{"id":65861,"date":"2010-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010"},"modified":"2014-09-08T08:42:40","modified_gmt":"2014-09-08T03:12:40","slug":"thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 03\/08\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\nCRP NPD(MD)No.510 of 2005\nand\nCMP(MD)No.2419 of 2005\n\nThimmai Venkatachalam       .. Petitioner\/Appellant\n\nVs.\n\nR.D.Sigamani                .. Respondent\/Respondent\n\n\t\n\tCivil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of CPC against the order\ndated 09.11.2004 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2004 in Appeal Suit No.3 of 2003 by the\nPrincipal Sub court, Thanjavur.\n\n!For Petitioner    ...  Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan\n^For Respondent    ...  Mr.D.R.Murugeshan\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis civil revision petition has been preferred against the order dated<br \/>\n09.11.2004 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2004 in Appeal Suit No.3 of 2003 by the<br \/>\nPrincipal Sub court, Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original<br \/>\nSuit No.59 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruvaiyaru  for<br \/>\nthe relief of perpetual injunction, wherein the present respondent has been<br \/>\nshown as sole defendant. The trial Court has dismissed the suit. Against the<br \/>\nJudgment and decree passed by the trial court, Appeal Suit No.3 of 2003 has been<br \/>\npreferred on the file of the Court below. During pendency of the same, the<br \/>\npetition in question has been filed in I.A.No.9 of 2004 under Order 6 Rule 17 of<br \/>\nthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to permit the revision petitioner<br \/>\n\/petitioner\/plaintiff to make amendment in the plaint as set out in the<br \/>\npetition. The Court below after considering all the divergent contentions raised<br \/>\non either side has dismissed the petition. Against the dismissal order the<br \/>\npresent civil revision petition has been filed at the instance of the<br \/>\npetitioner\/plaintiff as revision petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Before considering the rival submissions made on either side, it would<br \/>\nbe apropos to look into the averments made in the plaint filed in Original suit<br \/>\nNo.59 of 1998. In paragraph &#8211; 1 of the plaint it is stated like thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The suit property morefully described hereunder is the ancestral property<br \/>\nof the plaintiff. The plaintiff&#8217;s father Thimmi Ramasamy and his brother<br \/>\nRenganathan, son of his paternal uncle Rajamannar has acquired the property and<br \/>\nthe said Renganathan Chettiar has left very long back to Patteswaram by leaving<br \/>\nthe entire property to the exclusive enjoyment of the plaintiff&#8217;s father. Thus<br \/>\nthe plaintiff&#8217;s father has solely acquired the property by ousting his brother<br \/>\nS.Renganathan chettiar. The said Renganathan chettiar has died. After his death<br \/>\nhis son Rajaraman has given a registered release deed in favour of the plaintiff<br \/>\nby attorning and informing the relinquishment made by his father. The other<br \/>\nheirs are predeceased and the said Renganathan chettiar and one Adilakshmi wife<br \/>\nof Srinivasan who has predeceased his father has also left the village and set<br \/>\nup her family at Patteswaram along with her mother. The plaintiff files the<br \/>\nabove mentioned release deed dated 30.10.81 into the Court and prayed that the<br \/>\nsame may be treated as part and parcel of the plaint. Thus the exclusive<br \/>\nenjoyment and ouster of other sharers to the property has been clearly mentioned<br \/>\nin the above said document. &#8230;.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. From the close reading of the main averments made in the plaint, it is<br \/>\neasily discernible that the plaintiff has claimed exclusive title to the suit<br \/>\nproperty by virtue of the alleged relinquishment made by S.Renganathan chettiar<br \/>\nand his son by name Rajaraman under a release deed dated 30.10.1981.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Now the Court has to look into the petition filed in I.A.No.9 of 2004<br \/>\nunder Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Order VI Rule 17 of the said Code reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter<br \/>\nor amend his pleadings to such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all<br \/>\nsuch amendments shall be may as may be necessary for the purpose of determining<br \/>\nthe real questions in controversy between the parties:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tProvided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the<br \/>\ntrial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of<br \/>\ndue diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the<br \/>\ncommencement of trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. From the close reading of the said provision, it is made clear that<br \/>\namendment of pleadings can be allowed at any stage of proceedings. But at the<br \/>\nsame time, amendment of pleadings shall not be allowed after trial has<br \/>\ncommenced, unless the Court comes to a conclusion that inspite of due diligence,<br \/>\nthe concerned party could not have raised the matter in question before<br \/>\ncommencement of trial.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In the petition in question, the proposed amendment has been stated<br \/>\nlike thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The defendant herein claims title over the northern portion in the front<br \/>\nand the kollai portion further north and west of plaintiff&#8217;s portion of the suit<br \/>\nproperty adjoining the road by means of a purchase from one A.N.G.Kanakiraman.<br \/>\nThe defendant relies upon a registered sale deed dated 01.12.1996. The plaintiff<br \/>\nsubmits that the vendor of the defendant Janakiraman is none other than the<br \/>\nblood brother of Ambujakshi Ammal who claims to have purchased the suit property<br \/>\nin Court auction in execution of a decree in E.P.No.25\/1963. The defendant is<br \/>\nthe son in law of the said Ambujakshi Ammal. The sale deed dated 20.06.1974 said<br \/>\nto have been executed by Ambujakshi Ammal in favour of the vendor of the<br \/>\ndefendant will not confer any title and neither Ambujakshi ammal nor her vendee<br \/>\nJanakiraman and his successor the defendant has ever been in possession of any<br \/>\nportion of the suit property. In fact the alleged court auction purchaser<br \/>\nAmbujakshi Ammal has not taken delivery of the property and it continues to be<br \/>\nin possession of the plaintiff since 1961. Hence on the date when the first<br \/>\nportion of the suit property was put up in court-auction Ranganathan chettiar<br \/>\nhimself had no title over the same, he having lost it by the plaintiff having<br \/>\nbeen in continuous possession in assertion of his own right adverse to title. As<br \/>\nsuch the plaintiff had perfected title to that portion by being in adverse<br \/>\npossession. Hence assuming Ranganathan chettiar had any title he had lost it to<br \/>\nthe plaintiff who has been openly asserting his title to the same. In the<br \/>\ncircumstances, neither the defendant nor his predecessors in interest have title<br \/>\nto the portion purchased by the defendants. In the circumstances neither the<br \/>\ndefendant nor his predecessors in interest have title to the portion purchased<br \/>\nby the defendants. In the circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to the relief<br \/>\nof declaration in respect of an area of 3686 sq.feet in the northern portion of<br \/>\nthe suit property  which is mentioned as schedule &#8216;B&#8217; hereunder. In view of the<br \/>\nfact that the defendant does not claim any right over any other portion except<br \/>\nthe area of 3686 sq.feet in the northern potion which is described as schedule<br \/>\n&#8216;B&#8217; hereunder. No relief is asked for in respect of the remaining area which<br \/>\nadmittedly belongs to the plaintiff.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The sum and substance of the proposed amendment is that the plaintiff<br \/>\nhas perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In the main averments made in the plaint it has been specifically<br \/>\nstated that the plaintiff has derived exclusive title to the suit property by<br \/>\nvirtue of relinquishment made by S.Renganathan chettiar and registered release<br \/>\ndeed executed by his son. If really the plaintiff has acquired exclusive  title<br \/>\nto the suit property by way of ouster he need not obtain a deed of<br \/>\nrelinquishment from the son of the said S.Renganathan chettiar. Therefore, it is<br \/>\nquite clear that the plaintiff has claimed exclusive title to the suit property<br \/>\nonly by way of relinquishment alleged to have been made by the said Renganathan<br \/>\nchettiar and his son.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The amendment sought to be included in the plaint is that the<br \/>\nplaintiff has perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession.<br \/>\nTherefore, it is pellucid that by way of proposed amendment, an attempt has been<br \/>\nmade on the part of the plaintiff to change source of title to the suit<br \/>\nproperty. It is an everlasting principle of law that by way of amendment, source<br \/>\nof title to suit property cannot be allowed. In the instant case, as narrated<br \/>\nearlier, in the plaint it has been specifically stated that the plaintiff has<br \/>\nderived exclusive title to the suit property by virtue of the alleged<br \/>\nrelinquishment. But in the present petition, an attempt has been made to change<br \/>\nsource of title by way of introducing the plea of adverse possession. Since the<br \/>\nplaintiff has attempted to change source of title to the suit property by way of<br \/>\nfiling the present petition, it is needless to say that the same is liable to be<br \/>\nthrown out in limini.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has made<br \/>\ninert attempts by arguing that the plea of ouster has been properly pleaded in<br \/>\nthe plaint. Under the said circumstances,  plea of adverse possession can easily<br \/>\nbe admitted and the Court below has erroneously dismissed the present petition<br \/>\nand further the revision petitioner\/petitioner\/plaintiff has attempted to<br \/>\nwithdraw the suit by way of filing a petition in I.A.No.6 of 2003, wherein a<br \/>\ndetailed counter has been filed on the side of the respondent. In the counter,<br \/>\nthe respondent has clearly stated that the plaintiff ought to have sought for<br \/>\ndeclaration in respect of the suit property. Under the said circumstances the<br \/>\npresent petition has been filed and the Court below has failed to look into it<br \/>\nand therefore, the entire order passed by the Court below is liable to be<br \/>\ninterfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In order to repudiate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the revision petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondent has also equally contended that in the present petition an attempt<br \/>\nhas been made on the part of the plaintiff to change source of title to the suit<br \/>\nproperty and the Court below after considering all the rival contentions raised<br \/>\non either side has rightly dismissed the petition and therefore, the dismissal<br \/>\norder passed by the Court below need not be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. It has already been narrated in detail that in the main averments made<br \/>\nin the plaint it has been initially stated that the plaintiff has ousted his<br \/>\nbrother by name S.Renganathan chettiar and subsequently in categorical terms it<br \/>\nis averred that the plaintiff has become exclusive owner of the suit property by<br \/>\nway of relinquishment alleged to have been made by the said S.Renganathan<br \/>\nchettiar and his son. If really the plaintiff has claimed exclusive title to the<br \/>\nsuit property by way of ouster, he need not introduce the deed of relinquishment<br \/>\nalleged to have been executed by the son of S.Renganathan chettiar. Therefore,<br \/>\nthe definite case of the plaintiff is that he is having exclusive title to the<br \/>\nsuit property by way of relinquishment alleged to have been made by the said<br \/>\nS.Renganathan chettiar and his son. Further, it has already been pointed out<br \/>\nthat a faint attempt has been made by way of filing the present petition so as<br \/>\nto change source of title and the same cannot be allowed in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. Of course it is true that the revision petitioner has made an attempt<br \/>\nto withdraw the suit by way of filing the petition in I.A.No.6 of 2003 wherein<br \/>\non the side of the respondent a detailed counter has been filed. In paragraph &#8211;<br \/>\n6 of the counter it has been simply stated that &#8220;when the petitioner contend<br \/>\nthat in the suit for permanent injunction, question of title cannot be decided,<br \/>\nthen nothing prevents him to go for any comprehensive suit as stated in the<br \/>\naffidavit without withdrawing the present suit.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. From the averments made in the counter, the Court can easily come to a<br \/>\nconclusion that on the side of the respondent it has been stated that the<br \/>\nplaintiff can very well file a comprehensive suit. That itself has not paved the<br \/>\nway for changing source of title on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore,<br \/>\nviewing from any angle, the entire argument advanced by the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the revision petitioner cannot be accepted and whereas the<br \/>\nargument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is really<br \/>\nhaving subsisting force.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has drawn<br \/>\nthe attention of the Court to the following decisions:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) <a href=\"\/doc\/1600644\/\">In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal &amp; others V. K.K.Modi &amp; others<\/a> (2006 &#8211; 2 &#8211;<br \/>\nL.W. 776), the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has held that &#8220;it is settled law that the<br \/>\nmerits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not to<br \/>\nbe adjudged at the stage of allowing prayer for amendment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. In the case referred to supra, it is stated that the beneficiaries of<br \/>\nthe trust were not derived any benefit from the trust and were constrained to<br \/>\nfile suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction and<br \/>\nsubsequently defendant No.1 has been removed from office. Under the said<br \/>\ncircumstances the amendment in question has been sought for and the Honourable<br \/>\nApex Court has held as indicated above.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) In N.Chellan Vs. S.Nagaraja Perumal (2009 (1) T.N.C.J. 481 (Mad (MB),<br \/>\nthis Court has held that &#8220;since no new cause of action has arisen and no<br \/>\nprejudice caused to other side, amendment can be allowed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) In Naduri Yogananda Lakshminarasimhachari and others V. Sri<br \/>\nAgastheswaraswamivaru (AIR 1960 Supreme Court 622), the Honourable Apex Court<br \/>\nhas held that &#8220;amendment can be allowed even in appeal stage for adding a new<br \/>\nprayer.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. In the instant case, it has already been pointed out in many places<br \/>\nthat on the part of the plaintiff, an attempt has been made by way of filing the<br \/>\npresent petition so as to change source of title to the suit property.<br \/>\nConsidering the fact that source of title to suit property cannot be changed by<br \/>\nway of amendment, it is needless to say that the aforesaid propositions of law<br \/>\nsettled by the Honourable Apex Court as well as this Court cannot be applied in<br \/>\nthe present petition. Therefore, viewing from any angle the order passed by the<br \/>\nCourt below is perfectly correct and the same need not be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. In fine, this civil revision petition deserves dismissal and<br \/>\naccordingly is dismissed without cost. Connected Miscellaneous petition is also<br \/>\ndismissed. The order passed in I.A.No.9 of 2004 in Appeal Suit No.3 of 2003 by<br \/>\nthe Principal Sub court, Thanjavur is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>mj<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Principal Sub court,<br \/>\n Thanjavur<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03\/08\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CRP NPD(MD)No.510 of 2005 and CMP(MD)No.2419 of 2005 Thimmai Venkatachalam .. Petitioner\/Appellant Vs. R.D.Sigamani .. Respondent\/Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of CPC against the order dated [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-65861","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010 - 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\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-08T03:12:40+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\\\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-08T03:12:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2342,\"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\\\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-08T03:12:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010 - 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\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-08T03:12:40+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\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-08T03:12:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010"},"wordCount":2342,"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\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010","name":"Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-08T03:12:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thimmai-venkatachalam-vs-r-d-sigamani-on-3-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thimmai Venkatachalam vs R.D.Sigamani on 3 August, 2010"}]},{"@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\/65861","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=65861"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65861\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65861"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65861"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65861"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}