{"id":56105,"date":"1991-09-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-09-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991"},"modified":"2016-04-11T01:31:24","modified_gmt":"2016-04-10T20:01:24","slug":"s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991","title":{"rendered":"S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR  243, \t\t  1991 SCR  Supl. (1)  21<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Kania<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Kania, M.H.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nS. VENKITACHALAM IYER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nS. RAMA IYER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT12\/09\/1991\n\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nBENCH:\nKANIA, M.H.\nMISRA, RANGNATH (CJ)\nKULDIP SINGH (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR  243\t\t  1991 SCR  Supl. (1)  21\n 1992 SCC  Supl.  (2) 133 1991 SCALE  (2)623\n\n\nACT:\n    Tamil Nadu Tenants' Protection Act, 1921: Sections 9 and\n10--Tenant--Eviction  of--Decree  passed--Compensation\t for\nsuperstructure built by tenants predecessor-in-interest\t and\npurchased by tenant--Execution proceedings pending--Right of\ntenant to require the landlord to sell the land for  benefi-\ncial enjoyment of the superstructure--Whether affected.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t lands\tin question owned by a Trust, of  which\t the\nappellant was the Managing Trustee, were leased to  respond-\nent.  On his failure to pay rent the Trust filed a suit\t for\nhis  ejectment. The District Munsiff passed the\t decree\t  on\ncondition that the appellant would pay the respondent, costs\nof  the building or superstructure, which had been built  by\nthe  respondent's  predecessor-in-interest,  and  which\t the\nrespondent had purchased from him. The litigation went\tupto\nHigh  Court, which ultimately upheld the decree. During\t the\npendency  of second appeal, the respondent filed before\t the\nDistrict Munsiff an application under Section 9 of the Tamil\nNadu Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 as amended by Act XIX  of\n1955  and  Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws  Order,  1969.\t The\nprovisions  of\tthe said Act were extended to  the  town  in\nwhich  the lands were situated. In the said  application  he\nprayed for the issue of a direction to the appellant to sell\nto the respondent the said property, the land adjoining\t the\nbuilding,   as it was necessary for the beneficial enjoyment\nof the building. The application was rejected on the  ground\nthat  such a prayer had been rejected earlier. The  respond-\nent's first appeal was allowed by the Subordinate Judge. The\nrespondent had not surrendered the possession of the proper-\nty  despite  the deposit of the compensation amount  by\t the\nappellant and the execution proceedings had remained stayed.\nHence  the  appellant  filed an appeal in  .the\t High  Court\nwhich,\thowever,  held that the respondent was\tentitled  to\nfile  the application under Section 9 of the Act during\t the\npendency of the execution proceedings, and the right of\t the\nrespondent  had\t not  been affected by the  deposit  of\t the\ncompensation amount.\n    In the appeal before this Court, on behalf of the appel-\nlant Managing Trustee, it was contended that the  respondent\nwas not entitled to exercise his right to purchase the\tland\nimmediately  adjoining\tthe superstructure as might  be\t re-\nquired for the beneficial enjoyment of the said structure as\nthe\n22\nsaid  structure\t had not been put up by him, and  'that\t al-\nthough\tthe respondent might have been in possession at\t the\nrelevant  time,\t he had lost the possession  thereafter\t and\nhence he had lost his right under Section 9.\nDismissing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  1.1\tUnder Section 9 of the Tamil  Nadu  Tenants'\nProtection  Act,  1921, any tenant, as\tdefined\t in  Section\n2(4)(ii)(a),  who is entitled to compensation under  Section\n3, and against whom a suit in ejectment has been  instituted\nor  proceedings\t under Section 41 of  the  Presidency  Small\nCauses\tCourt Act, 1882, taken by the landlord\tmay,  within\none month from the date of the Madras City Tenants'  Protec-\ntion  (Amendment) Act, 1955, coming into force, or the\tdate\nwith effect from which this Act is extended to the municipal\ntown or village in which the land is situated, or within one\nmonth  after  the service on him of summons,  apply  to\t the\nCourt for an order that the landlord be directed to sell for\na  price to be fixed by the court, the whole or part of\t the\nextent\tof land specified in the application. Section 10  of\nthe  Act makes the provisions under Section 9 applicable  to\ncases  where  decree  for ejectment has\t not  been  executed\nbefore\tthe  date from which the provisions of the  Act\t are\nextended to the area in question. [25 C-E]\n    1.2 In the instant case, although the decree for  eject-\nment was passed against the respondent, as he had  continued\nto  remain in possession of the property and the decree\t had\nremained unexecuted till the date on which the provisions of\nthe said Act had been extended to the area in question,\t the\nright of the respondent under Section 9 was not lost. [25 F]\n    1.3 As regards the superstructure, it was put up by\t the\npredecessor  in interest from whom the respondent  had\tpur-\nchased.\t Thus, the High Court was entitled to take the\tview\nthat  it was put up by a predecessor-in-interest of the\t re-\nspondent. [25 G]\n    1.4 In these circumstances, the respondent was certainly\na  tenant, within the meaning of Section 2(4)(ii)(a) of\t the\nAct, which takes within its ambit a tenant whose tenancy has\nbeen  determined  but  continues to  remain  in\t possession,\nentitled to compensation under Section 3 of the Act and was,\ntherefore,  entitled to make an application under Section  9\nof the Act. [25 H, 25 B]\n23\n    2. The plea that although the respondent might have been\nin  possession\tat the relevant time, but since he  lost  it\nthereafter,  he\t lost his right under Section  9  cannot  be\nallowed\t to be raised in this Court since this has not\tbeen\npleaded in or considered in any of the courts below. [26  A-\nB]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1317 of<br \/>\n    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated  21.1.1983  of\t the<br \/>\nMadras High Court in C.R.P. No. 2797 OF 1979.<br \/>\n    T.S.  Krishnamurthy\t lyer, P.N.  Ramalingam\t and  A.T.M.<br \/>\nSampath for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>    S. Balakrishnan, S. Prasad, R. Raghavan and Vijay  Kumar<br \/>\nfor the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    KANIA, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the<br \/>\ndecision of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High  Court<br \/>\nin  Civil Revision Petition No. 2792 of 1979 filed  in\tthat<br \/>\nCourt.\tWe propose to set out only the few  facts  necessary<br \/>\nfor the disposal of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>    The\t appellant is the managing trustee of a\t trust.\t The<br \/>\nsaid  trust owned two properties comprising 60 cents and  29<br \/>\ncents  of  land at Nagercoil in Tamil Nadu. The\t said  lands<br \/>\nwere leased by the appellant to one Padakalingam in 1930 who<br \/>\nin turn assigned the lease in favour of one Ramaswamy Mudal-<br \/>\niar in 1931. Swami Mudaliar secured a further assignment  of<br \/>\nthe  said  lease  from the said\t Ramaswamy  Mudaliar.  Swami<br \/>\nMudaliar put up a building on the said land and the respond-<br \/>\nent herein purchased the building from him in 1943 for a sum<br \/>\nof  Rs.\t 4,475. In 1944 the trust had leased  out  the\tsaid<br \/>\nproperty  in  favour of the respondent for  six\t years.\t The<br \/>\nterms  of  the lease are not relevant for  the\tpurposes  of<br \/>\nresolving the controversy raised before us. As the  respond-<br \/>\nent  failed to pay the rent to the Trust, the Trust fried  a<br \/>\nsuit  for  ejectment against the respondent which  suit\t was<br \/>\nlater transferred to the District Munsifs Court,  Nagercoil.<br \/>\nThe  said suit was decreed by the learned  District  Munsif.<br \/>\nThe  decree for eviction was passed by the learned  District<br \/>\nMunsif\ton  condition  that the appellant will\tpay  to\t the<br \/>\nrespondent the costs of the building- or the superstructure.<br \/>\nThis  litigation was carried upto the High Court  in  Second<br \/>\nAppeal.\t The  decree  of the trial Court  for  eviction\t was<br \/>\nupheld by the High<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">24<\/span><br \/>\nCourt. During the Pendency of the second appeal an  applica-<br \/>\ntion  was  filed by the respondent under Section  9  of\t the<br \/>\nTamil  Nadu Tenants Protection Act, 1921, as amended by\t Act<br \/>\nXIX  of 1955 and Tamil Nadu Adaptation of Laws\tOrder,\t1969<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as&#8221; the said Act&#8221;).  The provisions<br \/>\nof  the said Act were extended to Nagercoil town in  respect<br \/>\nof  non- residential buildings by a government\torder  which<br \/>\nwas  published in the Gazette on June 29, 1975. In the\tsaid<br \/>\napplication  under Section 9 of the said Act the  respondent<br \/>\nclaimed that the appellant should be directed to sell out of<br \/>\nthe said property, the land adjoining the said building\t and<br \/>\nnecessary  for the beneficial enjoyment of the\tbuilding  on<br \/>\nsuch  terms and conditions as might be fixed by\t the  Court.<br \/>\nThis application was resisted by the appellant. The District<br \/>\nMunsif&#8217;s Court, Nagercoil, dismissed the said application of<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t on the ground that a  previous\t application<br \/>\nwith  the said prayer had been dismissed and hence, a  fresh<br \/>\napplication  for the same relief was barred. The  respondent<br \/>\npreferred  an appeal to the SubCourt at Nagercoil which\t was<br \/>\nallowed\t by  the learned Subordinate Judge. The\t High  Court<br \/>\ntook the view that the decree in favour of the appellant was<br \/>\nsimple\tdecree of ejectment and did not take away the  right<br \/>\nof  the\t respondent to the building  or\t superstructure.  It<br \/>\nfurther\t took  the view that the deposit of  the  amount  of<br \/>\ncosts of the superstructure by the appellant did not  affect<br \/>\nthe right of the respondent. The respondent had not  surren-<br \/>\ndered the possession of the property despite the deposit  of<br \/>\namount\tof compensation by the appellant and  the  appellant<br \/>\nhad  been  compelled to resort to the court.  The  execution<br \/>\nproceedings were stopped. The High Court held that in  these<br \/>\ncircumstances, the respondent was entitled to make an appli-<br \/>\ncation\tunder Section 9 of the said Act during the  pendency<br \/>\nof the execution proceedings. The High Court also  dismissed<br \/>\nthe review petition preferred by the appellant.<br \/>\n    Only two submissions were made before us by Mr. Krishna-<br \/>\nmurthy\tIyer, learned Counsel for the appellant.  The  first<br \/>\nwas  that  the respondent was not entitled to  exercise\t his<br \/>\nright to purchase the land immediately adjoining the  super-<br \/>\nstructure as might be required for the beneficial  enjoyment<br \/>\nof the said structure as the said structure had not been put<br \/>\nup by him.\n<\/p>\n<p>    As we have already pointed out earlier, the said  super-<br \/>\nstructure was purchased by the respondent from Swami Mudali-<br \/>\nar who had put up the said structure and was an assignee  of<br \/>\nthe  lease. The respondent himself obtained a lease  of\t the<br \/>\nland subsequently. We now come to the relevant provisions of<br \/>\nthe said Act. We propose to set out the effect of the  rele-<br \/>\nvant sections so far as it is necessary for the purposes  of<br \/>\nthis case. Under clause<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">25<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) (a) of sub-section (4) of section 2, a person  referred<br \/>\nto  in sub-clause (i) who continues in possession after\t the<br \/>\ndetermination  of his tenancy agreement is included  in\t the<br \/>\nterm &#8216;tenant&#8217;. The inclusive definition of the term &#8216;tenant&#8217;<br \/>\nunder  Section 2(4)(ii)(a) takes within its ambit  a  tenant<br \/>\nwhose tenancy has been determined but continues to remain in<br \/>\npossession.  Section 3 of the said Act provides\t that  every<br \/>\ntenant as defined under the said Act shall, on ejectment, be<br \/>\nentitled to be paid as compensation the value of any  build-<br \/>\ning  which  may have been erected by him or by any  of\this.<br \/>\npredecessors-in-interest, or by any person not in occupation<br \/>\nat  the time of the ejectment who derived title from  either<br \/>\nof  them,  and for which compensation has not  already\tbeen<br \/>\npaid. Again, very briefly stated, Section 9 prescribes\tthat<br \/>\nany  tenant who is entitled to compensation under Section  3<br \/>\nand against whom a suit in ejectment has been instituted  or<br \/>\nproceedings under Section 41 of the Presidency Small  Causes<br \/>\nCourt Act, 1882, taken by the landlord may, within one month<br \/>\nfrom the date of the Madras City Tenants&#8217; Protection (Amend-<br \/>\nment) Act, 1955, coming into force, or the date with  effect<br \/>\nfrom  which  this Act is extended to the municipal  town  or<br \/>\nvillage\t in which the land is-situated, or within one  month<br \/>\nafter the service on him of summons, apply to the Court\t for<br \/>\nan  order that the landlord shall be directed to sell for  a<br \/>\nprice  to  be fixed by the court, the whole or part  of\t the<br \/>\nextent\tof land specified in the application, as set out  in<br \/>\nthe  said section. It may be mentioned that the\t land  which<br \/>\nthe  tenant is entitled to require to be sold to him is\t the<br \/>\nminimum\t land required for the beneficial enjoyment  of\t the<br \/>\nbuilding.  Section 10 of the said Act makes  the  provisions<br \/>\nunder Section 9 applicable to cases where decree for  eject-<br \/>\nment  has not been executed before the date from  which\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of the Act are extended to the area in  question.<br \/>\nThus,  although the decree for ejectment was passed  against<br \/>\nthe respondent, as he had continued to remain in  possession<br \/>\nof the property and the decree had remained unexecuted\ttill<br \/>\nthe  date on which the provisions of the said Act  had\tbeen<br \/>\nextended to the area in question, the right of the  respond-<br \/>\nent under Section 9 was not lost.\n<\/p>\n<p>    As\tfar  as the superstructure is  concerned,  the\tsaid<br \/>\nsuperstructure\twas put up by Swamy Mudaliar from  whom\t the<br \/>\nrespondent had purchased it as pointed out earlier. Thus, as<br \/>\nfar as the building or superstructure is concerned, the High<br \/>\nCourt was\/entitled to take the view that it was put up by  a<br \/>\npredecessor in interest of the respondent. In these  circum-<br \/>\nstances,  the respondent was certainly a tenant entitled  to<br \/>\ncompensation  under Section 3 of the said Act and was  enti-<br \/>\ntled to make an application under Section 9 of the said Act.<br \/>\nThe  submissions of Mr. Krishnamurthy lyer to  the  contrary<br \/>\ncannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">26<\/span><\/p>\n<p>    It\twas next submitted by Mr. Krishnamurthy\t Iyer  that,<br \/>\nas  averred  in\t the special leave  petition,  although\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  might  have been in possession at  the  relevant<br \/>\ntime yet he has lost possession thereafter and hence, he had<br \/>\nlost  his  right  under Section 9. This fact  has  not\tbeen<br \/>\npleaded\t in  or considered in any of the  courts  below\t and<br \/>\nhence, we decline to permit Mr. Krishnamurthy Iyer to  raise<br \/>\nthis contention before us.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.  There<br \/>\nwill  be  no order as to costs. The application of  the\t re-<br \/>\nspondent  under Section 9 will be disposed of on merits\t and<br \/>\naccording to law. The amount of compensation which will have<br \/>\nto be paid by the respondent to the appellant will be deter-<br \/>\nmined as provided under the said Act.\n<\/p>\n<pre>N.P.V.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">27<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 243, 1991 SCR Supl. (1) 21 Author: M Kania Bench: Kania, M.H. PETITIONER: S. VENKITACHALAM IYER Vs. RESPONDENT: S. RAMA IYER DATE OF JUDGMENT12\/09\/1991 BENCH: KANIA, M.H. BENCH: KANIA, M.H. MISRA, RANGNATH (CJ) KULDIP SINGH (J) [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-56105","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991 - 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\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991\" \/>\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=\"1991-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-10T20:01:24+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-10T20:01:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991\"},\"wordCount\":1472,\"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\\\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991\",\"name\":\"S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-09-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-10T20:01:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991 - 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\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-10T20:01:24+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991","datePublished":"1991-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-10T20:01:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991"},"wordCount":1472,"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\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991","name":"S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-09-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-10T20:01:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-venkitachalam-iyer-vs-s-rama-iyer-on-12-september-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Venkitachalam Iyer vs S. Rama Iyer on 12 September, 1991"}]},{"@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\/56105","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=56105"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56105\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56105"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56105"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56105"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}