{"id":196969,"date":"2002-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002"},"modified":"2017-07-16T07:42:04","modified_gmt":"2017-07-16T02:12:04","slug":"p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 26\/09\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\n\nC.R.P. (PD) No.1586 of 2002 and C.R.P. (PD) No. 1587 of 2002\n\n1. P.S.Mohamed Ali\n2. P.S.Mohamed Iqbal\n3. J.K.Abdul Jabbar\n4. Fathimabivi\n5. J.K.Abdul Bari\n6. J.K.Abdul Basheer                            .. Petitioners\nin both petitions\n\n-Vs-\n\nS.Govindan                                     .. Respondent\nin C.R.P.No.1586\/2002\n\nS.Gopalan                                       .. Respondent\nin C.R.P.No.1587\/2002\n\nPRAYER:  Against the orders and decrees even dated 13.6.2002 made in I.A.Nos.8\nand 9 of 2001 in R.C.O.P.Nos.9 and 10 of 1999 respectively, on the file of the\nRent Controller, Tiruvannamalai.\n\n!For Petitioners        :       Mrs.Chitra Sampath\n\n^For Respondents        :       Mr.R.Bharanidharan\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The revision petitioners, who are  tenants,  are  the  respondents  in<br \/>\nR.C.O.P.Nos.9   and   10   of   1999   before  the  learned  Rent  Controller,<br \/>\nTiruvannamalai, laid by the respondents herein for eviction  of  the  revision<br \/>\npetitioners  under  Sections  10(2)(iii),  10(2),  10(3)(a)(iii)  and Sections<br \/>\n10(2)(iii), 10(2), 10(3) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease  &amp;  Rent  Control)<br \/>\nAct,  1960  (hereinafter  referred to as the &#8216;Act&#8217;) respectively, based on the<br \/>\nalleged family partition of the respondents herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Pending the above R.C.O.Ps, the revision petitioners\/tenants filed<br \/>\ninterim applications, viz., I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2001 in R.C.O.P.Nos.9 and 10 of<br \/>\n1999 respectively, before the learned Rent Controller,  Tiruvannamalai,  under<br \/>\nSection 19  of  the  Act,  to  reject the said R.C.O.  P.Nos.9 and 10 of 1999,<br \/>\nplacing reliance on the order dated 1.9.1995 made in R.C.O.P.No.15 of 1994  on<br \/>\nthe   file   of  the  learned  Rent  Controller,  Tiruvannamamali,  which  was<br \/>\nsubsequently confirmed  by  the  learned  Rent  Control  Appellate  Authority,<br \/>\nTiruvannamalai by order dated 20.7.1998 in R.C.A.No.16 of 1995.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The  learned Rent Controller, Tiruvannamalai, by order even dated<br \/>\n13.6.2002 in I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2001  in  H.R.C.O.P.Nos.9  and  10  of  199  9<br \/>\nrespectively, refused to reject the R.C.O.Ps.  exercising the powers conferred<br \/>\nunder Section 19 of the Act.  Hence, the above revisions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   Mrs.Chitra  Sampath, learned counsel for the petitioners contends<br \/>\nthat even though the respondents claim that they are owners  of  the  petition<br \/>\npremises,  the  execution of the lease deed dated 09.12.1968, which was relied<br \/>\nupon by the landlord\/petitioner in R.C.O.P.  No.15 of 1 994 and R.C.A.No.16 of<br \/>\n1995, wherein it was concluded by the learned Rent Controller as  well  as  by<br \/>\nthe   Appellate   Authority   in  the  orders  dated  1.9.1995  and  20.7.1998<br \/>\nrespectively that what was leased out under the lease  deed  dated  09.12.1968<br \/>\nwas  only  a  vacant  land  but  not  building had become final in the earlier<br \/>\nproceedings and the same is not disputed, and therefore, it  is  contended  by<br \/>\nthe  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners that the learned Rent Controller,<br \/>\nTiruvannamalai  ought  to  have  rejected  the  R.C.O.P.s.9  and  10  of  1999<br \/>\nsummarily.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  In this regard, I am obliged to refer Section 19 of the Act, which<br \/>\nreads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Section:  19  Decisions which have become final not to be reopened:\n<\/p>\n<p>Any  application  under  Section  3-A or Section 12, and any application under<br \/>\nsub-section (2) or sub-section (3) or sub-section (3-A) of Section 10 or under<br \/>\nSections 14, 15 or 16, shall be summarily rejected by the  Authorised  Officer<br \/>\nor  the Controller, as the case may be, if such application raises between the<br \/>\nsame parties or between  parties  under  whom  they  or  any  of  them  claim,<br \/>\nsubstantially  the  same  issues as have been finally decided or as purport to<br \/>\nhave been finally decided, in a former proceeding-\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) under this Act, or\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) under any other law from time to time in force before  the  date  of  the<br \/>\ncommencement of this Act and relating to matters dealt with in this Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   A  plain reading of Section 19 of the Act makes it clear that the<br \/>\nsame is enacted on the basis of the principles of res judicata, a  well  known<br \/>\ndoctrine,  which  requires compliance of two important requisites, namely, (i)<br \/>\nthere must be an identity of issues in the two proceedings; and (ii) that  the<br \/>\nformer proceeding must have been decided on the very issues which arise in the<br \/>\nlatter proceedings.   In other words, in the doctrine of res judicata no magic<br \/>\nis involved but it is essentially  a  pragmatic  principle  which  has  to  be<br \/>\napplied  on the facts and circumstances of each case, as held by this Court in<br \/>\nR.J.MEHTA Vs.  PROTTAM SINGH reported in 1979 (2) MLJ 19.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The words, viz., the same issues as  have  been  finally  decided,<br \/>\nemployed by the legislature under Section 19 of the Act would clearly indicate<br \/>\nnot merely the cause of action viz., as relied upon by the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe  petitioners,  the lease deed dated 09.12.1968, but &#8220;the issues&#8221; raised in<br \/>\nthe two proceedings, and such issues should have been formerly adjudicated and<br \/>\nfinally decided between the parties and these basic principles, on  which  the<br \/>\ndoctrine of res judicata rests, cannot be lightly disregarded while exercising<br \/>\nthe  powers  conferred  under Section 19 of the Act, even though Section 19 of<br \/>\nthe Act was incorporated and enacted to prevent frivolous litigations.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  If the facts and circumstances of the case in hand are examined in<br \/>\nthe light of the above well settled principles, there cannot  be  any  dispute<br \/>\nthat   the  learned  Rent  Controller  is  right  in  dismissing  the  interim<br \/>\napplications, viz., I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2001, holding  that  the  R.C.O.P.Nos.9<br \/>\nand  10  of 1999 filed by the respondents herein cannot be summarily rejected,<br \/>\nfor the following reasons:\n<\/p>\n<p>(i) the issue in R.C.O.P.No.15 of 1994 before  the  learned  Rent  Controller,<br \/>\nwhich  was  subsequently  confirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority in<br \/>\nR.C.A.No.16 of 1995 was related to fixation of fair  rent,  wherein  the  Rent<br \/>\nControl  Appellate  Authority  had specifically observed that the owner of the<br \/>\nbuilding, after proving his title  over  the  building  in  appropriate  civil<br \/>\nproceedings before the competent Civil Court can still claim for the rent;\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii)   the   respondents\/landlords   are  not  even  parties  to  the  earlier<br \/>\nproceedings, namely  R.C.O.P.No.15  of  1994  on  the  file  Rent  Controller,<br \/>\nTiruvannamalai.\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii)  the  respondents\/landlords  in  the R.C.O.P.Nos.9 and 10 of 1999 on the<br \/>\nfile of the  learned  Rent  Controller,  Tiruvannamalai,  have  initiated  the<br \/>\neviction proceedings against the revision petitioners\/ tenants with respect to<br \/>\na  totally  different  premises, which was not the subject matter in the order<\/p>\n<p>dated 1.9.1995 made  in  R.C.O.P.No.15  of  199  4  before  the  learned  Rent<br \/>\nController,  as  confirmed  by  the  Rent Control Appellate Authority by order<br \/>\ndated 20.7.1998 in R.C.A.No.16 of 1995 ; and<\/p>\n<p>(iv) the respondents\/landlords, who have filed R.C.O.P.Nos.9 and 10 of 1999 on<br \/>\nthe file of  the  Rent  Controller,  Tiruvannamalai  have  initiated  eviction<br \/>\nproceedings based on a family partition, which issue was neither raised in the<br \/>\nearlier proceedings nor dealt with therein, nor finally decided after a former<br \/>\nadjudication, as contemplated by well settled principles, after full hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.    For  all  these  reasons,  I  do  not  find  any  illegality  or<br \/>\nirregularity in the orders even dated 13.6.2002 in I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2001  in<br \/>\nR.C.O.P.Nos.9  and  10  of  1999 respectively, of the learned Rent Controller,<br \/>\nTiruvannamalai, to hold that  he  has  failed  to  exercise  the  jurisdiction<br \/>\nconferred under  Section  19  of  the  Act.   The above revisions fail and are<br \/>\ntherefore dismissed.  No costs.  Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.1 3612 and  13613  of<br \/>\n2002 are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>sasi<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Rent Controller<br \/>\nTiruvannamalai<\/p>\n<p>P.D.DINAKARAN,J.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26\/09\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN C.R.P. (PD) No.1586 of 2002 and C.R.P. (PD) No. 1587 of 2002 1. P.S.Mohamed Ali 2. P.S.Mohamed Iqbal 3. J.K.Abdul Jabbar 4. Fathimabivi 5. J.K.Abdul Bari 6. J.K.Abdul Basheer [&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-196969","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002 - 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\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-16T02:12:04+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-16T02:12:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1123,\"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\\\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002\",\"name\":\"P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-16T02:12:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002 - 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\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-16T02:12:04+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-16T02:12:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002"},"wordCount":1123,"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\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002","name":"P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-16T02:12:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-s-mohamed-ali-vs-s-govindan-on-26-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.S.Mohamed Ali vs S.Govindan on 26 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/196969","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=196969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/196969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=196969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=196969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=196969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}