{"id":129115,"date":"2007-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007"},"modified":"2016-10-04T22:48:35","modified_gmt":"2016-10-04T17:18:35","slug":"m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n                              \n                     DATED : 14\/11\/2007\n                              \n                           CORAM :\n                              \n          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN\n                              \n            C.R.P. (NPD) No.3085 & 3086 of 2007\n                            AND\n                  M.P. No.1 and 1 of 2007\n\n\n\n\n\nM. Venkatachalam    \t..Petitioner in CRP No. 3085\n\n1. Dhanam\n\n2. Ganesh                               \n\n3. Kumar           \t..Petitioners in CRP No. 3086\n\n\n            Versus\n\n\nN. Palanisamy Thevar\t..Respondent in both the CRPs<\/pre>\n
     CRP No. 3085 of 2007:  Revision under Section 25 of the
\nTamil  Nadu  Rent Control Act against the Order  and  Decree
\ndated 30.10.2006 made in R.C.A. No. 3 of 2006 on the file of
\nRent  Control  Appellate Authority cum Sub  Court,  Tirupur,
\nCoimbatore  District, confirming the Order and Decree  dated
\n20.06.2005  made in R.C.O.P. No. 8 of 2001 on  the  file  of
\nRent   Controller   cum  District  Munsif  Court,   Tirupur,
\nCoimbatore District.\n<\/p>\n
     CRP No. 3086 of 2007:  Revision under Section 25 of the
\nTamil  Nadu  Rent Control Act, amended by  Act  23  of  1973
\nagainst the Order and Decree dated 30.10.2006 made in R.C.A.
\nNo.  6  of  2006  on  the  file of  Rent  Control  Appellate
\nAuthority  cum  Sub  Court,  Tirupur,  Coimbatore  District,
\nconfirming  the  Order and Decree dated 20.06.2005  made  in
\nR.C.O.P.  No.  9 of 2001 on the file of Rent Controller  cum
\nDistrict Munsif Court, Tirupur, Coimbatore District.<\/p>\n
For Petitioner      :    Mr. R.Subramaniam, Sr. Counsel for Mr. R. Saseetharan<\/p>\n
                        COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n
     These revision petitions are listed today for admission<\/p>\n
and I heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners.<\/p>\n
      2.    In view of the fact that the respondent in  both<\/p>\n
the  revision  petitions  are same  person  and  the  issues<\/p>\n
involved are also the same, both the revision petitions  are<\/p>\n
disposed of by this common order.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       3.     The  revision  petitioners  are  the  tenants\/<\/p>\n
respondents in RCOP Nos. 8 and 9 of 2001 on the file of  the<\/p>\n
Rent  Controller\/District Munsif Court, Tirupur,  Coimbatore<\/p>\n
District, which are filed by the landlord\/respondent  herein<\/p>\n
on  the  ground of denial of title and wilful default  under<\/p>\n
Sections  10  (1) and 10 (2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu  Buildings<\/p>\n
(Lease  and Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter  called  as<\/p>\n
the  Act respectively.  The Rent Controller allowed the said<\/p>\n
RCOP  Nos.  8  and  9  of  2001 by order  dated  20.06.2005.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved  by the said orders, the petitioners  herein  have<\/p>\n
filed  R.C.A. Nos. 3 and 6 of 2006 respectively  before  the<\/p>\n
Appellate   Authority,   which  were   also   dismissed   on<\/p>\n
30.10.2006,  hence, the present CRP Nos. 3085  and  3086  of<\/p>\n
2007 respectively were filed under Section 25 of the Act.<\/p>\n
      4.    The respondent herein has purchased the petition<\/p>\n
mentioned properties from one T.S. Dhandapani Chettiar under<\/p>\n
a  registered  sale deed dated 22.06.1981.  The  petitioners<\/p>\n
herein were tenants for a monthly rent of Rs.20\/- and Rs.25\/-<\/p>\n
respectively   under   the   respondent’s   vendor.    After<\/p>\n
purchasing the property, the respondent herein informed  the<\/p>\n
petitioners  that he purchased the premises  and  repeatedly<\/p>\n
called upon them to pay the rent to him, but the petitioners<\/p>\n
have not paid or tendered the rent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.   The petitioners herein have filed O.S. No. 172 of<\/p>\n
1981  before the Sub Court, Tirupur for specific performance<\/p>\n
on  the ground that they have entered into an oral agreement<\/p>\n
with  vendor  of the petitioner namely Dhandapani  Chettiar.<\/p>\n
The  said  suit  was  decreed as prayed for  on  30.09.1982.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved  by  the said decree and judgment, the  respondent<\/p>\n
herein  and his vendor have filed an appeal in A.S. No.  824<\/p>\n
of  1982 before this Court, which was allowed on 29.09.2000.<\/p>\n
The  petitioners have contended first time before this Court<\/p>\n
in  these revision petitions that they have filed an  appeal<\/p>\n
against  the  said judgment and decree dated  29.09.2000  in<\/p>\n
A.S.  No. 824 of 1982 before this Court with a delay  of  10<\/p>\n
days  in  CMP No. 12014 of 2002 in LPA SR No. 10993 of  2000<\/p>\n
and  in the said petition, notice was ordered by this  Court<\/p>\n
as such the same is still pending.  The respondent contended<\/p>\n
that A.S. No. 824 of 1982 was allowed by this Court as early<\/p>\n
as  29.09.2000  thereby  the petitioners  were  declared  as<\/p>\n
tenants under the respondent and even after that decree  and<\/p>\n
judgment, they have deliberately failed to pay the rent  and<\/p>\n
also  without bonafide denied the title of respondent.   The<\/p>\n
respondent  herein has issued notices dated  26.03.2001  and<\/p>\n
03.02.2001 respectively calling upon the petitioners to  pay<\/p>\n
the rental arrears, which was received by the petitioner  in<\/p>\n
CRP No. 3085 of 2006 and the petitioners in CRP No. 3086  of<\/p>\n
2007  refused  to receive the same, however, they  have  not<\/p>\n
paid any rent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.   Before the Rent Controller, the respondent herein<\/p>\n
has marked certified copy of the Judgment and Decree made in<\/p>\n
A.S.   No.  824  of  1982,  notices  dated  26.03.2001   and<\/p>\n
03.02.2001  issued  by the respondent  to  the  petitioners,<\/p>\n
Acknowledgment  Card, returned notices and examined  himself<\/p>\n
as PW1 in both the cases.  The Petitioner in CRP No. 3085 of<\/p>\n
2007  has marked Ex.R1, certified copy of the Judgment  made<\/p>\n
in  O.S.  No. 172 of 1981 and examined himself as  RW1.  The<\/p>\n
third petitioner in CRP No. 3086 has examined himself as RW1<\/p>\n
and  marked Ex. R1, certified copy of the judgment  made  in<\/p>\n
O.S.No. 172 of 1981.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.    The  learned Rent Controller framed  two  issues<\/p>\n
namely  (i) whether the relationship of landlord and  tenant<\/p>\n
exists  between the parties and (ii) whether the petitioners<\/p>\n
denied  the  title of the respondent without  any  bonafide.<\/p>\n
After  considering  the oral and documentary  evidence,  the<\/p>\n
Rent  Controller allowed both the RCOP Nos. 8 and 9 of  2001<\/p>\n
on  20.06.2005 on the ground that originally the petitioners<\/p>\n
were  tenants  under the respondent’s vendor and  after  the<\/p>\n
property was purchased by the respondent they become tenants<\/p>\n
under him; that A.S. No. 824 of 1982 filed by the respondent<\/p>\n
herein  was allowed by this Court on 29.09.2000,  thus,  the<\/p>\n
respondent  has  proved  the relationship  of  landlord  and<\/p>\n
tenant; that after A.S.No. 824 of 1982 was allowed in favour<\/p>\n
of  the  respondent,  he  issued notices  calling  upon  the<\/p>\n
petitioners  to pay rental arrears within 30  days  but  the<\/p>\n
petitioners have not paid the rent and also denied the title<\/p>\n
of   the  respondent  without  bonafide  reasons  with   the<\/p>\n
intention not to pay the rent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      8.    Aggrieved  by  the  judgment  and  decree  dated<\/p>\n
20.06.2005  passed  in  RCOP Nos.  8  and  9  of  2001,  the<\/p>\n
petitioners herein have filed R.C.A. Nos. 3 and  6  of  2006<\/p>\n
respectively.   In the said RCA Nos. 3 and 6  of  2006,  the<\/p>\n
first appellate Court, in addition to the issues (i) whether<\/p>\n
the  petitioners herein, without any bonafide reasons denied<\/p>\n
the  title  of  the respondent (ii) whether the  petitioners<\/p>\n
committed wilful default in payment of rent, framed one more<\/p>\n
issue  that  whether  the  petition  mentioned  premises  is<\/p>\n
required  for  the  respondent for  his  own  occupation  or<\/p>\n
occupation  of his family.  The first appellate Court  found<\/p>\n
that  the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 172 of 1981<\/p>\n
was  set  aside  by this Court in A.S. No. 824  of  1982  on<\/p>\n
29.09.2000, thereafter, the respondent issued notices  dated<\/p>\n
03.02.2001  and  26.03.2001 respectively  calling  upon  the<\/p>\n
petitioners  to  pay the arrears of rent to  him;  that  the<\/p>\n
petitioners have not produced any evidence to show that they<\/p>\n
have  preferred a Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment<\/p>\n
dated  29.09.2000 made in A.S.No. 824 of 1982 and  that  the<\/p>\n
respondent herein has proved that he is the landlord,  whose<\/p>\n
title  was  denied by the petitioners without  any  bonafide<\/p>\n
reasons  and that the petitioners not paid rent  even  after<\/p>\n
receipt  of  the advocate notices issued by the  respondent,<\/p>\n
which  amounts to wilful default.  In so far  as  the  third<\/p>\n
issue  is  concerned,  it held that  the  respondent  herein<\/p>\n
neither canvassed the said issue nor let in evidence, hence,<\/p>\n
it is unnecessary for it to give any finding, thus the first<\/p>\n
appellate  Court  decided the said two  issues  against  the<\/p>\n
petitioners herein and dismissed the appeals.<\/p>\n
      9.   Mr. Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing<\/p>\n
for the petitioners advanced the below mentioned arguments;-<\/p>\n
The  petitioners  in  both the revision  petitions  and  the<\/p>\n
vendor of the respondent have entered into an oral agreement<\/p>\n
for  sale of the petition mentioned premises, but he without<\/p>\n
honouring   the  said  oral  agreement  sold  the   petition<\/p>\n
mentioned  premises  to  the  respondent  herein;  that  the<\/p>\n
petitioners  have  questioned the said sale  transaction  by<\/p>\n
filing  a suit in O.S. No. 172 of 1981 and sought the relief<\/p>\n
of  specific  performance, which was decreed on  03.09.1982;<\/p>\n
that   as  against  the  said  decree  and  judgment   dated<\/p>\n
03.09.1982,  the respondent and others have filed  A.S.  No.<\/p>\n
824  of 1982, which was dismissed by this Court, hence,  the<\/p>\n
petitioners have filed CMP No. 12014 of 2002 in LPA  SR  No.<\/p>\n
10993  of  2000;  that in the said CMP No.  12014  of  2002,<\/p>\n
notice was ordered by this Court and the said case is  still<\/p>\n
pending before this Court.  In view of the said reasons, the<\/p>\n
petitioners  have not paid rent and therefore, there  is  no<\/p>\n
default, much less wilful default; that in view of the  sale<\/p>\n
agreement, the petitioners are no longer tenants and on that<\/p>\n
ground also, the non-payment of rent is not wilful.<\/p>\n
      10.  This Court considered the argument of the learned<\/p>\n
senior  counsel  for the petitioners.  The petitioners  have<\/p>\n
alleged  that  they have entered into an oral  agreement  of<\/p>\n
sale with the respondent’s vendor, which was not honoured by<\/p>\n
him,  with the result, they have filed O.S. No. 172 of  1981<\/p>\n
for  specific performance against the respondent, his vendor<\/p>\n
and  others, which was decreed as prayed for.  Aggrieved  by<\/p>\n
the  said  decree and judgment in O.S. No. 172 of 1981,  the<\/p>\n
respondent herein has filed A.S.No. 824 of 1982 before  this<\/p>\n
Court  against  his  vendor and the petitioners  herein  and<\/p>\n
others.   This Court framed necessary issues namely  whether<\/p>\n
the  petitioners herein have proved the factum of  agreement<\/p>\n
of  sale  and  whether the sale in favour of the  respondent<\/p>\n
herein  is  valid sale or bogus sale and answered  the  said<\/p>\n
issues against the petitioners herein thereby set aside  the<\/p>\n
decree  and judgment passed in O.S. No. 172 of 1981  by  the<\/p>\n
trial  court.  Thereafter, the respondent has issued notices<\/p>\n
calling upon the petitioners to pay the rental arrears,  but<\/p>\n
the  petitioner in CRP No. 3085 of 2007 received the notice,<\/p>\n
but  not given any reply and the petitioners in CRP No. 3086<\/p>\n
of  2007  even  refused to receive the  said  notices.   The<\/p>\n
courts  below considering the decree and judgment passed  by<\/p>\n
this Court in A.S. No. 824 of 1982 and the notices of demand<\/p>\n
issued  by the respondent, came to the conclusion  that  the<\/p>\n
petitioners  have  committed wilful default  in  payment  of<\/p>\n
rent.   The obligation to pay rent is not merely contractual<\/p>\n
but  is also statutory.  It is for the landlord to prove the<\/p>\n
case of wilful default and when the landlord has proved  his<\/p>\n
case  of  wilful default, the burden lies on the  tenant  to<\/p>\n
disprove  the  same.   In this case the  landlord\/respondent<\/p>\n
herein  proved  wilful  default, but the  tenant\/petitioners<\/p>\n
herein not discharged their burden, hence, this Court is  of<\/p>\n
the  considered  view  that the petitioners  are  guilty  of<\/p>\n
wilful default.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      11.   It  is pointed out by the first appellate  court<\/p>\n
that  though the petitioners herein have claimed  that  they<\/p>\n
have  filed Letters Patent Appeal, not placed any  documents<\/p>\n
or  produced any order staying the operation of  the  decree<\/p>\n
and  judgment  dated 29.09.2000 passed in A.S.  No.  824  of<\/p>\n
1982, even after lapse of six years.  It is to be remembered<\/p>\n
that  RCA Nos. 3 and 6 of 2006 were disposed of by the first<\/p>\n
appellate  court on 30.10.2006 and these revision  petitions<\/p>\n
were  filed  on  21.09.2007 and  for  the  first  time,  the<\/p>\n
petitioners, only at the time of admission of these revision<\/p>\n
petitions claim that LPA SR No. 10993 of 2000 was filed with<\/p>\n
a delay of 10 days for which CMP No. 12014 of 2002 was filed<\/p>\n
seeking  condonation of the said delay, in which notice  was<\/p>\n
ordered by this Court.  It is not explained why the said LPA<\/p>\n
SR  No.  10993 of 2000 filed in the year 2000 was not  moved<\/p>\n
immediately  nor  furnished  details  when  the  notice  was<\/p>\n
ordered  by this Court in CMP No. 12014 of 2002 and what  is<\/p>\n
the present stage.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      12.  A court of equity never aid to stale demands  and<\/p>\n
where the party who slept upon his right and acquiesced  for<\/p>\n
a  great length of time, he is then said to be barred by his<\/p>\n
laches.   A  person is guilty of laches when he is negligent<\/p>\n
in  the performance of a legal duty, or when he makes  delay<\/p>\n
in asserting a right in claiming a privilege and in applying<\/p>\n
for redress.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      13.   It  is apparent on the face of record  that  the<\/p>\n
petitioner,  in  order  to avoid  payment  of  rent  to  the<\/p>\n
respondent have set up a false plea that the respondent  has<\/p>\n
no valid title and persistently continued the said plea even<\/p>\n
after  the first appeal was dismissed by this Court.   Thus,<\/p>\n
they  have deliberately not paid any rent nor deposited  for<\/p>\n
26  years i.e., from 1981 when the property was purchased by<\/p>\n
the respondent in the year 1981.  When the suit for specific<\/p>\n
performance filed by the petitioners was dismissed  by  this<\/p>\n
Court, their failure to obtain order against it, they cannot<\/p>\n
raise  the  question again that the landlord  has  no  valid<\/p>\n
title  since  the  verdict so far  as  the  petitioners  are<\/p>\n
concerned  has  become final.  Hence,  the  finding  of  the<\/p>\n
courts  below  that the denial of title is not  bonafide  is<\/p>\n
perfectly valid.  On that ground also, eviction was  rightly<\/p>\n
ordered  by  the  courts below.  Moreover,  the  High  Court<\/p>\n
cannot  interfere  in  exercise of revisionary  power  under<\/p>\n
Section 25 of the Act when concurrent findings of the courts<\/p>\n
below are based on valid evidence and correct application of<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      14.  In view of the above discussion, this Court is of<\/p>\n
the  view that there is no merits in the revision petitions,<\/p>\n
the  revision  petitions  are liable  to  be  dismissed  and<\/p>\n
accordingly  they  are  dismissed  in  limine.   No   costs.<\/p>\n
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.<\/p>\n
rsh<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. \tThe Rent Control Appellate Authority cum Sub Court
\n   \tTirupur
\n   \tCoimbatore District.\n<\/p>\n
2. \tThe Rent Controller cum District Munsif
\n   \tDistrict Munsif Court
\n        Tirupur
\n\tCoimbatore District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14\/11\/2007 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN C.R.P. (NPD) No.3085 & 3086 of 2007 AND M.P. No.1 and 1 of 2007 M. Venkatachalam ..Petitioner in CRP No. 3085 1. Dhanam […]<\/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-129115","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 2007 - 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\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-04T17:18:35+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-04T17:18:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2191,\"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\\\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007\",\"name\":\"M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-04T17:18:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 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":"M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 2007 - 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\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-04T17:18:35+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-04T17:18:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007"},"wordCount":2191,"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\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007","name":"M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-04T17:18:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-venkatachalam-vs-n-palanisamy-thevar-on-14-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Venkatachalam vs N. Palanisamy Thevar on 14 November, 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\/129115","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=129115"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129115\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129115"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129115"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129115"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}