{"id":37206,"date":"1986-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1986-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986"},"modified":"2019-01-16T09:56:28","modified_gmt":"2019-01-16T04:26:28","slug":"aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986","title":{"rendered":"Aundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Aundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 203, \t\t 1987 SCR (1) 485<\/div>\n
Author: S Mukharji<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nAUNDAL AMMAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSADASIVAN PILLAI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT09\/12\/1986\n\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nBENCH:\nMUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)\nVENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR  203\t\t  1987 SCR  (1) 485\n 1987 SCC  (1) 183\t  JT 1986  1028\n 1986 SCALE  (2)1004\n CITATOR INFO :\n *\t    1987 SC2323\t (*)\n E\t    1987 SC2323\t (3,7,12,13,14)\n RF\t    1988 SC 339\t (6)\n *\t    1988 SC 812\t (2,3,7,9,12,14,15,18,19,26,30,\n\n\nACT:\n    Kerala  Buildings  (Lease  & Rent)\tControl\t Act,  1965,\nSection 18(5) & 20--Jurisdiction of the High Court to inter-\nfere in revision under Section 115 C.P.C-- Whether ousted.\n    Civil  Procedure Code, 1908--Section  115--High  Court's\njurisdiction  to interfere in revision with an\torder  under\nthe Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent) Control Act. 1965.\n    Words and Phrases-'Shall be final'--Shall not be  liable\nto be called in question in any Court of Law'--Meaning of..\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965,\nby s. 13(3) provides that a landlord's petition for eviction\nof  his\t tenant from a premises on the ground of  bona\tfide\npersonal  need,\t has to be disposed of by the  Rent  Control\nCourt. Section 18(1)(b) makes provision of an appeal to\t the\nAppellate  Authority against the order of the  Rent  Control\nCourt. Sub-s.(5) of section 18, stipulates that the decision\nof the appellate authority and subject to such decision,  an\norder of the Rent Controller 'shall be final' and 'shall not\nbe  liable  to be called in question in any court  of  law',\nexcept as provided in section 20. By section 20, a  revision\nis  provided  where the appellate authority  is\t Subordinate\nJudge  to the District Judge and in other cases, that is  to\nsay, where the appellate authority is District Judge, to the\nHigh Court.\n    The\t respondent-landlord  filed  an\t eviction   petition\nagainst the appellant's husband-tenant on the ground of bona\nfide  personal\tneed. The Rent Controller  passed  an  order\ndismissing  the petition. The order was confirmed in  appeal\nfiled  by  the respondent before  the  Appellate  Authority.\nThereafter,  the  respondent preferred a  revision  petition\nbefore\tthe District Judge. That petition having  been\tdis-\nmissed, he moved the High Court under s. 115 of the Code  of\nCivil Procedure. During the pendency of the second revision,\nthe  appellant's husband died and she was brought on  record\nas  the legal representative. The High Court set  aside\t all\nthe  orders of the courts below and ordered eviction of\t the\nappellant.\n486\n    In\tappeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf  of\nthe  appellant tenant that the High Court had  exceeded\t its\njurisdiction  in setting aside the judgments and  orders  of\nthe  courts below, since no revision lies to the High  Court\nagainst the order of the District Judge in view of s.  18(5)\nread  with s.20 of the Act which has completely\t ousted\t the\nHigh Court's jurisdiction to interfere u\/s. 115 of the\tCode\nof Civil Procedure.\nAllowing the appeal,\n    HELD:  (1) The High Court had no jurisdiction to  inter-\nfere  in the matter u\/s. 115 of C.P.C. Therefore, the  judg-\nment and order of the High Court are set aside. [496 B,G]\n    2(i)  The ambits of revisional powers  are\twell-settled\nand  need not be restated. It is inconceivable to  have\t two\nrevisions. The scheme of the Kerala Buildings (Lease &\tRent\nControl) Act, 1965 does not warrant such a conclusion.\t[492\nD]\n    2(ii)  Sub-s. (5) of s. 18 of the Act says that  subject\nto the decision of the appellate authority, the decision  of\nthe Rent Controller shall be final an,] could only be  ques-\ntioned in the manner provided in section 20 and in no  other\nmanner.\t The  expression 'shall be final' in the  Act  means\nwhat  it says. The intention of the legislature in  enacting\nthe  said  Act is clear and manifest from s. 18(5)  and\t the\nscheme\tof the Act, that is to say, to regulate the  leasing\nof  buildings and to control the rent of such buildings\t and\nto  provide a tier of courts by themselves for\teviction  of\nthe  rented  premises. This is writ large in  the  different\nprovisions of the Act. [492 G]\n    2(iii) When section 18(5) of the Act specifically states\nthat  \"shall not be liable to be called in question  in\t any\nCourt  of law\" except in the manner provided  under  section\n20,  it cannot be said that the High Court which is a  court\nof  law and which is a civil court under the Code  of  Civil\nProcedure  under section 115 of the Code of Civil  Procedure\ncould  revise again an order on again after  revision  under\nsection\t 20  of the Act. That would mean there\twould  be  a\ntrial by four courts, that would be repugnant to the  scheme\nmanifest  in the different sections of the Act in  question.\nPublic\tpolicy\tor public interest  demands  curtailment  of\nlaw's  delay and justice demands finality within quick\tdis-\nposal  of  case. The language of the provisions\t of  section\n18(5)  read with section 20 inhibits further  revision.\t The\ncourts must so construe. [494 G-495 A]\n    Kydd  y.  Watch Committee of City of  Liverpool,  (1908)\nAppeal\tCases 327 at 331-332; South Asia Industries  Private\nLtd. v. S.B. Sarup Singh and<\/a>\n487\nOthers,\t [1965] 2 SCR 756 & Vishesh Kumar v. Shanti  Prasad,<\/a>\n[1980]3 SCR 32, relied upon.\nOuseph Vareed v. Mary, (1968) K.L.T. 583, over-ruled.\n    Maung  Ba  Thaw and Another--Insolvents v. Ma  Pin,\t AIR\n1934 P.C. 81, distinguished.\nKurien v. Chacko, (1960) KLT 1248, approved.\n    In\tthe instant case, the appeal lay from  Rent  Control\nCourt  to  the appellant authority who was  the\t Subordinate\nJudge and therefore the revision lay to the District  Judge.\nAfter  the dismissal of the revision by the  District  Judge\nfrom  the  appellate decision of the Subordinate  Judge\t who\nconfirmed the order of the Rent Controller, the\t respondent-\nlandlord  chose\t again\tto go before the  High\tCourt  under\nsection\t 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But,  he  could\nnot  have  a second revision to the High  Court,  since\t the\njurisdiction  of the High Court u\/s. 115 of the\t C.P.C.\t was\nexcluded by the Act. [491 H-492 B, D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5032 of
\n1985<\/span>
\n    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  20.8.1985  of\t the
\nKerala High Court in C.R.P. Nos. 1643 and 2552 of 1980.
\nP.S. Poti and E.M.S. Anam for the Appellant.
\n    G. Vishwanath lyer, P.K. Pillai and K. Dileep Kumar\t for
\nthe Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    SABYASACHI\tMUKHARJI,  J. This appeal by  special  leave
\nfrom the decision of learned single judge of the High  Court
\nof Kerala is disposed of on a short question of law.
\n    The\t appellant is a tenant. The High Court had  reversed
\nthe  concurrent findings and the decisions of  three  courts
\nbelow it and ordered eviction of the appellant.
\n    The dispute relates to a portion of the ground floor  of
\na  three-storeyed  building situated in one of\tthe  busiest
\ncommercial  areas  Pazhavangadi of the city  of\t Trivandrum.
\nwhere the appellant had been conducting a tea shop by
\n488<\/span>
\nname ‘Sourashtra Hotel’. In the adjacent rooms on the ground
\nfloor,\tthe landlord was conducting a business\tin  textiles
\nnamely\t‘Sarada Textiles’. The tenancy began on\t 12th  June,
\n1965. The tenancy was taken by the husband of the appellant.
\nThe rent was Rs. 140 per month. The husband of the appellant
\ndied.  Thereafter  the\tappellant had  been  conducting\t the
\nbusiness from there.\n<\/p>\n
    On or about 15th April, 1976, the respondent purchased.a
\nthree storeyed building. The petition schedule premises is a
\nportion\t of  the  ground floor of the  said  three  storeyed
\nbuilding.  It is the case of the appellant that\t there\twere
\nseven rooms on the first floor of the said building out\t ‘of
\nwhich  four  were in the possession of\tthe  respondent\t and
\nthree  rented out as aforesaid. The premises on\t the  second
\nfloor  were used by the respondent-landlord as a  lodge.  On
\n9th  April, 1977, the respondent filed an application  under
\nsection 17 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent  Control)
\nAct,  1965  (hereinafter called the Act) for  permission  to
\nconvert the non-residential building to a residential build-
\ning.  On 30th November, 1977, the  Accommodation  Controller
\nrejected the said application.\n<\/p>\n
    On 2nd June, 1978, the respondent filed the petition for
\neviction of the appellant on the ground of bona fide need of
\nthe premises in question for his residence. Arrears of\trent
\nwas also one of the grounds taken against the appellant. The
\ntenant duly filed his objection. On 31st October, 1978,\t the
\nRent  Control  Court  dismissed\t the   respondent-landlord’s
\npetition  for eviction. It was found that the  landlord\t had
\nother  buildings  in his own possession\t and  therefore.  no
\norder  of  eviction could be passed by virtue of  the  first
\nproviso to section 11(3) of the Act. The Rent Control Appel-
\nlate  Authority\t on or about 2nd July,\t1979  dismissed\t the
\nrespondent-landlord’s appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    On 28th March, 1980, the revision petition filed by\t the
\nrespondent was also dismissed by the District Court.
\n    The\t High  Court was moved\tby  the\t respondent-landlord
\nunder section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
\n    The husband of the appellant died on 8th May, 1985.\t She
\nwas therefore impleaded as the legal representative and\t she
\nis conducting the business since the death of her husband;\n<\/p>\n
    By the order dated 20th August, 1985, the High Court  by
\nits  impugned  order  has set aside all the  orders  of\t the
\ncourts\tbelow. The tenant, the appellant herein has come  up
\nin  appeal to this Court under article 136 of the  Constitu-
\ntion.\n<\/p>\n
489<\/span><\/p>\n
    Several  questions\twere posed before us in\t this  case,
\ninter  alia, (i) whether the revision under section  115  of
\nthe  Code of Civil Procedure lies to the High Court  from  a
\nrevision order passed under section 20 of the said Act? (ii)
\nwhether\t the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction  under
\nsection 115 in setting aside the judgments and orders of the
\ncourts below in ordering eviction of the appellant from\t the
\npremises in question reversing the findings of facts?  (iii)
\nwhether eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building
\ncould be ordered for the user of the building for  residence
\nof the landlord, if the Accommodation Controller had refused
\npermission under section 17 of the Act to convert the build-
\ning  from  non-residential to residential?  (iv)  where\t the
\nAccommodation  Controller refused the permission to  convert
\nthe  building from non-residential to residential, does\t the
\nclaim  to  the building by the landlord\t for  a\t residential
\npurpose become illegal and not recognised by law and whether
\nthe claim of the landlord can still be held to be bona fide?\n<\/p>\n
(v) whether in ordering eviction the special reasons  relied
\non by the High Court on a reappreciation of facts are  borne
\nout  from  the evidence in this case and whether  the  facts
\nstated\tby the High Court constitute “special  reasons”\t re-
\nquired under the first proviso to section 11 (3) in ordering
\neviction  and setting aside the judgments and orders of\t the
\ncourts below.\n<\/p>\n
    For\t the  present purpose, it is relevant  to  refer  to
\nsection 11(3) of the Act which provides as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “11  (3).\t A landlord may apply  to  the\tRent
\n\t      Control  Court  for  an  order  directing\t the
\n\t      tenant  to put the landlord in  possession  of
\n\t      the building if he bona fide needs the  build-
\n\t      ing for his own occupation or for the  occupa-
\n\t      tion by any member of his family dependent  on
\n\t      him;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t Provided  that\t the  Rent   Control
\n\t      Court shall not give any such direction if the
\n\t      landlord\thas another building of his  own  in
\n\t      his  possession  in  the same  city,  town  or
\n\t      village except where the Rent Control Court is
\n\t      satisfied\t that  for special reasons,  in\t any
\n\t      particular case it will be just and proper  to
\n\t      do so:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t Provided  further  that  the\tRent
\n\t      Control Court shall not give any direction  to
\n\t      a tenant to put the landlord in possession, if
\n\t      such  tenant is depending for  his  livelihood
\n\t      mainly on the income derived from any trade or
\n\t      business carried on in such building and there
\n\t      is no other suitable building available in the
\n\t      locality\tfor  such person to  carry  on\tsuch
\n\t      trade or business;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Provided further that no landlord whose  right
\n\t      to recover
\n\t      490<\/span>
\n\t      possession  arises  under\t an  instrument\t  of
\n\t      transfer\tinter  vivos shall  be\tentitled  to
\n\t      apply to be put in possession until the expiry
\n\t      of one year from the date of the instrument;
\n\t\t\tProvided further that if a  landlord
\n\t      after obtaining an order to be put in  posses-
\n\t      sion  transfers his rights in respect  of\t the
\n\t      building\tto  another person,  the  transferee
\n\t      shall not be entitled to be put in  possession
\n\t      unless  he proves that he bona fide needs\t the
\n\t      building\tfor  his own occupation or  for\t the
\n\t      occupation by any member of his family depend-
\n\t      ent on him.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In the view we have taken on the question that no  revi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
sion lay to the High Court, it is not necessary to refer  to
\nother  provisions of the Act or to the details of the  facts
\nof this case. It is, however, necessary to refer to sections
\n18 and 20 of the Act which are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “18.  Appeal–(1) (a) The Government  may,  by
\n\t      general  or  special  order  notified  in\t the
\n\t      Gazette, confer on such officers and  authori-
\n\t      ties not below the rank of a Subordinate Judge
\n\t      the  powers of appellate authorities  for\t the
\n\t      purposes of this Act in such areas or in\tsuch
\n\t      classes  of cases as may be specified  in\t the
\n\t      order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(b) Any person aggrieved by an order
\n\t      passed  by the Rent Control Court may,  within
\n\t      thirty  days  from  the date  of\tsuch  order,
\n\t      prefer  an appeal in writing to the  appellate
\n\t      authority\t having jurisdiction.  In  computing
\n\t      the thirty days aforesaid, the  time taken  to
\n\t      obtain a certified copy of the order  appealed
\n\t      against shall be excluded.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t (2) On such appeal being preferred,
\n\t      the  appellate  authority may  order  stay  of
\n\t      further  proceedings  in\tthe  matter  pending
\n\t      decision on the appeal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t (3)  The appellate authority  shall
\n\t      send for the records of the case from the Rent
\n\t      Control Court and after giving the parties  an
\n\t      opportunity of being heard and, if  necessary,
\n\t      after making such further inquiry as it thinks
\n\t      fit  either directly or through the Rent\tCon-
\n\t      trol Court, shall decide the appeal.
\n\t\t\t Explanation:–The appellate author-
\n\t      ity  may, while confirming the order of  evic-
\n\t      tion passed by the Rent Control
\n\t      491<\/span>
\n\t      Court,  grant  an\t extension of  time  to\t the
\n\t      tenant for putting the landlord in  possession
\n\t      of the building.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (4)  The\t appellate  authority  shall
\n\t      have all the powers of the Rent Control  Court
\n\t      including the fixing of arrears of rent.
\n\t\t\t(5)  The decision of  the  appellate
\n\t      authority,  and subject to such  decision,  an
\n\t      order of the Rent Control Court shall be final
\n\t      and shall not be liable to be called in  ques-
\n\t      tion  in any Court of law, except as  provided
\n\t      in section 20.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t20.  Revision:–(1) In\tcases  where
\n\t      the  appellate authority empowered under\tsec-
\n\t      tion  18 is a Subordinate Judge, the  District
\n\t      Court, and in other cases the High Court\tmay,
\n\t      at  any  time, on the application of  any\t ag-
\n\t      grieved  party, call for and examine  the\t re-
\n\t      cords relating to any order passed or proceed-
\n\t      ings  taken under this Act by  such  authority
\n\t      for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the
\n\t      legality regularity or propriety of such order
\n\t      or  proceedings  and may pass  such  order  in
\n\t      reference thereto as it thinks fit.
\n\t\t\t(2)  The costs of and incidental  to
\n\t      all  proceedings\tbefore\tthe  High  Court  or
\n\t      District Court under Sub-section (1 ) shall be
\n\t      in its discretion.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It\thas  further  to be borne in mind that\tthe  Act  in
\nquestion was an Act to regulate the leasing of buildings and
\nto control the rent of such buildings in the State of  Kera-
\nla.\n<\/p>\n
    It\twas contended by Shri Poti, learned counsel for\t the
\nappellant,  that no revision lay to the High Court. He\tsub-
\nmitted\tthat section 18(5) read with section 20 of  the\t Act
\nhas  completely\t ousted\t the High  Court’s  jurisdiction  to
\ninterfere  in this matter under section 115 of the  Code  of
\nCivil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
    Under  the scheme of the Act it appears that a  landlord
\nwho  wants eviction of his tenant has to move  for  eviction
\nand  the  case\thas to be disposed of by  the  Rent  Control
\nCourt. That is provided by sub-section (2) of section 11  of
\nthe Act. From the Rent Control Court, an appeal lies to\t the
\nAppellate  Authority  under the conditions laid\t down  under
\nsub-section (1)(b) of section 18 of the Act. From the Appel-
\nlate  Authority a revision in certain circumstances lies  in
\ncase where the appellate authority is a Subordinate Judge to
\nthe District Court and in other cases to the High Court.  In
\nthis case as mentioned hereinbefore the appeal lay from Rent
\nControl Court to the
\n492<\/span>
\nappellate authority who was the Subordinate Judge and there-
\nfore  the revision lay to the District Judge. Indeed  it  is
\nindisputed that the respondent has in this case taken resort
\nto all these provisions. After the dismissal of the revision
\nby  the\t District Judge from the appellate decision  of\t the
\nSubordinate  Judge who confirmed the order of the Rent\tCon-
\ntroller,  the respondent-landlord chose again to  go  before
\nthe High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Proce-
\ndure. The question, is, can he have a second revision to the
\nHigh  Court? Shri Poti submitted that he cannot. We  are  of
\nthe  opinion  that he is fight. This position  is  clear  if
\nsub-section (5) of section 18 of the Act is read in conjunc-
\ntion with section 20 of the Act. Sub-section (5) of  section
\n18,  as we have noted hereinbefore, dearly  stipulates\tthat
\nthe decision of the appellate authority and subject to\tsuch
\ndecision,  an order of the Rent Controller ‘shall be  final’
\nand  ‘shall  not be liable to be called in question  in\t any
\ncourt of law’, except as provided in section 20. By  section
\n20, a revision is provided where the appellate authority  is
\nSubordinate Judge to the District Judge and in other  cases,
\nthat  is to say, where the appellate authority\tis  District
\nJudge,\tto the High Court. The ambits of  revisional  powers
\nare well-settled and need not be re-stated. It is inconceiv-
\nable  to have two revisions. The scheme of the Act does\t not
\nwarrant\t such a conclusion. In our opinion,  the  expression
\n‘shall be final’ in the Act means what it says.
\n    In Kydd v. Watch Committee of City of Liverpool.  [1908]
\nAppeal Cases 327 at 331-332. Lord Loreburn L.C.,  construing
\nthe  provisions\t of section 11 of the Police  Act,  1890  of
\nEngland\t which provided an appeal to quarter sessions as  to
\nthe  amount  of a constable’s pension, and  also  stipulated
\nthat  the Court shall make an order which would be just\t and
\nfinal, observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Where  it  says, speaking of such  an  order,
\n\t      that it is to be final, I think it means there
\n\t      is  to  be an end of the business\t at  quarter
\n\t      sessions\t…….\t ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  The said observation could most  appropri-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
ately  be applied to the expression used by the\t legislature
\nin sub-section (5) of section 18 of the Act in question.  It
\nmeans  what  it\t says that subject to the  decision  of\t the
\nappellate  authority,  the decision of the  Rent  Controller
\nshall  be final and could only be questioned in\t the  manner
\nprovided in section 20 and in no other manner. The intention
\nof  the\t legislature in enacting the said Act is  clear\t and
\nmanifest  from this section and the scheme of the Act,\tthat
\nis  to\tsay,  to regulate the leasing of  buildings  and  to
\ncontrol the rent of such buildings and to provide a tier  of
\ncourts\tby themselves for eviction of the  rented  premises.
\nThis  is writ large in the different provisions of the\tAct.
\nThis Court, referring to the aforesaid observations of\tLord
\nLoreburn, L.C. in the case of South Asia Industries  Private
\nLtd.  v.S.B.  Sarup Singh and Others. [1965]  2\t S.C.R.\t 756
\nobserved at
\n493<\/span>
\npage  766  of the report that  the  expression\t“final”prima
\nfacie meant that an order passed on appeal under the Act was
\nconclusive  and no further appeal lay. This Court  was\tcon-
\nstruing\t sections 39 and 43 of the Delhi Rent  Control\tAct,
\n1958 and the effect thereof in the context of Letters Patent
\nAppeal. There sections 39 and 43 provided as follows:–\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section 39. (1) Subject to the provisions  of
\n\t      sub-section  (2), an appeal shall lie  to\t the
\n\t      High Court from an order made by the  Tribunal
\n\t      within sixty days from the date of such order.
\n\t\t\t(2)  No appeal shall lie under\tsub-
\n\t      section  (1), unless the appeal involves\tsome
\n\t      substantial question of law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\tSection\t 43. Save as  otherwise\t ex-
\n\t      pressly provided in this Act, every order made
\n\t      by the Controller or an order passed on appeal
\n\t      under this Act shall be final and shall not be
\n\t      called  in  question  in\tany  original  suit,
\n\t      application or execution proceedings.”
\n\t\t\t This  Court  observed at  page\t 766
\n\t      that  a combined reading of the said two\tsec-
\n\t      tions made it clear that subject to the  fight
\n\t      of  appeal to the High Court on a\t substantial
\n\t      question\tof  law,  the order  passed  by\t the
\n\t      Controller  or an order passed on\t appeal\t was
\n\t      final  and could not be called in question  in
\n\t      any  original suit, application  or  execution
\n\t      proceeding.  The use of the expression  “shall
\n\t      be  final” will have to be understood  in\t the
\n\t      proper context and keeping in view the purpose
\n\t      of the different sections.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t On  behalf of the respondent,\tShri
\n\t      Iyer relied on a decision of the Full Bench of
\n\t      the Kerala High Court on which the High  Court
\n\t      had  rested its decision in Ouseph  Vareed  v.
\n\t      Mary,  [1968]  K.L.T.  583  in  repelling\t the
\n\t      submission  by the appellant on  this  aspect.
\n\t      There  the High Court was concerned  with\t the
\n\t      identical Act. Balakrishna Eradi, J.  speaking
\n\t      for the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court on
\n\t      this  contention\tafter referring\t to  several
\n\t      decisions\t observed  at pages 588-589  of\t the
\n\t      report as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “The  contention\tof the respondent  that\t the
\n\t      decision of the District Court rendered  under
\n\t      S. 20(1) is not amenable to revisional  juris-
\n\t      diction of the High Court under S. 115 of
\n\t      the  Civil Procedure Code is based  mainly  on
\n\t      the provision for
\n\t      494<\/span>
\n\t      finality\tcontained  in S. 18(5) of  the\tAct.
\n\t      That Section is in the following terms:–
\n\t      “The decision of the appellate authority,\t and
\n\t      subject to such decision, an order of the Rent
\n\t      Control Court shall be final and shall not  be
\n\t      liable  to be called in question in any  Court
\n\t      of law, except as provided in S. 20.”
\n\t      What  is\tto be noted here is  that  there  is
\n\t      nothing  in  the Section which says  that\t the
\n\t      decision of the revisional authority under  S.
\n\t      20  shall be final and shall not be called  in
\n\t      question in any higher court.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The learned judge referred to the decision of the  Judi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
cial   Committee   in  the  case  of  Maung  Ba\t  Thaw\t and
\nAnother–Insolvents  v.\t Ma  Pin, AIR  1934  P.C.  111.\t The
\nlearned\t judge also referred to a decision of this Court  in
\nSouth  Asia Industries (P) Ltd. v. S.B. Sarup Singh  &\tOrs.<\/a>
\n(supra).  The learned judge concluded that so long as  there
\nwas no specific provision in the statute making the determi-
\nnation by the District Court final and excluding the  super-
\nvisory power of the High Court under section 115 of the Code
\nof  Civil  Procedure, it had to be held\t that  the  decision
\nrendered  by the District Court under section 20(1)  of\t the
\nAct  being  a decision of a court subordinate  to  the\tHigh
\nCourt to which an appeal lay to the High Court was liable to
\nbe  revised by the High Court under section 115 of the\tCode
\nof  Civil  Procedure. In that view of the matter,  the\tFull
\nBench rejected the view of the division bench of the  Kerala
\nHigh  Court in Kurien v. Chacko, [1960] KLT 1248.  With\t re-
\nspect,\twe are unable to sustain the view of the Full  Bench
\nof  the\t High  Court on this aspect of the  matter.  In\t our
\nopinion,  the  Full  Bench misconstrued\t the  provisions  of
\nsubsection (5) of section 18 of the Act. Sub-section (5)  of
\nsection\t 18 clearly states that such decision of the  appel-
\nlate  authority as mentioned in section 18 of the Act  shall
\nnot  be liable to be questioned except in the  manner  under
\nsection 20 of the Act. There was thereby an implied prohibi-
\ntion or exclusion of a second revision under section 115  of
\nthe  Code of Civil Procedure to the High Court when a  revi-
\nsion has been provided under section 20 of the Act in  ques-
\ntion. When section 18(5) of the Act specifically states that
\n“shall\tnot be liable to be called in question in any  Court
\nof  law” except in the manner provided under section 20,  it
\ncannot\tbe said that the High Court which is a court of\t law
\nand which is a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure
\nunder  section\t115  of the Code of  Civil  Procedure  could
\nrevise\tagain an order once again after revision under\tsec-
\ntion  20 of the Act. That would mean there would be a  trial
\nby four courts, that would be repugnant to the scheme  mani-
\nfest  in  the  different sections of the  Act  in  question.
\nPublic\tpolicy\tor public interest  demands  curtailment  of
\nlaw’s  delay and justice demands finality within quick\tdis-
\nposal of
\n495<\/span>
\ncase.  The language of the provisions of section 18(5)\tread
\nwith  section 20 inhibits further revision. The courts\tmust
\nso construe.\n<\/p>\n
    Judicial  Committee in Maung Ba Thaw v. Ma\tPin  (supra)
\nwas  dealing  with  the Provincial Insolvency  Act  and\t the
\nJudicial Committee observed that when a right of appeal\t was
\ngiven  to  any of the ordinary courts of  the  country,\t the
\nprocedure,  orders and decrees of that Court would  be\tgov-
\nerned by the ordinary rules of the Civil Procedure Code, and
\ntherefore  an appeal to Privy Council was maintainable\tfrom
\nthe decision of the High Court. Here in the instant case the
\nright  of  appeal has been given under the Act\tnot  to\t any
\nordinary court of the country under the Code of Civil Proce-
\ndure  but  to the courts enumerated under the Rent  Act.  In
\nthat  view of the matter, the ratio of that decision  cannot
\nbe  applied in aid of the submission for respondent in\tthis
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
    Indeed  this view, in our opinion, is concluded  by\t the
\ndecision  of  this  Court in the case of  Vishesh  Kumar  v.
\nShanti\tPrasad,<\/a>\t [1980]\t 3 S.C.R. 32 where  this  Court\t was
\nconcerned  with section 115 of the Code of  Civil  Procedure
\nand the amendments made therein which superseded the  bifur-
\ncation of the revisional jurisdiction between the High Court
\nand the District Court. The High Court possessed  revisional
\njurisdiction  from an order of District Judge  disposing  of
\nrevision  petition. This Court observed that section 115  of
\nthe Code of Civil Procedure conferred on the High Court of a
\nState power to remove any jurisdictional error committed  by
\na  subordinate court in cases where the error could  not  be
\ncorrected  by  resort to its appellate\tjurisdiction.  There
\nafter  tracing the history of the amendment of the  Code  of
\nCivil Procedure by Amendment Act, 1976, this Court  observed
\nthat  the amendment superseded the scheme of bifurcation  of
\nrevisional  jurisdiction  with effect from  1  st  February,
\n1977.  Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause\t Courts\t Act
\nwas  amended  from time to time in its\tapplication  to\t the
\nState of U.P. The two questions that fell for  consideration
\nbefore this Court were (i) whether the High Court  possessed
\nthe revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of
\nCivil Procedure in respect of an order of the District Court
\nunder section 115 disposing of a revision petition and\t(ii)
\nwhether\t the  High Court possessed  revisional\tjurisdiction
\nunder  section\t115 of C.R.C. against an order\tof  District
\nCourt under section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
\nIt  was held that the High Court was not vested\t with  that.
\nrevisional jurisdiction. This Court was of the view that  an
\norder under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause  Courts
\nAct was not of a court of District Court and was not  amena-
\nble of revisional jurisdiction. This COurt ‘further observed
\nthat an examination of the several provisions of the Provin-
\ncial  Small  Cause Courts Act indicated that  it  was  self-
\nsufficient  code so far as the enquiry covered by  that\t Act
\nwas  concerned. All the indications in the Act were to\tthat
\neffect. After
\n496<\/span>
\nanalysing the scheme and referring to the decisions of\tthis
\nCourt,\tthis  Court held that the jurisdiction of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure\t was
\nexcluded.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthat view of the matter, we are of the opinion\tthat
\nthe Full Bench of the Kerala High Court was in error and the
\nHigh Court in the instant case had no jurisdiction to inter-
\nfere in this matter under section 115 of C.P.C.
\n    It\twas urged that in case we are of the opinion that  a
\nrevision  under section 115 of the Code of  Civil  Procedure
\ndoes not lie, the case should be remitted to the High  Court
\nfor  consideration  as a petition under article 227  of\t the
\nConstitution.  We  are unable to accede.  A  petition  under
\narticle\t 227 of the Constitution is different from  revision
\nunder  section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  The\t two
\nprocedures  are\t not interchangeable though there  are\tsome
\ncommon features. It must, however, be emphasised that we are
\nnot dealing in this appeal with the constitutional powers of
\nthe High Court under article 227 of the Constitution nor are
\nwe  concerned with the powers of the High  Court  regulating
\nappeals\t under the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. We are\tcon-
\ncerned\tin this case whether the High Court, in view of\t the
\nscheme\tof  the\t Act, had jurisdiction\tto  interfere  under
\nsection\t 115  of the Code of Civil Procedure.  We  reiterate
\nthat to vest the High Court with any such jurisdiction would
\nbe  contrary to the scheme of the Act, would be contrary  to
\nthe public policy, and would be contrary to the\t legislative
\nintent as manifest from the different sections of the Act.
\n    In\tthat view of the matter, the appeal must be  allowed
\non that ground alone and it is not necessary for us to refer
\nto  the\t other\tgrounds. We must  necessarily  overrule\t the
\ndecision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court referred
\nto hereinbefore.\n<\/p>\n
    Before  we\tconclude, we must, however, note  that\tShri
\nPoti appearing for the tenant has conceded that rent  should
\nbe increased to Rs. 500 per month for the premises in  ques-
\ntion, as the existing rent is too low. The appeal is accord-
\ningly  allowed and we direct on the concession of Shri\tPoti
\nthat  rent  would be Rs. 500 per month from this  date.\t The
\njudgment and order of the High Court are set aside.
\nIn  the facts and circumstances of this case, there will  be
\nno order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
M.L.A.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n497<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Aundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 203, 1987 SCR (1) 485 Author: S Mukharji Bench: Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) PETITIONER: AUNDAL AMMAL Vs. RESPONDENT: SADASIVAN PILLAI DATE OF JUDGMENT09\/12\/1986 BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) BENCH: MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) CITATION: 1987 AIR 203 1987 […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37206","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1986-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-16T04:26:28+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986\",\"datePublished\":\"1986-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-16T04:26:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986\"},\"wordCount\":4085,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986\",\"name\":\"Aundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1986-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-16T04:26:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986\"}]},{\"@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":"Aundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1986-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-16T04:26:28+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986","datePublished":"1986-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-16T04:26:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986"},"wordCount":4085,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986","name":"Aundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1986-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-16T04:26:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aundal-ammal-vs-sadasivan-pillai-on-9-december-1986#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aundal Ammal vs Sadasivan Pillai on 9 December, 1986"}]},{"@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\/37206","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=37206"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37206\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37206"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}