{"id":82451,"date":"2007-06-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007"},"modified":"2014-06-16T11:18:38","modified_gmt":"2014-06-16T05:48:38","slug":"raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Raghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Raghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA No. 100 of 2007()\n\n\n1. RAGHAVAN, AGED 78 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. R.MANILAL, S\/O.RAGHAVAN,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. BENNY, S\/O.ULAHANNAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.NEELAKANDHAN NAMBOODIRI\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :26\/06\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                  M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n                    ...........................................\n                 R.S.A.Nos. 100 & 101                OF 2007\n                   ............................................\n          DATED THIS THE 26th                 DAY OF JUNE, 2007\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Appellants in R.S.A.100 of 2007 are defendants in O.S.201<\/p>\n
of 2004. First appellant therein is the appellant in R.S.A.101 of<\/p>\n
2007. Respondent in R.S.A.100 of 2007 is the first respondent<\/p>\n
in R.S.A.101 of 2007. Appellant in R.S.A.101 of 2007 is the<\/p>\n
plaintiff in O.S.212 of 2003 and respondent in R.S.A.100 of 2007<\/p>\n
is the plaintiff in O.S.201 of 2004.                 The appellant instituted<\/p>\n
O.A.212 of 2003 seeking a decree for permanent prohibitory<\/p>\n
injunction contending that plaint A schedule property belongs to<\/p>\n
him and plaint B schedule property is the way(road) which<\/p>\n
exclusively belong to him and respondents have no right over the<\/p>\n
same and therefore respondents are to be restrained by a<\/p>\n
permanent prohibitory injunction. Respondent in R.S.A. 100 of<\/p>\n
2007 instituted O.S.201 of 2004                   contending that plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule way was formed by the owners of respective properties<\/p>\n
including the appellant by surrendering a portion of their<\/p>\n
property under Ext.B1 and B4 agreements and defendants<\/p>\n
therein have no right to obstruct his right to use that road and<\/p>\n
therefore they are to be restrained by a decree for injunction.<\/p>\n
RSA 100 & 101\/2007               2<\/span><\/p>\n
The suits were tried separately. Learned Munsiff in O.S.201 of<\/p>\n
2004 found that the road has been formed not by the appellant<\/p>\n
but including the assignor of respondent and defendants therein<\/p>\n
are not entitled to obstruct his right to use the way. A decree<\/p>\n
for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining appellants from<\/p>\n
obstructing plaint B schedule property being the road to plaint<\/p>\n
A schedule property belonging to respondent was granted. In<\/p>\n
O.S.212 of 2003, learned Munsiff, relying on the evidence<\/p>\n
including the report submitted by Commissioner, found that<\/p>\n
there is an existing road and it was formed not exclusively by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff but by the assignor of the respondent also. Learned<\/p>\n
Munsiff therefore held that appellant is not entitled to a decree<\/p>\n
for permanent prohibitory injunction. That suit was dismissed.<\/p>\n
Appellant challenged the said       decree and judgment before<\/p>\n
District Court, Thodupuzha in A.S.269 of 2004. The decree<\/p>\n
granted in O.S.201 of 2004 was challenged in A.S.45 of 2006.<\/p>\n
Learned Additional District Judge heard both appeals together,<\/p>\n
as the dispute was with regard to the very same road. Learned<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge, on appreciation of evidence, found that<\/p>\n
report of the Commissioner establish that there is a well defined<\/p>\n
road as claimed by the plaintiff in O.S.201 of 2004 and plaintiff<\/p>\n
in O.S.212 of 2003 is not entitled to the decree for injunction and<\/p>\n
RSA 100 & 101\/2007              3<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff in O.S.201 of 2004 is entitled to the decree for<\/p>\n
injunction. Appeals were dismissed. It is challenging the decree<\/p>\n
and judgment of first appellate court these appeals are filed.<\/p>\n
R.S.A.100 of 2007 was filed challenging the concurrent decree in<\/p>\n
O.S.201 of 2004 and R.S.A.101 of 2007, the concurrent decree in<\/p>\n
O.S.212 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
     2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants         and<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for respondents, who appeared<\/p>\n
pursuant to a notice issued before admission were heard. The<\/p>\n
argument of the learned counsel appearing for appellant was<\/p>\n
that though courts below found that there is an existing road<\/p>\n
relying on Ext.C1 report and the evidence, the exact width of the<\/p>\n
road was declared and the road described in plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
property in O.S.201 of 2004 is in fact having less than the width<\/p>\n
of the road reported by the Commissioner in Ext.C1 report and<\/p>\n
without demarcating the exact width of the road, courts below<\/p>\n
should not have granted a decree for injunction restraining<\/p>\n
appellants from obstructing the road, as it would be an<\/p>\n
encroachment into a portion of the plaint A schedule property<\/p>\n
belonging to the appellants. It was also argued that though<\/p>\n
Ext.B4 shows that agreement was relied on by courts below,<\/p>\n
Ext.B4 shows that a survey sketch was appended to the<\/p>\n
RSA 100 & 101\/2007               4<\/span><\/p>\n
agreement and the same was not produced and Ext.B4(a) shows<\/p>\n
that parties have not signed in the sketch and therefore Ext.B4<\/p>\n
(a) is not the sketch appended to Ext.B4 agreement and<\/p>\n
therefore on the strength of Ext.B4(a) courts below should not<\/p>\n
have granted the decree. Learned counsel further argued that<\/p>\n
appellant is entitled to make use of his property and by<\/p>\n
encroaching a portion of that property to the existing road,<\/p>\n
respondents are not entitled to seek a decree for injunction.<\/p>\n
     3. Learned counsel appearing for respondents argued that<\/p>\n
the courts below on the evidence found that much before the<\/p>\n
suits were filed there existed a road as reported by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner and that road as found by the Commissioner in<\/p>\n
Ext.C1 report, is having more width than the width of the road<\/p>\n
described in plaint B schedule and in such circumstances<\/p>\n
appellant is not entitled to get a decree for injunction in respect<\/p>\n
of a portion of the road and appellant is not entitled to obstruct<\/p>\n
the use of the road as the road was formed by the assignor of the<\/p>\n
respondent also.\n<\/p>\n
     4. On hearing learned counsel appearing for both sides and<\/p>\n
going through the judgments of the courts below, I do not find<\/p>\n
any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The<\/p>\n
appellant instituted O.S.212 of 2003, seeking a decree for<\/p>\n
RSA 100 & 101\/2007              5<\/span><\/p>\n
injunction contending that plaint B schedule way therein<\/p>\n
exclusively belong to the appellant and respondents have no<\/p>\n
right to use the way and therefore appellant is entitled to get a<\/p>\n
decree for injunction. As per the description of plaint B schedule<\/p>\n
way in O.S.212 of 2003, the way which is also shown as the road<\/p>\n
has a width of 5 feet and a length of 33 metres. Ext.C1 report<\/p>\n
shows that the road is having a width of about 15 feet and that<\/p>\n
road was in existence much prior to the institution of the suit.<\/p>\n
Courts below, on the evidence found that the said road was<\/p>\n
formed by utilising the property surrendered under Ext.B1<\/p>\n
agreement which connects the road to the existing public road.<\/p>\n
Ext.B4 establish that road was further extended upto the<\/p>\n
property of respondent and       his assignor was one of the<\/p>\n
executants under Ext.B4 agreement. Courts below also found<\/p>\n
that even when the appellant was examined as PW1, he admitted<\/p>\n
that he and his son executed Ext.B4 agreement and had affixed<\/p>\n
their signature on each pages of Ext.B4 agreement. Evidence<\/p>\n
also establish that Manilal, son of appellant is an Inspector in<\/p>\n
Sales tax department. Therefore it cannot be believed that<\/p>\n
without realising the contents of Ext.B4 agreement, they<\/p>\n
subscribed their signature to Ext.B4. Ext.B4 establishes that a<\/p>\n
road in continuation of the road formed after surrender<\/p>\n
RSA 100 & 101\/2007               6<\/span><\/p>\n
evidenced by Ext.B1, was made and that road reaches the<\/p>\n
property of the respondent. Ext.C1 report establishes that, that<\/p>\n
road is having much more width than what is shown in the plaint<\/p>\n
B schedule in O.S.201 of 2004 or the width of the road shown in<\/p>\n
O.S.212 of 2003. As the existence of the road even prior to the<\/p>\n
institution of the suit having more width than what was<\/p>\n
described in O.S.212 of 2003 was established, courts below were<\/p>\n
perfectly justified in not granting a decree for injunction sought<\/p>\n
for by the appellant. Even though the argument of learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for appellant was that as the exact width of<\/p>\n
the road was not declared by the courts below, plaintiff in<\/p>\n
O.S.201 of 2004 should not have been granted a decree for<\/p>\n
injunction. When appellant admitted in the plaint itself that there<\/p>\n
is a road and a decree for injunction is sought in respect of the<\/p>\n
remaining portion of plaint A schedule property, plaintiff in<\/p>\n
O.S.212 of 2003 should have taken out a Commission to<\/p>\n
demarcate that road so that actual width of the road could have<\/p>\n
been fixed. Without doing so appellant is not entitled to contend<\/p>\n
that respondents are not entitled to the decree for injunction<\/p>\n
granted in O.S.212 of 2003. Ext.C1 report shows that the<\/p>\n
existing width of the road is much more than the plaint B<\/p>\n
schedule property shown in O.S.201 of 2004.          When Ext.A4<\/p>\n
RSA 100 & 101\/2007              7<\/span><\/p>\n
establishes that the road was formed by surrendering portions<\/p>\n
of the property by the executants of Ext.B4 agreement, including<\/p>\n
assignor of the respondent, respondent is entitled to make use of<\/p>\n
that road and appellant is not entitled to obstruct the same.     As<\/p>\n
evidence establish that the existing road is having more width<\/p>\n
than plaint B schedule property described in O.S.201 of 2004, I<\/p>\n
do not find any reason to interfere with the decree granted in<\/p>\n
O.s.201 of 2004 also.       The argument of learned counsel<\/p>\n
appearing for appellants is that respondent is not entitled to<\/p>\n
make use of, more extent than the width of the road shown in<\/p>\n
plaint B schedule property. As the evidence would establish that<\/p>\n
part of plaint A schedule property belonging to the appellant has<\/p>\n
already been converted into part of the existing road, if at all the<\/p>\n
remedy of the appellant is only to seek recovery of possession of<\/p>\n
that portion of the road establishing his title. As no substantial<\/p>\n
question of law arises, the appeals are dismissed.<\/p>\n
                           M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Raghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA No. 100 of 2007() 1. RAGHAVAN, AGED 78 YEARS, … Petitioner 2. R.MANILAL, S\/O.RAGHAVAN, Vs 1. BENNY, S\/O.ULAHANNAN, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.N.NEELAKANDHAN NAMBOODIRI For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated […]<\/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-82451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRaghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 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\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-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=\"2007-06-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-16T05:48:38+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-16T05:48:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1539,\"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\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Raghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-16T05:48:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Raghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 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\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-16T05:48:38+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-16T05:48:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007"},"wordCount":1539,"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\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007","name":"Raghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-16T05:48:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raghavan-vs-benny-on-26-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raghavan vs Benny on 26 June, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/82451","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=82451"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/82451\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=82451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=82451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}