{"id":210545,"date":"2004-11-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004"},"modified":"2014-09-19T08:00:07","modified_gmt":"2014-09-19T02:30:07","slug":"r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004","title":{"rendered":"R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 01\/11\/2004 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.KANAGARAJ     \nand \nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.THANIKACHALAM      \n\nWrit Appeal No.105 of 2002 \n\n\nR.Vijayalakshmi                 ...             Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. P.P.R.Hariharan\n   9, Red Hills Road\n   Villiwakkam\n   Madras 600 049 \n\n2. The Tahsildar\n   Peambur-Purasalwakkam   \n   Sembiam \n   Madras 600 012 \n\n3. The District Collector\n   Madras District\n   Madras 600 005 \n\n4. The Commissioner  \n   Corporation of Madras\n   Madras 600 003 \n\n5. The Inspector of Police ( L&amp;O)\n   Villiwakkam Police Station\n   Madras 600 049 \n\n6. The Junior Engineer\n   Tamil Nadu Electricity Board\n   63, Villiwakkam\n   Madras 600 049.              ...                     Respondents\n\n\n        Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the  order  dated\n17.08.2001 made in W.P.No.5940 of 1995.  \n!For appellant   :  Mr.V.Raghavachari\n\n^For respondents :  Mr.A.Shanmugham ..  For R1  \n                Mr.V.Subbarayan\n                Spl.G.P.  ..  For R2,3 &amp; 5\n                Mr.K.A.Raveendran For R4\n                Mr.G.Vasudevan ..  For R6\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nV.KANAGARAJ.,J.)   <\/p>\n<p>        The  above  writ  appeal has been preferred against the Order dated 17<br \/>\n.08.2001 made in Writ Petition No.5940 of 1995 by the learned Single Judge  of<br \/>\nthis  Court  thereby  an  application  filed  by  the petitioner  individual,<br \/>\npraying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to take<br \/>\nnecessary action under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment  Act<br \/>\n(III of 1905) to clear the encroachments and to remove the huts over an extent<br \/>\nof about  3000  sq.ft.    Of poromboke land stretching from East to West to an<br \/>\nextent of 160 feet in length situate between the Villiwakkam Red Hills Road at<br \/>\nNorthern side and the petitioner residential house in No.9, Red Hills Road,<br \/>\nVilliwakkam,  Madras.49  and  the passage at the southern side and the learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge on the  above  writ  petition  has  been  ordered  directing  the<br \/>\nrespondents to remove the unauthorised encroachers within eight weeks from the<br \/>\ndate of receipt of production of the copy of the order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   Aggrieved,  the third party-appellant on leave by this Court, has<br \/>\ncome forward to prefer the above appeal on grounds such as, that  the  learned<br \/>\nSingle  Judge  should  have seen that the writ petition is abuse of process of<br \/>\nlaw and the writ petitioner had mischievously failed to implead the proper and<br \/>\nnecessary party  to  the  proceeding;  that  the  learned  Judge  should  have<br \/>\nappreciated  that  the  occupation of the appellant is anterior to that of the<br \/>\nwrit petitioner and she had put up a pucca  structure  and  had  the  building<br \/>\nassessed;  that the learned Judge should have directed the first respondent to<br \/>\ndisclose the nature of his right to the property; that the first respondent is<br \/>\nan interlopper and has no right to the  property  that  he  is  holding;  that<br \/>\nfurther,  he  had  encroached  upon  the  &#8216;eri  channel&#8217;  and  that  the first<br \/>\nrespondent has no right to accuse the occupants of  S.No.344  as  encroachers;<br \/>\nthat  the  first  respondent  had  pleaded  a  false  case as if the public is<br \/>\naffected by the construction of the property by the petitioner; that the claim<br \/>\nof the first respondent is fraudulent and mischievous; that there exists a  40<br \/>\nfeet road and the appellant&#8217;s property is assigned Door No.12, South Red Hills<br \/>\nRoad,  and this property had been constructed by her father and the assessment<br \/>\nwas also made by the Corporation of Madras as early as  in  1  957;  that  the<br \/>\nrespondents  2  to 5 are attempting to remove the structure put up by Jayarama<br \/>\nReddy, the father of the appellant and  inherited  by  the  appellant  on  his<br \/>\ndeath;  that  the  respondents  2  to 6 have issued a notice on 25.09.2001 and<br \/>\nserved on the appellant on 09.11.2001, calling upon the  appellant  to  remove<br \/>\nthe  alleged  encroachment;  that  the  appellant has perfected her title, and<br \/>\nright, and the respondents 2 to 6 cannot seek to have the construction removed<br \/>\nparticularly, themselves having assessed to the property; that the proceedings<br \/>\nof the respondents is against the ruling reported in 2001 All India High Court<br \/>\nCases 1921; on such grounds, the appellant would ultimately pray to set  aside<br \/>\nthe  order  of  the learned Single Judge made in Writ Petition No.5940 of 1995<br \/>\ndated 17.08.2001, as illegal, incumbent, irregular and without jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  Today  when  the  above  writ  appeal  was  taken  up  for<br \/>\nconsideration  before  this  Court, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of<br \/>\nthe appellant would submit  that  the  judgment  of  the  Hon&#8217;ble  Apex  Court<br \/>\ndelivered in <a href=\"\/doc\/1786325\/\">Government of Andhra Pradesh v.  Thummala Krishna Rao and<\/a> another<br \/>\n(AIR  1982  SUPREME COURT, 1081) wherein the learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nappellant would point out the following passage.\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government<br \/>\nto any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in  its  own<br \/>\nfavour that the property belongs to it, and on the basis of such decision take<br \/>\nrecourse  to the summary remedy provided by S.6 for evicting the person who is<br \/>\nin possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.  On the part of the  writ  petitioner  before  the  learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge who is the first respondent in the above writ appeal, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel appearing on his behalf would submit that the first respondent has got<br \/>\nhis  own interest nearby the property which is under encroachment and moreover<br \/>\nsince being a public road,  the  encroachments  drastically  affect  the  easy<br \/>\naccess  for  men  and  vehicle  to pass through, besides creating pollution by<br \/>\ncausing the effluents allowed  to  flow  nearby  his  genuine  occupation  and<br \/>\ntherefore, he would urge this Court to confirm the order of the learned Single<br \/>\nJudge directing to evict the encroachers in a time bound manner.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf<br \/>\nof  the  Governmental  authorities  who are the rest of the respondents in the<br \/>\nabove appeal, that is respondents 2, 3 and 5, would also submit that the order<br \/>\nof the learned Single Judge is the warranting one in the situation of the case<br \/>\nwithout which  it  is  very  difficult  to  maintain  a  common  and  communal<br \/>\nfacilities  such  as,  the  road  and  therefore, in full consideration of the<br \/>\nhindrance that is caused not only to the individuals like the petitioner,  but<br \/>\nalso to the general public, the learned Single Judge has passed this order and<br \/>\nwould urge the Court to confirm the same dismissing the above writ appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   In  consideration  of the facts pleaded, having regard to<br \/>\nthe materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel  appearing<br \/>\nfor the appellant, the first respondent and the Special Government Pleader for<br \/>\nrespondents  2,  3  and 5, and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 4<br \/>\nand 6, what comes to be known is that the above writ petition has  been  filed<br \/>\nseeking  to  evict  the  encroachments  indicted by the writ petitioner in the<br \/>\nabove writ petition.  Though on the part of the petitioner in the  above  writ<br \/>\npetition, he would cite the representation made on his part to the authorities<br \/>\nparticularly,  to  the  Madras  Corporation,  the Assistant Engineer, Highways<br \/>\nconcerned with the Corporation and such other  authorities,  since  no  proper<br \/>\naction was initiated to evict the encroachers, left with no choice has come to<br \/>\nthe Court seeking the remedy as sought for in the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Though the intention of the writ petitioner in  the  above<br \/>\nwrit  petition  is  laudable,  still  the  petitioner has not brought-forth in<br \/>\ndetail and with proof as to how by the said encroachments  the  petitioner  is<br \/>\naffected  since it is the public convenience on the main road leading from Red<br \/>\nHills Road to an extent of about 3000 sq.ft.   Of  poromboke  land  stretching<br \/>\nfrom  East  to  West  to  an  extent of 160 feet in length situate between the<br \/>\nVilliwakkam Red  Hills  Road  at  Northern  side  and  the  writ  petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nresidential  house  in  No.9,  Red  Hills Road, Villiwakkam, Madras.49 and the<br \/>\npassage at the southern side of the property is the  subject  matter,  wherein<br \/>\nthe  encroachers  are to be evicted and therefore needless to mention that the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s personal properties are  not  at  all  involved  so  far  as  the<br \/>\neviction sought to be carried out is concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  But the petition would very well sound a  public  interest<br \/>\nlitigation  and  from the very wording of the petitioner and the prayer sought<br \/>\nto be made, it could easily be analysed that it is a sort of  public  interest<br \/>\nlitigation  and in such event it cannot lie before the learned Single Judge of<br \/>\nthis Court and therefore, even regarding  the  maintainability,  there  is  no<br \/>\nground for the writ petition to have been entertained.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  Secondly, though eviction is sought for to be made who are<br \/>\nto  be  evicted, it has not been made clear in the writ petition nor those who<br \/>\nare sought to be evicted have been impleaded as necessary parties to the  writ<br \/>\nproceeding  particularly,  in  view of the fact that those who are going to be<br \/>\naffected by the orders sought to be passed, have to be made parties so  as  to<br \/>\ngive  an  opportunity for them to be heard since being the cardinal principles<br \/>\nof t he natural justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.   Absolutely, no one of the so-called encroachers has been<br \/>\nbrought on record as a necessary party to the proceedings.  But the  order  of<br \/>\nthe  learned  Single Judge directing the authorities to carry out the eviction<br \/>\nissued are sure to affect the so-called encroachers, among whom, there may  be<br \/>\ngenuine  parties  and the vital interest in the property held by them or their<br \/>\nproperties may not even come under the  purview  of  encroachment  but,  still<br \/>\nunder  the  pretext  of  the  order  they  are  also  likely to be evicted and<br \/>\ntherefore, without identifying as to  who  are  the  encroachers  and  without<br \/>\nbringing  them  on  record,  a  blunt  order  cannot  be passed in the name of<br \/>\neviction of the encroachers and, therefore, this writ appeal has to be decided<br \/>\non such parameters, particularly on the ground of maintainability which in the<br \/>\nconsidered opinion of this Court,  the  writ  petition  could  not  have  been<br \/>\nentertained  since  the  petitioner,  strictly  speaking,  is  not  personally<br \/>\naffected by the encroachment sought to be evicted but may be with  the  hidden<br \/>\ndesire to increase the value of his property which is some of the way from the<br \/>\nencroached  portion,  the  petitioner  might  have  come  forward  to file the<br \/>\napplication and that  cannot  be  presumed  prior  to  the  entertaining  such<br \/>\napplication pertaining to the prayer of the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.   The  wordings,  the objects sought to be achieved in the<br \/>\nwrit petition, particularly fixing the attention on the subject matter and the<br \/>\neviction sought to be made would all sound very much that the subject designed<br \/>\nby the petitioner is one of public interest matters and if at all it could  be<br \/>\nmade  to  the  proper forum as a public interest litigation in which event the<br \/>\nwrit petition could not lie before a learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.  Further, the encroachers who are sought to be evicted are<br \/>\nnot identified nor made necessary parties to the proceedings and therefore, no<br \/>\nblunt  orders could be made particularly regarding the eviction of the certain<br \/>\npermanent structures since the innocents also are susceptible  to  suffer  and<br \/>\ntherefore,  it is only desirable on the part of the petitioner to name out the<br \/>\nencroachers, identifying them and their properties which could  be  considered<br \/>\nhaving  constructed  in  the encroached area and making them as respondents to<br \/>\nthe writ petition.  Thus making out a writ petition in the full  form  and  in<br \/>\nthe required order and therefore, on all these reasons, this Court is not in a<br \/>\nposition  either to accept the maintainability of the writ petition before the<br \/>\nlearned Single Judge or even to confirm the order  passed  therein,  directing<br \/>\nthe  authorities  to  evict  the encroachers within eight weeks as it has been<br \/>\nordered by the learned Single Judge and therefore, this Court is of  the  firm<br \/>\nview  that  the  above writ appeal has to be allowed but at the same time with<br \/>\nliberty to the writ petitioner, the first respondent  herein  to  agitate  his<br \/>\nrights,  if  any,  or in the manner of a public interest litigation fulfilling<br \/>\nthe requirements therein and resorting to  the  proper  forum  and  hence  the<br \/>\nfollowing Judgment:\n<\/p>\n<p>                In result,<\/p>\n<p>                (i)  for  all  the  reasons  assigned,  the  above writ appeal<br \/>\nsucceeds and the same is allowed;\n<\/p>\n<p>                (ii) the Order dated 17.08.2001 made in W.P.No.5940 of 1995 by<br \/>\nthe learned Single Judge of this Court is set aside;\n<\/p>\n<p>                (iii) However, the writ petitioner\/first respondent will be at<br \/>\nliberty to agitate his right in the proper manner and before the proper  forum<br \/>\nand in such a way as it has been directed supra.\n<\/p>\n<p>                No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>kvsg<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1) The Tahsildar<br \/>\nPeambur-Purasalwakkam<br \/>\nSembiam<br \/>\nMadras 600 012  <\/p>\n<p>2) The District Collector<br \/>\nMadras District<br \/>\nMadras 600 005  <\/p>\n<p>3) The Commissioner,<br \/>\nCorporation of Madras<br \/>\nMadras 600 003  <\/p>\n<p>4) The Inspector of Police ( L&amp;O)<br \/>\nVilliwakkam Police Station<br \/>\nMadras 600 049.\n<\/p>\n<p>5) The Junior Engineer<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board<br \/>\n63, Villiwakkam, Madras 600 049.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 01\/11\/2004 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice V.KANAGARAJ and The Honourable Mr.Justice M.THANIKACHALAM Writ Appeal No.105 of 2002 R.Vijayalakshmi &#8230; Appellant -Vs- 1. P.P.R.Hariharan 9, Red Hills Road Villiwakkam Madras 600 049 2. The Tahsildar Peambur-Purasalwakkam Sembiam Madras [&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-210545","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>R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004 - 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\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-19T02:30:07+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-19T02:30:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1981,\"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\\\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004\",\"name\":\"R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-19T02:30:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004 - 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\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-19T02:30:07+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-19T02:30:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004"},"wordCount":1981,"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\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004","name":"R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-19T02:30:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-vijayalakshmi-vs-p-p-r-hariharan-on-1-november-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R.Vijayalakshmi vs P.P.R.Hariharan on 1 November, 2004"}]},{"@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\/210545","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=210545"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210545\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210545"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210545"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210545"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}