{"id":185549,"date":"2007-11-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007"},"modified":"2018-08-26T07:53:27","modified_gmt":"2018-08-26T02:23:27","slug":"v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial &#8230; on 13 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial &#8230; on 13 November, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 13\/11\/2007\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nW.P.No.8801 of 2005\n\n\nV.Essakkiammal\t\t\t\t... \tPetitioner\n\n\nVs\n\n\n1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,\n  Southern Railway, Divisional Office,\n  Commercial Section, Madurai-16.\n\n2.The Station Master,\n  Southern Railway, Tirunelveli.\n\n3.The Senior Section Engineer (Works),\n  Southern Railway, Tirunelveli.\n\n4.The Deputy Commercial Inspector,\n  Southern Railway, Tirunelveli.\n\n5.The Divisional Financial Manager,\n  Southern Railway, Madurai.\n\n6.The Chief Commercial Manager,\n  Southern Railway, Chennai-3.\t\t... \tRespondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue\na Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to allot an extent of 1352\nsq.mts, space abutting the existing cycle stand at Tirunelveli Junction Railway\nStation, Tirunelvei, by implementing the proceedings of the first respondent\ndated 02.08.2005 passed in Ref.No.U\/C 300\/CS\/TEN\/05 and (Prayer in the\nSupplementary affidavit:) to issue suitable directions to the respondents to\ncancel the allotment and refund the amount remitted by the petitioner with\ninterest.\n\n\n!For Petitioner  \t...\tMr.K.Srinivasan\n\n\n^For Respondents \t...\tMr.S.Manohar\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Writ petition is focussed to get issued a Writ of Mandamus directing<br \/>\nthe first respondent to allot an extent of 1352 sq.mts, space abutting the<br \/>\nexisting cycle stand at Tirunelveli Junction Railway Station, Tirunelvei, by<br \/>\nimplementing the proceedings of the first respondent dated 02.08.2005 passed in<br \/>\nRef.No.U\/C 300\/CS\/TEN\/05.  The subsequent prayer in the Supplementary affidavit<br \/>\nis for issuing suitable directions to the respondents to cancel the allotment<br \/>\nand refund the amount remitted by the petitioner with interest.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition as stood exposited<br \/>\nfrom the whole kit and caboodle of facts available in the records would run<br \/>\nthus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAdmittedly and indubitably, the petitioner happened to be the licensee<br \/>\nunder the Southern Railways for running a two wheeler stand which included cycle<br \/>\nstand also.  According to the petitioner, it so happened that she was declared<br \/>\nas the successful bidder in the auction.  However, the area of 1352 Sq.mts<br \/>\nconcerned was not demarcated for the stand, and handed over to the petitioner by<br \/>\nthe Southern Railways.  In such an eventuality, she started running the two<br \/>\nwheeler stand in the place where already the stand was existing in an area of<br \/>\n257 Sq.Mts just opposite to Tirunelveli Railway Junction.  Thereupon, there were<br \/>\nexchange of communications between the petitioner and the  Southern Railway<br \/>\nofficials relating to demarcation of the area to run the two wheeler stand<br \/>\ncovering an extent of 1352 Sq.Mts as per the contract.  The petitioner was<br \/>\nactually running the two wheeler stand at the aforesaid smaller area of 257<br \/>\nSq.mts from 20.08.2005 till 04.11.2005.  The petitioner could not run the two<br \/>\nwheeler stand as per contract for want of co-operation from the officials in<br \/>\ndemarcating the area in which she should run the two wheeler stand.  She also<br \/>\nmade a publication as per her public notice dated 04.11.2005 that she could not<br \/>\nrun the two wheeler stand and virtually she called upon her customers to get<br \/>\nback their money which they paid on monthly basis.  As such, the petitioner<br \/>\nwould find fault with the Railway authority for having not helped her to run the<br \/>\ntwo wheeler stand.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The petitioner also filed the supplementary affidavit with the<br \/>\naverments as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.7 lakhs as advance and every year,<br \/>\nshe undertook to pay a sum of Rs.7 lakhs as lease amount.  The respondents have<br \/>\nnot demarcated the area of 1352 Sq.Mts and she was constrained to occupy 257<br \/>\nSq.Mts which was earlier used as cycle stand by the previous licensee.  Because<br \/>\nof the non co-operative attitude of the Railway authority, she was constrained<br \/>\nto close it.  The Railway Protection Force on 30.10.2005 drove her employees<br \/>\nfrom the place concerned and closed the two wheeler stand.  Such high-handed<br \/>\nactivities were resorted during the pendency of the writ petition. Because of<br \/>\ntheir non performance of their contract, she was constrained to close the<br \/>\nbusiness and made to incur  heavy loss.  In fact, during the pendency of the<br \/>\nwrit petition, the Railway officials got signatures from the petitioner in some<br \/>\npapers.  Accordingly, in the supplementary affidavit, she prayed for<br \/>\ncancellation of the allotment and refund of the amount deposited by her with<br \/>\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Per contra, denying and refuting the allegations\/averments in the<br \/>\npetition, the Southern Railway filed the counter with the averments as under:<br \/>\n\tThe period of licence is for three years with effect from 20.08.2005 to<br \/>\n19.08.2008.  The licensee did not take up her business in running the two<br \/>\nwheeler stand in the area earmarked by the Railway administration, but started<br \/>\noperating in the area which had been allotted to previous contractor, at her own<br \/>\nwhims and fancies.  In fact, the petitioner occupied the area to the extent of<br \/>\n2095.47 Sq.Mts as against the authorised area of 1352 Sq.Mts.  It is false to<br \/>\ncontend that only 257 Sq.Mts was occupied by her.  On 03.11.2005, the relevant<br \/>\nland was allotted as per her own choice to run two wheeler stand, but she had<br \/>\nnot chosen to continue the business.  There was no fault on the part of the<br \/>\nRailway authorities in demarcating the area.  The petitioner has also not paid<br \/>\nthe licence fee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the Railway Official, he<br \/>\nwould proceed to contend that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement<br \/>\nand without resorting to that, she was not justified in filing this writ<br \/>\npetition.  She of her own accord issued publication dated 04.11.2005 that she<br \/>\nwas going to stop running the two wheeler stand in the Railway premises and<br \/>\nthereby, it was she who committed breach of contract.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Heard both sides in entirety.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled<br \/>\nto get refund of the amounts paid by her both towards advance as well as towards<br \/>\nlicence fee?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The learned Counsel for both sides reiterated their stand as found set<br \/>\nout in the respective pleadings of the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The perusal of the records at once make me to understand that there was<br \/>\nlack of consensus ad idem between them.  The petitioner on the one hand, would<br \/>\nstate that since the Railway authority failed to demarcate and hand over an area<br \/>\nof 1352 Sq.Mts as the place for running two wheeler stand, she was constrained<br \/>\nto occupy an area of 257 Sq.Mts which was used by the erstwhile contractor as<br \/>\ncycle stand.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The Railway administration would state that at the time of calling for<br \/>\nthe tender, the area was not located.  As such, without both parties having in<br \/>\ntheir mind which area was going to be actually allotted for the two wheeler<br \/>\nstand, a contract was concluded.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The entire trouble arose because of such non-demarcation.  Hence, I am<br \/>\nhaving no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the contract itself got<br \/>\nvitiated, because of absence of consensus ad idem.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. It is a trite proposition of law that for the purpose of running a two<br \/>\nwheeler stand, the area is more important.  Even without getting permission from<br \/>\nthe Railway administration, she occupied the area which was already used by the<br \/>\nerstwhile contractor as a cycle stand.  The learned Counsel for the Railway<br \/>\nadministration would submit that even though the Railway authority wanted to<br \/>\nallot some other place other than the place used by the erstwhile contractor for<br \/>\nrunning the cycle stand, yet in view of the petitioner having occupied the area<br \/>\nwhere the erstwhile contractor had run the stand, they allowed her to continue<br \/>\nby demarcating 1352 Sq.Mts near to it.  Whereas the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner would submit that since there was non co-operation on the part of the<br \/>\nRailway officials in demarcating the extent of 1352 Sq.Mts, she being the looser<br \/>\nstarted running the two wheeler stand in the place where the erstwhile<br \/>\ncontractor had run the stand in an extent of 257 Sq.Mts and that since it was<br \/>\nnot lucrative for her to run the two wheeler stand, she moved away from the<br \/>\ncontract.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. There are allegations and counter allegations.  But, one fact is clear<br \/>\nthat both have to blame for their breach of contract even though one is accusing<br \/>\nthe other for such breach.  Before calling for tender, there should have been<br \/>\nsome indication regarding the actual plea and are where the two wheeler stand<br \/>\nshould exist.  It is the admitted case of the Railway administration that the<br \/>\nRailway wanted to expand the junction area and use the are occupied by the<br \/>\nerstwhile contractor, for some other purposes and demarcate 1352 Sq.Mts in a<br \/>\ndifferent nearby place.  They ought to have done it well before calling for<br \/>\ntender or there should have been an indication in the tender itself.<br \/>\nAdmittedly, there is no such specification or indication.  Hence, in such a<br \/>\ncase, neither of them could be heard to contend that only one of parties to the<br \/>\ncontract was at fault.  Both are at fault and in this factual matrix, the Court<br \/>\ncould only to the extent possible form put them in their respective former<br \/>\nposition.  One cannot in totality set the clock back.  Considering the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances, the former position to the extent possible should be restored.<br \/>\nIn my considered opinion, one cannot claim any damages as against the other.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The sum of Rs.7 lakhs which was deposited as security, should be<br \/>\nrefunded to the petitioner.  Out of the another sum of Rs.7 lakhs paid towards<br \/>\nlicence fee for one year, approximately for the 1\/4 (quarter) year of enjoyment<br \/>\nby the petitioner, proportionately there should be deduction and the remaining<br \/>\namount has also to be refunded to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. The learned Counsel for the respondents placing reliance on clause 13<br \/>\nof the agreement dated 03.11.2005, would  pray that the Railway Administration<br \/>\nmay be permitted to recover more amount of licence from the licence fee<br \/>\ndeposited by the petitioner in view of the hardship caused to the Railway.  To<br \/>\nthe risk of repetition, I would highlight that clause 13 of such agreement would<br \/>\nnot in any way enure to the benefit of the Railway in view of the fact that they<br \/>\nare also to be blamed for the breach of contract.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. No doubt, on the one hand, the petitioner would air her grievance that<br \/>\nbecause of the breach committed by the Railway authorities, she sustained loss<br \/>\nin business as well as the loss of interest over such huge amounts.  Whereas the<br \/>\nRailway authority would submit by pointing out that had she continued, they<br \/>\nwould have got by this time several lakhs as licence fees or through somebody<br \/>\nelse by allowing them to run the two wheeler stand, they would got licence fees.<br \/>\nAs such, they would raise their accusative finger as against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. To the risk of repetition, without being tautologus, I would point out<br \/>\nthat in view of the discussion supra, both should be blamed for the breach and<br \/>\nin such a case, there is no point in each one claiming damages as against other.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. Accordingly, the Railway Administration is directed to return the<br \/>\namount of Rs.7 lakhs (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) deposited by the petitioner<br \/>\ntowards security on or before 13.01.2008  without interest.  Out of the another<br \/>\nsum of Rs.7 lakhs paid towards  one year licence fee, after deducting 1\/4 th<br \/>\n(quarter) i.e, 1,75,000\/- (Rupees One Lakh and Seventy Five Thousand only), the<br \/>\nremaining amount of Rs.5,25,000\/- shall also be paid without interest to the<br \/>\npetitioner within the aforesaid stipulated time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. The learned Counsel for the Railway Administration would make an<br \/>\nextempore submission that the Railway administration may be given liberty to<br \/>\ncall for the fresh tender for running cycle stand and proceed further.  I make<br \/>\nit clear that the Railway administration is at liberty to do so, without any<br \/>\nmore loss of time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. In the result, this petition is disposed of.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,<br \/>\n  Southern Railway, Divisional Office,<br \/>\n  Commercial Section, Madurai-16.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Station Master,<br \/>\n  Southern Railway, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Senior Section Engineer (Works),<br \/>\n  Southern Railway, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Deputy Commercial Inspector,<br \/>\n  Southern Railway, Tirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.The Divisional Financial Manager,<br \/>\n  Southern Railway, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.The Chief Commercial Manager,<br \/>\n  Southern Railway, Chennai-3.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial &#8230; on 13 November, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13\/11\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA W.P.No.8801 of 2005 V.Essakkiammal &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Commercial Section, Madurai-16. 2.The Station Master, Southern Railway, Tirunelveli. [&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-185549","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 v27.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial ... on 13 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial ... on 13 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-26T02:23:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial &#8230; on 13 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-26T02:23:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1852,\"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\\\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007\",\"name\":\"V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial ... on 13 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-26T02:23:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial &#8230; on 13 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial ... on 13 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial ... on 13 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-26T02:23:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial &#8230; on 13 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-26T02:23:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007"},"wordCount":1852,"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\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007","name":"V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial ... on 13 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-26T02:23:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-essakkiammal-vs-the-senior-divisional-commercial-on-13-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Essakkiammal vs The Senior Divisional Commercial &#8230; on 13 November, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185549","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=185549"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185549\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}