{"id":22195,"date":"2010-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-02T11:04:03","modified_gmt":"2018-05-02T05:34:03","slug":"p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"P.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri &#8230; 1St on 13 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri &#8230; 1St on 13 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 13\/08\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nC.R.P.(PD)MD.No.467 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010\n\n\nP.Sekar                  ... Petitioner\/3rd Defendant\n\nvs.\n\n\n1.V.K.Vaiyapuri          ... 1st respondent\/Plaintiff\n2.S.Senthoor Pandian\n  @ S.S.Pandian           ... 2nd respondent\/1st defendant\n3.P.Muthuramalingam       ... 3rd respondent\/2nd defendant\n\n\n This  civil revision petitions has been filed under  Article 227 of the\nConstitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order, dated\n26.10.2009 made in I.A.No.910 of  2008 in O.S.No.161 of 2008 on the file of the\nDistrict Munsif Court, Melur\n\n!For Petitioner       ... Mr.V.Sitharajandas\n^For Respondents      ... Mr.M.Challam\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard both sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The 3rd defendant in O.S.No.161 of 2008, on the file of the District<br \/>\nMunsif Court, Melur, is the revision petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The first respondent filed the above suit for declaration that the suit<br \/>\nproperties belong to him and for consequential injunction restraining the<br \/>\ndefendants from enjoying his peaceful possession of the suit property.  The suit<br \/>\nproperty is described as punja land of an extent of 1 acre and 94 cents and the<br \/>\nmarket value of the property was arrived at by multiplying the kist by 30 times<br \/>\nand the valuation was arrived at Rs.1,012\/- and the court fee was paid.  This<br \/>\nwas opposed by the 3rd defendant by filing application in I.A.No.910 of 2008<br \/>\nunder Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C stating that as per section 7(2) of the Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nCourt Fees and Suit Valuation Act, when the land is Ryoatwari land, 30 times of<br \/>\nthe survey assessment can be treated as market value and as per 7(2)(g), where<br \/>\nthe land is a house site whether assessed to full revenue or not, poramboke<br \/>\nland, or is land not falling within the foregoing description, the court fee has<br \/>\nto be paid on the market value. It is further stated in the said petition that<br \/>\nthe suit property is not &#8216;Ryotwari land&#8217; and it is a potential house site and<br \/>\ntherefore, the valuation of the property under section 7(2)(a) is not proper and<br \/>\nthe valuation has to be done as per section 7(2)(g) and on that ground, he<br \/>\nraised two issues:- (i)whether the suit property has been properly valued and<br \/>\nproper court fee is paid by the plaintiff; and whether the court has got<br \/>\npecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The respondents filed a counter denying the allegation made in the<br \/>\npetition that the property is only a poramboke land and pleaded that it is not a<br \/>\nhouse site and the court fee paid is correct.  The learned District Munsif, on<br \/>\nthe basis of the pleadings and after considering various judgments cited by the<br \/>\nparties, held that the petition is not maintainable and the issue regrading<br \/>\nvaluation can be taken up along with other issues and there is no need to frame<br \/>\nthe same as preliminary issue. Aggrieved by the same, this civil revision<br \/>\npetition is filed by the revision petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Mr.V.Sitharajandas, the learned counsel appearing for the revision<br \/>\npetitioner submitted that though the original property was &#8216;ryotwari punja&#8217;<br \/>\nland, it ceased to be &#8216;ryotwari punja&#8217; land and became a potential house land<br \/>\nand the entire suit property is surrounded by the house sites and no cultivation<br \/>\nis taking place in the suit property and therefore, it has to be treated as a<br \/>\nhouse site and hence, the market value arrived at by treating the property as<br \/>\n&#8216;ryotwari punja land&#8217; is not correct and the market value of the property should<br \/>\nbe ascertained by treating the same as house site and hence, it must be decided<br \/>\nas a preliminary issue. He also relied upon the judgment reported in 2002(2)CTC<br \/>\n513, in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/922037\/\">V.R.Gopalakrishnan vs. Andiammal and<\/a> submitted that the<br \/>\ncourt fee issue has to be treated as preliminary issue and it cannot be treated<br \/>\nalong with other issues.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents<br \/>\nsubmitted that the issue regarding to the question of pecuniary jurisdiction is<br \/>\na mixed question of fact and law and that cannot be decided as a preliminary<br \/>\nissue and in support of his contention, relied upon the judgments referred to by<br \/>\nthe lower court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by both the<br \/>\ncounsels.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.It is seen from the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, as per<br \/>\nsection 7, the court fee payable depends on the market value of the property and<br \/>\nsuch value shall be determined as on the date of presentation of the plaint.<br \/>\nFurther, as per section 7(2), the market value of the land in suits falling<br \/>\nunder sections 25(a), 25(b), 27(a), 30, 37(1), 37(3), 38, 45 or 48 shall be<br \/>\ndeemed to be (a)where the land is &#8216;ryotwari land&#8217; thirty times the survey<br \/>\nassessment on the land and as per section 7(2)(g) where the land is a house-site<br \/>\nwhether assessed to full revenue or not, poramboke land, or is land not falling<br \/>\nwithin the foregoing description its market value. Therefore, it is seen from<br \/>\nsection 7 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, if it is<br \/>\n&#8216;ryotwari land&#8217;, the market value is 30 times of the survey assessment and if it<br \/>\nis a house or poramboke or land not falling within the other description, the<br \/>\ncourt fee shall be paid on the market value.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.The law relating to trying preliminary issue has been held in the<br \/>\nfollowing judgments:- 2005(4) MLJ 284, in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1820412\/\">Industrial Relations<br \/>\nManager, Madurai Coats Limited, Papavinasam Mills (Post), Ambasamudram and<br \/>\nothers vs. Jayaraman and others<\/a>, 2008(1) MLJ 75, in the case of A.Chinnaraj and<br \/>\nanother vs. Saroja Ammal, 2008(5) CTC 792, in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/481070\/\">V.L.Ramanathan vs.<br \/>\nSalem Nagarathar Sangam,<\/a> rep. by its President, M.S.B.Subramanian Chetty Naidy<br \/>\nThirumana Mahal, Santhi Nagar, 4th Street, Yercaud Road, Salem and 3 others,<br \/>\n2001(3) MLJ 403, in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1539326\/\">A.Manivannan and others vs. Sivaraj and others<\/a>,<br \/>\n2001(2)MLJ 481, in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1919790\/\">Laljivora vs. Srividya,<\/a> 2003(1) CTC 87, in the<br \/>\ncase of <a href=\"\/doc\/434206\/\">E.Pushpalatha vs. C.Shanmughasundaram and<\/a> 2000(3) MLJ 342,<br \/>\nM.Thandavaraya Poosali and five others vs. M.Periyasamy Asari and nine others.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.In all the cases, it has been held that when an issue involves a mixed<br \/>\nquestion of fact and law, it is desirable for the court to pronounce judgment on<br \/>\nall the issues.  It is further held that under Order 14 Rule 2, only a question<br \/>\nof law can be taken up as preliminary issue and the question relating to<br \/>\njurisdiction involves question of law and fact and the same can be taken as<br \/>\npreliminary issue. It is further held that the issue relating to valuation is<br \/>\nnot a pure question of law and it cannot be decided as a preliminary issue.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.Further, I also held in the judgment reported in 2009(5) CTC 818 in the<br \/>\ncase of P.Arunachalam and 5 others vs.L.Thiagarajan and others, wherein the<br \/>\nfacts are almost similar and in that case also, the property was &#8220;Ryotwari punja<br \/>\nland&#8221; and the plaintiff valued the suit property on the basis of the kist<br \/>\nassessment.  In that context, I held that when the property is admittedly<br \/>\nagricultural property and classified as Ryotwari punja land, even though the<br \/>\nbuildings are constructed in and around the suit property, the suit property<br \/>\ndoes not loose the character of &#8216;Ryotwari punja&#8217; and in the absence of any<br \/>\nevidence to prove that the suit property was used as house site, the plaintiff<br \/>\nis entitled to treat the same as &#8216;Ryotwari punja&#8217; property and court fee can be<br \/>\npaid by multiplying the costs by 30 time.\n<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, as per the above judgment, when the preliminary issue can be decided<br \/>\nonly if it is a pure question of law otherwise it cannot be decided as<br \/>\npreliminary issue and it can be decided along with other issues.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.Further, this Court has held in the judgment reported in 1996(1) MLJ<br \/>\n533, in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/269364\/\">G.Krishnamurthy and others vs. Sarangapani and<\/a> another that<br \/>\nwhen the lands are classified as agricultural lands in the revenue records and<br \/>\nassessed as such, the market value can be ascertained by multiplying the survey<br \/>\nassessment by 30 times as per section 7(2)(a).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.In this case, it is stated by the first respondent that the property is<br \/>\na &#8216;ryotwari punja land&#8217;, it may be that the property is surrounded by house<br \/>\nsites and that would not make the suit property as house sites and it is not the<br \/>\ncase of the revision petitioner that the first respondent has pleaded that the<br \/>\nproperty is a house site and considering the extent of the property, it cannot<br \/>\nbe stated that the property is a house site and it can be agricultural property<br \/>\nand it may become house sites.  Hence, the market value of the property as<br \/>\nstated in the plaint is correct and lower court after considering all these<br \/>\naspects and relying upon the various judgments held that the issue cannot be<br \/>\ndecided as preliminary issue .\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.Further, as per the Judicial Dictionary 13th Edition, K.J.Aiyar,<br \/>\n&#8216;Ryotwari&#8217; means the division of all arable land, whether cultivated or waste,<br \/>\ninto blocks, the assessment of each block at a fixed rate for a term of years<br \/>\nand the exaction of revenue from each occupant according to the area of land<br \/>\nthus assessed.  Therefore, it is seen from the above definition even a waste<br \/>\nland can be classified as &#8216;ryotwari&#8217;. Further, as per the P.Ramanatha Aiyer&#8217;s<br \/>\nLaw Lexicon Dictionary, &#8216;Raiyat&#8217; means a person holding land for purposes of<br \/>\nagriculture.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.In this case, as stated supra, the land was originally a &#8216;ryotwari land<br \/>\nand even according to the revision petitioner, it has been converted into house<br \/>\ncites and the surrounding plots are house sites.  Nevertheless, the character of<br \/>\nthe land owned by the respondent will not change, unless he converted the land<br \/>\ninto house sites.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.Hence, I do not find any merit to interfere with the order of the lower<br \/>\ncourt. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>er<\/p>\n<p>To,<\/p>\n<p>The District Munsif,<br \/>\nMelur.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri &#8230; 1St on 13 August, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13\/08\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN C.R.P.(PD)MD.No.467 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010 P.Sekar &#8230; Petitioner\/3rd Defendant vs. 1.V.K.Vaiyapuri &#8230; 1st respondent\/Plaintiff 2.S.Senthoor Pandian @ S.S.Pandian &#8230; 2nd respondent\/1st defendant 3.P.Muthuramalingam &#8230; 3rd respondent\/2nd [&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-22195","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.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri ... 1St on 13 August, 2010 - 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-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri ... 1St on 13 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-02T05:34:03+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=\"8 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-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri &#8230; 1St on 13 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-02T05:34:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1570,\"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-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010\",\"name\":\"P.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri ... 1St on 13 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-02T05:34:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri &#8230; 1St on 13 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri ... 1St on 13 August, 2010 - 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-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri ... 1St on 13 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-02T05:34:03+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri &#8230; 1St on 13 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-02T05:34:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010"},"wordCount":1570,"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-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010","name":"P.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri ... 1St on 13 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-02T05:34:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-sekar-vs-v-k-vaiyapuri-1st-on-13-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Sekar vs V.K.Vaiyapuri &#8230; 1St on 13 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/22195","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=22195"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22195\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22195"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22195"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22195"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}