{"id":141780,"date":"2005-01-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005"},"modified":"2018-10-07T06:21:35","modified_gmt":"2018-10-07T00:51:35","slug":"s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"S.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 24\/01\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ            \n\nC.R.P.(NPD) No.3117 of 1999  \n\nS.R.Krishna Iyer                               .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. K.V.Lalitha\n\n2. G.Sekar                                      .. Respondents\n\n\n        Civil Revision Petition filed under  Section  25  of  the  Tamil  Nadu\nBuildings(Lease and Rent Control) Aqct, 1960 for the relief as stated therein.\n\n\nFor Petitioner:  :  Mr.N.Vanchinathan\n\nFor respondents:  :Mr.Sankaravadivel\n\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
        The above civil revision petition is directed against the Judgment and
\ndecree  dated  28.4.1999  rendered  in  R.C.A.No.8 of 1996 by the Rent Control
\nAppellate Authority (Subordinate Judge) Kumbakonam thereby by  confirming  the
\nfair  and  decretal order dated 24.4.1996 made in R.C.O.P.No.25 of 1990 by the
\nRent Controller (District Munsif) Kumbakonam.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The tenant who has lost his case before both the Courts  below  is
\nthe petitioner  herein.   The first respondent who is the landlord has filed a
\npetition  under  Sections  10(2)(i)   and   10(3)(c)   of   the   Tamil   Nadu
\nBuildings(Lease  and  Rent  Control),Act ,1960 (hereinafter referred to as the
\nAct)  in  R.C.O..No.25  of  1990  on  the  file   of   the   Court   of   Rent
\nController(District  Munsif)  Kumbakonam  as  against  the appellant herein on
\naverments such as that the husband of the first respondent is the owner of the
\nbuilding and after his demise, the first respondent became the  owner  of  the
\nsaid  property;  that  the  appellant  herein  took up the tenancy in the said
\npremises on a monthly rent of Rs.25\/- payable according  to  English  calender
\nmonth;  that  even  after  the  expiry  of lease period, at the request of the
\nappellant herein he was permitted to run his family  business  by  fixing  the
\nmachinery with an enhanced monthly rent of Rs.100\/-; that the appellant herein
\nwas  regular  in  paying  the  rent  till  May  ,1989; that thereafter, he was
\nirregular in payment of monthly rents and the payments made by the respondents
\ntowards rents were duly acknowledged by the husband of the  first  respondent;
\nthat  the  appellant herein had actually failed and neglected to pay the rents
\nfor the period from June,1989 till  filing  of  a  petition;  that  the  first
\nrespondent  herein  required the premises for her own use and occupation; that
\nshe has to extend her weaving business in the said premises;  that  since  the
\npetitioner herein did not vacate the premises even after the repeated requests
\nmade  by  the  first  respondent,  she  has  also issued a notice on 20.6.1990
\ndemanding the arrears of rent due by the petitioner for the period  from  June
\n1989; that the petitioner herein sent a reply dated 27.7.1990, further sending
\na  sum  of  Rs.540\/- at the rate of Rs.90\/- per month till June 1990; that the
\nfirst respondent herein received the said amount under protest; that since the
\npetitioner herein paid the rent amount in a lumpsum, he has  committed  wilful
\ndefault.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   The  petitioner  herein,  who  is the respondent in the main RCOP
\nNo.25 of 1990 had filed the counter thereby denying all the allegations of the
\npetition filed by the first respondent herein.  He has further submitted  that
\nthe  monthly  rent  of the petition premises is only Rs.90\/- but not Rs.100\/-;
\nthat with the permission of the  first  respondent’s  husband,  he  has  spent
\nRs.4,500\/-  to  provide electric connection and the hand pump in the premises;
\nthat there is no default on  the  part  of  the  petitioner  herein;  that  as
\nrequired  by  the  first respondent herein through the Legal Aid Committee, he
\nhas to pay the arrears of rent for five months due  from  January  1990,  that
\nsince  the  first  respondent  herein  refused  to receive the same, after the
\nreceipt of the notice, he has sent a demand draft dated 25.7.1990 for a sum of
\nRs.5 40\/- at the rate of Rs.90\/- per month from 1.1.1990 to 30.6.1990; that he
\nis ready and willing to pay the rent at the rate of  Rs.90\/-  per  month  from
\n1.7.1990  and  hence there is no default on the part of the petitioner herein;
\nthat it is not true to say that the first respondent requires the premises  to
\nexpand  her  weaving  business, since she is not able to maintain the existing
\nweaving business; that further, since the petitioner herein is  doing  weaving
\nbusiness  in  the  premises of the first respondent, if he is evicted from the
\npremises, it would cause great loss and hardship to the petitioner herein.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Based on the above pleadings by the contesting parties,  the  Rent
\nController  has  conducted  a  thorough enquiry wherein on behalf of the first
\nrespondent, she besides examining herself as P.W.1, she would also examine yet
\nanother witness namely Kuppammal as P.W.2 for oral  evidence  and  would  also
\nmark three documents for documentary evidence as Exs A1 to A3 and on behalf of
\nthe  petitioner  herein  he  has  not only examined himself as R.W.1, but also
\nwould examine two other witnesses as R.Ws 2 and 3 for oral evidence and  would
\nmark three  documents  for  documentary evidence as Exs R.1 to R3.  Thereupon,
\nthe Rent Controller, in appreciation of  the  oral  and  documentary  evidence
\nplaced  on  record,  would ultimately order eviction of the petitioner herein.
\nAggrieved, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal in  RCA  NO.8  of  199  6
\nbefore   the   Rent   Control   Appellate   Authority   and  the  (Subordinate
\nJudge),Kumbakonam and since the said appeal was dismissed  thereby  confirming
\nthe  order  of  eviction  passed by the Rent Controller, the respondent in the
\nmain RCOP has come forward to  file  the  above  civil  revision  petition  on
\ncertain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of revision.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   During  arguments,  the  learned counsel for the petitioner would
\nsubmit that the first respondent herein, as  the  landlord  of  the  premises,
\nwhich is the subject matter concerned with the dispute has filed RCOP No.25 of
\n1990  before  the  Court  of  Rent  Controller(District  Munsif) Kumbakonam as
\nagainst the petitioner, admittedly the tenant of the premises, under  Sections
\n10(2)(i)  and 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent Control) Act
\n1960.   On  pleadings  such  as  that   the   first   respondent-husband   one
\nVenkatachalapathy  was  the  original  owner  of  the  premises from whom, she
\nsucceeded the same; that the revision petitioner became the tenant of the said
\npremises on the monthly rent of Rs.25\/- initially running his family  business
\nby  fixing  the  machinery  and at a later stage, the rent was enhanced at the
\nrate of Rs.100\/- and it is the admitted case of the first respondent that till
\nMay 1989, the revision petitioner was regular in payment of the monthly  rents
\nand  thereafter he failed and neglected to pay the rents for the month of June
\n1989 till the filing of the  petition  thus  committing  willful  default  and
\nviolating the Section 10(2)(i) of the said Act.  The further case of the first
\nrespondent  is  that  she  requires the premises for extending her own weaving
\nbusiness in the said premises thus wanting  the  same  for  her  own  use  and
\noccupation  and  inspite  of  repeated  requests  made  on  her  part with the
\npetitioner forwarded a notice dated 20.6.1990 demanding the  arrears  of  rent
\nfrom  June 1989, the revision petitioner not only in sending a sum of Rs.540\/-
\nat the rate of Rs.90\/- per month being the rent till June 1990 but also sent a
\nreply dated 27.7.1990; that the first respondent acknowledged and  received  a
\nsum of Rs.540-\/ being the arrears of rent but also the reply under protest and
\nin  having  made  the  delayed payment in lumpsum, the revision petitioner had
\ncommitted willful default in the payment of rent and hence  the  Rent  Control
\nOriginal  Petition,  on both grounds of willful default and requirement of the
\npremises for her own use and occupation.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  In the counter filed by  the  revision  petitioner\/tenant  besides
\ndenying  the  allegations,  he would submit that the enhanced monthly rent was
\nonly Rs.90\/- and not  Rs.100\/-;  that  for  the  permission  of  the  original
\nlandlord, the husband of the first respondent, he spent a sum of Rs.4,500\/- to
\nprovide  electric  connection and to install the hand pump in the premises and
\ndeducted the same from the monthly rents and therefore, there was  no  willful
\ndefault.   However,  since  it was specifically required to be paid, he paid a
\nsum of Rs.540\/- being the rent for the alleged period from June  1989  to  the
\nfiling  of  the  petition  through Legal Aid Committee; that on refusal by the
\nfirst respondent sent it by demand draft that he has been ready and willing to
\npay the rents at the agreed rate of Rs.90\/- per month  from  1.7.1990  onwards
\nand  therefore,  there is no willful default much less in willful manner; that
\nunder Section 10(3)(c) of the said Act,  the  first  respondent  requires  the
\npremises to expand her weaving business, since she is not able to maintain the
\nexisting weaving business is a false statement and for the purpose of evicting
\nthe  tenant, the revision petitioner herein, and on such allegations, he would
\npray for dismissal of the above Rent Control Original Petition.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  During the enquiry, the first respondent besides examining herself
\nas P.W.1, she would also examine yet  another  witness  namely,  Kuppammal  as
\nP.W.2  for  oral  evidence and would also mark three documents for documentary
\nevidence as Exs.  A1 to A3 and on behalf of the  petitioner  herein  ie.,  the
\noriginal letter dated 29.6.1974 entered into between Venkatachalapathy and the
\nrevision  petitioner; Ex A2, a copy of the legal notice dated 20.6.1990 issued
\nto the first respondent by the petitioner; and Ex A3 the reply dated 27.7.1990
\nissued by the petitioner to the first respondent.  Likewise on the part of the
\npetitioner-tenant also, he would not only examine himself as R.W.1,  but  also
\nwould examine  two other witnesses as R.Ws 2 and 3 for oral evidence.  Besides
\nmarking three documents in his favour as Exs.  R1 to R3 namely,  Ex  R1  being
\nthe  Will  executed  by  one  Nagamani Ammal dated 20.2.1963 , Ex R2 being the
\ndocument of Kumbakonam M.K.Kuppusamy Chettiar & Sons and Ex.R3  is  the  money
\norder coupon.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The Rent Controller having framed four points for determination of
\nthe  Rent  Control  Original  Petition  and  having  discussed  the  facts and
\ncircumstances of the case and in the application of evidence placed on  record
\nwould  contend that it is an admitted fact that the revision petitioner is the
\ntenant of the first respondent following the lease deed entered  into  between
\nthe  revision  petitioner and her husband; that the first respondent’s husband
\nwas alive till 1989 and there has been a  dispute  in  the  ownership  of  the
\npremises  in  between  the first respondent and one Nagammal who is none other
\nthan the wife of the revision petitioner and sister  of  the  husband  of  the
\nfirst  respondent  having  been  born  with  the second wife of his father and
\nownership has also been  claimed  in  favour  of  the  wife  of  the  revision
\npetitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   Thereafter  the  Rent  Controller would start with discussing the
\nownership of the premises particularly relating to the rights of the  revision
\npetitioner’s  wife and the first respondent and would conclude that the denial
\nof ownership of the first respondent by the revision petitioner
\nwas not bonafide thus answering the  first  issue  pointed  out  by  the  Rent
\nController  then  having his discussion stating that at the time that the Rent
\nControl Petition was filed, there was arrears of rent for only one  month  and
\nthis  non  payment of rent would be decided on the part of the Rent Controller
\nas willful.  Admittedly, there has been  a  dispute  between  the  parties  of
\nownership.   However,  it  would be seen that the said one month rent had also
\nbeen paid at a later stage.  Moreover, the case  of  the  revision  petitioner
\nbeing that he had spent a sum of Rs.4,500\/- to provide electric connection and
\nto  install  hand  pump in the premises with the consent of the original owner
\nand it was deductable from the rent  as  per  the  understanding.    In  these
\ncircumstances  and  taking into consideration of the non payment of rent for a
\nperiod of one month, the Rent Controller has arrived at the conclusion to hold
\nthat there had been willful default in payment of the monthly  rent  which  is
\nnot  able  to  be accepted by this Court particularly in view of the fact that
\nthe revision petitioner is willing to pay even the  said  rent  or  any  other
\nrents  alleged to be that he is in arrears, provided the dispute regarding the
\nownership of the premises and further taking into consideration of the  amount
\nof Rs.4,500\/- spent by him for the electric connection with the consent of the
\noriginal owner.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   If  on  such  technicalities  which  are minor and negligible in
\nnature, willful default is arrived at , then no tenant is safe  regarding  his
\nright of tenancy.\n<\/p>\n
        11.   Therefore,  it  has  to  be held that inconsistent and erroneous
\nconclusion has been arrived at by the Rent  Controller  regarding  this  point
\nwhether  the  revision  petitioner had committed willful default in payment of
\nrent or not.  Every default is not a willful default.  In  his  oral  evidence
\nand  by other sources, such as the pleadings, the revision petitioner has made
\nit clear that there was a dispute at the relevant point of time regarding  the
\nownership  himself  claiming  the property on behalf of his wife and therefore
\nwillful default cannot be attributed on the non payment of rent for  a  period
\nof  one  month  but  still  the  further  case  is to be seen that when it was
\nemphasised in sending the demand draft, he had taken the rent  and  therefore,
\nif  at all there is a slackness, no motive could be attributed for the same in
\nthe payment of rent so as to conclude that it was a wilful default as required
\nunder law.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  Further coming to the  other  question  reqarding  the  claim  of
\npremises  by the landlord for her own use and occupation that even though, the
\nfirst respondent has claimed in the name of expanding her weaving business  in
\norder  to  increase  the  income,  in  order  to celebrate the marriage of her
\ndaughter at the time of trial in RCOP, it is an admitted fact that on the part
\nof the first respondent that the marriage of her daughter had been  over  thus
\nin  law,  this  claim  of her own use and occupation also becomes infructuous.
\nHowever, the Rent Controller himself would arrive at the  conclusion  that  it
\nwas  not  a  bonafide  claim  of  the  first  respondent  for  her own use and
\noccupation and ultimately, the trial Court has arrived at  the  conclusion  to
\norder  evicting the revision petitioner from the premises and handing over the
\npossession with the first respondent since the first and  second  points  were
\nordered  in favour of the first respondent particularly regarding the claim of
\nwillful default.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  Since even regarding the willful default in payment of  rent,  no
\nproper  conclusion  has been arrived at by the Rent Controller in the fair and
\ndecretal order passed by him in the RCOP so far as the first claim of  willful
\ndefault  is  concerned  which  has  to  be  set  aside and the same is ordered
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
        14.   The  Appellate  Authority  having  framed  its  own  point   for
\nconsideration  numbering  five  and  sailing  along with the order of the Rent
\nController and in deciding that the case is proved has grievously erred in its
\ndecision ultimately confirming  the  fair  and  decretal  order  of  the  Rent
\nController  and  therefore,  needless  to  mention  that  the  Judgment of the
\nAppellate Authority also equally becomes liable to be set aside and  the  same
\nis ordered  accordingly.    Excepting for sailing along with the discussion to
\narrive at the decision of the Rent Controller, no new fact or circumstance has
\nbeen brought forth by the appellate  authority  in  confirming  the  fair  and
\ndecretal order of the Rent Controller, and the same are only repetition of the
\ndiscussions  and  decisions held by this Court regarding the Rent Controller’s
\norder and therefore, suffice it to conclude that the  Appellate  Authority  in
\nconfirming  the  fair  and  decretal  order  of  the  Rent Controller has only
\ncommitted error not only in its conclusion but also the manner  in  which  the
\nsaid conclusions have been arrived at and hence the following order<\/p>\n
        In result<\/p>\n
        i) the above Civil Revision Petition succeeds and the same is allowed;\n<\/p>\n
        ii)  The judgment and decree dated 28.4.1999 made in RCA NO.8 of 199 6
\nby the Court of  Appellate  Authority(Subordinate  Judge)  Kumbakonam  thereby
\nconfirming  the  fair and decretal order dated 24.4.1996 made in RCOP NO.25 of
\n1990 by the Rent Controller( District Munsif) Kumbakonam is hereby set aside.\n<\/p>\n
        iii) there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
sg<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Rent Control Appellate Authority
\n(Subordinate Judge)Kumbakonam    <\/p>\n
2.  The Rent Controller(District Munsif)
\nKumbakonam.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24\/01\/2005 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ C.R.P.(NPD) No.3117 of 1999 S.R.Krishna Iyer .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. K.V.Lalitha 2. G.Sekar .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings(Lease and Rent […]<\/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-141780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005 - 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\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-07T00:51:35+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-07T00:51:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2722,\"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\\\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005\",\"name\":\"S.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-07T00:51:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"S.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005 - 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\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-07T00:51:35+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-07T00:51:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005"},"wordCount":2722,"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\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005","name":"S.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-07T00:51:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-r-krishna-iyer-vs-k-v-lalitha-on-24-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.R.Krishna Iyer vs K.V.Lalitha on 24 January, 2005"}]},{"@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\/141780","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=141780"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/141780\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=141780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=141780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=141780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}