{"id":255698,"date":"2007-08-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007"},"modified":"2016-02-27T01:41:50","modified_gmt":"2016-02-26T20:11:50","slug":"sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE  MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 09\/08\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU\n\n\nCivil Revision Petition (PD) No.297 of 2006\nand\nC.M.P No.2580 of 2006\n\n\n$Sikkender Anees\t\t... \tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\n\nVs\n\n\n1. Vaiyalimuthu Thevar\n2. Senthil Kumar alias\nSenthil Pandiyan\t\t\t... Respondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nThis Civil Revision Petition has been filed under <a href=\"\/doc\/1331149\/\" id=\"a_1\">Article 227<\/a> of the\nConstitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.641\nof 2004 in O.S.No.35 of 2003 on the file of the learned Additional Sub Court,\nTenkasi dated 17.01.2006.\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t...\tMr.K.Srinivasan\n\t\n^For R.1\t\t...\tMr.T.S.R.Venkataramana\n\nFor R.2\t\t\t...\tMr.D.Nallathambi\n\t\t\t\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tThe petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.35 of 2003, on the file of<br \/>\nthe learned Additional Sub Judge, Tenkasi, has come forward with this revision<br \/>\nchallenging the order dated 17.01.2006 made in I.A.No.641 of 2004. The<br \/>\nrespondents are the defendants in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t2.The petitioner has filed the above suit for recovery of a sum of<br \/>\nRs.2,00,000\/- with interest and costs. The substance of the plaint would be that<br \/>\non 01.01.2000, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement (Kuthagai) to enjoy<br \/>\nthe usufructs from the coconut trees belonging to the defendants for a period of<br \/>\n5 years. There is a specific allegation made in paragraph No.3 of the plaint<br \/>\nthat to evident the said lease, a lease agreement was executed on 01.01.2000 by<br \/>\nthe parties. It has been further stated in the plaint that as per the recitals<br \/>\nof the said lease deed, a sum of Rs.4,00,000\/- shall be paid by the plaintiff to<br \/>\nthe defendants towards rent for 5 years. Already on 01.01.2000, itself a sum of<br \/>\nRs.1,00,000\/- was paid towards rent and there was also an arrangement regarding<br \/>\nthe balance of amount i.e., Rs.1,00,000\/- should be paid on 15th day of Tamil<br \/>\nmonth Thai and Rs.2,00,000\/- should be paid within 1 1\/2 years from 01.01.2000.<br \/>\nApart from that, as per the lease agreement, during every season, whenever the<br \/>\ncoconuts are plucked, 150 coconuts should be given to the defendants and<br \/>\nmaintenance of the land and irrigating the Coconut trees should be undertaken by<br \/>\nthe petitioner\/plaintiff. The petitioner can use the electric motor to irrigate<br \/>\nthe Coconut trees from the Well which is situated in the suit property till the<br \/>\nexpiry of period of lease agreement dated 01.01.2005. It has been further stated<br \/>\nthat as agreed upon the rent of Rs.4,00,000\/- was paid in four equal monthly<br \/>\ninstallments on the dates viz., 01.01.2000, 29.01.2000, 29.06.2001 and<br \/>\n11.09.2001 and due endorsements have been made on the rear side of the lease<br \/>\ndeed in acknowledgment of the said amount. It has been further stated that since<br \/>\nthere was no sufficient water in the Well and since the defendants did not make<br \/>\nany arrangement to deepen the Well, the plaintiff could not irrigate the coconut<br \/>\ntrees and as a result, he suffered loss and therefore, by mutual agreement, the<br \/>\nlease was terminated on 30.06.2002. Therefore, according to the  plaintiff<br \/>\nsince, he did not enjoy the usufructs for the period of 5 years, as per the<br \/>\nlease agreement, the defendants are liable to repay Rs.2,00,000\/-, which was<br \/>\npaid under the lease agreement on various dates as stated above.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t3.In the written statement, the first defendant has admitted that such a<br \/>\nright to enjoy the usufructs from the Coconut trees for the period between<br \/>\n01.01.2000 to 01.01.2005, was given to the petitioner. But, he has denied the<br \/>\nexecution of the lease agreement. He has further disputed the claim of the<br \/>\npetitioner that the defendants are liable to repay Rs.2,00,000\/-. The second<br \/>\ndefendant has filed a separate written statement wherein, he has disputed the<br \/>\npayments said to have been made by the plaintiff on 01.01.2000, 29.01.2000,<br \/>\n29.06.2001 and 11.09.2001. Further, he has stated that the lease agreement dated<br \/>\n01.01.2000, was not executed by him consciously.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\t4.During the trial of the suit, the plaintiff attempted to mark the above<br \/>\nsaid lease agreement dated 01.01.2000 and he has filed I.A.No.641 of 2004,<br \/>\nrequesting the Court to admit the said document in evidence. The same was<br \/>\nopposed by the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge by order dated<br \/>\n17.01.2006, has passed a conditional order directing the plaintiff to pay<br \/>\nnecessary stamp duty and penalty as required under the <a href=\"\/doc\/74910796\/\" id=\"a_1\">Stamp Act<\/a>, within a<br \/>\nperiod of 15 days from the date of the order and on such payment being made, the<br \/>\ndocument shall be admitted in evidence. Challenging the said order, the<br \/>\npetitioner\/plaintiff  has come forward with this revision.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t6.At the outset, it is to be noticed that the respondents have not<br \/>\npreferred any revision challenging the  order passed by the learned Subordinate<br \/>\nJudge dated 17.01.2006 made in I.A.No.641 of 2004. Only, the<br \/>\npetitioner\/plaintiff has come forward with this revision challenging the said<br \/>\norder. The finding of the lower Court is that the document which is sought to be<br \/>\nmarked is a lease deed and the same requires stamp and therefore, the lower<br \/>\nCourt has passed conditional order directing the petitioner to pay necessary<br \/>\nstamp duty as well as penalty as required under the <a href=\"\/doc\/74910796\/\" id=\"a_2\">Stamp Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t7.Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced lengthy<br \/>\narguments to substantiate that the document in question is only a licence and<br \/>\nnot a lease deed and therefore, the lower Court was not right in directing the<br \/>\npetitioner to pay necessary stamp duty as well as penalty, in my considered<br \/>\nopinion, the scope of this revision does not warrant any answer for the said<br \/>\nquestion at all. A perusal of the document in question does not clearly indicate<br \/>\nwhether it is a lease deed or it is a deed of licence. Of course, in a case<br \/>\nwhere the recitals are so clear, indicative of the nature of the document, the<br \/>\nCourt need not wait for evidence to be recorded to gather the intention of the<br \/>\nparties to know the nature of the document. But in this case, the recitals of<br \/>\nthe document are not so clear enough to give definite indication about the<br \/>\nnature of the document. The question whether the said document is a lease deed<br \/>\nor it is only a licence could be decided only by gathering the intention of the<br \/>\nparties at the time of evidence to be let in by both parties. Further, I am of<br \/>\nthe considered opinion that considering the scope of this revision, the said<br \/>\nquestion whether the document is a lease deed or it is only a licence does not<br \/>\nrequire any consideration at all at this stage. As pointed out earlier, the<br \/>\nlower Court has held that the document is a lease deed, without expressing any<br \/>\nopinion, whether the said finding is correct or not, assuming that the document<br \/>\nis only a lease deed, in my considered view, still the order of the lower Court<br \/>\ndirecting the petitioner to pay necessary stamp duty as well as penalty is<br \/>\nliable to be set aside on the sole ground that in <a href=\"\/doc\/74910796\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 4-B<\/a> (2) of the Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, it is provided that, no stamp need be<br \/>\naffixed to the lease deed, if the lease is an agricultural lease. In this case,<br \/>\nthere is no dispute that the document was executed in respect of the enjoyment<br \/>\nof the usufructs from the Coconut trees. Assuming that the document refers to a<br \/>\nlease, it has to be necessarily hold that it is an agricultural lease and if<br \/>\nthat be so, as per <a href=\"\/doc\/74910796\/\" id=\"a_4\">Section 4-B(2)<\/a> of the said Act, no stamp is required to be<br \/>\naffixed. Since, it is a special enactment, it will have overriding effect on the<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/74910796\/\" id=\"a_5\">Indian Stamp Act<\/a>. In view of the same, in my considered opinion, the order of<br \/>\nthe lower Court directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty as well as penalty is<br \/>\nliable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\t8.The learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that the<br \/>\ndocument is still inadmissible in evidence on one another ground viz., for want<br \/>\nof registration.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the<br \/>\nsaid document does not require registration at all. Though there is no express<br \/>\nprovision in the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, exempting<br \/>\nregistration of the lease deeds relating to agricultural leases, a close<br \/>\nscrutiny of the provision of the Act, would certainly indicate the intention of<br \/>\nthe  legislature, wherein the legislature in its wisdom has not required any<br \/>\ndeed relating to agricultural lease to be registered and instead, it has been<br \/>\nprovided that the document shall be prepared in triplicate and one shall be<br \/>\ngiven to the Taluk Office. Thus, in my considered opinion, any lease deed in<br \/>\nrespect of the agricultural lease does not require any registration.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\t10.The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on <a href=\"\/doc\/539127\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section 117<\/a> of the<br \/>\nTransfer of Property Act, wherein, it has been provided that one of the<br \/>\nprovisions of Chapter V of the said Act, shall apply to leases for agricultural<br \/>\npurposes, except in so far as the State Government may by notification published<br \/>\nin the official Gazette, declare all or any of such provisions to be so<br \/>\napplicable [the case of all or any of such leases], together with or subject to,<br \/>\nthose of the local law, if any for the time being in force. The learned counsel<br \/>\nwould submit <a href=\"\/doc\/515323\/\" id=\"a_7\">Section 107<\/a> of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires<br \/>\nregistration of an instrument of lease has no application to the agricultural<br \/>\nleases in the state of Tamil Nadu since there is no notification issued by the<br \/>\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu, declaring the application of <a href=\"\/doc\/74910796\/\" id=\"a_8\">Section 117<\/a> of the said<br \/>\nAct, in respect of the agricultural leases. Therefore, according to the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner, in the present case, the document does not require<br \/>\nany registration.  But, the said stand taken by the learned counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioner is disputed by the learned counsel for the first respondent. So far<br \/>\nas the present case is concerned, there is no need to into this question since<br \/>\nthe respondent has not preferred any revision challenging the impugned order of<br \/>\nthe lower Court and thus, the question is only academic. As concluded above, a<br \/>\nreading of Section 4-B of the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act,<br \/>\nitself gives an indication that any deed relating to agricultural lease does not<br \/>\nrequire any registration and therefore, in my considered opinion, the document<br \/>\nin question in this case does not require registration.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\t11.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit<br \/>\nthat assuming that the document requires stamp and registration, still it can be<br \/>\nused for collateral purpose. The learned counsel would rely on 2004 (1) L.W. 706<br \/>\n(<a href=\"\/doc\/13649\/\" id=\"a_9\">Bondar Singh &amp; others v. Nihal Singh &amp; others<\/a>) wherein, the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme<br \/>\nCourt has held that even a sale deed which has not been sufficiently stamped and<br \/>\nregistered could be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t12.Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit<br \/>\nthat in the case on hand, the claim for Rs.2,00,000\/- has been made on the basis<br \/>\nof a lease agreement and therefore, the document which is now sought to be<br \/>\nadmitted in evidence cannot be admitted even for collateral purpose and as a<br \/>\nmatter of fact, it is sought to be used only for main purpose. But, I do not<br \/>\npropose to give any finding on this disputed question also, since I have already<br \/>\nheld that the document is admissible in evidence even for main purpose though<br \/>\nthe lease deed has not been either registered or stamped.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t13.For all the reasons stated above and the legal positions enumerated, I<br \/>\nhave to set aside the direction issued by the lower Court directing the<br \/>\npetitioner to pay necessary stamp duty and penalty for the document which is<br \/>\nsought to be marked.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">\t14.In the result the order passed by the learned Additional Subordinate<br \/>\nJudge, Tenkasi, dated 17.01.2006 made in I.A.No.641 of 2004 in O.S.No.35 of<br \/>\n2003, directing the petitioner to pay necessary stamp duty and penalty is set<br \/>\naside and the lower Court is directed to admit the said document in evidence. It<br \/>\nis made clear that the respondents are at liberty to raise all their objections<br \/>\nin respect of the genuineness or otherwise of the said document when the<br \/>\ndocument is admitted in evidence and the lower Court is further directed to<br \/>\ndecide the said question in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">\t15.With the above directions, the civil revision petition is allowed. No<br \/>\ncosts. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">jbm<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Additional Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nTenkasi.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09\/08\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Civil Revision Petition (PD) No.297 of 2006 and C.M.P No.2580 of 2006 $Sikkender Anees &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. Vaiyalimuthu Thevar 2. Senthil Kumar alias Senthil Pandiyan &#8230; [&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-255698","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>Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007 - 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\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-26T20:11:50+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-26T20:11:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1995,\"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\\\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007\",\"name\":\"Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-26T20:11:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007 - 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\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-26T20:11:50+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-26T20:11:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007"},"wordCount":1995,"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\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007","name":"Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-26T20:11:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sikkender-anees-vs-vaiyalimuthu-thevar-on-9-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sikkender Anees vs Vaiyalimuthu Thevar on 9 August, 2007"}]},{"@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\/255698","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=255698"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255698\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255698"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255698"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255698"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}