{"id":252586,"date":"2006-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006"},"modified":"2015-08-01T23:18:47","modified_gmt":"2015-08-01T17:48:47","slug":"e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006","title":{"rendered":"E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 09\/03\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN          \n\nCRP.(NPD) No.44 of 2006  \nand \nC.M.P.No.303 of 2006 \n\nE.Sundarrajan                                          ....     Petitioner                         Vs.\n\n-Vs-\n\nB.Kanchanamala                                         ...   Respondent\n\n        PRAYER:   This  Civil  Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment\nand decree of the learned  VII  Judge,  Court  of  Small  Causes,  Chennai  on\n17.09.2005  in  R.C.A.No.951  of 2002 which was preferred against the Judgment\nand decree passed by the learned X Judge, Court of Small Causes Court, Chennai \non 01.11.2002 in RCOP.No.596 of 1991.  \n\n!For petitioner :  Ms.  R.Shyamala\n\n^For respondent:  Mr.  Rajendrakumar\n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        This  Civil  Revision Petition has been filed against the Judgment and<br \/>\ndegree of the learned VII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai on 1 7.09.2005<br \/>\nin R.C.A.No.951 of 2002 which was preferred against the  Judgment  and  decree<br \/>\npassed  by  the  learned  X  Judge,  Court  of  Small Causes Court, Chennai on<br \/>\n01.11.2002 in RCOP.No.596 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        2.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as  well  as  the<br \/>\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">        3.      The case of the petitioner is that he is running a business at<br \/>\nNo.63, R.K.Mutt Road, Chennai, for more than 12 years and he has been paying a<br \/>\nmonthly  rent  of  Rs.80\/- to the respondent without obtaining any receipt for<br \/>\nthe said payment .      It is his case  that  he  and  one  Mr.V.Devaraj  were<br \/>\ntenants of  the  erstwhile  owner of the property in question.  He states that<br \/>\ndue to the illness of Mr.V.Devaraj, the petitioner has been running  the  shop<br \/>\nin the  premises  which  is the subject matter of the dispute.  He also states<br \/>\nthat the respondent, who is the subsequent purchaser of the petition  property<br \/>\nknew about his occupation of the premises and that he was running the business<br \/>\nin that  premises .  The petitioner also states that he had filed a Civil Suit<br \/>\nOS.No.6058 of 2001 pending before the XIV Assistant Judge  City  Civil  Court,<br \/>\nChennai.        He further states that the RCOP.No.596 of 1991 and EP.  No.279<br \/>\nof  1999  filed  by the respondent were decided exparte and no chance had been<br \/>\ngiven to the petitioner in those proceedings.    He  claims  that  he  can  be<br \/>\nevicted from the petition premises by the respondent only by following the due<br \/>\nprocess of  law.    Further,  the petitioner states that he had taken steps to<br \/>\ndeposit the rent in the court in RCOP.No.69 of 2002 before XI Judge, Court  of<br \/>\nSmall  Causes, Chennai, which was disposed of on 30.12.2002 and the petitioner<br \/>\nhad preferred an appeal under RCA.SR.No.23021 of 2005 with an  application  to<br \/>\ncondone the delay in filing the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">        4.      The  petitioner also states that huge investment has been made<br \/>\nfor putting up the super-structure in the petition premises and  he  has  been<br \/>\npaying property  tax  and  the  electricity  card stands in his name.  He also<br \/>\nstates  that  he  has  been  issued  with  a  certificate  by  the  Commercial<br \/>\nDepartment, to run the business in the respondent&#8217;s premises.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        5.      On  the  contrary,  it  is  the case of the respondent who has<br \/>\nfiled a counter affidavit, that she had originally filed RCOP.No.596  of  1991<br \/>\nfor  eviction  on  the  ground  of wilful default and also on other grounds as<br \/>\nagainst one Mr.V.Devaraj and she further states that eventhough Mr.Devaraj had<br \/>\nfiled a counter , he did not contest the proceedings and an exparte order  was<br \/>\npassed against  him,  in the above said RCOP.  When she had filed an execution<br \/>\npetition to execute the decree, the said Mr.Devaraj took steps  to  set  aside<br \/>\nthe  decree  passed  against him and after enquiry the learned Rent Controller<br \/>\nwas pleased to dismiss the same.  Challenging the said order,  Mr.Devaraj  had<br \/>\nfiled  an  appeal  in  RCA.No.509  of 2000 before the VIII Judge, Small Causes<br \/>\nCourt, Chennai.  After hearing the arguments adduced on behalf of the parties,<br \/>\nthe learned Judge was pleased to  dismiss  the  appeal  confirming  the  order<br \/>\npassed by the Rent Controller.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        6.      It  is  also  the  case  of the respondent that Mr.Devaraj had<br \/>\nfiled his counter in the Execution Proceedings and after enquiry the learned X<br \/>\nJudge Small Causes Court, Chennai was pleased to order delivery of possession.<br \/>\nIt is also stated by the respondent that when she  had  gone  to  execute  the<br \/>\nwarrant  of  delivery  along  with  the  Amin, the present revision petitioner<br \/>\nobstructed the delivery and the Bailiff noted the obstruction and so  she  had<br \/>\nto  file  M.P.No.582  of  2001 in the said execution proceedings to remove the<br \/>\nobstruction that has been caused by the present revision petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        7.      It is also stated by the respondent that the  Rent  controller<br \/>\nwas  pleased  to  allow  the  petition  filed by the respondent for removal of<br \/>\nobstruction, against which the petitioner herein had filed RCA.No.951 of  2002<br \/>\nbefore  the  appellate  Court  which  was  also  rightly  dismissed  on merits<br \/>\nconfirming the order of the Rent Controller against which the present revision<br \/>\npetition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">        8.      The respondent also states that pending execution  proceedings<br \/>\nthe  revision  petitioner  herein  filed a petition under section 8 (5) of the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Buildings ( Lease and Rent Control) Act 18\/1960 as amended  by  Act<br \/>\n23\/1973,  (  herein  after  referred to as the &#8220;Act&#8221;) for direction to deposit<br \/>\nrent alleging that the respondent had refused  to  accept  the  rent.    After<br \/>\ncounter  was filed by the respondent and after elaborate enquiry, the petition<br \/>\nwas dismissed  holding  that  the  petitioner  is  not  a  tenant  under  this<br \/>\nrespondent.  The said order has become final and no appeal has been filed till<br \/>\ndate.   It is also the case of the respondent that the petitioner in the Civil<br \/>\nRevision petition is neither a tenant under the respondent nor he is occupying<br \/>\nthe premises on his own.  The petitioner has filed a Civil Suit OS.No.6058  of<br \/>\n2001  before  the  IV  Assistant  Judge,  City  Civil  Court,  Chennai,  for a<br \/>\ndeclaration to declare his status as a tenant and the  present  stage  of  the<br \/>\nsaid suit  is not known to the respondent.  The respondent further states that<br \/>\nthe petitioner is a trespasser and is squatting on her  property  and  thereby<br \/>\nobstructing her from executing the lawful decree, which has been passed by the<br \/>\ncourt below and affirmed by the appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">        9.   On  a  perusal  of  the  order  passed  by  the learned Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority, Chennai dated 17.09.2005 in R.C.A.No.951 of 2002, it is found  that<br \/>\nR.C.O.P.No.596  of 1991 had been filed by the respondent\/ landlady against the<br \/>\ntenant one Mr.Devaraj under sections 10 (2) (i) and 10 (3) (a)  (iii)  of  the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu  Buildings  (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.  It is further seen<br \/>\nthat the Rent Controller after  enquiry  had  allowed  the  RCOP  and  ordered<br \/>\neviction of  the  t enant.  The landlady, who is the respondent in the present<br \/>\nCivil Revision Petition, had filed E.P.No.279 of 1999 for delivery  of  vacant<br \/>\npossession of  the  petition premises.  While executing, the delivery warrant,<br \/>\nthe present petitioner had obstructed the delivery of possession and hence the<br \/>\nlandlady\/respondent had filed M.P.No.582 of 2001 under Order 21  Rule  97  and<br \/>\n101  of  the  Code  of Civil Procedure to remove the obstructor and effect the<br \/>\nwarrant of delivery of possession in E.P.No.279 of 1999.   The  said  petition<br \/>\nwas resisted  by  the  petitioner herein.  After hearing both the parties, the<br \/>\nlearned  Rent  Controller  had  allowed  the  application  against  which  the<br \/>\nobstructor  in  the  Rent  Control  Petition, the present petitioner had filed<br \/>\nM.P.No.829 of 2005 to receive additional documents on his side<br \/>\nwhich was allowed and the documents were marked in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">        10.     The case of the petitioner in the appeal was that the original<br \/>\ntenant Mr.V.Devaraj had let out the petition premises in the year  19  90  and<br \/>\nthereafter,  the  petitioner was recognised and attorned the tenancy in favour<br \/>\nof the respondent\/landlady and only on the instruction  of  the  respondent  \/<br \/>\nlandlady  the  petitioner had carried out repairs to the premises by incurring<br \/>\nhuge expenditure.  The appellant had filed  documents  relating  the  Property<br \/>\ntax,  Electricity deposit receipt and Consumption charges card and receipt for<br \/>\nother incidental expenses for development of the property.    He  had  further<br \/>\nsubmitted  that  having been recognised by the respondent as her tenant in the<br \/>\npetition premises and having permitted the tenant to put up the superstructure<br \/>\nand having allowed to pay  taxes  for  the  building,  now  the  respondent  \/<br \/>\nlandlady,  in collusion with the erstwhile tenant, had obtained a false decree<br \/>\nand sought for execution of the decree against the lawful tenant, who  is  the<br \/>\npetitioner herein.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">        11.     The  Appellate Authority has found that the documents filed by<br \/>\npetitioner are not relevant to establish the jural relationship or privity  of<br \/>\ncontract  between the landlord and the tenant to prove that the petitioner was<br \/>\nthe tenant.  Further, it was held that there was no documentary evidence  such<br \/>\nas  lease  agreement,  or rental receipts or letter of permission to carry out<br \/>\nrepairs to prove himself as a tenant, of the premises  under  the  respondent.<br \/>\nFurther, no document, has been produced by the petitioner regarding attornment<br \/>\nof the  tenancy  by the respondent nor for payment of rent.  He has also found<br \/>\nthat the original tenant Mr.Devaraj contested  in  the  R.C.O.P.    Since  his<br \/>\ndefence  was  rejected,  he  had  initiated  RCA  which  was  also  dismissed.<br \/>\nTherefore, he had initiated the present revision petition to cause obstruction<br \/>\nfor delivery of possession of the petition premises to the respondent.  It was<br \/>\nalso found by the Appellate Authority that the R.C.O.P.   No.    69  of  2002,<br \/>\nfiled  by  the  petitioner  herein  under  Section  8 (5) of the the &#8216;Act&#8217; for<br \/>\ndeposit of rent for the petition premises in the court was  dismissed  on  the<br \/>\nfinding  that  there  was no jural relationship of landlady and tenant between<br \/>\nthe petitioner and the respondent herein.  Against the said order,  no  appeal<br \/>\nhad  been  preferred  and therefore, the petitioner had not filed any proof to<br \/>\nprove his theory of tenancy as well as his assertion  that  he  is  in  lawful<br \/>\npossession of  the  petition  premises.    On that basis, it was held that the<br \/>\npetitioner was rightly considered as an obstructor and therefore, the  removal<br \/>\nof obstruction order was passed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">        12.     Based  on  the  above  reasonings, the Appellate Authority had<br \/>\nconfirmed the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 01.11.2002, passed in<br \/>\nMP.No.582 of 2001 in EP.No.279 of 1999 in RCOP.No.596 of 1991.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">        13.     In the facts and circumstances of the case  and  on  analysing<br \/>\nthe  rival  contentions  and on perusing the documents filed, it is clear that<br \/>\nthe petitioner has neither established  his  status  as  a  tenant  under  the<br \/>\nrespondent nor the attornment of the tenancy by the respondent to substantiate<br \/>\nhis claims.    Therefore,  this  court  finds  that  there is no illegality or<br \/>\ninfirmity in the order passed by the  Appellate  Authority  in  RCA.No.951  of<br \/>\n2002, dated 17.09.2005,.  Therefore, as this court does not find any reason to<br \/>\ninterfere  with  the said order, the Civil Revision petition stands dismissed.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">To<br \/>\nThe VII Judge,<br \/>\nSmall Causes Court,<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09\/03\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN CRP.(NPD) No.44 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.303 of 2006 E.Sundarrajan &#8230;. Petitioner Vs. -Vs- B.Kanchanamala &#8230; Respondent PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Judgment and decree of 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-252586","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>E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006 - 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\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-01T17:48:47+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-01T17:48:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1723,\"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\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006\",\"name\":\"E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-01T17:48:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006 - 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\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-01T17:48:47+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006","datePublished":"2006-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-01T17:48:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006"},"wordCount":1723,"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\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006","name":"E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-01T17:48:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-sundarrajan-vs-b-kanchanamala-on-9-march-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E.Sundarrajan vs B.Kanchanamala on 9 March, 2006"}]},{"@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\/252586","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=252586"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252586\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}