{"id":113039,"date":"2009-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009"},"modified":"2019-02-07T21:31:28","modified_gmt":"2019-02-07T16:01:28","slug":"chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 07\/10\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nCRP(MD)No.1396 of 2008\nMP.NO.1\/2008\n\nChinnathurai\t\t\t\t\tpetitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.Pitchumani Pattar\n2.Gandhimathi\t\t\t\t\tRespondents\n\nPrayer\n\nThis Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal\norder passed in RCA.No.37\/2004 dated 23.6.2008 passed by the learned Rent\nControl Appellate Authority (Principal  Sub Court) Tirunelveli confirming the\nfair and decretal order in RCOP.No.9\/2003 dated 8.3.2004 passed by the Rent\nController (Principal District Munsif) Tirunelveli.\n\n!For Petitioner\t...\tMr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram\n^For Respondent\t...\tMr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p> \t\tThe tenant is the revision petitioner.  This Civil Revision Petition<br \/>\nhas arisen out of the proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent<br \/>\nControl) Act ((herein after referred to as the Act) for eviction of the<br \/>\npetitioner from the property belongs to the respondents\/landlord under Sections<br \/>\n10(2)(i), 10(2)(iii)(a) and 10(3)(a)(iii). The Rent Controller ordered eviction<br \/>\nonly on the ground under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) and dismissed the petition as<br \/>\nregards to other two grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The petition mentioned premises is a non residential one and the<br \/>\npetitioner is carrying on tailoring business in the name and style of<br \/>\nM\/s.T.S.Tailors on a monthly rent of Rs.500\/- at Door No.26, I Floor, Swami<br \/>\nSannathi St, Tirunelveli Town. The petitioner committed default in payment of<br \/>\nrent from January 2001 to December 2002 and there is a default of Rs.12000\/-.<br \/>\nThe 1st respondent is the landlord and father of the 2nd respondent.  The 2nd<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s son i.e. the grandson of the 1st respondent is without any<br \/>\nemployment and therefore, the landlord requires the petition mentioned premises<br \/>\nfor running a xerox shop and a public STD Booth.  They have taken steps to<br \/>\ninstall a xerox shop and STD Booth.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.  The petitioner\/tenant resisted the claim made by the respondents<br \/>\nstating that the landlord refused to receive the rent in the month of June 2001<br \/>\nwith the sole intention to get enhanced rent and that necessitated the<br \/>\npetitioner to send the rent through money order and when the same was refused,<br \/>\nthe petitioner sent a notice through his lawyer to specify the bank so as to<br \/>\nenable the petitioner to deposit the rent and as there was no response, he took<br \/>\nsteps to deposit the rent into the court by filing a petition in RCOP.No.91\/2001<br \/>\nand the same is pending. So he contended that there is no default much less<br \/>\nwillful default.  It is also stated by him that the 1st respondent&#8217;s grandson is<br \/>\nworking as an Archakar in the Swami Nellaiappar Temple, Tirunelveli. Except the<br \/>\npetition mentioned premises which is of an extent of 5&#215;5  the other portions are<br \/>\nin the occupation of the landlord and that apart, the respondents owns a<br \/>\nbuilding at Door No.33 which is a few feet away from the petition mentioned<br \/>\npremises and therefore, there is no bona fide in the requirement of the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4. The 1st respondent&#8217;s grandson Sundaram has been examined as PW.1.<br \/>\nEx.P1 is the catalogue and the quotation for purchase of xerox machine. Ex.P2 is<br \/>\nthe receipt issued for the deposit made for installing a STD Booth. Ex.P3 shows<br \/>\nthe deposit made by the landlord for starting the business. Ex.P4 is the<br \/>\nphotograph showing the petition mentioned premises. On the side of the tenant,<br \/>\nthe petitioner has examined himself as RW.1 and had acquired one Parameswara<br \/>\nPattar as RW.2 and the Manager of Tamil daily &#8216;Dinamalar&#8217; as RW.3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.  After considering the submissions made by the both sides and in<br \/>\nthe light of the material evidence available on record, the Rent Controller<br \/>\nordered eviction only on the ground of requirement of premises for own<br \/>\noccupation and the same was confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.  \tThe learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Sundaram,<br \/>\nthe grandson of the respondent is employed as Archakar in Nellaippar Temple and<br \/>\ntherefore, eviction sought for on the said ground is not bona fide.  Admittedly,<br \/>\nthere is no evidence to show that Sundaram is permanently employed as an<br \/>\narchakar in Nellaippar Swami Temple.  Even assuming that he has participated in<br \/>\nsome temple festival as archakar, the same would not establish that he is<br \/>\npermanently employed in Nellaippar Temple.  Had he been employed, certainly<br \/>\nthere would be some documents to prove the same, but no such material is<br \/>\nproduced before the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. Apart from the petition shop, the other portion is a residential<br \/>\nportion and the other building which the petitioner has referred is also only a<br \/>\nresidential building.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6. It is held by the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered<br \/>\nin the case of V.Radhakrishnan Vs. S.N.Loganatha Mudaliar (1991-1-MLJ-SC-1) that<br \/>\nthe owner can seek eviction of the tenant for the benefit of his or family<br \/>\nmembers notwithstanding the fact that the said owner is himself or herself<br \/>\noccupying a building of his own for carrying on the business so long as such<br \/>\nmember of the family for whose benefit eviction is sought does not occupy any<br \/>\npremises of his own in the city or town.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. In the instant case, both the ingredients of Section<br \/>\n10(3)(a)(iii) of the Act that the landlord seeks eviction for occupation of his<br \/>\nfamily members and that his family member is not carrying on business in the own<br \/>\npremises are satisfied.  In such circumstances, the court has to confine its job<br \/>\nin identifying the bona fide claim of the landlord from the evidence adduced.<br \/>\nThe requirement of law is that the building which has been vacated should be of<br \/>\nsuch character which could meet the requirement of the landlord and not that a<br \/>\nbuilding which was vacant could meet his requirement.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8. It is now well established by a series of decisions which is not<br \/>\ndisputed that it is not for the tenant to dictate as to what portion the<br \/>\nlandlord should require for his own purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9. In the case of Nathella Sampathu Chetty Vs. Sha vajingjee Bapulal<br \/>\n[1967-1-MLJ-289], the Division Bench of the Principal Bench of this court has<br \/>\nheld thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1960,<br \/>\nallows a landlord to apply to the controller for an order directing a tenant to<br \/>\nput him in possession of the building  if the landlord is not occupying for<br \/>\npurposes of business which he is carrying on a non residential building which is<br \/>\nhis own.  If the conditions of the provisions are satisfied, the Controller may<br \/>\nmake an order as prayed for by the landlord provided he is further satisfied<br \/>\nthat the claim of the landlord is bona fide.  This requirement that the claim of<br \/>\nthe landlord should be bona fide is common not only to this provision but also<br \/>\nto several other provisions in the Act which provide for eviction of tenants.<br \/>\nThe expression bona fide, therefore will have to be understood in the context<br \/>\nbut subject to that, it means in cases under Section 10(3)(a) that the land lord<br \/>\nhonestly desires to occupy the premises from which eviction is sought and his<br \/>\nclaim is not a device to serve an oblique purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>That the landlord has made certain allegations or claims in some earlier<br \/>\nproceedings may neither be relevant nor could they affect his bona fide in a<br \/>\nlater claim so long as it is provided that the landlord honestly desires to<br \/>\noccupy the premises for carrying on his business.  The fact that he owned<br \/>\nseveral other buildings, which were not mentioned in the petition, is of no<br \/>\nconsequence as it is entirely open to a landlord to choose which building he<br \/>\nwould require for his business. (emphasis supplied.)<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10. So long as the evidence does not justify a finding that a claim<br \/>\nis a device and is intended to serve an oblique purpose, it will go a long way<br \/>\ntowards the claim being honest.  In other words, when once it is clear that the<br \/>\nclaim is not a device very little evidence might be required to find that the<br \/>\nclaim is an honest one.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11. Furthermore, it is not necessary that the landlord or member of<br \/>\nhis family has to be carrying on business at the time of filing the petition and<br \/>\nit is enough if it is reasonably likely to carrying on business in future.  The<br \/>\naforesaid view is reiterated in S.N.Vairavelu Vs. P.Sundaram (2001 (4)CTC 710<br \/>\nMad.)\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12. In a recent decision of this Court reported in 2009 (2) MLJ 657,<br \/>\nit is held that once the bona fide requirement of the premises for the landlord<br \/>\nfor his own use is proved and the landlord has established the ground of<br \/>\neviction under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent)<br \/>\nControl Act, he is entitled to the eviction of the tenant on that ground.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13.\tFor carrying on xerox business and installing S.T.D.Booth the<br \/>\nlandlord cannot be expected to make use of the residential portion. Considering<br \/>\nthe clinching evidence let in on the side of the respondent\/landlord that the<br \/>\npetition premises is bona fidely required for carrying out the business of his<br \/>\ngrandson,  both the courts below have concurrently held that the requirement of<br \/>\nthe premises is bona fide and ordered eviction under Sections 10(3)(iii) of<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and<br \/>\nRent) Control Act and there is no perversity in the said findings warranting<br \/>\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.  No<br \/>\ncosts. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Srcm<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority (Principal  Sub Court) Tirunelveli<\/p>\n<p>2.The Rent Controller (Principal District Munsif) Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAfter pronouncement of the order, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner\/tenant has requested this court to grant time for vacating the<br \/>\npetition premises.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tConsidering the said request, the petitioner\/ tenant is given six months<br \/>\ntime from the date of this order to vacate the petition premises  on condition<br \/>\nthat he should file an affidavit of undertaking within two weeks from today to<br \/>\nthat effect, failing which the time granted to vacate the premises shall stand<br \/>\nautomatically vacated.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07\/10\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRP(MD)No.1396 of 2008 MP.NO.1\/2008 Chinnathurai petitioner Vs 1.Pitchumani Pattar 2.Gandhimathi Respondents Prayer This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order passed in RCA.No.37\/2004 dated [&hellip;]<\/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-113039","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-07T16:01:28+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\\\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-07T16:01:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1586,\"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\\\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-07T16:01:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-07T16:01:28+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\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-07T16:01:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009"},"wordCount":1586,"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\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009","name":"Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-07T16:01:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chinnathurai-vs-pitchumani-pattar-on-7-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chinnathurai vs Pitchumani Pattar on 7 October, 2009"}]},{"@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\/113039","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=113039"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113039\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113039"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}