{"id":189051,"date":"2011-03-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011"},"modified":"2015-11-04T17:18:19","modified_gmt":"2015-11-04T11:48:19","slug":"v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"V.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
V.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 04\/03\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE  M.VENUGOPAL\n\nC.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No. 1747 of 2002\nand\nC.M.P.No.18290 of 2002\n\nV.Periakaruppan Ambalam\t\t ...\t\tPetitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1. K.Sivashankaran(died)\t\t\t\n2. S.Meenambal\n3. S.Gandhi\n4. S.Mahalakshmi\n5. S.Nagasundaram\t\t\t... \t\tRespondents\n(R.2 to R.5 L.Rs of the deceased\nR.1 brought on record as per order\nof this Court in C.M.P.No.18235 of\n2003 dated ..03.2011)\n\t\nPrayer\n\nCivil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil\nProcedure against the order dated 09.09.2002 passed in E.A.No.102 of 2002 in\nE.P.No.62 of 1999 in O.S.No.18 of 1997, on the file of the District Munsif of\nMadurai Taluk at Madurai.\n\n!For Petitioner         ...  Mr.S.Subbiah\n^For Respondent\t\t... Mr.T.R.Rajaraman\n***\n\n:ORDER\t\t\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe Revision Petitioner\/Respondent\/Defendant has filed the present Civil
\nRevision Petition as against the order dated 09.09.2002 in E.A.No.102 of 2002 in
\nE.P.No.62 of 1999, in O.S.No.18 of 1997 passed by the learned District Munsif,
\nMadurai Taluk, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The Executing Court, while passing orders in E.A.NO.102 of 2002 in
\nO.P.No.62 of 1999 in O.S.No.18 of 1997 on 09.09.2002 as among other things
\nobserved that “Heard the petitioner.  Respondent called absent.  No
\nrepresentation.  The petitioner has already sought eviction of the respondent on
\nthe basis of the order passed in C.R.P.No.2706 of 2000 by the Honourable High
\nCourt Chennai, etc.,” and resultantly ordered delivery of possession to the
\nRespondent\/plaintiff\/petitioner (later deceased) by 03.10.2002.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Being aggrieved against the order dated 09.09.2002 passed in E.A.No.102
\nof 2002 in E.P.No.62 of 1999 in O.S.No.18 of 1997 by the Executing Court, the
\nRevision Petitioner\/Respondent\/Defendant has preferred the present Civil
\nRevision Petition.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. According to the learned Counsel for the
\npetitioner\/respondent\/defendant, the impugned order of the Executing Court in
\nE.A.No.102 of 2002 in E.P.No.62 of 1999 in O.S.No.18 of 1997 dated 09.09.2002 is
\ncontrary to law and the same is an erroneous one.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the
\npetitioner\/respondent\/defendant that the Executing Court has erroneously
\nconstrued the order dated 21.12.2001 passed for fasli year 1406 for the second
\ncrop and for the payment of lease paddy in kind for subsequent faslis and there
\ncannot be any delivery of possession as there is no decree at all in favour of
\nthe respondent for possession.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. Advancing his arguments, it is a contention of the Learned Counsel for
\nthe revision petitioner\/defendant that when the revision petitioner being a
\nstatutory tenant entitled to protection as per Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants
\nProtection Act in and by which no Cultivating Tenant shall be evicted from his
\nholding or any part thereof by or at the instance of his landlord and he cannot
\nbe evicted except in accordance with the provision contained under the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Further, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner\/defendant submits that
\nthe order passed in C.R.P.No.2706 of 2000 speaks of to the effect “that it is
\nopen to the respondent to seek for possession but that order does not declare
\nthe entitlement of the respondent to take possession of the suit property from
\nthe revision petitioner in the present proceedings which has nothing to do with
\nthe grant of possession, hence there cannot be any order of delivery in favour
\nof the respondent.”\n<\/p>\n
\t8. Also, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner
\nthat the Executing Court having dismissed the E.P.No.162 of 1999 as an
\ninfructuous one, it cannot direct the delivery of possession in E.A.No.102 of
\n2002.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The pith and substance of the submission of the learned Counsel for the
\npetitioner\/defendant is that an Executing Court has no jurisdiction to pass an
\norder against a cultivating tenant who is entitled to the protection as per
\nSection 3(4) of the said Act and hence ought to have dismissed the application.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. In short, the learned Counsel for the petitioner\/defendant contends
\nthat the Executing Court has not looked into the material factual and legal
\naspects of the matter in a proper and real perspective, which has resulted in
\nserious miscarriage of justice.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the
\nRespondents (Legal Representatives of the deceased plaintiff) that their father
\nduring his life time has filed a suit in O.S.No.18 of 1997 against the revision
\npetitioner\/defendant on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurai Taluk,
\nMadurai. On 12.11.1997, a decree has been passed in the said suit that the
\nrevision petitioner\/defendant has to measure the twenty bags of paddy
\n(contending 48 Padi) in respect of the suit property for the fasli 1406 the
\nsecond cultivation and for subsequent faslis as paddy itself, after receiving
\nthe harvest notice from the revision petitioner\/defendant to the plaintiff
\n(respondents\/ deceased father)<\/p>\n
\t12. In the affidavit in E.A.NO.102 of 2002 filed by the respondents’
\nfather (deceased plaintiff), it is mentioned that a decree has been passed in
\nfavour of their father directing the revision petitioner\/respondent\/defendant to
\ndeliver 20 bags of paddy of 48 Madras measures for each crop (Bogum) from the
\nsecond crop of 1406 Fasli etc.  and the revision petitioner filed E.A.NO.168\/99
\npraying to pass an order that the decree in O.S.No.18\/97 is inexecutable and
\nincapable of execution and such E.P.No.62\/1999 is to be dismissed and that an
\norder has been passed by allowing the said application by holding that a
\nseparate suit has to be filed for collecting of rent in respect of each year.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Moreover, in the affidavit in E.P.No.102 of 2002, it is also averred
\nthat as against the order dated 08.10.1999 in E.A.No.168 of 1999, the
\npetitioners’ father (deceased plaintiff) has filed C.R.P.No.2706 of 2000 before
\nthe Honourable High Court, Madras and the Civil Revision Petition has been
\nallowed and the order passed in E.A.NO.168\/1999 has been set aside.  Added
\nfurther in the said Civil Revision Petition, a direction has been issued to
\nproceed with E.P.No.62 of 1999 and dispose of the same within three months.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. Apart from the above in C.R.P.No.2706\/2000, the Honourable High Court
\nhas observed that the respondent (revision petitioner) is in arrears of rent
\neven in respect of subsequent period after the decree in O.S.No.18\/1997 and he
\nis liable to be evicted from the land.  Moreover an opportunity has been granted
\nto the Respondents’ father (deceased father\/plaintiff) to seek for recovery of
\npossession in the same execution petition to evict the respondent pursuant to
\nthe order.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The Revision petitioner in his counter in E.A.No.102 of 2002 as among
\nother things averred that he filed an E.A.No.168 of 1999 that in O.S.No.18 of
\n1997 is inexecutable one for subsequent faslies and the same has been allowed
\nand E.P.No.62 of 1999 has been dismissed and the observation made in
\nC.R.P.No.2706 of 2000 cannot be executed and the Executing Court has not
\njurisdiction to evict the cultivating tenant, since the revision petitioner is
\nentitled to the benefits under the Cultivating Tenants Protection Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Continuing further in the said counter, the revision petitioner has
\nalso added that the claims of arrears of rent without a decree is not
\nmaintainable and that the Court has to fix the arrears of rent and then pass
\norder and for the reason of failure of crops, he is not liable to pay rent and
\nalso that there is no direction to the Executing Court to pass an order of
\neviction by the Honourable High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner\/Respondent\/defendant in support
\nof of the contention that the decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.18 of
\n1997 dated 12.11.1997 lack inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit in favour
\nof the bar as per Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act
\nand as such the decree passed is nullity etc., relies on the decision of the
\nHonourable Supreme Court  in  Sarwan Kumar and Another Vs. Madan Lal Aggarwal
\nreported in (2003)4 Supreme Court Cases 147, wherein it held that the decree
\npassed by the Civil Court lacking inherent jurisdiction to entertain the suit in
\nview of the specific bar contained in special Act governing the case would be a
\nnullity and therefore, objection regarding invalidity of such decree can be
\nraised at any later stage including the stage of execution of the decree or any
\nother collateral proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. He also invites the attention of this Court to the decision of
\nHonourable High Court in Manish Goel Vs. Rohini Goel reported in (2010)4 Supreme
\nCourt Cases 393, wherein it is observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“14. Generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor
\ncan the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory
\nprovisions.  The Courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the
\norders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. (Vide
\nState of Punjab V Renuka Singla reported in (1994)1 SCC 175, State of U.P. V.
\nHarish Chandra<\/a> reported in (1996)9 SCC 309, Union of India V. Kirloskar
\nPneumatic Co. Ltd.<\/a> reported in (1996)4 SCC 453, University of Allahabad V. Dr.
\nAnand Prakash Mishra<\/a> reported in (1997)10 SCC 264, and Karnataka SRTC V.
\nAshrafulla Khan<\/a> reported (2002)2 SCC 560.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The Learned Counsel for the respondents (Legal Representatives of the
\ndeceased plaintiff) places reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme
\nCourt in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., V. Machado Brothers and Others<\/a>
\nreported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2093, wherein it is laid down as follows:
\n“If there is no specific provision which prohibits the grant of relief sought in
\nan application filed under Section 151, the Courts have all the necessary powers
\nunder Section 151 to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process
\nof Court.  Therefore, the Court exercising the power under Section 151, CPC
\nfirst has to consider whether exercise of such power is expressly prohibited by
\nany other provisions of the Code and if there is no such prohibition then the
\nCourt will consider whether such power should be exercised or not on the basis
\nof facts mentioned in the application.”\n<\/p>\n
\t20. At this stage, this Court pertinently points out that Section 3 (4)(1)
\nspeaks as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Right to restoration of possession: Every cultivating tenant who was in
\npossession of any land on the 1st December, 1953 and who is not in possession
\nthereof at the commencement of this Act shall, on application to the Revenue
\nDivisional Officer, be entitled to be restored to such possession on the same
\nterms as those applicable to the possession of the land on the 1st December
\n1953.”\n<\/p>\n
\t21. Also, Section 3(4)(a) of the Act enjoins as follows:
\n“the total extent of land held by such landlord inclusive of the land, if any,
\nheld by him as a tenant does not exceed the extent specified in the Explanation
\nbelow.”\n<\/p>\n
\t22. This Court aptly points out the decision in N.Sreedharan Thampi V.
\nVelayadhan Pillai, reported in AIR 1984 Mad 100, wherein it is held that where
\nthe defendants are cultivating tenants, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to
\nexecute the decree for possession in view of the specific provisions of Section
\n3(4) of the Act and the matter has to be gone into only by the Revenue
\nDivisional Officer for the relief asked for, namely, recovery of possession.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. In this Connection it is not out of place for this Court to make a
\nrelevant mention that the effect of the proviso inserted to Section 3(4)(b) of
\nthe Act is that the Revenue Court is not empowered to direct the tenant to
\ndeposit the time barred arrears of rent as per the decision in Palani Gounder V.
\nS.P.Thangavel Gounder<\/a> reported in 1988(1) Mad.L.W. 499.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.  The Learned Counsel for the respondents (Legal Representatives of the
\ndeceased plaintiff) submits that in C.R.P.No.2706 of 2000, dated 21.12.2001
\n(between Respondents’ father\/the deceased plaintiff Vs. respondent(defendant),
\nit is inter alia observed by the High Court that in view of the admitted fact of
\narrears of rent, it is unnecessary to compel the petitioner to initiate separate
\nproceedings to evict the respondent.  Since the respondent is undisputedly in
\narrears of rent and evading the payment on technical grounds, this Court is of
\nthe view that he is liable to surrender possession to the petitioner.  Hence, it
\nis open to the petitioner to seek for recovery of possession also in the same
\nexecution petition to evict the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. It is to be pointed out that merely because an observation has been
\nmade by this Court in C.R.P.No.2706 of 2000 dated 21.12.2001, “… that it is
\nopen to the petitioner to seek for recovery of possession also in the execution
\npetition to evict the respondent.” the same will not be of any assistance to the
\nRespondents (Legal Representatives of the deceased plaintiff), because the
\nrelief of possession has to be looked into by the Revenue Divisional Officer
\nonly as opined by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. It is also brought to the notice of the High Court that the
\nRespondent\/Defendant is not adhered to the additional order passed by this Court
\nin C.M.P.No.18290 of 2002 in C.R.P.No.1747 of 2002 dated 27.10.2005, wherein he
\nhas been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.85,000\/-(Rupees Eighty Five Thousand
\nonly) to the credit of E.P.No.62 of 1999, on or before 30.11.2005, failing
\nwhich, stay granted shall be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. As far as the present case is concerned, the decree passed in
\nO.S.No.18 of 1997 dated 12.11.1997 is in favour of the Respondents’ father
\n(deceased plaintiff) in directing the Revision petitioner(Defendant) to deliver
\n20 bags of paddy of 48 Madras Measures for each crop from the second crop of
\n1406 fasli.  Therefore, it is candidly clear that there is no decree in
\nO.S.No.18 of 1997 for evicting the revision petitioner\/defendant from the land.
\nAs per Section 3(4) of the Act, the issue of evicting the revision
\npetitioner\/Defendant from the land is to be gone into only by the Revenue
\nDivisional Officer, namely the recovery of possession.  Also A Revenue Court
\nunder the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act will not have the power
\nto remit the rent due by a tenant on the ground of failure of crop as per the
\ndecision of the High Court in P.Ramaswamy Gounder and another V Perianna Moopan
\nreported in (1959)1 Mad LJ 122. In the aforesaid decision it is held as follows:
\n“In the absence of any statutory provision enabling an authority to grant
\nremission, it is always a matter of grace by the landlord. A Revenue Court under
\nthe Madras Cultivating Tenant Protection Act has no power to grant remission of
\nthe agreed rent due by a tenant or any portion of it on the ground of failure of
\ncrop.  The Court has to ascertain the arrears of rent due on the basis of the
\ncontract between the parties and the only remedy, if any, open to the tenant is
\nto apply for fixation of fair rent under the provisions of the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t28. E.A.No.102 of 2002 filed by the Respondents’ Father (the Deceased
\nplaintiff) is not maintainable in law and subsequently, the order for delivery
\nof possession passed by the Executing Court in E.A.No.102 of 2002, dated
\n09.09.2002 is hereby set aside, to prevent the aberration of justice.
\nSubsequently, the Civil Revision Petition succeeds.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, leaving the
\nparties to bear their own costs.  Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
\nPetition is closed. The order passed by the Executing Court, dated 09.09.2002 in
\nE.A.No.102 of 2002 ordering delivery of possession by the Civil Revision
\nPetitioner is hereby set aside and E.A.No.102 of 2002 stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
ssl
\nTo
\nThe District Munsif,
\nMadurai Taluk at Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court V.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04\/03\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No. 1747 of 2002 and C.M.P.No.18290 of 2002 V.Periakaruppan Ambalam … Petitioner Vs. 1. K.Sivashankaran(died) 2. S.Meenambal 3. S.Gandhi 4. S.Mahalakshmi 5. S.Nagasundaram … Respondents (R.2 to R.5 […]<\/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-189051","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011 - 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\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-04T11:48:19+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=\"13 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-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-04T11:48:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2502,\"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-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011\",\"name\":\"V.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-04T11:48:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011 - 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\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-04T11:48:19+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-04T11:48:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011"},"wordCount":2502,"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-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011","name":"V.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-04T11:48:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-periakaruppan-ambalam-vs-k-sivashankarandied-on-4-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Periakaruppan Ambalam vs K.Sivashankaran(Died) on 4 March, 2011"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/189051","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=189051"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189051\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189051"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189051"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189051"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}