{"id":50190,"date":"2004-06-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-06-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004"},"modified":"2016-04-17T18:06:52","modified_gmt":"2016-04-17T12:36:52","slug":"s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004","title":{"rendered":"S.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ &#8230; on 29 June, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ &#8230; on 29 June, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 29\/06\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice T.V. MASILAMANI\n\nC.R.P.(NPD) No.1472 of 1997\n\nS.Nagarajan                         .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n#1. Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ Rangasamy (Deceased)\n2. Kannammal\n3. R. Mohanraj\n4. R. Soundarajan\n5. R.Sivaraj\n6. R.Manoharan\n7. R.Balavarthi Raju\n8. R.Murugarajan\n9. R.Vijayakumar                            .. Respondents\n    [R2 to R9 brought on record as L\/Rs. of the\n     deceased sole respondent - (vide) order dated 12.9.2003\n     in C.M.P.Nos.13486 to 13488 of 2002]\n\n\n        Civil Revision Petition against the fair and decretal orders  dated  2\n2.7.1996  passed in E.P.No.286 of 1993 in O.S.No.88 of 1962 on the file of the\nII Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.\n\n!For Petitioner :  Mr.V.Raghavachari\n\n^For Respondents :  Mr.B.T.Seshadri\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        This revision is filed by the petitioner\/third party in the  execution<br \/>\npetition  initiated  against the fair and decretal orders passed in E.P.No.286<br \/>\nof 1993 in O.S.No.88 of 1962 dated 22.7.1996 on the file of the II  Additional<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The  revision petitioner\/third party filed the execution petition<br \/>\nin E.P.No.286 of 1993 on the file of  the  II  Additional  Subordinate  Court,<br \/>\nCoimbatore  on  the  basis  of  the  registered sale deeds dated 7.10.1992 and<br \/>\n31.3.1993 executed by the 13th defendant in the suit on the ground that he has<br \/>\nstepped into the shoes of his vendor and that therefore the possession of  the<br \/>\nproperties  purchased  by  him  has  to  be  delivered  by  the respondent\/9th<br \/>\ndefendant in suit as per the  final  decree.    The  respondent  resisted  the<br \/>\nexecution  proceedings by filing a counter and after analysing the evidence of<br \/>\nboth the parties and upon hearing the arguments advanced by them, the  learned<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge  dismissed the execution petition without costs.  Hence, the<br \/>\nrevision.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  The facts leading to the filing of the revision  petition  may  be<br \/>\nstated briefly as under:  In the suit for partition in O.S.No.88 of 19 62, the<br \/>\nfinal  decree was passed in I.A.No.563 of 1996 on 27.9.1966 on the file of the<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge, Coimbatore and the properties mentioned in the schedule  to<br \/>\nthe  execution  petition were allotted to the 13th defendant, deceased husband<br \/>\nof Konammal who sold the said properties to  the  revision  petitioner  herein<br \/>\nunder the  said registered sale deeds.  After the death of the 13th defendant,<br \/>\nhis wife Konnmmal filed the execution petition in E.P.No.206 of  1982  against<br \/>\nthe  9th  defendant  for  delivery  of possession of the properties as per the<\/p>\n<p>final decree.  While so, the executing court passed an order dated 19.10.198 4<br \/>\non merits directing the 9th defendant to  deliver  vacant  possession  of  the<br \/>\npetition mentioned properties to the petitioner, the said Konnammal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   The  respondent  being  aggrieved  by  such  order, preferred the<br \/>\nrevision petition in C.R.P.No.4809 of 1984 on the file of this Court which had<br \/>\nbeen allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the matter  was  remitted<br \/>\nback to  the  executing  court on 16.7.1985 for fresh disposal.  Subsequently,<br \/>\nthe execution petition was posted  for  hearing  and  in  the  course  of  the<br \/>\nproceedings, an endorsement was made by the counsel for the petitioner as well<br \/>\nas  by  the  petitioner on 29.7.1986 that the execution petition may be closed<br \/>\nfor the present and therefore the execution  petition  was  dismissed  as  not<br \/>\npressed on 29.7.1986.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   The  revision petitioner preferred the execution petition in E.P.<br \/>\nNo.286 of 1993 on  2.12.1993.    The  respondent\/9th  defendant  resisted  the<br \/>\npetition  on  the  ground  that  under  Article 136 of the Limitation Act, the<br \/>\nexecution petition was barred by limitation and that therefore  the  same  was<br \/>\nliable to  be  dismissed.    The learned Subordinate Judge having analysed the<br \/>\nfacts and evidence came to the conclusion that the execution  petition  should<br \/>\nhave  been reviewed within 12 years from the date of the appellate decree made<br \/>\non 23.12.1976, (i.e.,) on or before 23.12.1988 and that since the petition was<br \/>\nfiled on 2.12.1993, the same was barred by limitation.   Hence,  he  dismissed<br \/>\nthe execution petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   The  learned  counsel for the petitioner has argued at the outset<br \/>\nthat the disposal of the execution petition on the basis  of  the  endorsement<br \/>\nmade  by  the  petitioner  therein cannot be said to be a final order and that<br \/>\nsince such disposal was made for statistical purpose, the order passed by  the<br \/>\nExecuting Court has not become final.  In this context, he has placed reliance<br \/>\non the  decision rendered by the Apex Court, VENKANNA v.  BANGARAJAU (AIR 1964<br \/>\nS.C.  1454) wherein (vide) paragraph 6, the dictum was laid as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It is true that Courts have condemned the practice of executing courts  using<br \/>\nexpressions  like  &#8220;closed&#8221;,  &#8220;closed for statistical purposes&#8221;, &#8220;struck off&#8221;,<br \/>\nrecorded&#8221;, etc., and they also pointed out that there was no provision in  the<br \/>\nCode of  Civil  Procedure for making such orders:  but assuming that the Court<br \/>\nhas no such power, the passing of such an order cannot tantamount to an  order<br \/>\nof  dismissal,  for the intention of the court in making an order &#8220;closed&#8221; for<br \/>\nstatistical purposes is manifest.  It is intended not to  finally  dispose  of<br \/>\nthe application,  but  to  keep  it  pending.    Whether the order was without<br \/>\njurisdiction or whether it was valid, the legal position would be the same; in<br \/>\none case it would be ignored and in the other, it would mean what  it  stated.<br \/>\nIn  either  case  the  execution  petition would be pending on the file of the<br \/>\ncourt.  That apart, it is not the phraseology used by the executing court that<br \/>\nreally matters, but is really the substance of the  order  that  is  material.<br \/>\nWhatever  terminology  may  be  used, it is for the court to ascertain, having<br \/>\nregard to the circumstances under which the said order was made,  whether  the<br \/>\ncourt intended  to finally terminate the execution proceedings.  If it did not<br \/>\nintend to do so, it must be held that the execution proceedings  were  pending<br \/>\non the file of the court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   Similarly,  he  has  argued that the appropriate provision of law<br \/>\nunder the Limitation Act, 1963 is Article 136 which governs execution  of  the<br \/>\ndecree  or  order  directing  delivery of a immovable property within 12 years<br \/>\nfrom the date when the decree or order become enforceable.  It is  appropriate<br \/>\nto  extract the said provision of law hereunder to appreciate the facts of the<br \/>\ncase:-\n<\/p>\n<p>For the execution of any decree (other than  a  decree  granting  a  mandatory<br \/>\ninjunction) or order of any Civil Court<br \/>\nTwelve years<br \/>\nWhen  the  decree  or  order  becomes  enforceable  or where the decree or any<br \/>\nsubsequent order directs any payment of money or the delivery of any  property<br \/>\nto be made at a certain date or at recurring periods when default periods when<br \/>\ndefault  in  making  the  payment or delivery in respect of which execution is<br \/>\nsought takes place:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that an application for the enforcement  or  execution  of  a  decree<br \/>\ngranting  a  perpetual  injunction  shall  not  be  subject  to  any period of<br \/>\nlimitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The learned counsel for  the  petitioner  has  further  cited  the<br \/>\ndecision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of K.A.  SWAMI,<br \/>\nChief Justice and Dr.  AR.LAKSHMANAN,J., (as then they were leading the Bench)<br \/>\nin <a href=\"\/doc\/1815910\/\">KARUPPANNA GOUNDER  v.   NAGAMMAL<\/a> ((1996 (II) M.L.J.  470 ) and it was held<br \/>\nin paragraph 5 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Article 136 of the  Limitation  Act  is  a  specific  Article  requiring  all<br \/>\napplications for  the  execution of decrees and orders of courts.  There might<br \/>\nbe a succession of execution applications within the period prescribed by this<br \/>\nArticle.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Similarly, the decision rendered by RATINAM, J.  (as he then  was)<br \/>\nin PUKURAJ RATANJEE  v.    GANESH  MULL  ADAJI (1983 (I) M.L.J.  443) had been<br \/>\nreferred to in the said Division Bench decision and ultimately,  it  was  held<br \/>\n(vide)  paragraphs  9  and 10 that the impugned execution petition having been<br \/>\nfiled within a period of 12 years from the respective dates on  which  earlier<br \/>\norders  for  delivery was made, it cannot be said that the said application is<br \/>\nbarred by limitation under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued  rightly<br \/>\non  the  basis of the ratio laid down in the said decision that in view of the<br \/>\norder for delivery of the property as per final decree made by  the  executing<br \/>\ncourt  on 19.10.1984 in E.P.No.206 of 1982 in O.S.No.88 of 1962 on the file of<br \/>\nthe II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore,  the  execution  petition  in<br \/>\nE.P.No.286  of  1993 had been filed within 12 years and that therefore in view<br \/>\nof Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the said execution petition is not<br \/>\nbarred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  Even otherwise,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  has<br \/>\ncontended that since the previous execution petition in E.P.No.206 of 1982 was<br \/>\nnot  disposed  of finally either on merits or on account of latches on part of<br \/>\nthe petitioner therein, the same should be held as pending despite  the  order<br \/>\nof  closure  passed by the executing Court on 29.7 .1986 as per the ratio laid<br \/>\ndown by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in AIR 1964 S.C.  1454 referred  supra.    A<br \/>\ncareful reading of the said decision in the light of the facts involved in the<br \/>\nsaid  execution  proceedings,  this  Court  is of the considered view that the<br \/>\nratio is applicable to the facts of this case.  Hence,  I  am  constrained  to<br \/>\nhold  that since the previous execution petition in E.P.No.206 of 1982 was not<br \/>\ndisposed of on merits, the same should be held to be pending so as  to  enable<br \/>\nthe petitioner to work out his rights under appropriate provisions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.   Though  the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the<br \/>\ndecision <a href=\"\/doc\/829333\/\">DURAISAMI v.  RASAYAMMAL<\/a> (1995 (II) M.L.J.  574) in  support  of  his<br \/>\ncontention  that the execution petition filed beyond 12 years from the date of<br \/>\ndecree is barred by limitation as per the provision under Article 136  of  the<br \/>\nLimitation  Act,  1963, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the petitioner, the facts involved in the said  case  are  different  from<br \/>\nthat of  the  proceedings under consideration herein.  It is relevant to point<br \/>\nout that the last execution petition in the case involved in the said decision<br \/>\nwas dismissed for failure on the part of the decree-holder to  file  the  sale<br \/>\npapers  and  therefore  such  an  order  cannot  be  taken advantage of by the<br \/>\ndecree-holder so as to claim exemption from limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  On the contrary, in this case, as pointed out above, the impugned<br \/>\norder was not passed in the previous execution petition either on merits or on<br \/>\naccount of default on  the  part  of  the  petitioner  therein.    It  follows<br \/>\nnecessarily  that  the  ratio  enunciated  in  the  said decision cited by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondent is not  applicable  to  the  facts  of  the<br \/>\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.   For  the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed<br \/>\nsetting aside the impugned order in  E.P.No.286  of  1993  dated  22.7.199  6.<br \/>\nHowever, there  will be no order as to costs.  The Executing Court is directed<br \/>\nto dispose of the petition in accordance with law within three months from the<br \/>\ndate of receipt of copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nWebsite:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>dpp<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ &#8230; on 29 June, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 29\/06\/2004 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice T.V. MASILAMANI C.R.P.(NPD) No.1472 of 1997 S.Nagarajan .. Petitioner -Vs- #1. Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ Rangasamy (Deceased) 2. Kannammal 3. R. Mohanraj 4. R. Soundarajan 5. [&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-50190","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.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ ... on 29 June, 2004 - 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-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ ... on 29 June, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-17T12:36:52+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\\\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ &#8230; on 29 June, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-17T12:36:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1728,\"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-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004\",\"name\":\"S.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ ... on 29 June, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-17T12:36:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ &#8230; on 29 June, 2004\"}]},{\"@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.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ ... on 29 June, 2004 - 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-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ ... on 29 June, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-17T12:36:52+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\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ &#8230; on 29 June, 2004","datePublished":"2004-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-17T12:36:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004"},"wordCount":1728,"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-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004","name":"S.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ ... on 29 June, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-17T12:36:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-nagarajan-vs-gudlu-k-ranagasamy-chettiar-on-29-june-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Nagarajan vs Gudlu K.Ranagasamy Chettiar @ &#8230; on 29 June, 2004"}]},{"@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\/50190","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=50190"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50190\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50190"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50190"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}