{"id":5765,"date":"2006-06-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-06-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006"},"modified":"2017-01-18T10:24:08","modified_gmt":"2017-01-18T04:54:08","slug":"st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006","title":{"rendered":"St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDated: 22\/06\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN       \n\nC.R.P.(NPD) No.681 of 2006  \n\nSt.Mark's Educational Trust by its\nManaging Trustee \nPrince Babu Rajendran \n143, Radha Nagar Main Road  \nChromepet,Chennai  \n                                                .. Petitioner\n-Vs-\n\nS.Sekar                                        .. Respondent\n\n        Revision Petition filed against the order dated 14.3.2006,  passed  in\nE.A.   in unnumbered S.R.No.11729\/2005 in E.P.No.109\/2005, in O.S.No.1 98\/1988   \non the file of the District Munsif Court Alandur.\n\n!For Petitioner         :  Mr.N.S.Nandakumar\n^For Respondent         :  Mr.R.Subramanian\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        The judgment-debtor in the E.P.No.109\/2005 in O.S.No.198\/1988, on  the<br \/>\nfile of the learned District Munsif Court, Alandur, is the Revision Petitioner<br \/>\nbefore this  Court.    The respondent herein filed O.S.No.19 8\/1988 before the<br \/>\nSub-Court, Poonamallee for  a  declaration  that  the  &#8216;B&#8217;  schedule  property<br \/>\nmentioned  in  the schedule is his absolute property and for directing the 1st<br \/>\ndefendant\/Revision Petitioner to  put  the  the  decree  holder\/respondent  in<br \/>\nvacant possession  of  the  suit  property.    By  judgment  and  decree dated<br \/>\n31.10.1995, the trial court decreed the suit for title and dismissed the  same<br \/>\nfor possession.    The  respondent\/plaintiff  herein  alone filed an appeal in<br \/>\nA.S.No.384\/1996 before this Court and a Division Bench of this  court  by  its<br \/>\nelaborate  judgment  dated 29.3.2005 allowed the appeal and granted the decree<br \/>\nfor possession also.  Against the judgment and  decree  dated  29.3.2005,  the<br \/>\nRevision Petitioner  filed  Special  Leave  Petition.    But the same was also<br \/>\ndismissed by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court on 13.5.2005.    The  respondent\/decree<br \/>\nholder  filed  E.P.No.109\/2005  to  execute the decree and after receiving the<br \/>\nnotice  in  the  execution  proceedings,  the  Revision  Petitioner  filed  an<br \/>\nExecution  Application  under  Sec.47  and  with  a prayer to declare that the<br \/>\ndecree dated 31.10.1995 is null and void and not executable against him.   The<br \/>\nexecution  court  by  order dated 14.3.2 006 in unnumbered SR No.11729\/2005 in<br \/>\nE.P.No.109\/2005 rejected the same and challenging the order  dated  14.3.2006,<br \/>\nthe above Revision Petition has been filed by the Revision Petitioner herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner and also the<br \/>\nlearned counsel  for  the respondent.  I have also perused the documents filed<br \/>\nin support of the submissions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Learned counsel for the Revision  Petitioner  contended  that  the<br \/>\nexecution court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction to decide the issue in<br \/>\naccordance  with  Sec.47  of  C.P.C., read with Rule 143 of the Civil Rules of<br \/>\nPractice.  He further submitted that the Revision Petitioner had  no  occasion<br \/>\nto  bring  it  to  the  notice of the court during the hearing of the suit and<br \/>\nappeal about the fraud played by the decree  holder  against  the  courts  and<br \/>\nother  authorities  which came to light when he took steps to obey and to give<br \/>\neffect to the decree in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that  the<br \/>\nexecuting  court  has rightly rejected the Sec.47 application as the executing<br \/>\ncourt cannot go behind the decree and reopen the matter afresh.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  It is the case of the Revision Petitioner that he pursued the suit<br \/>\nand appeal bonafidely without realising  that  the  respondent  herein  played<br \/>\npremeditated fraud by making and fabricating successive documents and obtained<br \/>\norders  suppressing  the public records with the calculated intention to cheat<br \/>\nthe real owner and legally interested persons.  Therefore, according  to  him,<br \/>\nthe decree  in  O.S.No.198\/1988  is  a  nullity  and unenforceable.  It is the<br \/>\nrevision petitioner&#8217;s further case that the decree is not  executable  against<br \/>\nthe petitioner in view of the inherent defect in the title of the property and<br \/>\nalso  description  of  the  property  mentioned in the schedule in the decree.<br \/>\nLearned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment reported in (200  1)<br \/>\n6 SCC 534 <a href=\"\/doc\/1766988\/\">(Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v.  Jai Prakash University)<\/a> to contend that<br \/>\nobjection under Sec.47 about the executability of the decree can be allowed if<br \/>\nit is found that the decree is a nullity.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   In  the above judgment, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has elaborately<br \/>\ndealt with the power of the executing court under Sec.47 of C.P.C.,  and  held<br \/>\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;23.   Under Section 47 of the Code, all questions arising between the parties<br \/>\nto the suit in which the decree was passed or their  representatives  relating<br \/>\nto  the  execution,  discharge  or  satisfaction  of  decree  have  got  to be<br \/>\ndetermined by the court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.   The<br \/>\npowers  of  the  court  under Section 47 are quite different and much narrower<br \/>\nthan its powers of appeal, revision or review.  A first appellate court is not<br \/>\nonly entitled but obliged under law to go into the questions of facts as well,<br \/>\nlike the trial court, apart from questions of  law.    Powers  of  the  second<br \/>\nappellate  court  under different statutes like Section 100 of the Code, as it<br \/>\nstood before its amendment by Central Act 104 of 1976  with  effect  from  1.2<br \/>\n.1977, could  be  exercised  only  on questions of law.  Powers under statutes<br \/>\nwhich are akin to Section 100 of the Code, as amended and substituted  by  the<br \/>\naforesaid  Central  Act,  have  been  further  narrowed down as now in such an<br \/>\nappeal only a substantial question of law can be considered.   The  powers  of<br \/>\nthis  Court  under  Article  136  of  the Constitution of India, should not be<br \/>\nexercised simply because substantial question of law arises  in  a  case,  but<br \/>\nthere  is  further  requirement  that  such question must be of general public<br \/>\nimportance and it requires decision of this Court.  Powers of  revision  under<br \/>\nSection  115  of the Code cannot be exercised merely because the order suffers<br \/>\nfrom<br \/>\nlegal infirmity or substantial question of law arises, but such an error  must<br \/>\nsuffer with  the  vice  of  error  of jurisdiction.  Of course, the revisional<br \/>\npowers exercisable under the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  and  likewise  in<br \/>\nsimilar  statutes  stand  on  entirely different footing and are much wider as<br \/>\nthere the court can go into the correctness,  legality  or  propriety  of  the<br \/>\norder and  regularity  of  proceeding of the inferior court.  It does not mean<br \/>\nthat in each and every case  the  revisional  court  is  obliged  to  consider<br \/>\nquestions  of  facts  as  well like a first appellate court, but the court has<br \/>\ndiscretion to consider the same in appropriate  cases  whenever  it  is  found<br \/>\nexpedient and  not  in  each  and  every case.  Discretion, undoubtedly, means<br \/>\njudicial discretion and not whim, caprice or fancy of  a  Judge.    Powers  of<br \/>\nreview  cannot  be  invoked unless it is shown that there is error apparent on<br \/>\nthe face of the record in the order sought to be reviewed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        24.   The  exercise  of  powers  under  Section  47  of  the  Code  is<br \/>\nmicroscopic and  lies in a very narrow inspection hole.  Thus it is plain that<br \/>\nexecuting court can allow objection under  Section  47  of  the  Code  to  the<br \/>\nexecutability of the decree if it is found that the same is void ab initio and<br \/>\nnullity,  apart  from  the  ground that the decree is not capable of execution<br \/>\nunder law either because the same was passed in ignorance of such a  provision<br \/>\nof  law  or  the  law  was  promulgated making a decree inexecutable after its<br \/>\npassing.  In the case on hand, the decree was  passed  against  the  Governing<br \/>\nBody of the College which was the defendant without seeking leave of the court<br \/>\nto  continue  the  suit  against  the University upon whom the interest of the<br \/>\noriginal defendant devolved and impleading it.  Such  an  omission  would  not<br \/>\nmake  the  decree  void ab initio so as to invoke application of Section 47 of<br \/>\nthe Code and entail dismissal of execution.  The validity or  otherwise  of  a<br \/>\ndecree  may  be challenged by filing a properly constituted suit or taking any<br \/>\nother remedy available under law on the ground  that  the  original  defendant<br \/>\nabsented  himself  from the proceedings of the suit after appearance as he had<br \/>\nno longer any interest in the subject of dispute or  did  not  purposely  take<br \/>\ninterest in the proceedings or colluded with the adversary or any other ground<br \/>\npermissible under law.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   From  the above judgment, it is very clear that the powers of the<br \/>\ncourt under Sec.47 are much narrower than its powers of  appeal,  revision  or<br \/>\nreview.   The executing court can allow objections under Sec.47 of the Code to<br \/>\nthe executability of the decree if it is found that the same is void ab initio<br \/>\nand a nullity, apart from the  ground  that  the  decree  is  not  capable  of<br \/>\nexecution  under law either because the same was passed in ignorance of such a<br \/>\nprovisio n of law or the law as promulgated  making  the  decree  inexecutable<br \/>\nafter its passing.  The validity or otherwise of a decree may be challenged by<br \/>\ngetting a  properly instituted suit or taking any other remedy under law.  The<br \/>\nexecuting court cannot go behind the  decree  except  when  the  decree  is  a<br \/>\nnullity or is without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   Learned  counsel for the respondent relied on the judgment of the<br \/>\nHon&#8217;ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 8  SCC  41  <a href=\"\/doc\/1254898\/\">(TCI  Finance  Ltd.    v.<br \/>\nCalcutta Medical Centre Ltd.)<\/a> to submit that the Hon&#8217;ble High Court should not<br \/>\nenlarge  the  scope  of  the execution proceeding and treat it as a Full-blown<br \/>\nsuit.  In the above judgment, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;7.  In support of the appeals, learned counsel for  the  appellant  submitted<br \/>\nthat a  new  dimension  has  been  given  by  the Division Bench.  Admittedly,<br \/>\nRespondent 1  does  not  claim  any  right  of  ownership  over  the  attached<br \/>\nproperties.  No claims of the nature set forth by Respondent 1 can be examined<br \/>\nin terms of Section 47 or Order 21 Rule 58 CPC.  By the impugned judgment, the<br \/>\nHigh Court has enlarged the scope of the execution proceedings and has treated<br \/>\nit as a full-blown suit without even recording any reason as to how Respondent<br \/>\n1 has any adjudicable interest in the proceedings.  The question of tenancy of<br \/>\ntenancy cannot be decided by the executing court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;10.  The  executing court cannot go beyond the decree.  It is settled<br \/>\nposition in law which flows from Section 38 CPC, except when the decree  is  a<br \/>\nnullity or  is  without jurisdiction.  The crucial expression in Section 47 is<br \/>\n&#8220;All  questions  arising  between  the  parties  to  the   suit&#8221;   &#8220;or   their<br \/>\nrepresentatives&#8221;.   Order  21  Rule  54  deals  with  attachment  of immovable<br \/>\nproperty, while Rule 58 deals with adjudication of claims to, or objections to<br \/>\nattachment of property.  Case of Respondent 1is not covered by Section  47  or<br \/>\nOrder 21  Rule 54 or Rule 58.  The High Court misconceived the nature of claim<br \/>\nset up by Respondent 1.  Learned Single Judge rightly noted that Respondent  1<br \/>\nwas not  having  independent right to the properties.  It found that the right<br \/>\nclaimed was as assignee under the judgment-debtor.  The agreement, if any,  in<br \/>\nthat  regard  was  not  produced  before the Court and, therefore, the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge drew adverse inference.  Before the Division Bench, the stand  of<br \/>\nRespondent 1was that it was a tenant.  Without indicating any reason as to how<br \/>\nthe  reasoning  of  the  learned  Single  Judge  was  wrong the Division Bench<br \/>\nenlarged the scope of the controversy and  directed  the  executing  court  to<br \/>\ndecide the question of tenancy, which is legally impermissible.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   In the light of the well settled legal principles, let me examine<br \/>\nthe case on hand.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  It is not in dispute that having suffered a decree, the  Revision<br \/>\nPetitioner  did  not  file  a  regular  appeal  questioning  the  title of the<br \/>\nrespondent herein.  It is only the respondent who filed an appeal before  this<br \/>\ncourt challenging  the  disallowed  portion  in  the  decree.  The trial court<br \/>\nrendered a finding that the revision petitioner herein is a trespasser and  he<br \/>\nis a  person in possession without any authority.  This finding was not at all<br \/>\nchallenged by the revision petitioner and the same reached its finality.    In<br \/>\nsuch  circumstances  it  is  not for the revision petitioner herein to contend<br \/>\nthat the respondent by creating and fabricating documents is thus cheating the<br \/>\ntrue and real owner and legally interested persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  The revision petitioner herein filed Sec.47  application  on  the<br \/>\nground  that the respondent herein did not have proper title and the documents<br \/>\nhe filed before the trial court to prove the title are bogus documents.   Such<br \/>\nkind  of  plea  cannot  be  allowed  to  be  raised  for the first time by the<br \/>\npetitioner in Sec.  47 application and if it is allowed to be raised, the same<br \/>\nwill defeat the very decree itself and in such a case the executing court  has<br \/>\nto travel beyond the scope of the decree which is not permissible, that too at<br \/>\nthe instance of a trespasser.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.   The court below has considered the entire facts and rightly came<br \/>\nto the conclusion that all the documents relied on by the revision  petitioner<br \/>\nrelated to his defence in relation to the declaration relief sought for by the<br \/>\nrespondent herein  which  was  already  held  against the petitioner.  In such<br \/>\ncircumstances, I do not find any merit in the Revision Petition and  the  same<br \/>\nis liable  to  be  dismissed.    Accordingly,  the  Civil Revision Petition is<br \/>\ndismissed.  No costs.  C.M.P.No.5 603\/2006 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>sks\/sgl<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The District Munsif Court,<br \/>\nAlandur.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 22\/06\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.(NPD) No.681 of 2006 St.Mark&#8217;s Educational Trust by its Managing Trustee Prince Babu Rajendran 143, Radha Nagar Main Road Chromepet,Chennai .. Petitioner -Vs- S.Sekar .. Respondent [&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-5765","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>St.Mark&#039;S Educational Trust By ... vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006 - 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\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"St.Mark&#039;S Educational Trust By ... vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-18T04:54:08+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-18T04:54:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2084,\"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\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006\",\"name\":\"St.Mark'S Educational Trust By ... vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-06-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-18T04:54:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"St.Mark'S Educational Trust By ... vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006 - 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\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"St.Mark'S Educational Trust By ... vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-18T04:54:08+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006","datePublished":"2006-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-18T04:54:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006"},"wordCount":2084,"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\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006","name":"St.Mark'S Educational Trust By ... vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-06-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-18T04:54:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/st-marks-educational-trust-by-vs-s-sekar-on-22-june-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"St.Mark&#8217;S Educational Trust By &#8230; vs S.Sekar on 22 June, 2006"}]},{"@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\/5765","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=5765"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5765\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5765"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5765"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5765"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}