{"id":9622,"date":"2010-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-09T00:32:22","modified_gmt":"2018-06-08T19:02:22","slug":"tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED:  24.11.2010\n\nCORAM:\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE  V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH\n\nCIVIL REVISION PETITION (NPD) No.581 OF 2005\nand\nC.M.P.No.6216  of  2005\n\nTmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu \t\t\t\t ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n1. S. Krishnan\n2. Aswini\n3. Yadhava Kumar\n4. Priya\n5. Raju Kumar\n6. Ramakrishnan\n7. Vijayalakshmi\n8. A.Shanmugasundarakone\n9. M\/s.Brick and Walls,\n   represented by Ramesh\n10. Subramani\n11. J.Pitchayya\n12. Aswini\n13. Yadhava Kumar\n14. Priya\n\n(Respondents\/Defendants 12 to 14, \nL.R's of the deceased 1st defendant,\nimpleaded as per order in I.A.\nNo.12331\/2002 dated 27.9.2002)\n\n(Respondents 9 & 12 to 14\nare given up in this petition).          \t\t  .. Respondents\n\n\n\n                \n\tCivil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the  order and decretal order dated 7.2.2005 passed in I.A.No.1046\/2005 in O.S.No.4604\/1994 on the file of learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,  Madras.\n\n          \t\t  For petitioner    :  Mr. R.C.Manoharan\n\n\t\t \t  For respondents: Mrs. Radhika Krishnan\n\t\t\t\t\t          for M\/s.Sarvabhauman Associates\n\n\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\t    This Revision has been filed by the petitioner against the  order  of dismissal dated 7.2.2005 passed in I.A.No.1046\/2005 in O.S.No.4604\/1994 on the file of learned XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,  Madras, an application to amend the plaint with the relief of mandatory injunction.\n<\/p>\n
\t     2.   Heard the submissions of Mr.R.C.Manoharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Radhika Krishnan,  learned counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t 3.  The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit in his arguments that  the lower Court had come to the conclusion of  rejecting the plea of amending the plaint with the relief of mandatory injunction as barred by limitation which is premature.   He would further submit  in his arguments that  when the petitioner filed the suit for specific performance, admittedly construction has been erected during the pendency of the suit and it is affected by an    order likely to be passed in the suit and therefore  there is no question of limitation applicable to the suit and hence the lower Court ought to have found that the law  of  limitation would not be applicable to the present  relief.   He  would  also submit that the lower  Court  could have even permitted the petitioner\/plaintiff to amend the plaint  subject to the consideration of law of limitation while disposing of the suit,  but  it had not been not done so.   He would therefore request this  Court to interfere with the order passed by the  lower  Court  and to allow  the  revision.\n<\/p>\n
\t      4.  The learned counsel for the respondents would submit in her arguments that the petitioner had asked for an amendment in the plaint including the prayer for mandatory injunction to remove the superstructures.   She would further submit that the petitioner  after having waited for nine years, had  prayed  for mandatory injunction  which would amount to separate cause of action and the available right of the respondents is affected by such inclusion of the prayer of mandatory injunction and the lower Court is right in rejecting the relief at the threshold and therefore there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court.    She would also submit in     her arguments that the principle of granting of inclusion of the  prayer of mandatory injunction  to the petitioner\/plaintiff  against the construction  during the pendency of the suit is not applicable to the present case, since the petitioner’s counsel was quiet throughout  knowing well about the construction made in the suit property.   She would also draw the attention of this  Court about the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.(PD).No.2148 of 2004, dated  28.12.2004, in an earlier occasion, directing the lower Court to reconsider the plea of amendment of mandatory injunction as to the law of  limitation and pass orders within one month.    She would further submit that in accordance with the directions, the lower Court had considered the plea of amendment of mandatory injunction and the lower Court  had  found that the said  plea  of  law  of  limitation is not  within the period of time and therefore it had rejected the petition for amendment of the prayer  of mandatory  injunction.   She would  further  submit  that the revision  cannot  be  entertained at this stage to question the order passed by the  lower Court and she would  also  request this Court  to dismiss the revision.\n<\/p>\n
\t     5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side.\n<\/p>\n
\t     6. The admitted facts  are that the petitioner had filed the suit for specific performance of the contract  said to have been entered in between the petitioner and the defendants and had prayed for execution of  sale  deed and for other reliefs.   The reliefs sought for in the plaint  are  as  follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“(a) for specific performance of the contract for sale pursuant to the receipt of the entire sale consideration of  Rs.50,000\/- and issued a receipt on 28.11.1992 by the 10th defendant on behalf of the 1st defendant representing for himself and on behalf of the defendants 2 to 9 and to compel  them to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit property  Plot No.21 in Seetharam Nagar  Layout at  Velachery in favour of the plaintiff or in the name of her nominees at the cost of the Plaintiff.   In default, this Hon’ble Court itself may execute and register the    Sale Deed on behalf of the defendants 1 to 9 in favour of the plaintiff or her nominee;\n<\/p>\n
(b)  for a permanent injunction restraining the 11th defendant or his men or agent or any persons claiming or acting under him  from  transferring, alienating or encumbering the suit property in any manner to third parties;\n<\/p>\n
(c)  for  the cost  of  the suit;  and <\/p>\n
(d) for such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court  may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus  render  justice.”\n<\/p>\n
           7. Now, the petitioner had come forward with an application to include the prayer of mandatory injunction to demolish the superstructure put up by the 11th defendant in the suit property during the pendency of the suit and the said application was dismissed by the lower Court.   The earlier revision preferred by the petitioner  was also ordered with a direction to the lower Court to consider the plea of mandatory  injunction sought for by the petitioner as to law of limitation and to pass orders.   The lower Court  had accordingly considered  and  had  found  that  the prayer  for  mandatory injunction is not within the period of  limitation and therefore the relief of mandatory injunction was not ordered to be included in the prayer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t    8.  It is not disputed that the constructions were put up by the 11th defendant in the year 1995.   The petitioner\/plaintiff had sought for inclusion of the relief  only in the year 2004.   The lower Court had found that the period of  limitation sought for to include the prayer of mandatory injunction would  be  three years from the date of cause of action and therefore it had come to the conclusion that the prayer     is  not  within  the  period  of  limitation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t     9.  It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner  that in a suit for specific performance, the petitioner is entitled to seek for possession after execution of         sale deed and she had not prayed for any relief of possession of the suit property by amending or including the prayer for possession     as per  Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act and therefore the prayer of mandatory injunction, which is inclusive of prayer of possession, can also be granted and the reasoning given by the lower Court for not entertaining the plea of mandatory injunction cannot be sustained.   This argument of the petitioner could have been considered only at the time of disposal of the suit depending upon the inclusion of prayer  for possession of the suit property as per    Section 22 of the Specific Relief  Act, in the event of granting the relief of specific performance.  However, the prayer of mandatory injunction cannot be considered at the time of passing of such an order if the prayer for possession has not been included and ordering for specific performance in the event of mandatory injunction has    not been prayed for.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t10. The right of the petitioner would be defeated in the event of the relief  of inclusion of prayer of  mandatory injunction is not permitted  by amending the plaint.   At the same time, the right accrued to the respondents\/defendants was not also be taken away by permitting the petitioner to amend the plaint for including the prayer of mandatory injunction and therefore suitable directions shall be issued to the lower Court for considering such defence of the respondents\/defendants  to be raised on their behalf.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t     11.  Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to permit the petitioner to amend the plaint  as sought for in the application filed for that purpose subject to the law of limitation, which is to be decided by the trial Court at the time of disposal of  the  suit.   On such amendment, the respondents\/defendants  would be given an opportunity to raise  their defence regarding the law of  limitation along with other pleas likely to be taken by way of  filing  additional written statement and thereafter to proceed with framing of additional issues.   The lower Court is also directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three months from the date of settling the additional issues.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Civil Revision Petition  is  allowed and the impugned order dated 7.2.2005 passed by the learned  XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in I.A.No.1046\/2005 in O.S.No.4604\/1994 is set aside.    There shall be no order as to costs.  Consequently, CMP.No.6216 of 2005 is  closed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
vks<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The  Registrar,
\nCity Civil Court,
\nChennai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.11.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION (NPD) No.581 OF 2005 and C.M.P.No.6216 of 2005 Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. S. Krishnan 2. Aswini 3. Yadhava […]<\/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-9622","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nTmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010 - 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\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-08T19:02:22+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\\\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T19:02:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1489,\"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\\\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-08T19:02:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010 - 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\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-08T19:02:22+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\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T19:02:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010"},"wordCount":1489,"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\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010","name":"Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-08T19:02:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/tmt-lalitha-anthony-muthu-vs-s-krishnan-on-24-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Tmt. Lalitha Anthony Muthu vs S. Krishnan on 24 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/9622","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=9622"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9622\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9622"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9622"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9622"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}