{"id":77108,"date":"2007-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007"},"modified":"2016-05-10T07:33:42","modified_gmt":"2016-05-10T02:03:42","slug":"madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Madhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Madhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA No. 649 of 1993()\n\n\n\n1. MADHAVAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. LUKHS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.V.P.SEEMANTHINI\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.C.K.KOSHY\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :12\/04\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                   M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.\n\n                ===========================\n\n                   S.A.  NO.649    OF 1993\n\n                ===========================\n\n\n\n        Dated this the 12th  day of April, 2007\n\n\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Defendant   in   O.S.120\/1988   on   the   file   of<\/p>\n
Munsiff   Court,   Pala   is   the   appellant.     Plaintiff<\/p>\n
therein   is   the   respondent.     Suit   was   filed   for<\/p>\n
injunction.     Plaint   schedule   property   is   47   cents<\/p>\n
in   survey   No.550\/3   of   Elackadu   Village   which   is<\/p>\n
part of 7 acre 21 cents.   Plaint schedule property<\/p>\n
admittedly   originally   belonged   to   respondent.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent   instituted   the   suit   contending   that<\/p>\n
respondent sought a loan of Rs.1500\/- and appellant<\/p>\n
agreed to lend him the money if respondent executes<\/p>\n
a   sale   deed   as   security   for   respondent   with<\/p>\n
interest permitting respondent to retain possession<\/p>\n
of   the   property   and   to   retransfer   the   property   on<\/p>\n
repayment   of   the   amount   with   interest.     It   was<\/p>\n
contended   that   as   agreed   Ext.B1   sale   deed   was<\/p>\n
executed   on   9.12.1985   in   favour   of     appellant   but<\/p>\n
it   was   never   intended   to   be   a     sale   deed   but   only<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1993                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
as         security              and         possession                   was            also         not<\/p>\n
transferred.                    Contending                   that              appellant                   is<\/p>\n
attempting   to   trespass   into   the   plaint   schedule<\/p>\n
property,            respondent                    sought                 a         decree            for<\/p>\n
prohibitory   injunction.     Appellant   in   the   written<\/p>\n
statement contended that he is not   a money lendor<\/p>\n
but   a   driver   in   Kerala   State   Road   Transport<\/p>\n
Corporation.   But   it   was   admitted   that   in   November<\/p>\n
1985   respondent   sought   a   loan   from   him   and<\/p>\n
believing   respondent   Rs.48,580\/-   was   paid   and   in<\/p>\n
first   week   of   December   1985   respondent   approached<\/p>\n
appellant   and   offered   to   sell   the   property   on<\/p>\n
condition  that  the  property  is  to  be  reconveyed  on<\/p>\n
repayment            of          Rs.48,580\/-                      and          thereafter                  on<\/p>\n
9.12.1985   Ext.B1   sale   deed   was   executed.     It   was<\/p>\n
further   contended   that   amount   borrowed   was   not<\/p>\n
Rs.1500\/-  as  alleged  but  Rs.48,580\/-.    It  was  also<\/p>\n
contended   that   respondent   did   not   repay   the   amount<\/p>\n
as   agreed   and   appellant   is   in   possession   of   the<\/p>\n
property   and   in   such   circumstance,   respondent   is<\/p>\n
not   entitled   to   the   decree   for   injunction   sought<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1993                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
for.\n<\/p>\n
        2.        Learned   Munsiff   framed   the   necessary<\/p>\n
issues.   On the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 on the side<\/p>\n
of   the   respondent,   and   DW1   on   the   side   of<\/p>\n
appellant,   and   Exts.A1   to   A6,   B1   and   X1,   learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff found that though Ext.A1 is a sale deed, it<\/p>\n
is   clear   from   the   evidence   that   it   was   executed<\/p>\n
only   as   a   security   with   an   understanding   that   on<\/p>\n
receipt   of   the   amount   borrowed,   appellant   would<\/p>\n
reconvey the property and possession continued with<\/p>\n
respondent   and   appellant   is   entitled   to   get   the<\/p>\n
amount   paid   to   the   respondent;   but   he   is   not<\/p>\n
entitled to resist the enjoyment of the property by<\/p>\n
respondent.     A   decree   for   injunction   was   granted<\/p>\n
without   prejudice   to   the   right   of     appellant   to<\/p>\n
seek   appropriate   remedy   for   due   performance   of   the<\/p>\n
agreement   for   repayment   of   the   amount   due   or   for<\/p>\n
recovery possession of the property  by due process<\/p>\n
of   law.   Appellant   challenged   the   decree   and<\/p>\n
judgment   before   District   Court,   Kottayam   in<\/p>\n
A.S.72\/1991.                  Learned         District         Judge         on<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1993                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
reappreciation of evidence confirmed the decree and<\/p>\n
dismissed   the   appeal.     It   is   challenged   in   this<\/p>\n
second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    Second  Appeal  was  admitted formulating  the<\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n        1)   Whether   under   section   92   of\n\n\n\n        Evidence   Act,   courts   below   were\n\n\n\n        justified                 in         discarding                  Ext.B1\n\n\n\n        while          granting                   a         decree                 for\n\n\n\n        injunction?\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
        2)   When appellant has title to the<\/p>\n
        property                 under            Ext.B1,           whether<\/p>\n
        courts         below                 were           correct                in<\/p>\n
        granting   a   decree   for   injunction   in<\/p>\n
        favour of respondent?\n<\/p>\n
      4.     Learned   counsel   appearing   for     appellant<\/p>\n
was   heard.             There   was   no   representation   for<\/p>\n
respondent as   respondent did not engage a counsel<\/p>\n
after the original counsel expired.\n<\/p>\n
      5.   Under   Ext.B1,   respondent   assigned   the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property in favour of  appellant on<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1993                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
9.12.1985.  As per Ext.B1 title and  possession has<\/p>\n
been transferred to   appellant.   But when examined<\/p>\n
as  DW1, appellant himself admitted that Ext.B1 was<\/p>\n
not executed as a pucca sale deed and   instead his<\/p>\n
own   evidence   was   that   it   was   executed   as   security<\/p>\n
for the amount paid to the respondent as loan.   It<\/p>\n
was   also   admitted   by   appellant   that   he   had   agreed<\/p>\n
to reconvey the property as and when the amount is<\/p>\n
repaid   by   the   respondent.     In   the   light   of   this<\/p>\n
evidence,   on     appreciation   of   evidence   by   the<\/p>\n
courts   below   found   that   appellant   did   not   obtain<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property.     It   cannot   be   found<\/p>\n
fault   with.       Evidence   establish   that   eventhough<\/p>\n
Ext.B1   sale   deed   was   executed,   it   was   never<\/p>\n
treated   as   a     sale   deed   but   only   as   security   to<\/p>\n
enable  appellant to realise the amount paid to the<\/p>\n
respondent   as   loan.   It   was   also   clear   that<\/p>\n
appellant   had   agreed   to   reconvey   the   property   on<\/p>\n
receipt   of   the   amount   paid   to   the   respondent.\n<\/p>\n
True,   there   was   dispute   with   regard   to   the   amount<\/p>\n
borrowed   by     respondent   and   paid   by     appellant.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1993                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
When   respondent   contended   that   it   was   only<\/p>\n
Rs.1500\/-            appellant         contended         that         it         was<\/p>\n
Rs.48.580\/-.  Anyway the amount borrowed, is not to<\/p>\n
be   decided   in   the   present   suit.     The   question   is<\/p>\n
only regarding possession.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   The   evidence   of   PW1   itself   establish   that<\/p>\n
he did not obtain possession of the property under<\/p>\n
Ext.B1.           When   the   sale   deed   was   executed   as<\/p>\n
security,     there   was   no   yielding   trees   in   the<\/p>\n
property.     When   appellant   has   no   case   that   he   has<\/p>\n
cultivated the property, evidence of the respondent<\/p>\n
and        his   witnesses   and   the   admission   of   PW1<\/p>\n
establish   that   inspite   of   execution   of   Ext.B1,<\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property   continued   with   the<\/p>\n
respondent.  In such circumstance, as rightly found<\/p>\n
by   the   courts   below,   appellant   is   not   entitled   to<\/p>\n
take   possession   of   the   property   other   than   by   due<\/p>\n
process   of   law   and   respondent   is   entitled   to   the<\/p>\n
decree  for injunction granted by the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
The   trial   court   itself   granted                       liberty   to<\/p>\n
appellant   to   seek   appropriate   remedy   either   for<\/p>\n
S.A.649\/1993                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
realisation   of   the   amount   paid   to     respondent   or<\/p>\n
for   recovery   seeking   possession   of   the   property<\/p>\n
under   Ext.B1.     In   such   circumstances,   I   find   no<\/p>\n
reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of<\/p>\n
the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
      Appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                      M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR<\/p>\n
                                                 JUDGE<\/p>\n
tpl\/-\n<\/p>\n
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
    S.A..NO.649 \/1993<\/p>\n
    ———————\n<\/p>\n
        JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
    12TH APRIL, 2007<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Madhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA No. 649 of 1993() 1. MADHAVAN … Petitioner Vs 1. LUKHS … Respondent For Petitioner :SMT.V.P.SEEMANTHINI For Respondent :SRI.C.K.KOSHY The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :12\/04\/2007 O R D E R M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== S.A. […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-77108","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMadhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-10T02:03:42+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Madhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-10T02:03:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":966,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Madhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-10T02:03:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 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":"Madhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-10T02:03:42+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Madhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-10T02:03:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007"},"wordCount":966,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007","name":"Madhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-10T02:03:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/madhavan-vs-lukhs-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madhavan vs Lukhs on 12 April, 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\/77108","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=77108"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77108\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77108"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77108"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77108"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}