{"id":89077,"date":"2008-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2"},"modified":"2015-02-27T20:59:11","modified_gmt":"2015-02-27T15:29:11","slug":"sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Sukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Sukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 22\/04\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nS.A.No.410 of 2001\n\nSukumaran\t\t... Appellant\/Appellant\/Plaintiff\n\nVs\n\n1.Panneerselvam\n\n2.Ayyasami\t\t... Respondents\/Respondents\/Defendants\n\n\nPrayer\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the  Code of Civil Procedure,\nagainst the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2000 passed in A.S.No.15 of 2000 by\nthe learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, in confirming the judgment and\ndecree dated 08.12.1999 passed in O.S.No.118 of 1998 by the learned Sub Judge,\nPattukkottai.\n\n!For Appellant  ... Mr.V.K.Vijaya Raghavan\n\n^For Respondents... No representation.\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tAnimadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2000 passed in
\nA.S.No.15 of 2000 by the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, in
\nconfirming the judgment and decree dated 08.12.1999 passed in O.S.No.118 of 1998
\nby the learned Sub Judge, Pattukkottai, this second appeal is focussed.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.  Despite printing the name
\nof the respondents, no one appeared.  It is an old matter.  Hence, the learned
\nCounsel for the appellant proceeded to argue the matter in entirety.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to according to their
\nlitigative status before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the
\nplaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:
\n\tUnder Ex.A.1, the registered agreement to sell, the first defendant
\nundertook to sell six items of properties set out in the plaint in favour of the
\nplaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.60,000\/-.  Out of the same, a sum
\nof Rs.55,000\/- was received by the first defendant from the plaintiff.
\nSubsequently, the first defendant failed to perform his part of the contract and
\nthereupon, Ex.A.2, the suit notice was issued by the plaintiff which was not
\nreplied by the first defendant.  Whereupon, the suit for specific performance
\nwas filed by the plaintiff as against the first defendant, in addition to the
\nsecond defendant who was also added as one of the defendants on the ground that
\nafter the emergence of Ex.A.1, the first defendant in collusion with the second
\ndefendant effected a make-believe sale transaction in favour of the second
\ndefendant relating to the fifth item of the suit properties.  Even before the
\nemergence of Ex.A.1, the first defendant alienated the second item in favour of
\na third party.  However, the plaintiff restricts his prayer for specific
\nperformance relating to the remaining five items of properties without praying
\nfor proportionate reduction in the sale consideration as agreed under Ex.A.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Denying and disputing, challenging and impugning the
\nallegations\/averments in the plaint, the first defendant filed the written
\nstatement which was adopted by the second defendant, with the averments inter
\nalia thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tEx.A.1 is not a genuine document.  The first defendant did not execute
\nEx.A.1.  The signature found in Ex.A.1 is not his signature.  In fact, there was
\na loan transaction between the first defendant and the plaintiff whereby the
\nplaintiff lent a sum of Rs.50,000\/-.  Subsequently, the first defendant repaid
\nto the tune of Rs.7,000\/- in the form of paddy and thereafter, he repaid another
\nsum of Rs.12,000\/- to the plaintiff, in partial discharge of the loan.  On
\nreceipt of Ex.A.2, the first defendant requested the plaintiff to grant time to
\nrepay the remaining part of the loan for which the plaintiff agreed and granted
\ntime also.  Even thereafter, the first defendant could not honour his promise in
\nrepaying the remaining part of the loan.  Subsequently, the plaintiff misusing
\nthe blank stamped papers which were signed by the first defendant at the time of
\navailing the loan, filed this suit concocting Ex.A.1.  Accordingly, the
\ndefendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The trial Court framed the relevant issues.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to
\nA.4 were marked.  The first defendant examined  himself as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 was
\nmarked.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the prayer for specific
\nperformance.  However, it decreed the suit to the effect that the first
\ndefendant shall repay a sum of Rs.38,000\/- to the plaintiff with interest, even
\nthough the plaintiff has not made any prayer to that effect in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the judgment and decree of
\nthe trial Court, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.15 of 2000 before the Principal
\nDistrict Court, which dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. Challenging the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, the
\nplaintiff filed this second appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernel of
\nthem, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tBoth the Courts below fell into error in not appreciating Ex.A.1, the
\nregistered agreement to sell in proper perspective.  The burden of proof was on
\nthe defendants to prove their plea, but they miserably failed to discharge their
\nburden.  The Courts below have not taken into consideration the purport of
\nSection 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which would clearly contemplate that oral
\nevidence is barred as against the registered document.  The Courts below
\napproached the matter in a tangential manner and dismissed the claim of the
\nplaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. At the time of admitting this second appeal, my learned Predecessor
\nframed the following substantial questions of law:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(i) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in considering the oral
\nevidence contrary to the recitals in Ex.A.1 especially when the lower appellate
\nCourt has found Ex.A.1 as a true document?\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Whether the lower appellate Court in the face of the recitals in
\nEx.A.1, was correct in coming to the conclusion that it is a loan transaction?”\n<\/p>\n
\t12. Both the points are taken together for discussion as they are
\ninterlinked and interwoven with each other.\n<\/p>\n
Point Nos:(i) and (ii)<\/p>\n
\t13. At the outset itself, I would like to observe that the judgment of the
\ntrial Court is far from satisfactory for the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe trial Court simply looked askance at Ex.A.1 as though it is an
\nunregistered document forgetting the presumption as contemplated under the
\nillustration (e) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and the relevant
\nportion is extracted hereunder for ready reference:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Section 114. Court may presume existence of certain facts.- The Court may
\npresume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened,
\nregard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and
\npublic and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
\t…\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Court may presume –\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) That judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;”\n<\/p>\n
\t14. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with the decision of the
\nHonourable Apex Court in Pentakota Satyanarayanan and others v. Pentakota
\nSeetharatnam<\/a> reported in 2006-2-L.W.658, which emerged relating to the
\nregistered will. An excerpt from it, is extracted hereunder:
\n\t“24. It is clear from the definition that the attesting witness must state
\nthat each of the two witnesses has seen the executor sign or affix his mark to
\nthe instrument or has seen some other persons sign the instrument in the
\npresence and by the direction of the executant.  The witness should further
\nstate that each of the attesting witnesses signed the instrument in the presence
\nof the executant.  These are the ingredients of attestation and they have to be
\nproved by the witnesses.  The word ‘execution’ in Section 68 includes
\nattestation as required by law.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. A perusal of Ex.B9(in original) would show that the signatures of the
\nRegistering Officer and of the identifying witnesses affixed to the registration
\nendorsement were in our opinion, sufficient attestation within the meaning of
\nthe Act.  The endorsement by the sub-registrar that the executant has
\nacknowledged before him execution did also amount to attestation.  In the
\noriginal document the executants signature was taken by the sub-registrar.  The
\nsignature and thumb impression of the identifying witnesses were also taken in
\nthe document.  After all this, the sub-registrar signed the deed.  Unlike other
\ndocuments the Will speaks from the death of the testator and so, when it is
\npropounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the
\nworld cannot say whether it is his Will or not and this aspect naturally
\nintroduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether
\nthe document propounded is proved to be the last Will and the testament of
\ndeparted testator.”\n<\/p>\n
\t15. It is a trite proposition of law that a will should be proved strictly
\nas per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act by examining the attesting
\nwitnesses.  Even in such cases, their Lordships of the Honourable Apex Court in
\nthe cited decision held that once it is a registered will, the propounder of the
\nwill is relieved of his liability to prove it to some extent in view of the
\nillustration (e) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. Whereas here, Ex.A.1
\nis only an agreement to sell which is a duly registered one.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Forgetting for the moment that at the back of the first sheet of
\nEx.A.1, the thumb impression of the first defendant is found.  If really, the
\nfirst defendant’s contention was true that the first defendant was impersonated
\nbefore the Registrar’s office, he could have taken steps to get Ex.A.1 sent to
\nthe expert concerned to verify the thumb impression.  It is common knowledge
\nthat the defendant could have very easily proved that his purported thumb
\nimpression was a fabricated one if at all, his plea was true and germane.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. It cannot be visualised that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff
\nto send the document to the expert so as to prove that the thumb impression in
\nEx.A.1 was that of the first defendant, Ex.A.1 is a registered document and over
\nand above that, P.W.2 one of the witnesses to Ex.A.1 was also examined who
\nclearly deposed that it was he who attested it, after  witnessing D.1 signing
\nit.  It is not readily known as to how the first defendant’s signatures in the
\nblank papers could have been converted into Ex.A.1, the registered document
\nwithout impersonation of the first defendant.  There is no plea of impersonation
\ntaken by the defendants.  If really, there was any such impersonation, it is not
\nknown as to why the first defendant on receipt of Ex.A.2, did not lodge any
\ncomplaint with the police.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Hence, it is obvious that the plea of the first defendant is totally
\nuntenable and it is turned to be false also in view of the discussions supra.
\nThe first appellate Court correctly appreciated the purport of Ex.A.1, but it
\nfell into error in some other aspects.  Once the burden of proof got shifted
\nfrom the plaintiff’s side to the defendants’ side as it is well known that the
\nburden of proof is ambulatory, the first defendant should have discharged his
\nburden, but he failed to do so.  Except the ipsi dixit of the first defendant,
\nthere is nothing on record to demonstrate that Ex.A.1 is a concocted document.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The core question arises as to what are all the legal consequences and
\nvalidity attached to Ex.A.1, the registered agreement to sell.  It is quite
\nobvious that Ex.A.1 is enforceable legally, but the first appellate Court after
\narriving at the finding that Ex.A.1 was a genuine document, turned turtle by
\nlooking askance at the very nature of the transaction, which was got embodied in
\nEx.A.1 and that too by referring to some admissions of P.W.1 relating to earlier
\ntransactions which was also one relating to an agreement to sell.  No doubt, the
\nearlier agreement to sell was not produced before the Court by the plaintiff.
\nBut, P.W.1 in his deposition would candidly admit that relating to the earlier
\ntransaction, there was some delay in payment, subsequently, that amount was
\ndischarged by the first defendant and that transaction was over.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. Whereas the defendants would contend that the first defendant is yet
\nto pay a sum of Rs.38,000\/- under that earlier transaction and because of that
\nalone, this suit emerged.  If that be so, the defendants should have sent a
\nreply in response to Ex.A.2 but he did not do so.  The pre-suit notice should be
\nresponded properly, but in this case, for reasons best known to the first
\ndefendant, there was no response.  However, in order to gloss over his own
\nfault, he dished out a theory as though the plaintiff sought time to discharge
\nthe loan.  But, there is no evidence in that regard.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. It is clear from the statement of the first and second defendants that
\nafter the emergence of Ex.A.1, the first defendant sold the item 5 of the suit
\nproperty in favour of the second defendant who is admittedly his brother-in-law.
\nThe plaintiff is right in contending that the said sale effected by the first
\ndefendant in favour of the second defendant  relating to the item 5, should be
\nignored even though the sale relating to item 2 cannot be ignored which emerged
\nanterior to Ex.A.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. Furthermore, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff would fairly submit
\nthat the plaintiff is not seeking for reducing proportionately the sale price
\nconcerning the second item of the suit property.  The second defendant has not
\nchosen to figure himself as one of the witnesses.  It is a trite proposition of
\nlaw that the second defendant, the alleged purchaser of the item 5 cannot plead
\nanything apart from the one that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without
\nnotice.  In this connection, the decision in Arunachala Thevar and others v.
\nGovindarajan Chettiar and others<\/a> reported in 1977 (2) M.L.J 431 could fruitfully
\nbe referred to, which would highlight as to who could be termed as bona fide
\npurchaser for value without notice of prior agreement to sell.  An excerpt from
\nit, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“7. Now we shall find out the legal position with reference to the burden
\nof proof that is expected from either of the parties.  Section 19, clauses (a)
\nand (b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, reads as follows:-
\n\t“Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, specific performance of a
\ncontract may be enforced against-\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) either party thereto; (b) any other person claiming under him by a
\ntitle arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who
\nhas paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract
\n……..”\n<\/p>\n
These clauses of Section 19 of the New Act corresponded to clauses (a) and (b)
\nof Section 27 of the old Specific Relief Act.  On a plain reading of the above
\nclauses, it appears that clause (a) only lays down the general principle that it
\nis only a party to the contract who can be sued.  In other words, this clause
\nrecognises and follows the general rule that a stranger to the contract is not a
\nproper or necessary party to a suit to enforce it; but clause (b) provides
\nexceptions to the general rule, according to which a subsequent purchaser, in
\norder to successfully resist a suit for specific performance of a prior
\nagreement for sale, must establish that he is a purchaser for value without
\nnotice of the general agreement of sale and he paid the consideration money for
\nthe sale before he had notice of the prior agreement.  Clause (b) of Section 19
\nrequires four elements to be proved to successfully claim the benefit of the
\nexception, viz.,\n<\/p>\n
\t1. that the transfer is for value;\n<\/p>\n
\t2. that the consideration has been paid;\n<\/p>\n
\t3. that the subsequent transferee has taken the transfer in good faith;
\nand\n<\/p>\n
\t4. that both the purchase and the payment of the consideration had been
\nmade without notice of the prior contract. The first two elements are positive
\nand the rest are negative in character.  Clause (b) lays stress upon the payment
\nof money by the transferee in good faith and without notice of the original
\ncontract, and does not go further.  It contemplates a transferee who has got a
\ndocument executed, who had paid the money in good faith and without notice and
\nwho gets the document registered in accordance with law, giving retrospective
\neffect to the transaction from the date of execution.  Thus, where a buyer paid
\nfull money before the date of the execution of the deed in good faith and before
\nthe receipt of the notice of the contract of sale from a buyer, he is a
\ntransferee in law from the date of execution of the conveyance within the
\nmeaning of Section 19 (b) of the Act and the transferee is protected.”\n<\/p>\n
\t24. Curiously enough the second defendant has not chosen to prove his plea
\nand speak about it by entering into the witness box.  Simply because both the
\nCourts below had some suspicion based on the evidence of P.W.2 that P.W.1 was a
\nmoney-lender, there is no presumption that Ex.A.1 should be considered only as a
\nsecurity document for a loan transaction.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. Merely based on subjective satisfaction and suspicion, a judgment
\nshould not be rendered, but it should be based on sound principles of law and
\nlegally admissible evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. My discussion supra would highlight as to how oblivious of the
\nprovisions of the Indian Evidence Act, the Courts below simply based on some
\nsubjective satisfaction, dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that, the judgments and decrees
\nof both the Courts below are perverse and accordingly, they are liable to be set
\naside and the suit has to be decreed for specific performance relating to the
\nitems 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 except item 2.  The remaining part of the sale
\nconsideration, if not already deposited, shall be deposited within a period of
\ntwo months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. The substantial question of law No.(i) is decided to the effect that
\nCourts below were not correct in law in considering oral evidence contrary to
\nthe recitals in Ex.A.1 especially when the lower appellate Court has found
\nEx.A.1 as a true document.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. The substantial question of law No.(ii) is decided to the effect that
\nthe lower appellate Court in the face of the recitals in Ex.A.1, was not correct
\nin coming to the conclusion that it is a loan transaction.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. In the result, the second appeal is allowed, setting aside the
\njudgments and decrees of both the Courts below and the original suit is decreed
\nfor specific performance relating to all the items of the suit property except
\nitem 2.  The parties shall bear their costs throughout.\n<\/p>\n
rsb<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Principal District Judge, Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Sub Judge, Pattukkottai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Sukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22\/04\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A.No.410 of 2001 Sukumaran … Appellant\/Appellant\/Plaintiff Vs 1.Panneerselvam 2.Ayyasami … Respondents\/Respondents\/Defendants Prayer Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree […]<\/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-89077","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008 - 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\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-27T15:29:11+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-27T15:29:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":3011,\"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\\\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Sukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-27T15:29:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Sukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008 - 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\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-27T15:29:11+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-27T15:29:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2"},"wordCount":3011,"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\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2","name":"Sukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-27T15:29:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sukumaran-vs-panneerselvam-on-22-april-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sukumaran vs Panneerselvam on 22 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/89077","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=89077"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89077\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89077"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89077"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89077"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}