{"id":139501,"date":"2009-09-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-16T23:33:05","modified_gmt":"2018-03-16T18:03:05","slug":"ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 30\/09\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nCRP(NPD)No.1056 of 2009\nMP.No.1 of 2009\n\n1. Ammaiyakkal\n2. Selvaraj\n3. Jayaraj\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioners\n\nVs\n\n1.Pandian @ EthilAvulu Naicker\n2.Kunjulumuthu Naicker\n3.Appaiah\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nThis Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair order and\ndecretal order dated 30.6.2008 passed in EP.No.30\/2003 in OS.No.337\/1997 on the\nfile of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur.\n\n!For Petitioners\t...\tMr.S.Ramachandran\n^For Respondents\t...\tMr.S.Kadarkarai\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendants against the<br \/>\norder dated 30.6.2008 passed in EP.No.30\/2003 in OS.No.337\/1997 by the learned<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.  The respondents have filed a suit in OS.No.1180\/1973 before the<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif, Periakulam for partition of family properties through their<br \/>\nmother\/guardian as they were minors while filing the suit. The said suit was<br \/>\ndismissed, as against which the respondents filed an appeal in AS.No.36\/1989 and<br \/>\nthe same was allowed and a preliminary decree was passed on 26.8.1977 granting<br \/>\n3\/4th share in items (2) to (8) of the suit properties.  Thereafter final decree<br \/>\nhad also been passed on 16.9.1989.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. The father of the petitioners by name Veerathevar had purchased<br \/>\nan extent of 2 acres 53 cents of nanja land in S.No.105\/2A in Bodinayakanur<br \/>\nVillage under a registered sale deed dated 2.7.1982, which also form part of the<br \/>\npartition suit. The said Veerathevar had filed an appeal in AS.NO.36\/1989 before<br \/>\nthe Sub Court, Periyakulam and the same was allowed and the decree dated<br \/>\n12.12.1991 was passed on the basis of the joint memo dated 19.10.1990 recorded<br \/>\non 22.10.1990.  As per the decree dated 12.12.1991 passed based on the joint<br \/>\nmemo, out of 2 acres 53 cents in S.NO.105\/2A, 1 acre 23 cents of nanja land on<br \/>\nthe western portion was allotted to the said Veerathevar in lieu of 2 acres 53<br \/>\ncents and the remaining was to be allotted in some other survey number.  After<br \/>\nthe death of Veerathevar, the petitioners, who are the legal heirs, had been<br \/>\nimpleaded as legal heirs of the said Veerathevar as respondents 9 to 11 in the<br \/>\nfinal decree.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.  According to the petitioners, the said Veerathevar had entered<br \/>\ninto a tenancy agreement with his cousin namely Ponndoss way back in the year<br \/>\n1983 and the tenancy was recorded in TR.No.57\/1983 before the Recording Officer<br \/>\nand Tahsildar, Uthamapalayam.  It is stated that the tenants are in possession.<br \/>\nIn the mean while, the respondents have filed the execution petition in<br \/>\nEP.No.30\/2003 in the court of District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nBodinayakanur for delivery of the property pursuant to the final decree passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. The execution petition has been resisted by the petitioners on<br \/>\nthe ground that they have been allotted 1 acre 23 cents in S.No.105\/2A and the<br \/>\nremaining extent of 1 acre 30 cents of land is yet to be allotted in some other<br \/>\nsurvey number and without allotting the remaining 1 acre 30 cents, the<br \/>\npetitioners cannot be evicted from the land. It is also contended that the<br \/>\nrespondents having not filed a certified copy of the preliminary decree in the<br \/>\nEP proceedings, they are not entitled for delivery of possession. In the joint<br \/>\nmemo, the father of the petitioners had agreed to take 1 acre 23 cents on the<br \/>\nwestern side in S.No.105\/2A and had also agreed to take the remaining land in<br \/>\nsome other survey number as decided by the court.  Only based on the joint memo<br \/>\nthe final decree had come to have been passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.  The final decree had been passed in the year 1991 and now the<br \/>\npetitioners cannot contend that without allotting the remaining land in some<br \/>\nother survey number, the delivery cannot be effected.  It is now brought to the<br \/>\nnotice of this court that delivery had been effected in accordance with the<br \/>\nfinal decree passed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. In determining an application  under Order 21 Rule 35 of CPC, the<br \/>\nexecuting court has only to examine as to whether the decree holder is entitled<br \/>\nunder the decree to the possession of the property. If they are found to be so<br \/>\nentitled, the executing court cannot decline to issue warrant of delivery.<br \/>\nMerely on the statement of the  petitioners that some third person is in<br \/>\npossession as a tenant, it cannot stand in the way of the decree holder in<br \/>\nexecuting the decree in any manner he wishes.  The executing court at the stage<br \/>\nof Order 21 Rule 35 of CPC cannot look into the stranger&#8217;s claim as to<br \/>\npossession of the property. The third party may resist the delivery and<br \/>\nthereafter justify it, but on the said ground the order of delivery cannot be<br \/>\nobjected to by the petitioners. In this case, as delivery had been effected,<br \/>\nnothing survives to be decided in this Civil Revision Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.  It is pertinent to point regarding the other contention raised<br \/>\nby the learned counsel for the petitioners that production of a certified copy<br \/>\nof the preliminary decree is necessary in the execution proceedings and without<br \/>\nthe copy of the preliminary decree being produced the execution of the decree<br \/>\ncannot be effected and relied on the Rule 140 of the Civil Rules of Practice. It<br \/>\nis held by this court that civil rules of practice is only directory and not<br \/>\nmandatory and it cannot override the Code of Civil Procedure, placing reliance<br \/>\non the decisions of the Allahabad High Court rendered in the cases of Farook Vs.<br \/>\nDistrict Judge, Lucknow [AIR-1984-Allahabad-39] which has been confirmed by the<br \/>\nHonourable Supreme Court in the case of  W.B.Essential Commodities Supply<br \/>\nCorporation Vs. Swadesh Agro Arming and Storage Pvt Limited and another [1999-8-<br \/>\nSCC-315]. Therefore, both the the contentions of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioners merits no acceptance.  In the said view of the matter, there is no<br \/>\nescape from the conclusion that the respondents must be put in possession of the<br \/>\nland, which was allotted to them in the final decree in the year 1991, which has<br \/>\nbecome final as no higher court has upset the said decree.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.  In view of the aforesaid reasons, the order of delivery passed<br \/>\nby the executing court is perfectly justified and I do not find any illegality<br \/>\nor infirmity to interfere with the impugned order passed by the court below.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.   In the result, this 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>The  District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30\/09\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRP(NPD)No.1056 of 2009 MP.No.1 of 2009 1. Ammaiyakkal 2. Selvaraj 3. Jayaraj &#8230; Petitioners Vs 1.Pandian @ EthilAvulu Naicker 2.Kunjulumuthu Naicker 3.Appaiah &#8230; Respondents Prayer This [&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-139501","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>Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 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\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-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=\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-16T18:03:05+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-16T18:03:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":983,\"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\\\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-16T18:03:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 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":"Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 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\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-16T18:03:05+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-16T18:03:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009"},"wordCount":983,"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\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009","name":"Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-16T18:03:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ammaiyakkal-vs-pandian-ethilavulu-naicker-on-30-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ammaiyakkal vs Pandian @ Ethilavulu Naicker on 30 September, 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\/139501","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=139501"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/139501\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=139501"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=139501"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=139501"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}