{"id":141180,"date":"2001-03-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2001-03-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001"},"modified":"2018-08-10T09:47:48","modified_gmt":"2018-08-10T04:17:48","slug":"b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001","title":{"rendered":"B. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
B. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001<\/div>\n
Bench: A.P. Misra, D.P. Mohapatra<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2397 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nB. KANDASAMY REDDIAR ETC.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nO. GOMATHI AMMAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/03\/2001\n\nBENCH:\nA.P. MISRA & D.P. MOHAPATRA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
2001 (2) SCR 835<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA, J. Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
The aforesaid appeals raise common questions except few others in
\nindividual cases, which we shall be referring, hence are being disposed of
\nby means of this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
The questions up for consideration in these appeals are namely :\n<\/p>\n
(i) Whether the landlady could exclusively get a decree under Section 10(3)\n<\/p>\n
(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1960
\n(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) when she did not press her relief
\nunder Section 14 (l)(b), on the facts and circumstances of this case?\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Whether landlady initially filing petition under Section 14(l)(b) of
\nthe aforesaid Act then could she by way of an amendment introduce Section
\n10(3)(c) without making necessary pleadings?\n<\/p>\n
(iii) What would be the true meaning of the word ‘building’ used in clause\n<\/p>\n
(c) of sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act?\n<\/p>\n
In order to appreciate the controversies we are hereunder giving certain
\nessential facts.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent-landlady is the owner of a building known as Gomathi Lodge
\nand in its first and second floors she runs lodging house. In the ground
\nfloor there are three shops of which one is Betal shop and the other is
\ndoor no. 147 in which a restaurant is run by the appellant of C.A. No. 2397
\nof 2001 (@ SLP (c) No. 9797 of 2000). The respondent filed eviction
\npetitions against the appellants on the ground of demolition and
\nreconstruction, under Section 14 (l)(b) of the said Act and subsequently
\nthrough amendment, also on the ground of requirement of additional
\naccommodation under Section 10(3)(c). So far as Door No. 147 she wants for
\ncar parking. After contest, the Rent Controller dismissed respondent’s suit
\non both the grounds. The Rent Controller held that landlady wants only to
\ndemolish a portion of the accommodation in question and not to construct a
\nnew building hence it will not be a case covered under Section 14(l)(b). He
\nalso rejected landlady’s case of requirement of additional accommodation
\nunder Section 10(3)(c) and also held with reference to the comparative
\nhardship that hardship caused to the appellant-tenant will outweigh the
\nadvantage of the landlady. Respondent-landlady appealed against this order
\nwhich was allowed by the appellate authority on 7th March, 1984. The same
\nwas challenged by the appellant (tenant) in the revision before the High
\nCourt which was rejected. Thereafter appellants filed appeal before this
\nCourt which remanded the case back to the appellate authority because High
\nCourt felt that the appellate authority erred in considering the evidence
\ncompositely while considering the case under two provisions, namely, under
\nSection 14(l)(b) and Section 10(3)(c), simultaneously though they are two
\nseparate and independent statutory provisions.\n<\/p>\n
After remand the appellate authority allowed the eviction petition of the
\nlandlady against the present appellant. Thereafter the appellant’s revision
\nbefore the High Court was also rejected. Then the appellants came to this
\nCourt through C.A. No. 4952 of 1998 in which this Court remanded the case
\nback again but this time to the High Court, as it felt that the High Court
\nhas not taken into consideration the proviso to Clause (c) of Section 10(3)
\n(comparative hardship). After remand, through impugned judgment, the High
\nCourt again dismissed the claim of tenants and upheld that of the landlady.
\nAggrieved by that the present appeals have been preferred.\n<\/p>\n
Pressing appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) 9797 of 2000, learned counsel Mr.
\nK.K. Mani submits, once the landlady withdrew her claim under Section 14(l)\n<\/p>\n
(b), her claim under Section 10(3)(c) should not have been allowed. The
\nsubmission is Section 14(1)(b) is applicable when landlord requires for
\nerection after demolition and if this is withdrawn, then landlady cannot
\nclaim her relief under Section 10(3)(c) for additional accommodation, if it
\ncould only be satisfied after demolition and since on the facts of this
\ncase it cannot be satisfied without demolition no relief can be granted.
\nThis submission in our considered opinion is misconceived. Both sections
\n14(l)(b) and Section 10(3)(c) operate in two different fields. Section
\n14(l)(b) covers the field where the bona fide requirement of landlord is
\nfor immediate demolition of the building for the purpose of erecting a new
\nbuilding on its site. In other words it refers to a case of erection of new
\nbuilding after demolition on the same site. This would not cover a case of
\nmere alteration or changes to be brought in through internal constructions
\nin an existing building even if it requires through partial demolition. In
\nsuch cases erection is for a new building. On the other hand Section
\n10(3Xc) covers the field, where landlord requires an additional
\naccommodation, residential or non-residential, where question of demolition
\nof the whole building does not arise. Thus, even if some alteration by
\ndemolition of a part of the existing building is to be made, would not be a
\ncase covered under Section 14(l)(b). Thus we have no hesitation to answer
\nthe first question referred by us above by holding that the landlady could
\nget a decree under Section 10(3)(c) of the Act even if she did not press
\nher relief under Section 14(l)(b).\n<\/p>\n
So far as aforesaid second question, we have perused the pleadings and
\nfound respondent landlady has made specific pleadings about the additional
\naccommodation hence amendment by introducing Section 10(3)(c) was justified
\nand valid. Hence this question is held against the tenant.\n<\/p>\n
Now we proceed to examine the aforesaid third question. In Civil Appeal No.
\n2398\/2001 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11515 of 2000), learned senior
\ncounsel Mr. S. Balakrishnan, referred to the definition of ‘building’ as
\ndefined under sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act, which includes ‘part
\nof building’ to be building to submit that the word ‘building’ used under
\nSection 10(3)(c), the landlords could only invoke relief under it if he is
\noccupying part of a building. As the tenants are on the ground floor while
\nlandlady is on the first and second floors, the landlady could not be
\ntermed to occupy part of the building as defined in sub-section (2) of
\nSection 2. The submission is, since the ‘building’ is defined to be a ‘part
\nof building’, the same meaning has to be given to it under Section 10(3)(c)
\nalso. He referred to Lalchand (dead) by LRs. and Ors. v. Radha Krishan,
\n[1977] 2 SCC 88 :\n<\/p>\n
“The rule is well settled that where the same expression is used in the
\nsame statute at different places the same meaning ought to be given to that
\nexpression, as far as possible”.\n<\/p>\n
Based on this the submission is, since the landlady is occupying another
\npart of the building which under the definition clause itself would be a
\nbuilding, it would not constitute to be a part of the building within the
\nmeaning of sub-clause (c) of Section 10(3). If it is not part of a
\nbuilding, then the landlady fails to qualify for any relief under sub-
\nclause (c) pre-requisite of which is that landlord should be in possession
\nof a part of the building.\n<\/p>\n
He further submits there is a conflict of opinion in the Madras High Court
\non the interpretation of this sub-clause (c) of Section 10(3). A. Mohammed
\nJaffar Saheb v. A. Palaniappa Chettiar, (1964) MLJ 112 refers and relies on
\nthe earlier decision of the same court Veerappa Naidu v. Gopalan, (1961)
\nMLJ 223 to hold :\n<\/p>\n
“There is no warrant to deprive the words in section 7(3)(c) of the Madras
\nBuildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act 1949 (corresponding to section
\n10(3)(c) of Act (XVIII) of 1960) of their ordinary and natural meaning by
\nengrafting upon them the artificial definition of the word ‘building’ in
\nsection 2(1) of the Act. The definition itself is restricted in its
\noperation only when there is nothing repugnant in the subject or context. A
\npart of a building means physically and structurally a limb or portion of a
\nbuilding and it will not cease to be<\/p>\n
so because of the definition of the word ‘building’………The word “part
\nof a building” in section 7(3) (c) of the Act should receive their ordinary
\nmeaning without in any way being influenced by the definition of the word
\n“building” in section 2. We would also like to point out that the
\ndefinition in section 2 itself is hedged in by the following words “unless
\nthere is anything repugnant in the subject or context.”\n<\/p>\n
This decision considered the dissenting decision of Justice Mack in A.
\nArunachala Naicker v. V. Gopal Stores, (1955) 2 MLJ 206, which is said to
\nbe the conflicting judgment. The dissenting note of Justice Mack which is
\nconsidered in this case is quoted hereunder :\n<\/p>\n
“The position is not free from difficulty in view of the statute defining a
\nbuilding as also part of a building. It is in the light of this, that
\nsection 7(3)(c) has to be applied to the present case. As I see it, the
\nposition is in no way different to that of a landlord doing business in one
\nbuilding purchasing a building next to his and seeking to eject from it a
\nlong-standing tenant doing business there for twenty-five years. To such a
\ncase section 7(3)(c) would in my opinion not apply. Nor will it apply to
\nthe present case merely by reason of the fact that the portions of this
\nbuilding in which petitioner and respondent did business separately are
\ncomprised in one structural building the whole of which was purchased by
\nthe respondent”.\n<\/p>\n
Disagreeing with the view of Justice Mack the Court held :\n<\/p>\n
“In substance, the view of the learned Judge is that what is physically a
\npart of the building would become artificially a separate building because
\nof the operation of the special definition of “building” in the Act. We
\nmust observe, speaking with respect, that the logic and reasoning of the
\nlearned Judge do not appear to be sound.”\n<\/p>\n
In fact in another decision in Ganapathi Pandian v. Sheik Muhammad and
\nBrothers, (1957) 74 Law Weekly 45, Madras High Court was confronted with
\nthe same dissenting judgment of Justice Mack, which again was dissented by
\nthe Court. This decision was also considering the word ‘building’ as used
\nunder Section’7(iii)(c) of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)
\nAct, 1949 (corresponding to Section 10(3)(c) of the aforesaid Act) with
\nreference to the definition clause of section 2 in which it is held :\n<\/p>\n
“He (counsel for the respondent) said that the ruling in question would not
\napply to this case, and that the definition of a ‘building as including a
\nportion of building’ in section 2, will not prevent ‘the building’ in
\nsection 7(iii(c) being construed in a different way. There is no doubt
\nwhatever in my mind that he is right………It is clear, therefore, to me
\nthat the word ‘building’ which is defined in section 2 as meaning ‘any
\nbuilding or portion of a building let or to be let separately’ cannot have
\nthe same meaning as the word, ‘building’ in section 7(iii)(c) where the
\nphrase ‘who is occupying only a portion of a building’ will have a wider
\nconnotation. It is absurd to say that ‘building’ should always mean ‘a
\nportion of a building’.”\n<\/p>\n
This decision also considered the judgment of Mack, J. in Arunachala
\nNaicker, (supra) and dissented through the following words:\n<\/p>\n
“With great respect to the learned Judge, Mack, J. I am unable to agree
\nwith the latter proposition. A part of a building in occupation of the
\nlandlord will not be building as defined by the Act, though the part in the
\noccupation of the tenant will be one. Section 2(1) which defined building
\ncreates a fiction in regard to certain cases, whereby a part of a building
\nis deemed to be a building. A part of building to which that fiction would
\nnot apply obviously constitutes a building under the Act but would still be
\ncalled a part of the building. Section 2(1) states that ‘building’ means
\nany building or hut or part of a building or hut, let or to be let
\nseparately for residential or non-residential purposes, etc. Therefore, a
\npart of a building will be deemed to be building for the purpose of the Act
\nonly if it is let or intended to be let. A portion in the occupation of the
\nlandlord cannot be said either to be let or intended to be let. Therefore,
\nthat portion will not constitute a building under the Act, and could only
\nbe termed a part of the building.”\n<\/p>\n
Finally, the Madras High Court held in A. Mohammed Jaffar Saheb (Supra)
\nthat there is no warrant to deprive the word in Section 7(iii)(c) of the
\n1949 Act of its ordinary and natural meaning by engrafting the artificial
\ndefinition of the word ‘building’ in Section 2. It further held, the
\ndefinition itself is restricted in its operation only when there is nothing
\nrepugnant in the subject or context. It held, it cannot be assumed that
\npart of the building which means physically or structurally a limb or
\nportion ceases to possess that character because of the definition and
\nfinally it followed the decision in Veerapa Naidu (Supra) and disagreed
\nwith the decision of the Mack J. in Arunachala Naicker (Supra). This
\nprinciple as deduced by the Madras High Court is reasonable view which we
\napprove –\n<\/p>\n
In addition we find, ‘building’ as defined in sub-section (2) of Section 2
\nis an inclusive definition. This Fictional definition is for a purpose that
\n‘building’ as commonly understood in a general sense may not be construed
\nin all situations as one composite whole. There may be a situation that a
\n‘tenant’ may occupy a part of as building, so for the purposes of the Act
\nby virtue of the definition clause this may be construed as building. Under
\nSection 2(2), ‘building’ is defined as building, or hut or part of a
\nbuilding or hut and includes, gardens, grounds and outhouses etc. The
\ndefinition of building does not give a go-by to the whole structure of
\nbuilding as ‘building’ as generally understood, as it opens with the
\ndefinition of ‘building’ to mean ‘any building’. In other words both
\n‘building’ and part of building’ independently is to be construed as
\n‘building’ within this definition clause. This statutory definition
\nfictionally includes various structures, huts, including part of a
\nbuilding, which otherwise could not be a building to be ‘building’, to be
\napplied as such in the various statutory provisions of the Act for
\nsubserving the objects of the Act. When building takes various forms it has
\nto be used differently in different provisions of this statutes. How only
\none form of definition viz., ‘part of a building’ to be carried and used
\nrestrictively in sub clause (c) of Section 10(3). The ‘tenant’ is also
\ndefined under sub-section 8 of section 2 to mean, ‘tenant means any person
\nby whom or on whose account rent is payable for a ‘building’ and includes
\nsurviving spouse, or any son or daughter, or the legal representative of a
\ndeceased tenant…..If this artificial definition was not given to the word
\n‘building’ then rent payable for a building as referred in the definition
\nof tenant could only be for the whole building and not part of the
\nbuilding. Here ‘building’ as referred would include ‘part of a building’.
\nSo tenancy could be of part of a building. In fact, various provisions of
\nthe Act would stand testimony and legitimacy of this wider definition
\nclause of the word ‘building’. When definition clause itself gives
\nartificial meaning of ‘building’ to be not one but more than one, then how
\nonly one form of definition clause, viz., ‘part of a building’ be said to
\nbe understood for a ‘building’ in every provision of this statute wherever
\nthe word building is used.\n<\/p>\n
It may be examined from another angle, when Section 10(3)(c) refers o the
\nlandlord occupying a part of the building it inherently refers to another
\npart of the building being occupied by the tenant. It is true that part of
\nthe building occupied both by the tenant and the landlord would by itself
\nconstitute to be a ‘building’ under the definition clause. This itself
\nreveals, which is under current that there is another part of the building
\nor may be nore than one part of the building either with tenants or
\nlandlord. If part of he building occupied by the tenant is construed to be
\na building then landlord could never be in a position to occupy other part
\nof the building. Such nterpretation forgets that definition clause itself
\nis flexible to make a ‘building’ to be a ‘building’ and a part of building
\nto be a building also to be used iccordingly where ever necessary. If
\ninterpretation sought to be given on behalf of the appellant is accepted,
\nthis would completely dismantle the purpose engrafting of opening word of
\nSection 10(3)(c), namely, ‘the landlord who is occupying only part of the
\nbuilding’. According to Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary the ‘building’ has
\nbeen defined as :\n<\/p>\n
“Building: What is a “building” must always be a question of degree and
\ncircumstances: its “ordinary and usual meaning is, a block of brick or
\nstone work, covered in by a roof (per Esher M.R. Moir v. Williams, [1892] 1
\nQ.B. 264. The ordinary and natural meaning of the word “building” includes
\nthe fabric and the ground on which it stands (Victoria City v. Bishop of
\nVancouver Island, (1921) A.C. 384, at p.390.”\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, P. Ramanatha Aiyar in Law Laxicon defines ‘building’ as :\n<\/p>\n
“Building : What is a “building” must always be a question, of degree, and
\ncircumstances : its “ordinary and usual meaning is, a block of brick or
\nstone work, covered in by a roof (per Esher M.R. Moir v. Williams, [1892] 1
\nQ.B. 264)”. Under Section 10(3)(c) when it refers, landlord occupying a
\npart of the building, it refers to the ‘building’ as understood commonly
\nand also as defined. When it refers to part of building it reveals there is
\nsome other part of which is in the possession of tenant may be one or more
\nthan one. The very word ‘part of the building’ in the definition clause
\nadmits to the meaning of the word ‘building to be understood as in the
\ngeneral sense. When it refers to ‘building’ also in the definition clause
\nto be a building it refers to ‘building’ as understood commonly. Unless it
\nis, how can part of a building could be conceived. Part means out of whole.
\nThe artificial definition as we have said is for a purpose. Thus we have no
\nhesitation to reject this submission made on behalf of the appellant that
\nthe landlady cannot be said to occupy another part of the building as part
\noccupied by the tenant is itself a building. So we answer the aforesaid
\nthird question by holding that the word ‘building’ used in sub clause (c)
\nof Section 10(3) is building as commonly understood and cannot be
\nrestricted to the limited definition of ‘part of a building’ as defined
\nunder Section 2(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
Finally in Civil Appeal No. 2399\/2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No, 12100 of
\n2000), Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel referred to P. Annakili Ammal and
\nAnother v. H.C. Hussain and Hassan and Another, (1984) 1 MLJ 340 that
\nrequirement of additional accommodation under Section 10(3)(c) cannot be
\nmerely for desire and it would not cover cases where it is for augmenting
\nthe income. This submission is misconceived. On the facts and circumstances
\nof this case, it has been found that additional need of the landlady is
\nbonafide. There is nothing on record to construe that requirement is merely
\nout of desire. Neither this nor the other submission, viz., augmenting
\nincome was made nor there is anything on record to show both in law and on
\nfact, about the non-applicability of section 10(3)(c) on this count.
\nFinally, the submission is with reference to the proviso to sub-clause (e)
\nto Section 10(3) about the hardship of the tenants. On the facts and
\ncircum-stances of this case it has been found that advantage of the
\nlandlady out weighs the hardship of the tenants. This finding does not
\nrequire any inference.\n<\/p>\n
For the aforesaid reasons, we find there is no merit in the aforesaid
\nappeals and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. Costs on the parties.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India B. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001 Bench: A.P. Misra, D.P. Mohapatra CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2397 of 2001 PETITIONER: B. KANDASAMY REDDIAR ETC. RESPONDENT: O. GOMATHI AMMAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/03\/2001 BENCH: A.P. MISRA & D.P. MOHAPATRA JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2001 (2) SCR 835 The Judgment […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-141180","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nB. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001 - 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\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001\" \/>\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=\"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-10T04:17:48+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001\",\"datePublished\":\"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-10T04:17:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001\"},\"wordCount\":3366,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001\",\"name\":\"B. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-10T04:17:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001\"}]},{\"@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":"B. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001 - 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\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-10T04:17:48+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001","datePublished":"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-10T04:17:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001"},"wordCount":3366,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001","name":"B. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2001-03-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-10T04:17:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-kandasamy-reddiar-etc-vs-o-gomathi-ammal-on-27-march-2001#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B. Kandasamy Reddiar Etc vs O. Gomathi Ammal on 27 March, 2001"}]},{"@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\/141180","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=141180"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141180\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141180"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141180"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141180"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}