{"id":244158,"date":"2004-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004"},"modified":"2016-01-13T23:49:38","modified_gmt":"2016-01-13T18:19:38","slug":"ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 22\/04\/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN\n\nCivil Revision Petition (NPD)No.73 of 2002\n\nRamasamy Pandithar.                         ... Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\nRamalinga Kounder.                          ... Respondent.\n\n        Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 C.P.C.    against  the\norder  and  decretal  order  dated 15.2.2001 and made in I.A.No.304 of 2000 in\nA.S.No.131 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram.\n\n!For petitioner :  Mr.R.Yashod Vardhan.\n\n^For respondent :  Mr.K.Mani.\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.47 of 1998  on  the<br \/>\nfile of  the District Munsif Court, Villupuram.  The revision is filed against<br \/>\nthe dismissal of the amendment petition I.A.No.304 of 2000  in  A.S.No.131  of<br \/>\n1999  on  the  file  of  the II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram, to amend the<br \/>\nplaint for delivery of vacant possession of the plaint &#8216;B&#8217;  schedule  property<br \/>\nand  stating that it was trespassed by the defendant after filing of the suit,<br \/>\nas per order dated 15.2.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  In the affidavit filed in support of the said amendment  petition,<br \/>\nthe   plaintiff   has   stated   that   after   filing   of   the   suit,  the<br \/>\nrespondent\/defendant trespassed into a portion of his property  on  the  South<br \/>\nand  therefore,  recovery  of  possession  is also to be sought for, for which<br \/>\npurpose, the plaintiff filed the amendment petition as stated in the petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  The amendment petition was opposed in the counter that though  the<br \/>\nplaintiff was fully aware, even at the stage of trial that the defendant is in<br \/>\npossession  of  &#8216;B&#8217;  schedule  property,  no  step has been taken to amend the<br \/>\nplaint at that stage.  No petition was  filed  to  amend  the  plaint  seeking<br \/>\nrecovery  of  possession before evidence was let in or before the judgment was<br \/>\npronounced in the suit.  After filing of the written statement, the  plaintiff<br \/>\nfiled  a  petition seeking police help and the petition was dismissed, against<br \/>\nwhich no appeal has been filed.  Even in the said petition, the plaintiff  has<br \/>\nstated  that  the  defendant has dug up the foundation for construction of the<br \/>\nbrick built house.  The amendment now sought for will change the character  of<br \/>\nthe suit.    The suit &#8216;A&#8217; schedule property has been sub divided as 480\/12 and<br \/>\nthe &#8216;B&#8217; schedule property has been sub  divided  as  480\/13.    The  amendment<br \/>\npetition is filed to delay the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   The  trial  Court  on consideration of the materials available on<br \/>\nrecord, ultimately dismissed the petition.  The order is  challenged  in  this<br \/>\nrevision petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   Heard  the  learned  counsel  for the revision petitioner and the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  The learned counsel for the revision  petitioner\/plaintiff  argued<br \/>\nthat  the  defendant has trespassed into the suit property after filing of the<br \/>\nsuit and as such, the plaint is to be amended seeking the relief  of  recovery<\/p>\n<p>of possession for which purpose, the amendment petition I.A.No.304 of 2000 was<br \/>\nfiled.   The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also pointed out that<br \/>\nsuch amendment can be ordered at any stage.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   The  learned  counsel   for   the   respondent\/defendant   argued<br \/>\nreiterating  the  stand  taken  in  the counter that despite the fact, written<br \/>\nstatement was filed clearly stating that the defendant is in possession of the<br \/>\n&#8216;B&#8217; schedule property and even though the plaintiff as P.W.1 admitted  in  his<br \/>\nevidence  that after filing of the suit, the defendant had trespassed into the<br \/>\nsuit &#8216;B&#8217; schedule property, no petition was filed to amend the plaint suitably<br \/>\nseeking  the  relief  of  possession  at  the  trial  stage  and  even  before<br \/>\npronouncement of the judgment in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   The  plaintiff  filed  the suit O.S.No.47 of 1998 on 6.2.1998 for<br \/>\npermanent injunction and  stating  that  he  is  in  possession  of  the  suit<br \/>\nproperty,  viz.,0.03 cents in G.N.S.No.63\/1A, Kedar village, Villupuram Taluk.<br \/>\nIt is further stated in the plaint that the suit property was assigned to  the<br \/>\nplaintiff as  Inam on 16.3.1983.  The defendant filed the written statement on<br \/>\n6.10.1998 setting out the clear case that by including the suit property which<br \/>\nbelongs to the defendant, patta was obtained by the plaintiff for  0.03  cents<br \/>\nin  1983 and latter in the year 1984 patta was granted in respect of 0.01 cent<br \/>\nNorth of the temple to the defendant.  The plaintiff also constructed house in<br \/>\n0.03 cents North excluding the land to which the patta was granted  in  favour<br \/>\nof the defendant and as such it is only the defendant, who is in possession of<br \/>\nthe suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   On  perusal of records, it appears, I.A.No.2230 of 1998 was filed<br \/>\non 27.8.1998 to direct the Sub Inspector of Police, Kedar Police  Station,  to<br \/>\nhelp to implement the interim injunction dated 27.4.1998 granted in I.A.No.401<br \/>\nof 1998.    In  the affidavit, the plaintiff has stated that the defendant has<br \/>\nstarted construction in the property and also made pits and holes in the  suit<br \/>\nproperty  to the extent of 3 feet in depth and 2 feet in width for the purpose<br \/>\nof foundation for construction on 20.8.1998.  That petition was  dismissed  on<br \/>\n8.2.1999  after contest recording finding that pursuant to the order passed on<br \/>\n22.1 2.1997 by the State Government, the defendant had handed over  possession<br \/>\nof  the  property as early in the year 1998 for the purpose of construction of<br \/>\nthe house in the house site allotted to him to the contractor and as such, the<br \/>\ncase of the plaintiff that the defendant trespassed into the suit property  is<br \/>\nunacceptable.   As  pointed  out  by  the trial Court, the plaintiff was fully<br \/>\naware of the fact that the defendant was in possession of the  suit  property,<br \/>\nwhich,  according  to  him, the defendant trespassed after filing of the suit.<br \/>\nIn his evidence,  P.W.1,  the  plaintiff  also  admitted  that  the  defendant<br \/>\ntrespassed  into  the  suit  property  after  obtaining  an  order  of interim<br \/>\ninjunction and he also stated so in I.A.No.2230 of 1998 filed for police help.<br \/>\nThough the said petition I.A.No.2230 of 1998 seeking police help was dismissed<br \/>\nafter contest on 8.2.1999, no appeal was filed against the said order.  It  is<br \/>\nnot  stated  in  the  petition  I.A.No.304  of  2000  as to when the defendant<br \/>\ntrespassed into the suit property and it is only stated that after  filing  of<br \/>\nthe suit and during the pendency of the suit.  But, the plaintiff did not file<br \/>\nthe  petition  for amendment seeking recovery of possession, despite the fact,<br \/>\nit is his  definite  case  that  after  filing  of  the  suit,  the  defendant<br \/>\ntrespassed into the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   No  new  case  is  set  up  in  the  amendment petition, in that<br \/>\ndeclaration sought for in respect of the suit property as  it  was  originally<br \/>\nand  now sought to be amended as &#8216;A&#8217; schedule property and in seeking recovery<br \/>\nof possession of &#8216;B&#8217; schedule property,  viz.,  the  area  trespassed  by  the<br \/>\ndefendant  after  filing  of  the  suit to the extent of 0.0 1 cent out of &#8216;A&#8217;<br \/>\nschedule property, viz., 0.03 cents.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  Considering the fact that the plaintiff has come forward with the<br \/>\nspecific  case  that  he  is  in possession of the suit property in respect of<br \/>\nwhich patta was assigned to him  as  early  as  in  the  year  1983  and  that<br \/>\nsubsequent  to  the  filing of the suit, the defendant has trespassed into the<br \/>\nsuit property, for which purpose, he did not take steps during the pendency of<br \/>\nthe trial and has filed the petition I.A.  No.304 of 2000 seeking recovery  of<br \/>\npossession  of  the suit property at the appellate stage, it would be just and<br \/>\nproper if an opportunity is given to the plaintiff to amend  the  plaint  with<br \/>\nregard to the relief of possession on his depositing cost to the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  In the  result,  this  Civil  Revision  Petition  is  allowed  on<br \/>\ncondition,  the  revision petitioner\/plaintiff deposits a sum of Rs.3,000\/- to<br \/>\nthe credit of A.S.No.131 of 1999 in the II Additional Sub Court, Villupuram on<br \/>\nor before 8.6.2004, failing which,  the  order  dated  15.2  .2001  passed  in<br \/>\nI.A.No.304 of  2000  in  A.S.No.131  of  1999 will stand.  On such deposit the<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge is directed to dispose the appeal  by  August,  2004.    The<br \/>\nrespondent\/defendant is permitted to withdraw the above amount out of Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>Internet:Yes.\n<\/p>\n<p>ts.\n<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1) The II Additional Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nVillupuram.\n<\/p>\n<p>2) The District Munsif,<br \/>\nVillupuram.\n<\/p>\n<p>3) The Section Officer,<br \/>\nV.R.  Section,<br \/>\nHigh Court,<br \/>\nMadras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 22\/04\/2004 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice S.SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN Civil Revision Petition (NPD)No.73 of 2002 Ramasamy Pandithar. &#8230; Petitioner. -Vs- Ramalinga Kounder. &#8230; Respondent. Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 C.P.C. against the [&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-244158","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 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\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-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=\"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-13T18:19:38+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-13T18:19:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1287,\"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\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004\",\"name\":\"Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-13T18:19:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 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:\/\/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":"Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 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\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-13T18:19:38+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-13T18:19:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004"},"wordCount":1287,"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\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004","name":"Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-13T18:19:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramasamy-pandithar-vs-ramalinga-kounder-on-22-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramasamy Pandithar vs Ramalinga Kounder on 22 April, 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:\/\/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\/244158","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=244158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244158\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}