{"id":106228,"date":"1990-02-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-02-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990"},"modified":"2015-05-11T20:39:38","modified_gmt":"2015-05-11T15:09:38","slug":"chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990","title":{"rendered":"Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing … vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing … vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 642, \t\t 1990 SCR (1) 272<\/div>\n
Author: L Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: Sharma, L.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, MADRAS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nT.N. GANAPATHY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT07\/02\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR  642\t\t  1990 SCR  (1) 272\n 1990 SCC  (1) 608\t  JT 1990 (1)\t172\n 1990 SCALE  (1)134\n\n\nACT:\n    Code  of  Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule  8  --Suit\nfiled  in representative capacity--Interest to be common  or\ncommon grievance to be redressed--Persons need not have same\ncause of action.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    In pursuance of a Housing Scheme the Tamil Nadu  Housing\nBoard,\tMadras had allotted residential plots over the\tland\nacquired under the Land Acquisition Act, to different groups\nof  applicants including the low-income group on  terms\t and\nconditions stipulated in the lease deed Exh. B-3 sometime in\nthe  year 1963. After a lapse of more than a decade  of\t the\nallotment,  fresh  demands were made from the  allottees  in\n1975.  Objecting to the same, the respondent herein filed  a\nsuit  for  self and on behalf of all the allottees  of\tlow-\nincome group settled in the Colony named Ashok Nagar,  pray-\ning  for a permanent injunction restraining the\t Board\tfrom\nenforcing the demand.\n    The defendant-Board questioned the very  maintainability\nof  the suit in a representative capacity and  also  pleaded\nthat it was entitled to finally determine the correct prices\nfor  the plots after taking into account the final award  of\nthe compensation for acquired land and until then the prices\nwere  tentative. The trial court negatived the objection  to\nthe maintainability of the suit but dismissed it on  merits.\nThe  first appellate court confirmed the decree.  On  second\nappeal,\t the High Court reversed the finding on merits.\t The\nHigh  Court held that it was open to the Board to  determine\nwithin a reasonable time what portion of the demand included\nthe excess on account of compensation awarded by the  courts\nfor  acquisition  of  the land and realize  the\t same  after\nserving fresh demand notices. But since the impugned  demand\nincluded both the excess amount of compensation as also\t the\nadditional  developmental charges injunction was granted  in\nregard\tto  the entire demand as the two  amounts  were\t not\nseparately  mentioned. Dismissing the appeal of\t the  Board,\nthis Court,\n    HELD:  The\tprovisions of Order 1 of Rule  8  have\tbeen\nincluded  in the Code in the public interest so as to  avoid\nmultiplicity  of  litigation. The  condition  necessary\t for\napplication of the provisions is that the\n273\npersons on whose behalf the suit is being brought must\thave\nthe  same interest. In other words either the interest\tmust\nbe  common or they must have a common grievance\t which\tthey\nseek to get redressed. [276C-D]\n    The\t Court,\t while considering whether leave  under\t the\nRule should be granted or not, should examine whether  there\nis sufficient community of interest to justify the  adoption\nof the procedure provided under the Rule. [276E]\n    Persons who may be represented in a suit under Order  I,\nRule 8 need not have the same cause of action. [277F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3002  of
\n1983.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  20.8.1982  of\t the
\nMadras High Court in S.A. No. 83 of ‘1982.\n<\/p>\n
    G. Ramaswamy (N.P.), Mrs. Anjani and K. Ramkumar for the
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
P.S. Poti and K.V. Sreekumar for the Respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SHARMA, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of  a
\nsuit filed by the respondent in representative capacity\t for
\npermanent injunction against the appellant Tamil Nadu  Hous-
\ning  Board from demanding and collecting from the  allottees
\nany additional amount for settlement of lands with buildings
\nin the colony Ashok Nagar fully described in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
    2. In pursuance of a Housing Scheme the  appellant-Board
\nproceeded  to settle a large number of residential plots  to
\ndifferent  groups of applicants including one  described  as
\nlow-income  group.  A  number of  allottees,  including\t the
\nplaintiff-respondent, were selected and settlement in  their
\nfavour\twas  made in 1963.A copy of  the  document  executed
\nseparately in respect to the plots is on the record of\tthis
\ncase  as Exh. B-3, setting out the terms and  conditions  of
\nthe  lease. The term as mentioned in the 15th clause,  which
\nis  quoted  below, has been referred to by  the\t parties  in
\nsupport of their respective cases:\n<\/p>\n
“15. The Lessor agrees to sell the property more particu-\n<\/p>\n
274<\/span><\/p>\n
larly described in the schedule hereunder to the Lessee\t for
\nsuch  price as the Administrative Officer of the Lessor\t may
\nat  any time in his sole discretion fix, and at\t which\ttime
\nthe  Administrative  Officer of the Lessor  is\tentitled  to
\nconsider  details  regarding development  charges,  cost  of
\namenities, cost of buildings, etc., and whether the price of
\nthe  land acquired under the Land Acquisition  Act  together
\nwith  suitable modifications thereto by the local  laws\t has
\nbecome\tfinal  by a conclusive adjudication thereon  by\t the
\nconcerned  Tribunals and Courts. The final decision  of\t the
\nAdministrative\tOfficer of the Lessor as to the final  price
\nof  the property as determined under these presents is\tcon-
\nclusive\t and binding on the Lessee and the Lessee agrees  to
\npurchase  the property from the Lessor at the said price  on
\nthe terms and conditions hereinafter mentioned.
\n\t  Excepting the fixation of price with reference  to
\nthe  claim or compensation adjudicated or awarded by  courts
\nfinally\t and conclusively with regard to the lands  acquired
\nunder  the  scheme, the Lessor shall fix the  price  of\t the
\nproperty  after\t taking into consideration  the\t development
\ncharges,  cost\tof amenities and buildings  etc..  within  a
\nperiod\tof three years from the date of allotment and  which
\nprice  is  subject only to a revision on account  of  excess
\ncompensation  if  any  awarded by courts for  the  lands  as
\naforesaid.”\n<\/p>\n
Tentative  price  for the property was fixed, subject  to  a
\nfinal  determination  within a stipulated period  under\t the
\nagreement and the allottees occupied the properties on\tthat
\nbasis.\tAfter  a lapse of more than a decade  fresh  demands
\nwere made in 1975 threatening dispossession in case of\tnon-
\npayment,  which led to the filing of the suit. It is  stated
\nin  the plaint that the cases of all the allottees  in\tlow-
\nincome\tgroup of Ashok Nagar made under the lease deeds\t are
\nidentical and the plaintiff was representing them in  asking
\nfor permanent injunction restraining the Board from  enforc-
\ning the belated supplementary demands.\n<\/p>\n
    3.\tBesides,  objecting to the  maintainability  of\t the
\nsuit,  the defendant-Board pleaded that it was\tentitled  in
\nlaw  to finally determine the correct price for the  settle-
\nment  of the properties even belatedly, and  the  challenged
\ndemands\t were perfectly valid. It was stated that  the\tland
\nfor the scheme had been acquired under the provisions of the
\nLand Acquisition Act, and until the final award of the
\n275<\/span>
\ncompensation  for the acquired lands was made, the value  of
\nthe  lands was not capable of being ascertained.  The  trial
\ncourt overruled the technical pleas, but, dismissed the suit
\non merits. The first appellate court confirmed the decree.\n<\/p>\n
    4.\tThe  plaintiff filed a second appeal to\t the  Madras
\nHigh Court, and the Housing Board a cross-objection  against
\nthe  adverse findings. The High Court while  confirming\t the
\nmaintainability\t of the suit reversed the finding on  merits
\nand passed a decree. The impugned demand included the excess
\ncompensation  awarded by courts for acquisition of the\tland
\nas  also  the  development charges, cost  of  amenities\t and
\nbuildings,  etc., without splitting up the two demands.\t The
\nHigh  Court held that it was open to the Board to  determine
\nwithin\ta  reasonable time what portion\t of  the  additional
\ndemand\trepresented the excess compensation awarded for\t the
\nlands and to take steps for its realisation after service of
\na  demand notice on the allottee, but, granted a decree\t for
\ninjunction  in\tregard to the entire demand at\tthe  present
\nstage as the two amounts have not been separately mentioned.\n<\/p>\n
    5. The learned counsel for the appellant has pressed two
\npoints in support of the appeal, namely, the decision of the
\nHigh  Court  on the merits of the dispute is  erroneous\t and
\nthat the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of  Civil
\nProcedure  in any event are not applicable to the  case\t and
\nthe suit, as a representative suit, is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
    6.\tThe second paragraph of clause 15 of the lease\tdeed
\nexplicitly  directs the Board to assess the final amount  on
\naccount\t of the development charges, cost of  amenities\t and
\nbuildings, etc. within a period of three years from the date
\nof the allotment, and there does not appear to be any reason
\nfor construing the provisions differently. The High Court at
\nconsiderable length considered this aspect, pointing out the
\nunexplained long delay of about a decade after completion of
\nthe constructions, etc. on the part of the Board. There\t was
\nno  difficulty\tat all in making the  final  calculation  in
\ntime, and taking steps for recovery of the same. We entirely
\nagree  with the view of the High Court. ‘The Court was\talso
\nright  in  permitting the Board to make a  fresh  additional
\ndemand in regard to the enhancement in the compensation\t for
\nthe  acquired  lands  and the respondents do  not  have\t any
\nobjection to that part.\n<\/p>\n
    7.\tOn the question of maintainability of the suit in  a
\nrepresentative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of
\nCivil Procedure, it has been contended that since the injury
\ncomplained of is in regard to
\n276<\/span>
\ndemand\tof money and that too by a separate  demand  against
\neach’  of the allottees, giving rise to different causes  of
\naction,\t the  Rule 1 has application.  The  learned  counsel
\nproceeded  to say that it is not known whether each  of\t the
\nallottees in Ashok Nagar had been even served with an  addi-
\ntional demand before the suit was filed; and further  empha-
\nsised  that those who had been so served are  interested  in
\ndefeating only the demand individually referable to each  of
\nthem. Each one of them is not interested in what happens  to
\nthe  others. It is, therefore, suggested that only  such  of
\nthe  allottees who have already been served with  additional
\ndemands\t are  entitled to maintain an action in\t court,\t and
\nthey  also should do it by filing separate suits. We do\t not
\nfind any merit in the argument. The provisions of Order 1 of
\nRule 8 have been included in the Code in the public interest
\nso  as\tto avoid multiplicity of litigation.  The  condition
\nnecessary  for\tapplication of the provisions  is  that\t the
\npersons on whose behalf the suit is being brought must have
\nthe  same interest. In other words either the interest\tmust
\nbe  common or they must have a common grievances which\tthey
\nseek  to  get  redressed. In Kodia Goundar  and\t Another  v.
\nVelandi\t Goundar  and others, |LR 1955 Madras  339,  a\tFull
\nBench  of the Madras High Court observed that on  the  plain
\nlanguage  of Order 1, Rule 8, the principal  requirement  to
\nbring a suit within that Rule is the sameness of interest of
\nthe numerous person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the
\nsuit  is  instituted. The Court, while\tconsidering  whether
\nleave under the Rule should be granted or not, should  exam-
\nine  whether  there is sufficient community of\tinterest  to
\njustify\t the  adoption of the procedure provided  under\t the
\nRule.  The  object for which this provision  is\t enacted  is
\nreally. to facilitate the decision of questions, in which  a
\nlarge number of persons are interested, without recourse  to
\nthe  ordinary  procedure.  The\tprovision  must,  therefore,
\nreceive an interpretation which will subserve the object for
\nits  enactment. There are no words in the Rule to limit\t its
\nscope  to any particular category of suits or to  exclude  a
\nsuit in regard to a claim for money or for injunction as the
\npresent one.\n<\/p>\n
    8.\tComing to the relevant circumstances in the  present
\ncase it will be seen that all the allotments in Ashok  Nagar
\nwere  made under the same Scheme and all the relevant  facts
\nare  common. The basis of the impugned demand of the  appel-
\nlant is equally applicable to all the allottees and the plea
\nof  the\t plaintiff is available to all of  them.  The  trial
\ncourt  was,  therefore, perfectly right\t in  permitting\t the
\nplaintiff  to proceed under Order 1, Rule 8 of the  Code  of
\nCivil  Procedure. Nobody in this situation can\tcomplain  of
\nany  inconvenience  or\tinjustice. On the  other  hand,\t the
\nappellant is being saved from being
\n277<\/span>
\ninvolved in unnecessary repeated litigation.\n<\/p>\n
    9.\tIt is true that each of the allottees is  interested
\nindividually  in fighting out the demand separately made  or
\ngoing to be made on him and, thus, separate causes of action
\narise  in the case, but, that does not make Order 1. Rule  8
\ninapplicable.  Earlier there was some doubt about  the\tRule
\ncovering  such\ta  case which now stands  clarified  by\t the
\nExplanation  introduced\t by  the  Code\tof  Civil  Procedure
\n(Amendment) Act, 1976, which reads as follows:
\n“Explanation–For  the\tpurpose of determining\twhether\t the
\npersons who sue or are sued, or defend, have the same inter-
\nest in one suit, it is not necessary to establish that\tsuch
\npersons\t have  the same cause of action as  the\t persons  on
\nwhose behalf, or for whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or
\ndefend the suit, as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
The objects and reasons for the amendment were stated below:
\n“OBJECTS AND REASONS: Clause  55;  sub-clause (iv),–Rule  8
\nof Order 1 deals with representative suits. Under this rule,
\nwhere there are numerous persons having the same interest in
\none  suit, one or more of them may, with the  permission  of
\nthe  Court,  sue or be sued, on behalf of all of  them.\t The
\nrule has created a doubt as to whether the party  represent-
\ning  others  should  have the same cause of  action  as\t the
\npersons represented by him. The rule is being substituted by
\na new rule and an explanation is being added to clarify that
\nsuch persons need not have the same cause of action.”
\nThere  is, therefore, no doubt that the persons who  may  be
\nrepresented  in a suit under Order 1, Rule 8 need  not\thave
\nthe  same  cause of action. The trial court in\tthe  present
\ncase was right in permitting the respondent to sue on behalf
\nof  all the allottees of Ashok Nagar. We, therefore, do\t not
\nfind any merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs.
\nBefore closing, however, we would like to point out that the
\nplaintiff has represented only those in the low income group
\nin  Ashok Nagar who will be governed by this  judgment,\t and
\nnothing\t what has been said or decided in this case  is\t ap-
\nplicable to any other group or colony.\n<\/p>\n
R.N.J.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n278<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing … vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 642, 1990 SCR (1) 272 Author: L Sharma Bench: Sharma, L.M. (J) PETITIONER: CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, MADRAS Vs. RESPONDENT: T.N. GANAPATHY DATE OF JUDGMENT07\/02\/1990 BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) RAMASWAMY, […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106228","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChairman, Tamil Nadu Housing ... vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990 - 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\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing ... vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990\" \/>\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=\"1990-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-11T15:09:38+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing … vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-11T15:09:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990\"},\"wordCount\":1954,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990\",\"name\":\"Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing ... vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-02-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-11T15:09:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing … vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990\"}]},{\"@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":"Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing ... vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990 - 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\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing ... vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-11T15:09:38+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing … vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990","datePublished":"1990-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-11T15:09:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990"},"wordCount":1954,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990","name":"Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing ... vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-02-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-11T15:09:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-tamil-nadu-housing-vs-t-n-ganapathy-on-7-february-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing … vs T.N. Ganapathy on 7 February, 1990"}]},{"@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\/106228","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=106228"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106228\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106228"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106228"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106228"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}