{"id":258777,"date":"2004-08-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-08-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004"},"modified":"2016-10-19T12:40:49","modified_gmt":"2016-10-19T07:10:49","slug":"m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004","title":{"rendered":"M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 2004<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 13\/08\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN\n\nC.R.P. (NPD) No. 1264 of 2004\nand C.R.P. (NPD)  1265 of 2004\nand\nC.M.P. No. 10426 &amp; 10427 of 2004\n\nCRP (NPD) No. 1264\/2004\n\nM. Velmurugan                                          ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. P. Srinivasan\n2. P. Ravi                                              ... Respondents<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">CRP (NPD) No. 1265\/2004<\/p>\n<p>H. Ravi                                                 &#8230; Petitioner<\/p>\n<p>Versus<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1. P. Srinivasan\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">2. P. Ravi                                              &#8230; Respondents<\/p>\n<p>        Revisions under Article\/Section 25  of  the  Pondicherry  Buildings  (<br \/>\nLease  and  Rent  Control)  Act against the order dated 21-04-2004 made in RCA<br \/>\nNo.33 and 31 of 2003  on  the  file  of  the  II  Additional  District  Judge,<br \/>\nPondicherry confirming the order dated 28-08-2003 made in HRCOP No.  63 and 61<br \/>\nof 2001 on the file of Rent Controller, Pondicherry.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">!For Petitioner :       Mr.  R.  Subramanian in both Revisions<\/p>\n<p>^For Caveators :        Mr.  T.P.  Manoharan in both Revisions<\/p>\n<p>:COMMON ORDER<\/p>\n<p>        The  above  revision  petitions  are  listed today for admission and I<br \/>\nheard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the counsel  for  the<br \/>\nCaveators.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        2.      The  tenants,  who lost their case before the courts below are<br \/>\nthe revision petitioners.  The appellate  authority,  by  common  order  dated<br \/>\n21-04-2004 dismissed both R.C.A.  Nos.  31 of 2003 filed against HRCOP No.  61<br \/>\nof 2001 and  RCA  No.    33  of  2003  filed  against  HRCOP  No.  63 of 2001.<br \/>\nAggrieved by the order passed in RCA No.  31 of 2003, CRP No.  12 65  of  2004<br \/>\nis filed and as against the order passed in RCA No.  33 of 2003, CRP No.  1264<br \/>\nof 2004  is  filed  by  the  tenants.    The respondents in the above revision<br \/>\npetitions are landlords, who have filed petitions under Section 14 (1) (b)  of<br \/>\nThe  Pondicherry  Buildings  (Lease  and  Rent Control) Act, 1969 for eviction<br \/>\nagainst the petitioners herein.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        3.      The plea of the respondents is that the building, in which the<br \/>\npetitioners are in occupation  is  about  93  years  old  and  in  dilapidated<br \/>\ncondition, hence  needed  for  demolition  and re-construction.  It is further<br \/>\ncontended that they have obtained permission  from  the  Pondicherry  Planning<br \/>\nAuthority and  they  have  enough  fund for construction of the building.  The<br \/>\nrespondents have also issued notice dated 21-12-19 98 terminating the  tenancy<\/p>\n<p>with effect  from  01-01-1999.   The Petitioners have also sent their reply on<br \/>\n25-12-1998.  It is also seen that both the respondents  and  petitioners  have<br \/>\nexchanged further notices.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        4.      It  is  stated by the Petitioners that originally the property<br \/>\nwas let out to the petitioners father.  After the death of their  father,  the<br \/>\npetitioners have  invested  some  amount  for the business.  Subsequently, one<br \/>\nPandurangan purchased the property, who is none other than the father  of  the<br \/>\nrespondents  herein,  however  not  disputed  the relationship of landlord and<br \/>\ntenant.  It is averred by the petitioners that the respondents demanded higher<br \/>\nrent and advance, which was not accepted, which is the reason  for  filing  of<br \/>\npetitions for  eviction.  It is further contended that the demised building is<br \/>\nvery strong and not require any demolition or re-construction.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">        5.      Before the Rent  Controller,  the  petitioners  have  examined<br \/>\nthemselves as sole witness (RW1) and not marked any document.  The respondents<br \/>\nhave examined their father Pandurangan as PW1, Mr.  A.  Joseph, Civil Engineer<br \/>\nas PW2, Mr.   N.   Raju, Assistant, Urban Bank, Pondicherry as PW3 and Mr.  A.<br \/>\nSri Sankar, Junior Town Planner, Pondicherry Planning  Authority  as  PW4  and<br \/>\nmarked Exs.  P1 to P11 and Exs.  X1 to X6 were marked through PW3.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">        6.      The  learned  Rent Controller, after consideration of the oral<br \/>\nand documentary evidence let in by the parties ordered eviction.  Aggrieved by<br \/>\nthe said order, the petitioners have preferred appeals  before  the  appellate<br \/>\nauthority  namely  II  Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, which were also<br \/>\ndismissed, hence the present revisions.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">        7.      Arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioners that  the<br \/>\nauthorities  below  erred  in  holding  that  the  respondents  requirement is<br \/>\nbonafide, solely on the basis of the age of the building, without reference to<br \/>\nits  condition;  that  the  appellate  authority  failed  to  note  that   the<br \/>\nrespondents have not proved their financial ability to put up construction.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">        8.      Taking  into  consideration  of  the arguments advanced by the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the petitioners and the provisions of Section 14 (1) (  b)<br \/>\nof  The  Pondicherry  Buildings  (Lease  and  Rent Control) Act and the powers<br \/>\nconferred to the High Court under Section 25 of the said  Act,  I  proceed  to<br \/>\nconsider the case.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">        9.      Now,  let  us  look into Section 14 (1) (b) of The Pondicherry<br \/>\nBuildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, which runs as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">        &#8220;14.    Recovery  of  possession  by  landlord  for  repairs  or   for<br \/>\nconstruction.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">        (1)     Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, but subject to<br \/>\nthe  provisions  of  Sections 12 and 13, on an application made by a landlord,<br \/>\nthe Controller shall, if he is satisfied-\n<\/p>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">        (a)     .....\n        (b)     that the building is bona fide required by  the  landlord  for\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_14\">the  immediate purpose of demolishing it and such demolition is to be made for<br \/>\nthe purpose of erecting a new building on the site of the building  sought  to<br \/>\nbe demolished, pass an order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the<br \/>\nbuilding to the landlord before a specified date.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">        10.     While interpreting the provisions of Section 14 (1) (b) of the<br \/>\nAct,  the  Honourable  Supreme  Court  in  the  case of P.ORR and Sons Private<br \/>\nLimited Vs.  Associated Publishers (Madras) Limited  (1991)  1  Supreme  Court<br \/>\nCases  301  held  that landlord can succeed in an application under Section 14<br \/>\n(1) (b) of the Act only when it is established  that  the  building  is  in  a<br \/>\ndilapidated condition  and require immediate demolition.  Subsequently, in the<br \/>\ndecision reported in Vijay Singh and Others Vs.  Vijayalakshmi Ammal 1996  (6)<br \/>\nSCC  475,  the Honourable Supreme Court held that it is very much necessary to<br \/>\nconsider three elements namely (i) bonafide intention of the landlord far from<br \/>\nthe sole object only to get rid of the tenants (ii) age and condition  of  the<br \/>\nbuilding  and  (iii)  financial  position  of  the landlord to construct a new<br \/>\nbuilding according to the requirements of the building  Laws.    The  Judgment<br \/>\nreported in  Vijay  Singh and Others Vs.  Vijayalakshmi Ammal 1996 (6) SCC 475<br \/>\nwas followed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in  K.M.<br \/>\nAbdul Razzack   VS.  Damodharan 2000 (4) Supreme 575.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">        11.     Applying  the  principles enunciated in Vijay Singh and Others<br \/>\nVs.  Vijayalakshmi Ammal 1996 (6) SCC 475, it is very much  necessary  to  see<br \/>\nwhether all the three elements are satisfied by the respondents are not.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">        12.     Exs.  P2 to  P5  and  also  the  evidence of PW4, Mr.  A.  Sri<br \/>\nShankar, Junior Town Planner, Pondicherry Planning Auithority support the case<br \/>\nof the respondents\/landlords that their intention  is  bonafide  and  age  and<br \/>\ncondition of  the  building  warrant demolition and reconstruction.  Ex.P7 and<br \/>\nthe evidence of PW3 satisfy the last requirement namely the financial position<br \/>\nof the respondents to construct a new building.  Hence, I confirm  the  orders<br \/>\nof  the  courts  below  and  hold  that  the  respondents  have  satisfied the<br \/>\nrequirements of Section 14 (1) (b) of The  Pondicherry  Buildings  (Lease  and<br \/>\nRent  Control)  Act  for  grant  of  remedy of eviction sought for against the<br \/>\npetitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">        13.     Under Section 25 of the Act, it is  not  permissible  for  the<br \/>\nHigh  Court,  in  exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction to act as appellate<br \/>\ncourt to re-appraise or re-assess the evidence afresh as  an  appellate  Court<br \/>\nand  come to a different finding contrary to the finding recorded by the court<br \/>\nbelow.  Followed K.M.  Abdul Razzack Vs.   Damodharan  2000  (4)  Supreme  575<br \/>\nwherein in para-5 it was held as follows.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">        &#8220;5.     &#8230;It  is  not  permissible for the High Court, in exercise of<br \/>\nits revisionary jurisdiction to act as an appellate  Court  to  reappraise  or<br \/>\nreassess  the  evidence afresh as an appellate Court as an appellate Court and<br \/>\ncome to a different finding contrary to the  finding  recorded  by  the  court<br \/>\nbelow.   We,  therefore,  hold that the High Court while allowing the revision<br \/>\ntransgressed its jurisdiction conferred upon it under Section 25 of the Act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">        14.     It is also to be remembered that the Honourable Supreme  Court<br \/>\nin the decision  reported  in  P.S.   Pareed Kaka and others Vs.  Shafee Ahmed<br \/>\nSaheb &#8211; (2004) 5 Supreme  Court  Cases  241  held  that  the  High  Court  has<br \/>\njurisdiction  to  go  into  the legality or correctness of the decision, which<br \/>\nincludes the power  to  appreciate  evidence  and  that  the  High  Court  can<br \/>\ninterfere with  the  finding  of  fact  also.    The  examination  as  to  the<br \/>\ncorrectness involves appreciation of evidence and  that  the  High  Court  can<br \/>\ninterfere with the finding of the Rent Controller is entirely improbable.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">        15.     In  the  case on hand, I do not find any such improbability in<br \/>\nthe orders of the Courts  below,  hence,  the  principles  enunciated  in  the<br \/>\ndecision reported in  K.M.  Abdul Razzack Vs.  Damodharan 2000 (4) Supreme 575<br \/>\nis squarely applicable to the facts and circumstance of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">        16.     For the reasons mentioned above, the revision  petitions  fail<br \/>\nand the same  are  dismissed  as  devoid  of merits.  No costs.  Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected CMPs are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">        17.     The learned counsel appearing for the  petitioners  pray  this<br \/>\nCourt  to  grant sufficient time of not less than nine months for vacating and<br \/>\ndelivering vacant possession of the property by the petitioners.  Hence,  nine<br \/>\nmonths  time  is granted, from today, to vacate and handover vacant possession<br \/>\nto the respondents provided the petitioners file an affidavit within one  week<br \/>\nfrom  today  to  that  effect,  failing  which the petitioners are directed to<br \/>\nhandover the possession within four weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">rsh<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13\/08\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1264 of 2004 and C.R.P. (NPD) 1265 of 2004 and C.M.P. No. 10426 &amp; 10427 of 2004 CRP (NPD) No. 1264\/2004 M. Velmurugan [&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-258777","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>M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 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\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-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=\"2004-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-19T07:10:49+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\\\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-19T07:10:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1460,\"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\\\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004\",\"name\":\"M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-08-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-19T07:10:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 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\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-19T07:10:49+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\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 2004","datePublished":"2004-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-19T07:10:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004"},"wordCount":1460,"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\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004","name":"M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-08-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-19T07:10:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-velmurugan-vs-p-srinivasan-on-13-august-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M. Velmurugan vs P. Srinivasan on 13 August, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258777","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=258777"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258777\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258777"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258777"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258777"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}