{"id":128120,"date":"2007-06-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007"},"modified":"2015-01-15T19:53:15","modified_gmt":"2015-01-15T14:23:15","slug":"ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 05\/06\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nS.A.No.219 of 1997\nand\nC.M.P.No.2569 of 1997\n\n\nRamukkannu\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\t\t\t\t\tDefendant\nVs\n\nDharmaraj\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\t\t\t\t\tPlaintiff\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the\njudgment and decree dated 08.07.1996 in A.S.No.106 of 1995 on the file of the\nPrincipal District Judge, Thanjavur, confirming the judgment and decree dated\n31.03.1995 in O.S.No.439 of 1993 on the file of the learned District Munsif\nCourt, Thiruvayyaru.\n\n\t\n!For Appellant    ... \tMr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan\n\n^For Respondent   ... \tNo representation.\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis second appeal is focussed as against the concurrent findings of both<br \/>\nthe Courts below vide judgment and decree dated  08.07.1996 in A.S.No.106 of<br \/>\n1995 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, confirming the<br \/>\njudgment and decree dated 31.03.1995 in O.S.No.439 of 1993 on the file of the<br \/>\nlearned District Munsif Court, Thiruvayyaru.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The gist and kernel, the nitty-gritty of the facts absolutely necessary<br \/>\nfor the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe plaintiff filed the suit as against the defendant by describing the<br \/>\ndefendant as the tenant under him in view of the plaintiff having leased out the<br \/>\nsuit thatched shed during the year 1984 for a monthly rent of Rs.20\/-.<br \/>\nSubsequently, the defendant committed default in paying the rent.  The defendant<br \/>\nwent to the extent of denying the title of the landlord namely the plaintiff and<br \/>\nthereupon, the plaintiff had chosen to file the suit for declaration of his<br \/>\ntitle and for recovery of possession of the suit property without resorting to<br \/>\nthe provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, even<br \/>\nthough the said Act is very much applicable to Tanjavur Town wherein the suit<br \/>\nproperty is admittedly situated.  Both the Courts below decreed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments of both the<br \/>\nCourts below, the second appeal has been filed on the following main grounds:<br \/>\n\tThe original suit ought not to have been entertained by the trial Court in<br \/>\nview of the embargo contemplated under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nBuildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Based on the appeal grounds, my learned Predecessor at the time of<br \/>\nadmitting the second appeal, framed the following substantial questions of law:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;1. Whether suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was maintainable, in<br \/>\nview of the provisions of the Rent Control Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Whether suit as framed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and<br \/>\npossession of suit property is maintainable in the Civil Court without resorting<br \/>\nto the Rent Control Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Whether the appellate Court was right in rejecting the application<br \/>\nfiled by the appellant for additional evidence without there being proper<br \/>\nconsideration?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant in entirety.  There is no<br \/>\nrepresentation on behalf of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision<br \/>\nof the Honourable Apex Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1778763\/\">Devasahayam v. P.Savithramma<\/a> reported in (2005)<br \/>\n7 Supreme Court Cases 653.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;22. A suit for eviction under the said Act would lie before a Rent<br \/>\nController and not before a civil court. In terms of the proviso appended to<br \/>\nSection 10(1) of the said Act before the parties can pursue their remedies in a<br \/>\ncivil court a Rent Controller is required to arrive at a finding as regards the<br \/>\nbona fides or otherwise of the claim of the tenant.\n<\/p>\n<p>        23. Under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, a landlord can<br \/>\nevict his tenant only upon service of proper notice as envisaged under Section<br \/>\n106 of the Transfer of Property Act. A lease can be determined by forfeiture<br \/>\ninter alia when the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title<br \/>\nin a third person or by claiming title in himself. But even in such a case, the<br \/>\nlessor must give notice in writing to the lessee of his intention to determine<br \/>\nthe lease.\n<\/p>\n<p>     24. Distinction between clause (g) and clause (h) of Section 111 is that in<br \/>\nthe former the right of forfeiture  is exercised while the tenancy is still<br \/>\nsubsisting while in a case falling under clause (h) the lease is determined by a<br \/>\nnotice to quit.\n<\/p>\n<p>      25. The right of the respondents to forfeit the tenancy, if any, had also<br \/>\nnot been exercised and no notice therefor was served upon the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     26. It may be true that, as was submitted by Mr Nageswara Rao, the<br \/>\npredecessors-in-interest of the respondents had filed a suit for eviction before<br \/>\nthe Rent Controller on the ground of default on the part of the appellant in<br \/>\npayment of rent as it appears from the statement made by PW 1 that the said suit<br \/>\nwas dismissed for default. In this appeal, the respondents should not be allowed<br \/>\nto raise a contention for the first time that only in view of such a statement a<br \/>\nsuit for eviction was not pursued. Neither there exists any material in this<br \/>\nbehalf nor the court below went into the said question. The consequences<br \/>\nresulting from a suit being dismissed for default must ensue and it must be held<br \/>\nthat the question as regards the right of the respondents to evict their tenant<br \/>\non one or more of the grounds enumerated in Section 10 of the Act must be<br \/>\ndetermined by the Rent Controller in an appropriate proceeding.\n<\/p>\n<p>    27. In Sheela V.Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash whereupon Mr Nageswara Rao placed<br \/>\nstrong reliance, Lahoti, J., as the learned Chief Justice then was, while<br \/>\nconstruing the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the<br \/>\nM.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 observed: (SCC p. 384, para 13)<br \/>\n      &#8220;13. The law as to tenancy being determined by forfeiture by denial of the<br \/>\nlessor&#8217;s title or disclaimer of the tenancy has been adopted in India from the<br \/>\nlaw of England where it originated as a principle in consonance with justice,<br \/>\nequity and good conscience. On enactment of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,<br \/>\nthe same was incorporated into clause (g) of Section 111. So just is the rule<br \/>\nthat it has been held applicable even in the areas where the Transfer of<br \/>\nProperty Act does not apply.  (See: <a href=\"\/doc\/1963083\/\">Raja Mohammad Amir Ahmad Khan v. Municipal<br \/>\nBoard of Sitapur.)  The<\/a> principle of determination of tenancy by forfeiture<br \/>\nconsequent upon denial of the lessor&#8217;s title may not be applicable where rent<br \/>\ncontrol legislation intervenes and such legislation while extending protection<br \/>\nto tenants from eviction does not recognise such denial or disclaimer as a<br \/>\nground for termination of tenancy and eviction of tenant.  However, in various<br \/>\nrent control legislations such a ground is recognised and incorporated as a<br \/>\nground for eviction of tenant either expressly or impliedly by bringing it<br \/>\nwithin the net of an act injurious to the interest of the landlord on account of<br \/>\nits mischievous content to prejudice adversely and substantially the interest of<br \/>\nthe landlord.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It was further observed:(SCC p.386, para 17)<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;17. In our opinion, denial of landlord&#8217;s title or disclaimer of tenancy<br \/>\nby tenant is an act which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the<br \/>\ninterest of the landlord and hence is a ground for eviction of tenant within the<br \/>\nmeaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the M.P.Accommodation<br \/>\nControl Act, 1961.  To amount to such denial or disclaimer, as would entail<br \/>\nforfeiture of tenancy rights and incur the liability to be evicted, the tenant<br \/>\nshould have renounced his character as tenant and in clear and unequivocal terms<br \/>\nset up title of the landlord in himself or in a third party.  A tenant bona fide<br \/>\ncalling upon the landlord to prove his ownership or putting the landlord to<br \/>\nproof of his title so as to protect himself (i.e. the tenant) or to earn a<br \/>\nprotection made available to him by the rent control law but without disowning<br \/>\nhis character of possession over the tenancy premises as tenant cannot be said<br \/>\nto have denied the title of landlord or disclaimed the tenancy.  Such an act of<br \/>\nthe tenant does not attract applicability of Section 12(1)(c) above said.  It is<br \/>\nthe intention of the tenant, as culled out from the nature of the plea raised by<br \/>\nhim, which is determinative of its vulnerability.  &#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t30. The civil Court&#8217;s jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction on the<br \/>\nground of denial of relationship of landlord and tenant could have been invoked<br \/>\nonly strictly in terms of the provisions of the said Act wherefor the<br \/>\nrequirement of law, as contained in the proviso appended to Section 10(1) of the<br \/>\nAct was to be complied with.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. It is crystal clear from the perusal of the aforesaid decision of the<br \/>\nHonourable Apex Court that the original suit filed by the plaintiff in total<br \/>\nviolation of Section 10 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)<br \/>\nAct, 1960.  Section 10(1) of the said Act, is extracted hereunder for ready<br \/>\nreference:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;10. Eviction of tenants.- (1) A tenant shall not be evicted whether in<br \/>\nexecution of a decree or otherwise except in accordance with the provisions of<br \/>\nthis Section or Sections 14 to 16:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided that nothing contained in the said Sections, shall apply to a<br \/>\ntenant whose landlord is the Government:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided further that where the tenant denies the title of the landlord or<br \/>\nclaims right of permanent tenancy, the Controller shall decide whether the<br \/>\ndenial or claim is bona fide and if he records a finding to that effect, the<br \/>\nlandlord shall be entitled to sue for eviction of the tenant in a Civil Court<br \/>\nand the Court may pass a decree for eviction on any of the grounds mentioned in<br \/>\nthe said Sections, notwithstanding that the Court finds that such denial does<br \/>\nnot involve forfeiture of the lease or that the claim is unfounded.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t(emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Both the Courts below simply misdirected themselves on the mere ground<br \/>\nthat the defendant denied the title of the landlord.  Whatever might be the plea<br \/>\nof the defendant, the Courts below should have looked into the averments in the<br \/>\nplaint which are to the effect that  the defendant entered into the premises as<br \/>\ntenant under him.  In such a case, as per Section 10 (1) of the Act, the Rent<br \/>\nController was the competent authority to decide whether the denial of title was<br \/>\na bona fide one or not.  In fact, Ex.A.5 is the plaintiff&#8217;s pre-suit notice<br \/>\nissued to the defendant which does not disclose that the plaintiff invoked<br \/>\nsection 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act and thereby ushered in the<br \/>\nconcept &#8216;forfeiture of lease&#8217;, in view of the plea of denial of title taken by<br \/>\nthe defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Hence, in these circumstances, no more elaboration in this regard is<br \/>\nrequired.  The judgments and decree of both the Courts below are liable to be<br \/>\nset aside.  Consequently, the original suit is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In the result, the second appeal is allowed, setting aside the<br \/>\njudgment and decree dated 08.07.1996 in A.S.No.106 of 1995 on the file of the<br \/>\nPrincipal District Judge, Thanjavur and the judgment and decree dated 31.03.1995<br \/>\nin O.S.No.439 of 1993 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court,<br \/>\nThiruvayyaru and ultimately, the original suit is dismissed. Consequently,<br \/>\nC.M.P.No.2569 of 1997 is also closed. However, it is open for the plaintiff to<br \/>\napproach the Rent Controller as per law if at all he chooses to seek his remedy.<br \/>\nIn the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1. The  Principal District Judge, Thanjavur<\/p>\n<p>2. The District Munsif Court, Thiruvayyaru.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 05\/06\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A.No.219 of 1997 and C.M.P.No.2569 of 1997 Ramukkannu .. Appellant Defendant Vs Dharmaraj .. Respondent Plaintiff Prayer Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment [&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-128120","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>Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007 - 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\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-15T14:23:15+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-15T14:23:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1819,\"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\\\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-15T14:23:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007 - 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\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-15T14:23:15+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-15T14:23:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007"},"wordCount":1819,"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\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007","name":"Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-15T14:23:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramukkannu-vs-dharmaraj-on-5-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramukkannu vs Dharmaraj on 5 June, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/128120","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=128120"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128120\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}