{"id":187674,"date":"2009-06-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009"},"modified":"2018-10-19T11:49:17","modified_gmt":"2018-10-19T06:19:17","slug":"n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"N.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
N.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:18\/06\/2009\n\nCoram\nTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA\n\nS.A.(MD)No.48 of 2004\nand\nS.A.(MD)No.49 of 2004\n\nN.Amirthalingam\t\t     .. Appellant in both appeals\n\nVs.\n\nA.Dhanapal\t\t\t     .. Respondent in both appeals<\/pre>\n
PRAYER<\/p>\n
Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
\nagainst the judgments and decrees of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge,
\nThiruchirapalli dated 23.12.2003 in A.S.Nos.64 and 65 of 2002 confirming the
\ndecrees and judgments made in O.S.No.210 and 217 of 1996 dated 27.03.2002 on the
\nfile of the District Munsif, Lalkudi.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant\t… Mr.Sreenivasan
\n^For Respondent … Mr.A.Thirumoorthy<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
\tThese Second Appeals have been filed by the appellant  against the
\njudgments and decrees of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirapalli
\ndated 23.12.2003 in A.S.Nos.64 and 65 of 2002 confirming the decrees and
\njudgments made in O.S.No.210 and 217 of 1996 dated 27.03.2002 on the file of the
\nDistrict Munsif, Lalkudi.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The gist and essence of averments in the plaint in O.S.No.210 of 1996
\nis as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe plaintiff’s brother-in-law was the defendant.  The suit property
\nbelong to the defendant.  The defendant entered into a sale agreement with the
\nplaintiff on 22.05.1985 for a sale consideration of Rs.22,500\/-. The plaintiff
\nhad paid a sum of Rs.15,000\/- as advance on the same day.  The defendant had
\nagreed to receive the balance amount of sale consideration of Rs.7,500\/- and
\nexecute the sale deed.  No time for completion of the sale agreement was fixed.
\nThe plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.4,000\/- to one Nagarajan, S\/o.Rangasami Nadar
\non 21.06.1986 being the amount due by the defendant to said Nagarajan towards
\nthe mortgage deed as per the direction of the defendant.  Apart from that, a sum
\nof Rs.8,000\/- was also paid to the defendant’s daughter Usha Nandhini in August
\n1986.  Further, a sum of Rs.1,800\/- was paid to one R.D.Doraisami, Advocate
\ntowards the lease arrears amount due and payable by the defendant to Sellammal,
\nLandlady.  Thus, the entire sale consideration has been paid by the plaintiff to
\nthe defendant.  But, the defendant was evading to execute the sale deed.  Hence,
\nthe plaintiff issued lawyer’s notice on 30.04.1990.  The defendant received the
\nsame on 02.05.1990 and he sent a reply on 16.05.1990 with false allegations and
\nrefused to execute the sale deed.  The defendant agreed to return the sum of
\nRs.15,000\/- received by him on 22.05.1985.  Since the defendant was evaded to
\nexecute the sale deed, the plaintiff had constrained to file the Suit for
\nSpecific Performance of Contract and he prayed for a decree of Specific
\nPerformance.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The gist and essence of Written Statement filed by the defendant is as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe relationship of both parties was admitted.  The inception of sale
\nagreement and receipt of advance amount and sale consideration was admitted. No
\ntime limit fixed was also admitted.  The balance amount of Rs.7,500\/- should be
\npaid on demand.  Except the advance of Rs.15,000\/- no amount was paid nor
\noffered to the defendant towards the sale agreement.  Exchange of notice between
\nthe parties was admitted.  The plaintiff had not paid the balance amount of sale
\nconsideration of Rs.7,500\/- and completed the agreement as agreed.  Hence the
\ndefendant demanded the plaintiff to pay the balance and complete the sale.  A
\npanchayat was also held for this purpose.  In the panchayat, plaintiff had
\nexpressed his inability to pay the balance of sale price and complete the sale.
\nThe plaintiff as agreed to receive back the advance amount of Rs.15,000\/-
\nwhenever the plaintiff sell the suit property to third party.  Hence the sale
\nagreement dated 22.05.1985 was not acted upon.  The defendant was willing to
\nrepay the advance amount of Rs.15,000\/-.  Taking advantage of the injunction
\norder passed in I.A.No.269 of 1990, plaintiff was frequently attempted to
\ntrespass into and captured the suit property by force.  The defendant is the
\npossession of the property.  Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The learned District Munsif, Lalgudi after considering  both the
\nplaintiffs and written statements had framed three issues.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The gist and essence of averments in the plaint in O.S.No.217 of 1996
\nis as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe suit properties absolutely belonging to the plaintiff by virtue of
\nregistered sale deed dated 17.12.1973.  He is in possession and enjoyment of the
\nsame by way of paying kist.  On 22.05.1985, both plaintiff and defendant entered
\ninto a sale agreement.  As per the sale agreement, the plaintiff had agreed to
\nsell half of the suit property in favour of the defendant for a price of
\nRs.22,500\/- and received a sum of Rs.15,000\/- as advance.    The defendant had
\nnot paid the balance of sale consideration of Rs.7,500\/- and completed as
\nagreed.  Hence, the plaintiff asked the defendant to pay the balance and
\ncomplete the sale.  A panchayat also had been held and in the panchayat, the
\ndefendant had expressed his inability to pay the balance of sale price and
\ncomplete the sale.  He had agreed to receive back the advance amount of
\nRs.15,000\/- whenever the plaintiff sells the suit property to third party.
\nHence, the sale agreement was not acted upon.  On 30.04.1990, the defendant
\nissued a lawyer notice with false and untenable contention that he had paid the
\nentire sale price of Rs.22,5000\/-.  Plaintiff had issued a suitable reply notice
\ndated 16.05.1990.  On 03.06.1990, the defendant, with the help of some of his
\nmen, had trespassed into the suit property and attempted to put up a thatched
\nshed on the westen part of the suit property.  It was prevented by the
\nplaintiff.  The defendant can only resort to the Court for his remedies and he
\ncannot take the law in his own hands.  Hence, he had constrained to file the
\nsuit for bare injunction and prayed for a decree.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The gist and essence of Written Statement filed by the defendant is as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe plaintiff had no right to file the suit.  He is not entitled for any
\ninjunction.  The sale agreement is true and the other allegations are false.
\nThe defendant had paid Rs.4,000\/- to one Nagarajan on 21.06.1986 being the
\namount due by plaintiff towards the mortgage to the said Nagarajan.  Apart from
\nthat, a sum of Rs.2,000\/- was paid to his daughter Usha Nandhini in August 1986.
\nFurther, a sum of Rs.1,800\/- also was paid to one R.D.Doraisami, Advocate
\ntowards lease arrears amount due and payable by the plaintiff to Chellammal
\nLandlady.  Thus the entire sale consideration had been paid by the defendant.
\nAll the said payments were made according to the directions of the plaintiff.
\nThe allegation that there was a panchayat and the defendant expressed his
\ninability to pay the balance and agreed to receive the advance back were all
\ndenied.  The plaintiff attempted to sell the suit property to one Seshachalam
\nand the same was prevented by the plaintiff and this fact was known to one
\nLakshmanan Chettiar, who was having the original title deeds for the amounts due
\nto him from the plaintiff.  In fact, one Jambulingam Pillai, a close friend of
\nthe plaintiff attempted to put up constructions in the property.  The said
\nattempt was thwarted.  The said Jambulingam is none other than the sister’s son
\nof the plaintiff’s advocate.  Only at his instigation and in order to grab at
\nthe property, the suit had been instituted by the plaintiff with false and
\nfrivolous allegations.  No cause of action would arise.  Since the suit for
\nspecific performance had been filed for one property, the plaintiff is not
\nentitled to file a suit for bare injunction on the same property.  The plaintiff
\nhaving received entire sale consideration had no right to file the suit for any
\ninjunction.  The suit has been not properly valued.  The Court fee paid was not
\ncorrect.  Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the Suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The trial Court after considering the averments both in the plaint and
\nwritten statement, had framed two issues.  Both the suits were tried together.
\nConsidering the oral evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2, D.Ws.1 to 3 and documents in
\nExs.A1 to 4 and Exs.B1 to 9, decreed the suit with costs in O.S.No.210 of 1996
\nand granted bare injunction in O.S.No.217 of 1996 except 19.5 cents in Eastern
\nside of the suit property mentioned in O.S.No.210 of 1996.  Against the decree
\nand judgment made in O.S.No.210 of 1996, the defendant\/Amirthalingam had
\npreferred an appeal in A.S.No.65 of 2002 against the plaintiff\/Dhanapal, before
\nthe learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Thirichirappalli and against the
\ndismissal portion of the decree and judgment made in O.S.No.217 of 1996, the
\nplaintiff\/Amirthalingam had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.64 of 2002 against the
\ndefendant\/Dhanapal, before I Additional Subordinate Judge, Thirichirappalli and
\nboth the appeal were also tried together.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirappali, after
\nconsidering the arguments of both sides and framing proper points for
\nconsideration, had dismissed the appeal in A.s.No.64 of 2002 and confirmed the
\ndecree and judgment in O.S.No.217 of 1996 partly allowed the appeal in A.S.No.65
\nof 2002 and modifyied the decree and judgment in O.s.No.210 of 1996, directing
\nthe plaintiff\/Dhanapal to pay the balance amount of sale consideration of
\nRs.3,500\/- and the defendant\/Amirthalingam was also directed to execute the sale
\ndeed in favour of plaintiff\/Dhanapal after receiving the balance amount of sale
\nof consideration.  Two months time had been granted for payment of balance of
\nsale consideration.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Aggrieved against the judgments and decrees of the learned I Additional
\nSubordinate Judge, Thiruchirappalli, the appellants before the first Appellate
\nCourt, has preferred the present second appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. The substantial questions of law arises in the Second Appeals are as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
 \t   \"1. What is the meaning of the words \t\t\t\"vt;tpj\nbfLtd;dpapy;\"?\n\n<\/pre>\n
 \t2. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was not barred by limitation?\n<\/p>\n
   3. Whether the plaintiff could maintain a suit for specific performance
\nwithout pleading and proving readiness and willingness?\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Points 1 to 3: The Plaintiff in O.S.217 of 1996 and the defendant in
\nO.S.No.210 of 1996 and the appellants in both appeals in A.S.Nos.64 and 65 of
\n2002 is the appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The appellant is the owner of the property.  The appellant’s brother
\nin law is the respondent herein.  Both the appellant and respondent had entered
\ninto a sale agreement.  The sale agreement is an admitted one.  The sale price
\nwas fixed as Rs.22,500\/-.  Payment of advance of the sale consideration of
\nRs.15,000\/- is an admitted one.  It is also an admitted fact that the respondent
\nherein has paid a sum of Rs.4,000\/- to one Nagarajan.  The respondent herein has
\nraised a plea that he paid the balance of Rs.2,000\/- to the daughter (Usha
\nNandhini) of the appellant herein and also a sum of Rs.1,800\/- also was paid by
\nthe respondent to one Advocate R.d.Doraisamy, to pay the lease arrears due and
\npayable by the appellant to one Chellammal, Landlady.  The trial Court had
\naccepted the same and the first Appellate Court had disagreed the same in
\nrespect of payment of Rs.3,500\/-.  But, given a decree directing the respondent
\nto pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.3,500\/- to the appellant and
\nthe appellant was also directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the
\nrespondent after receiving the balance amount of sale consideration.  After the
\ndecree passed by the first Appellate Court, the respondent herein had deposited
\nthe amount of Rs.3,500\/- before the Court. The above facts of the case are not
\ndisputed.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The learned appellant counsel would contend that there is no time
\nlimit has been fixed by both the parties for completing the sale.  On
\n22.05.1985, Ex.A1 came into existence and the suit was filed on 12.07.1990.  The
\nsuit ought to have file within three years from 22.05.1985.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Per contra, the respondent counsel would contend that the time limit
\ncommenced from the date when the appellant was refusing to execute the sale
\nagreement, since no time limit has been fixed, he prayed for the dismissal of
\nthe appeals.  He further contended that since the appellant herein has evaded to
\nexecute the sale deed,  the respondent had issued notice under Ex.A3 on
\n03.04.1990 and reply has been received on 16.05.1990, in the reply, the
\nappellant had refused to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent and
\nhe filed the suit on 12.07.1990 and hence the suit is not barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. It is true no time limit has been fixed in Ex.A1.  As per Article 54
\nof the Limitation Act, period of limitation starts from the date of refusal to
\nexecute the sale deed.  The genuineness of Ex.A1 is admitted.  Hence, the suit
\nis not barred by limitation.  While considering the paragraph No.8 of the
\nwritten statement filed in O.S.No.210 of 1996,  the appellant herein had stated
\nthat the respondent had agreed before the panchaytdars to receive back the
\nadvance amount of Rs.15,000\/-.  This shows that he had refused to execute the
\nsale deed.  Since no time limit has been fixed for execution of sale deed, the
\nlimitation starts only from the date of refusing to execute the sale deed i.e.
\n16.05.1990.  The respondent herein filed the suit on 12.07.1990 within three
\nyears from the date of refusal to execute the sale deed.  Hence suit is well
\nwithin time and not barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
   16.  In the agreement Ex.A1, it has been stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“ghf;fpj; bjhif U.7,500\/- Ia[k; vt;tpj bfLtd;dpapy; ehd; jA;fs[lk; bgw;Wf;
\nbfhz;L vt;tpjkhd tpy;yA;fKk; ny;yhky; ehd; jA;fSf;F yhy;Fo rg;hp$p!;lh; Mgprpy;
\nfpiua rhrd hp$p!;lh; jA;fs; rpytpy; bra;J bfhLj;JtpLBtdhft[k;”””\n<\/p>\n
The word “vt;tpj bfLtd;dpapy;”” would mean that as soon as the appellant herein
\nreceived the balance sale consideration  of Rs.7,500\/-, the appellant ought to
\nhave execute the sale deed immediately without any encumbrances.  So, it has not
\nmeant about the time for performance of contract by the respondent.  The
\nappellant herein had not given any reason for non execution of the sale deed
\nafter the receipt of the balance amount.  Hence, I am of the opinion that the
\ntime has not been fixed for performance of contract and time is not an essence
\nof contract.  As per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, for enforcing specific
\nperformance of contract, the date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date
\nis fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.  As already
\ndiscussed, the respondent herein has issued lawyer notice under Ex.A3 and the
\nsame was received by the appellant herein and a reply has been sent as per Ex.A4
\non 16.05.1990.  Since, he has refused to execute the sale deed, the respondent
\nherein had filed the suit in O.S.No.210 of 1996 on 12.07.1990 and the suit is
\nwell within the time.\n<\/p>\n
\t  17. In paragraph 5 of the plaint in O.S.No.210 of 1996, the
\nplaintiff\/respondent herein has pleaded as follows:\n<\/p>\n
   “The plaintiff had been demanding the defendant to execute a sale deed in
\nrespect of the suit property.  But the defendant was evading to execute the sale
\ndeed under one pretext or the other.  The plaintiff issued a lawyer notice on
\n30.04.1990.”\n<\/p>\n
In his chief examination, he has stated that he has deposed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“gyKiw ehd; Bfl;Lk; vGjpj; jUfpBwd; vd;Wjhd; brhd;dhBu jtpu Mdhy; vGjpj;
\njutpy;iy.  fhyk; flj;jp te;jjhy; gaj;jpdhy; 1990-k; Mz;L (30.04.90) tHf;fwpqh;
\nKykhf mwptpg;g[ xd;W bfhLj;Bjd;.  Behl;o!; Kyk; gj;jpuk; vGjpf; bfhLf;Fk;go
\nBfl;Bld;.\n<\/p>\n
This shows that the respondent herein always ready and willing to perform his
\npart of contract.  Since the appellant herein had evaded to execute the sale
\ndeed, the respondent had issued lawyer notice and filed the suit well within the
\ntime.  In the above said circumstances, I am of the  opinion that the respondent
\nherein is always ready and willing to perform his contract and he is entitled
\nfor the decree of Specific Performance.  The trial Court and the first Appellate
\nCourt have come to the correct conclusion and passed the decree of specific
\nperformance.  I find there is no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by
\nthe learned first Appellant Judge in A.S.No.65 of 2002 and the same is
\nconfirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Both O.S.No.210 of 1996 suit for specific performance of Contract and
\nO.S.No.217 of 1996 suit for bare injunction have been tried together in the
\ntrial Court and common judgment has been passed.  In the first appellate Court
\nalso, both the appeals have been taken on file and tried together and common
\njudgment has also been passed.  At the time of filing second appeals against the
\ndecrees and judgments of the first Appellate Court, in A.S.No.65 of 2002,
\nsubstantial question of law has been arisen and the same were framed in
\nS.A.No.48 of 2004.  Even though, in A.s.No.64 of 2002, the Suit in O.S.No.217 of
\n2005, which was filed for bare injunction, to avoid the technicality, the second
\nappeal has been taken on file in S.A.No.49 of 2004 and no substantial question
\nof law has been framed.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The learned appellant counsel would also contend that he filed the
\nsuit in O.S.No.217 of 1996 for bare junction in respect of the entire suit
\nproperty.  But, as per Ex.A1, the sale agreement had made in respect of 19.5
\ncents, out of total extent is 39 cents, the Trial Court, after considering the
\noral evidence and documents of both sides, granted injunction in respect of the
\nproperty excluding the suit property mentioned in O.S.No.210 of 1996.  The first
\nAppellate Court had also accepted the view of the trial Court and dismissed the
\nsuit filed for bare injunction.  The trial and first Appellate Court have
\ndecided the facts after considering the oral and documentary evidence.  The
\nfirst Appellate Court is last fact finding Court.  Section 100 Cr.P.C. reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
1.Save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other
\nlaw for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from
\nevery decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the
\nHigh Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n
2.An appeal may lie under this section from an appellate decree passed ex parte.\n<\/p>\n
3.In an appeal under this section, the memorandum of appeal shall precisely
\nstate the substantial question of law involved in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
4.Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question of law is
\ninvolved in any case, it shall formulate that question.\n<\/p>\n
5.The appeal shall be heard on the question as formulated and the respondent
\nshall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed to argue that the case does not
\ninvolve such question:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that noting in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge
\nthe power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any
\nother substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that
\nthe case involves such question.\n<\/p>\n
As per the decision reported in (2206)2 M.L.J. 197 (S.C.) (G.Mahalingappa V.
\nG.M.Savitha)<\/a> it was held that it is equally settled that High Court in second
\nappeal is not entitled to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived
\nat by the Court below until and unless it is found that the concurrent findings
\nof fact were preserve and not based on sound reasoning.  While considering the
\nabove said citation, since there is no question of law has been involved in this
\ncase, since the suit is for bare injunction, in respect of the question of fact,
\nboth trial Court and first Appellate Court have come to the concurrent finding.
\nHence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the trial
\nCourt and first Appellate Court.  I am of the opinion that the second appeal is
\nfailed and the appellant is not entitled for any relief.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. In the result, the second appeals are dismissed.   The judgments and
\ndecrees of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirapalli dated
\n23.12.2003 in A.S.Nos.64 and 65 of 2002 are confirmed.  Considering the
\nrelationship of both parties, they are directed to bare their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
arul<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichy.\n<\/p>\n
2. The District Munsif, Lalkudi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court N.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:18\/06\/2009 Coram THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2004 and S.A.(MD)No.49 of 2004 N.Amirthalingam .. Appellant in both appeals Vs. A.Dhanapal .. Respondent in both appeals PRAYER Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Code of […]<\/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-187674","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nN.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009 - 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\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-19T06:19:17+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\\\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-19T06:19:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3374,\"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\\\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009\",\"name\":\"N.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-19T06:19:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009 - 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\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-19T06:19:17+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\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-19T06:19:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009"},"wordCount":3374,"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\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009","name":"N.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-19T06:19:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-amirthalingam-vs-a-dhanapal-on-18-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.Amirthalingam vs A.Dhanapal on 18 June, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187674","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=187674"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187674\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187674"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187674"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187674"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}