{"id":60615,"date":"2002-12-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-12-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002"},"modified":"2015-11-20T04:16:38","modified_gmt":"2015-11-19T22:46:38","slug":"s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002","title":{"rendered":"S.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n\nDATED: 02\/12\/2002\n\n\nCORAM\n\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN\n\n\nC.R.P.(P.D.)No.858 of 2002\nand\nC.M.P.No.6954 of 2002\n\n\nS.T.Sundaram                   .. Petitioner\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n\n1. Veerateswaran\n\n\n2. The Chairman,\n   Karaikkal Planning Authority\n   Karaikkal\n   Pondicherry State\n\n\n3. The Member Secretary,\n   Karaikkal Town Planning\n   Authority, Karaikkal,\n   Pondicherry State.           ...  Respondent\n\n\n\n        Prayer:  Civil Revision Petition filed under  Section  115  of  C.P.C.\nagainst  O.S.No.26  of  2002  on  the  file  of the Additional District Judge,\nKaraikkal.\n\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.R.Thiagarajan,\n                Sr.Counsel for\n                Mr.K.Mohanram\n\n\nFor Respondents:  Mr.S.Sethuratnam,\n                Sr.Counsel for\n                Mr.S.Sounthar (R.1)\n                Mr.T.Murugesan, Govt.\n                Pleader (Pondicherry)\n                (RR.2 and 3)\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of  the
\nConstitution of India against the suit in O.S.No.26 of 2002 on the file of the
\nAdditional District Judge, Karaikkal.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The facts of the case are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        The  petitioner  being  the owner of the land in T.s.Nos.161, 164, 165
\nand 166 in ward No.F, Block No.38 at Nehru street, Karaikkal town obtained  an
\napproved  plan  No.604\/Kpa\/98 dated 17.3.1999 from the respondents 2 and 3 for
\nputting up a Kalyana Mandapam.  In accordance  with  the  approved  plan,  the
\npetitioner  had  actually  completed  the construction of the Kalyana Mandapam
\neven in the year 2001.  The first respondent is residing at  D.No.219,  Church
\nstreet,  Karaikkal  and  the  Kalyana  Mandapam has been put up at Door No.58,
\nNehru Street, which is on the north east of the first  respondent’s  property.
\nThe petitioner by sale deed dated 18.6.2001 purchased the property bearing old
\nDoor  No.218  lying immediately on the north of Door No.219 owned by the first
\nrespondent and on the west of the Kalyana Mandapam put up by him.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  It is  the  further  case  of  the  petitioner  that  there  is  a
\nlitigation  between the first respondent and vendor, the owner of the old Door
\nNo.218 and the litigation is still pending and as a power of  attorney  holder
\nof the vendor, the petitioner is looking after the litigation.  Enraged by the
\npurchase  of  the suit property by the petitioner, the first respondent with a
\nmala fide intention sent telegrams dated  22.10.2001  and  24.10.2001  to  the
\nrespondents 2 and 3 to the effect that the Kalyana Mandapam has been put up in
\nviolation  of  the approved plan and requested the respondents 2 and 3 to take
\nsuitable action under the provisions  of  the  Pondicherry  Town  and  Country
\nPlanning  Act,  1969, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1969”) against the
\npetitioner.  The second respondent by letter dated 24.10.2001 replied  to  the
\nfirst  respondent that there is no violation in putting up the construction of
\nthe Kalyana Mandapam by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  It is the further case of  the  petitioner  that  suppressing  the
\nabove facts, the first respondent filed a writ petition in W.P.No.1859 of 2002
\nbefore this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents
\n2 and 3 to remove the illegal construction put up in violation of the planning
\npermit and  rules and regulations.  That writ petition was disposed of by this
\nCourt on 31.1.2002 by directing the third respondent to inspect  the  premises
\nand  dispose  of  the  representation made by the first respondent within four
\nweeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  Pursuant  to  the  order
\nmade  by this Court, the third respondent sent a communication on 26.3.2002 to
\nthe first respondent informing about the action to be  taken.    However,  the
\nfirst  respondent,  filed  a  suit  in O.S.No.26 of 2002 before the Additional
\nDistrict Judge, Karaikkal for a mandatory injunction directing the respondents
\n2 and 3 to remove the construction alleged to be in deviation of approved plan
\nand obtained an order of interim injunction in I.A.No.80 of  2002  restraining
\nthe respondents 2 and 3 from giving “no objection certificate” for running the
\nKalyana  Mandapam  and  also obtained an order for appointment of an Advoc ate
\ncommissioner in I.A.No.81 of 2002 to inspect the Kalyana Mandapam and  file  a
\nreport.   Since  the  petitioner is aggrieved by the orders so passed and also
\naggrieved of filing of the civil suit before the  Additional  District  Court,
\nKaraikkal, filed the present civil revision petition.\n<\/p>\n
        5.    Mr.R.Thiagarajan,  learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the
\npetitioner has contended that the suit as filed before the Civil Court is  not
\nmaintainable  in  law  in  view of the bar of Civil Court’s jurisdiction under
\nSection 75 of the Act, 1969.  The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain
\nthe suit.  He further contended that the interim orders passed  in  I.A.Nos.80
\nand  81  of  2002  viz.,  appointment  of  Commissioner  and  interim order of
\ninjunction restraining the respondents 2  and  3  from  giving  “no  objection
\ncertificate”  to  the petitioner for running the Kalyana Mandapam would amount
\nto injuncting  the  statutory  authorities  from  performing  their  statutory
\nfunction.   When  the authorities under the Act sanctioned the planning permit
\nin accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1969 and  the  construction  has
\nbeen  carried  out  by the petitioner by scrupulously following the sanctioned
\nplan,  an  advocate  commissioner,  who  is  not  well  informed   about   the
\ntechnicalities  cannot  by  his  inspection  alone  find  out whether there is
\nviolation of the terms of the sanctioned plan without being equipped with  the
\nbasic materials  for  that  purpose.    He contended that the averments in the
\naffidavit filed in support of the writ petition filed before  this  Court  has
\nbeen  transformed into plaint and the present civil suit has been filed, which
\nis nothing but gross abuse of process of law, in the sense, having  approached
\nthis  Court  under  Article  226  of the Constitution of India rightly, having
\nobtained an order in the writ petition directing the statutory authorities  to
\ninspect  the construction put up by the petitioner and take appropriate action
\nunder the provisions of the Act, 1969, the first respondent abused the process
\nof law by filing civil suit with the  same  allegations.    If  there  is  any
\nviolation  of  the  sanctioned  plan,  the  respondents 2 and 3, the statutory
\nauthorities are empowered to take action against the petitioner.  Further,  by
\nfiling  writ petition, the first respondent caused to be issued a command from
\nthis Court by way of mandamus.  The authorities, respondents No.2  and  3  are
\nbound  to  take action against the petitioner if any violation is found in the
\nconstruction.  The authorities so empowered by the statute and further  issued
\nwith the command of this Court in the writ petition having found that there is
\nno violation in putting up of the construction, did not take any action.  Even
\nassuming  that  the  respondents  2  and 3 failed to take any action on having
\nfound that there are violations in spite of their statutory duty and in  spite
\nof the direction of this Court, it would be proper for the first respondent to
\napproach this  Court  for ventilating his grievance.  Without doing so, with a
\nmala fide intention and abuse of process of law, approached  the  Civil  Court
\nwhich  has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit, having regard to Section 75 of
\nthe Act, 1969 and obtained an interim order, which order has also been  passed
\nin  total  violation  of the mandatory provisions of Order 39 Rules 2 and 3 of
\nthe Civil Procedure Code.  He further contended that the very  institution  of
\nthe  suit  is  a  clear  abuse  of  process of law and has been filed in utter
\nviolation of Section 75 of the Act, 1969.  The Additional District  court  has
\nalso  erred  miserably  in  entertaining  the suit and granted exparte interim
\ninjunction in total violation of the provisions of the  Act,  1969  and  total
\nviolation  of  the mandatory provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil
\nProcedure Code.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   On  the  other  hand,  Mr.Sethuratnam,  learned  Senior   Counsel
\nappearing for the first respondent has contended that the first respondent was
\nforced to file the suit because of the inaction on the part of the respondents
\n2 and 3.    Section  75 of the Act, 1969 is not applicable.  Even assuming for
\nthe sake of argument that the said provision is applicable,  the  question  of
\nmaintainability has  to  be  decided  by  the  trial Court.  The trial Court’s
\njurisdiction cannot be assumed to be  ousted.    The  trial  Court  has  every
\njurisdiction to  decide  even  the  question  of maintainability.  However, in
\nrespect of the granting of the interim order, he has not made out any argument
\nas to whether the same is in  accordance  with  the  Order  39  of  the  Civil
\nProcedure Code.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Mr.T.Murugesan,  learned  Government  Pleader  appearing  for the
\nsecond  and  third  respondents  on  instructions  submitted  that  there   is
\nabsolutely  no  violation  whatsoever in putting up of the Kalyana Mandapam by
\nthe petitioner.  Immediately after  receipt  of  the  telegram  by  the  first
\nrespondent and even after the disposal of the writ petition by this Court, the
\nauthorities, respondents No.2 and 3 have inspected the premises and found that
\nthere  is  no  violation and hence the contention of the first respondent that
\nthe respondent authorities have not taken action as contemplated under the Act
\nfor  violation  of  building  construction  by  the  petitioner   is   totally
\nmisconceived.\n<\/p>\n
        8.    Mr.R.Thiagarajan,  learned  Senior  Counsel  in  his  reply  has
\nsubmitted  that  the  petitioner  has  constructed  the  Kalyana  Mandapam  in
\naccordance with  the  sanctioned  plan.   Even assuming that there are certain
\nviolations for which the authorities, respondents 2 and  3  are  empowered  to
\ntake  action  by  way of imposing fine and it is for the authorities under the
\nAct to take action.  For that purpose, the first respondent cannot file a suit
\nand totally injunct the petitioner from enjoying the property,  which  he  has
\nput up with heavy investment.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   I  heard  the arguments of the learned counsel on either side and
\nperused the material on record.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  It is true that the Pondicherry Town and Country Planning Act  is
\na Code  by  itself.    Section  75  of  the  Act, 1969 provides that ” Save as
\notherwise expressly provided under the Act, every order  passed  or  direction
\nissued  by  the  Government  or Board or notice issued by planning authorities
\nunder this Act shall be final and shall not be questioned in any suit or other
\nlegal proceeding.  This Court in CHENNAI  METROPOLITAN  DEVELOPMENT  AUTHORITY
\nVS.   ABDUR REHMAN reported in 2002(2) CTC 230, while considering pari materia
\nprovision Section 101 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which
\nprovides that ” any decision or order of the Tribunal or the Government or the
\nplanning authority or other authority or any other  officer  under  this  Act,
\nshall  subject to any appeal or revision for review provided under this Act be
\nfinal and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law”, has  held
\nthat  the Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature
\nexcept suits cognizance of which is either expressly or impliedly barred.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  The exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court  in  respect  of
\nthe  special  provisions  has  been considered by the Supreme Court in several
\ncases.  The Constitution Bench in the case of DHULABHAI VS.  STATE  OF  MADHYA
\nPRADESH  reported  in  AIR  1969  SUPREME COURT 78 has laid down the following
\nprinciple regarding the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil court:\n<\/p>\n
        1.  Where the statute gives a finality to the orders  of  the  special
\ntribunals  the civil courts’ jurisdiction must be held to be excluded if there
\nis adequate remedy to do what the civil court would normally  do  in  a  suit.
\nSuch  provision,  however does not exclude those cases where the provisions of
\nthe particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory  tribunal  has
\nnot acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an
\nexamination  of  the  scheme of the particular Act to find the adequacy or the
\nsufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is  not  decisive  to
\nsustain the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  court.    Where there is no express
\nexclusion the examination of the remedies and the scheme of the particular Act
\nto find out the intendment becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may
\nbe decisive.  In the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates
\na special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right
\nor liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and
\nliability shall be determined by the tribunals  so  constituted,  and  whether
\nremedies  normally  associated  with actions in civil courts are prescribed by
\nthe said statute or not.\n<\/p>\n
        (3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as  ultra  vires
\ncannot be  brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act.  Even the High
\nCourt cannot go into that  question  on  a  revision  or  reference  from  the
\ndecision of the Tribunals.\n<\/p>\n
        (4)  When  a  provision  is  already  declared unconstitutional or the
\nconstitutionality of any provision is to be challenged, a suit  is  open.    A
\nwrit  of certiorari may include a direction for refund if the claim is clearly
\nwithin the time prescribed by the Limitation Act but it is  not  a  compulsory
\nremedy to replace a suit.\n<\/p>\n
        (5)  Where  the particular Act contains no machinery for refund of tax
\ncollected in excess of constitutional limits or illegally  collected,  a  suit
\nlies.\n<\/p>\n
        (6)  Questions  of  the  correctness  of the assessment apart from its
\nconstitutionality are for the decision of the authorities  and  a  civil  suit
\ndoes  not  lie  if  the  orders of the authorities are declared to be final or
\nthere is an express prohibition in the particular Act.   In  either  case  the
\nscheme  of  the  particular  Act  must  be  examined  because it is a relevant
\nenquiry.\n<\/p>\n
        (7) An exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not readily  to
\nbe inferred unless the conditions above set down apply.”\n<\/p>\n
        12.   The  scheme of the Act provided for constitution of the planning
\nboard and notifying planning area, constitution and  appointment  of  planning
\nauthorities,  the  terms  of  office and meetings of the planning authorities.
\nThe Act provided for procedure for approval  and  preparation  of  development
\nplan and  control  of  the  development  and  use  of  the land.  The Act also
\nprovided for provision for revocation of the permission to  develop  the  land
\nand  imposition  of penalty for the development of the land, otherwise than in
\nconformity with the Act.  It further provided power to the authorities require
\nremoval of unauthorised development.  Hence, the entire scheme of the  Act  is
\nfor  the purpose of development of the area and the granting of permission for
\nthe purpose of developing the land i.e., granting of planning  permission  for
\nputting  up construction and taking action against violation or irregularities
\nand the Act also provides for appeal provision to appellate authority  by  the
\naggrieved person.    Hence, so far as the application for planning permission,
\nrefusal and any order passed thereon can be adjudicated under  the  provisions
\nof the  Act.    However,  a  third party, who is being aggrieved by the action
\ntaken by the authorities under the Act cannot have recourse under t he Act  as
\nper  the  Scheme of the Act and as such, it cannot be said that he cannot move
\nCivil Court for ventilating his grievance against the statutory authorities.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  It is very well settled that the normal rule of law is that civil
\nCourts have jurisdiction to try all suits of  civil  nature  except  those  of
\nwhich cognizance by them is either expressly or impliedly excluded as provided
\nunder  Section  9  of  the  Code  of Civil Procedure but such exclusion is not
\nreadily inferred and the presumption to be drawn must  be  in  favour  of  the
\nexistence  rather  than  exclusion  of jurisdiction of the civil Courts to try
\ncivil suit.  The test adopted in examining such a question is (i) whether  the
\nlegislative  intent  to exclude arises explicitly or by necessary implication,
\nand  (ii)  whether  the  statute  in  question  provides  for   adequate   and
\nsatisfactory  alternative  remedy  to a party aggrieved by an order made under
\nit.  Where a statute gives finality to the orders  of  the  special  tribunals
\njurisdiction  of  the  civil  Courts  must  be held to be excluded if there is
\nadequate remedy to do what the civil Courts would normally do in a suit.  Such
\nprovision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions  of  the
\nparticular  Act  have not been complied with or the statutory Tribunal has not
\nacted in conformity with the fundamental  principles  of  judicial  procedure.
\nThis  legal  principle  has  been settled by the Supreme Court for nearly more
\nthan 30 years back in Dhulabhai’ s case.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  But so far as the present case is concerned,  as  stated  in  the
\nsummation  of facts, the first respondent has moved this Court by invoking the
\nextraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
\nof India under same set of allegations that the petitioner herein has violated
\nthe conditions under which the petitioner was granted building permission  and
\nthe  authorities under the Act has not taken any action against the petitioner
\nby exercising their power under the Act and even the  representation  made  by
\nthe first  respondent  herein has not been considered and disposed of.  On the
\nabove allegations, this Court has directed the respondents 2 and 3 to consider
\nthe representation made by the first respondent and take action thereon.    If
\nat  all  the  first  respondent  is  aggrieved  that  the  action taken by the
\nstatutory authorities, the respondents 2 and 3 is not in accordance  with  the
\nprovisions  of the Act or aggrieved that the second and third respondents have
\nin total disregard to the order passed by this Court in the writ petition have
\nnot taken any action for  the  alleged  violation  or  aggrieved  against  the
\ninaction on the part of the second and third respondents, proper course to the
\npetitioner  is  to move this Court to have redressal in the procedure known to
\nlaw.  The tactics adopted by the petitioner to file a c ivil suit on the  very
\nsame  set  of grounds on the premise that in spite of the order passed by this
\nCourt in the writ proceedings, the  authorities  have  not  taken  any  action
\ncannot  be  considered  as a proper course and nothing but abuse of process of
\nlaw and in a way disgrace or lower the authority of this Court.   It  is  also
\nmanifestly clear that the intention of the first respondent is only to put the
\npetitioner  in  a  stalemate condition by obtaining an order from any Court of
\nlaw and the so called violation pointed out in the affidavit filed in  support
\nof  the  writ  petition or in the plaint before the Additional District Judge,
\nKaraikkal is not a bona fide reason.  The process of Court must be  used  bona
\nfide and  properly  and  must not be misused or abused.  It is the duty of the
\nCourt to prevent improper use of its machinery.  The Court has to consider the
\njurisdiction of the Court  as  a  means  of  oppression  and  process  of  the
\nlitigation is  free  from  vexatiousness.   This Court has held in the case of
\nUNION OF INDIA VS.  R.KARTHIKAI RAJAN  AND  OTHERS  reported  in  1999-3-  LAW
\nWEEKLY  471 that when the facts and the basis of the claim are identical, then
\nthe filing of the suit is clear case of abuse of process of Court.  Hence, the
\nconduct of the  first respondent having approached this Court by way  of  writ
\npetition  and  obtained an order against the respondents 2 and 3 and thereupon
\nfor the very same grounds and the very same allegations, filing a suit  before
\nthe Civil  Court  is  nothing  but the abuse of process of law.  It is not the
\ncase of the petitioner that he is not left with any other remedy.  If  at  all
\nhis  grievance  is  genuine,  he would have very well taken the matter to this
\nCourt as to the inaction on the part of the  respondents  No.2  and  3.    The
\nAdditional  District Judge also without considering the averments contained in
\nthe plaint that the first respondent has already invoked the  jurisdiction  of
\nthis  Court  under  Article  226  of the Constitution of India and obtained an
\norder against respondents No.2 and 3 has mechanically  granted  the  order  of
\ninterim  injunction  restraining  the  respondents  2  and 3 from granting “no
\nobjection certificate”.  The  said  order  has  also  been  granted  in  total
\nviolation of the mandatory provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C.  The
\ntrial  Court  did not even think of granting of injunction order as granted by
\nit would tantamount to injuncting the statutory authorities from  doing  their
\nstatutory function.  Useful reference can be had to the judgment of this Court
\nin the case of RT.REV DR.  V.DEVASAHAYAM, BISHOP IN MADRAS CSI AND ANOTHER VS.
\nD.SAHAYADOSS reported  in  2002  (1)  LAW WEEKLY 672.  Hence, I am of the view
\nthat the interim order passed is in violation  of  the  mandatory  provisions,
\nwithout  recording  any  reasons  for  granting  such an interim order and the
\naction of the petitioner in moving the Civil  Court  is  a  blatant  abuse  of
\nprocess  of  Court  resulting  in  miscarriage of justice and it is imminently
\nsatisfy the parameters for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of  the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  In the result, the Civil revision petition  is  allowed  quashing
\nthe  interim  orders  granted  by  the Additional District Judge, Karaikkal in
\nI.A.Nos.80 and 81 of 2002 in O.S.No.26 of 2002.  Further  as  I  am  satisfied
\nthat  the  suit  in O.S.No.26 of 2002 is an abuse of process of Court, I order
\nthat the said suit  shall  be  struck  off  and  expelled  from  the  file  of
\nAdditional District Judge,  Karaikkal.  Consequently, the connected C.M.P.  is
\nclosed.  The petitioner is entitled to his costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:Yes
\nWebsite:  Yes
\nusk
\nTo\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Additional District Judge,
\nKaraikkal,\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Record Keeper,
\nV.R.Section,
\nHigh Court,
\nMadras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02\/12\/2002 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN C.R.P.(P.D.)No.858 of 2002 and C.M.P.No.6954 of 2002 S.T.Sundaram .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. Veerateswaran 2. The Chairman, Karaikkal Planning Authority Karaikkal Pondicherry State 3. The Member Secretary, Karaikkal Town Planning […]<\/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-60615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002 - 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\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-19T22:46:38+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=\"18 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-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-19T22:46:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3471,\"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\\\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002\",\"name\":\"S.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-12-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-19T22:46:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002\"}]},{\"@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.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002 - 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\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-19T22:46:38+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002","datePublished":"2002-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-19T22:46:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002"},"wordCount":3471,"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\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002","name":"S.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-12-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-19T22:46:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-t-sundaram-vs-veerateswaran-on-2-december-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.T.Sundaram vs Veerateswaran on 2 December, 2002"}]},{"@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\/60615","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=60615"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60615\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60615"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}