2013 that the holder of a negotiable<br \/>\ninstrument is a holder in due course; provided that, where the instrument  has<br \/>\nbeen  contained  from  its  lawful owner, or form any person in lawful custody<br \/>\nthereof, by means of an offence or fraud, or has been obtained from the  maker<br \/>\nor  acceptor  thereof  by  means  of  an  offence  or  fraud,  or for unlawful<br \/>\nconsideration, the burden of proving the holder is a holder in due course lies<br \/>\nupon him.  \u201d<\/p>\n<p>        6.  The presumptions under Section 118 of the  Negotiable  Instruments<br \/>\nAct  would  be  a  binding  rule  of  evidence  in  favour  of the respondent\/<br \/>\ndefendant, only if the revision petitioner\/plaintiff proves the  execution  of<br \/>\nthe promissory  note,  as  held by the Apex Court in KUNDAN LAL V.  CUSTODIAN,<br \/>\nEVACUEE PROPERTY reported in AIR 1961 SC 1316, wherein, it is held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\u201c5.  This  section  lays  down  a  special  rule  of  evidence  applicable  to<br \/>\nnegotiable instruments.   The presumption is one of law and thereunder a court<br \/>\nshall presume, inter alia, that the negotiable instrument or  the  endorsement<br \/>\nwas made  or  endorsed  for  consideration.  In effect it throws the burden of<br \/>\nproof of failure of consideration on the maker of the note or the endorser, as<br \/>\nthe case may be.  The question is, how the burden  can  be  discharged?    The<br \/>\nrules of evidence pertaining to burden of proof are embodied in Chapter VII of<br \/>\nthe Evidence  Act.    The  phrase  \u201cburden of proof\u201d has two meanings-\u2014one the<br \/>\nburden of proof as a matter of law and pleading and the other  the  burden  of<br \/>\nestablishing  a case; the former is fixed as a question of law on the basis of<br \/>\nthe pleadings and is unchanged during the entire trial, whereas the latter  is<br \/>\nnot  constant  but  shifts  as  soon as a party adduces sufficient evidence to<br \/>\nraise a presumption in his favour.  The evidence required to shift the  burden<br \/>\nneed not necessarily be direct evidence, i.e., oral or documentary evidence or<br \/>\nadmissions  made by opposite party; it may comprise circumstantial evidence or<br \/>\npresumptions of law or fact.    To  illustrate  how  this  doctrine  works  in<br \/>\npractice, we  may  take  a  suit  on  a  promissory  note.  Under S.101 of the<br \/>\nEvidence Act, \u201c Whoever desires any Court to give judgment  as  to  any  legal<br \/>\nright  or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must<br \/>\nprove that those facts exist\u201d.  Therefore, the burden initially rests  on  the<br \/>\nplaintiff  who  has  to  prove  that  the  promissory note was executed by the<br \/>\ndefendant.  As soon as the execution of the promissory  note  is  proved,  the<br \/>\nrule of presumption laid down in S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act helps<br \/>\nhim to  shift the burden to the other side.  The burden of proof as a question<br \/>\nof law rests, therefore, on the plaintiff; but as soon  as  the  execution  is<br \/>\nproved, S.118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act imposes a duty on the Court to<br \/>\nraise  a  presumption  in  his  favour  that  the said instrument was made for<br \/>\nconsideration.  This presumption shifts the burden  of  proof  in  the  second<br \/>\nsense,  that  is,  the  burden of establishing a case shifts to the defendant.<br \/>\nThe defendant may adduce direct evidence to prove that the promissory note was<br \/>\nnot supported by consideration, and, if he adduced  acceptable  evidence,  the<br \/>\nburden again  shifts to the plaintiff, and so on.  The defendant may also rely<br \/>\nupon circumstantial evidence and, if the  circumstances  so  relied  upon  are<br \/>\ncompelling, the burden may likewise shift again to the plaintiff.  \u201d<\/p>\n<p>        7.   Therefore,  it is well settled that the burden initially rests on<br \/>\nthe plaintiff to prove that the promissory note was executed by the defendant.<br \/>\nThen only the plaintiff is entitled for presumption as against the  defendant,<br \/>\nas provided under Section 118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.    In   the   instant  case,  since  both  the  Courts  below  have<br \/>\ncategorically rejected the very execution of the promissory note, holding that<br \/>\nthe depositions of P.Ws.1 to 4 do not corroborate with each  other,  which  is<br \/>\npurely  a question of fact, in my considered opinion, I do not find any ground<br \/>\nto interfere with the judgment and decree of the Courts below.    Hence,  this<br \/>\nsecond appeal is dismissed.  No costs.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\nIndex:  Yes\nInternet:  Yes                                                  10.06.2002\nksv\nTo:\n<\/pre>\n<p>1.  The Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli.  (with records)\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District Munsif, Musiri.  (with records)<br \/>\nCopy to:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Section Officer, V.R.  Section, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sd\/- Assistant Registrar<\/p>\n<p>\/True Copy\/<\/p>\n<p>Sub Assistant Registrar<br \/>\nKsv<\/p>\n<p>P.D.DINAKARAN,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>S.A.No.1800 of 1989<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/06\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN S.A.No.1800 of 1989 K.Sethurathinam .. Appellant versus Subramanian .. Respondent Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.1.1989 made in A.S.No.169 of 1988 on the file of the learned [&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-40385","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>K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002 - 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\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-07-05T12:19:50+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-05T12:19:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1211,\"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\\\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002\",\"name\":\"K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-06-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-07-05T12:19:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002 - 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\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-07-05T12:19:50+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002","datePublished":"2002-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-05T12:19:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002"},"wordCount":1211,"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\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002","name":"K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-06-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-07-05T12:19:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sethurathinam-vs-subramanian-on-10-june-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Sethurathinam vs Subramanian on 10 June, 2002"}]},{"@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\/40385","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=40385"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40385\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}