{"id":68879,"date":"2008-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008"},"modified":"2017-03-01T08:40:23","modified_gmt":"2017-03-01T03:10:23","slug":"t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED :05\/12\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nC.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1991  of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD).No.1 of 2008\n\nT.Sikkannan\t\t\t  ...  Petitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nVs.\n\nN.K.Perumal\t\t\t  ...  Respondent\n\n\n\tCivil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of\nIndia against the order dated 05.01.2007 made in I.A.No.87 of 2005 in O.S.No.137\nof 2004 passed by the Principal District Court, Dindigul.\n\n!For Petitioner    ... Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar\n^For Respondents   ... Mr.K.R.Laxman\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t   ****\n:ORDER\t\t\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.137 of 2004 on the file of the<br \/>\nPrincipal District Judge, Dindigul which is a suit filed by the respondent \/<br \/>\nplaintiff for recovery of money on the basis of two pro-notes. In the affidavit,<br \/>\nthe petitioner has alleged that it is the version of the plaintiff that on<br \/>\n01.02.2002 and 15.10.2002, this petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.3,50,000\/- and<br \/>\nRs.1,00,000\/-  respectively and executed two pro-notes in his favour, that while<br \/>\nboth of them were running a Pawn Broker Shop, the respondent utislised the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s signature and fabricated these pro-notes in order to grab at the<br \/>\nhouse belonging to this petitioner.  Hence, the suit pro-notes have to be<br \/>\nreferred to a handwriting expert for comparison with admitted signatures.  For<br \/>\nthis purpose, a petition under Section Order 26 Rule 10 has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.\tIn the counter filed by the respondent, it is alleged that in order<br \/>\nto drag on the proceedings, this petition has been filed.  Both the pro-notes<br \/>\nwere self-written documents by the petitioner himself and they had been marked<br \/>\nas Exs.A.1 and A.2.  After cross-examination of the respondent \/ plaintiff, this<br \/>\npetition has been filed with false particulars.  On 26.10.2004, the petitioner<br \/>\ninspected the documents in the Court with the consent of the respondent.  Even<br \/>\nafter such inspection, he has not taken any steps to refer the matter to the<br \/>\nexpert and belatedly, this petition is filed. Further, there is no mention in<br \/>\nthe affidavit that what is the document which contains his admitted signatures.<br \/>\nHence, the petition has to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.\tThe Principal District Judge, Dindigul has dismissed the application<br \/>\nby observing that even though the petitioner inspected the pro-notes on<br \/>\n23.11.2004, after getting permission from the Court, the present petition has<br \/>\nbeen filed on 08.06.2005, after six months and this venture is to protract the<br \/>\nproceedings and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.\tThe learned District Judge has not reached his conclusion on the<br \/>\nbasis of any of the legal principles settled on this subject.  However, it is<br \/>\nthe opinion of the Court below that in order to drag on the proceedings, this<br \/>\npetition has been filed.  Such approach is from one angle.  Mainly, the matter<br \/>\nhas to be dealt with as per the well settled legal principles of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt as well as this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.\tIn a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in (2008) 2 MLJ<br \/>\n395, Ammani Ammal Vs. Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd and others, in which the learned<br \/>\nJudges are of the opinion that of course, Section 73 of the Evidence Act permits<br \/>\nthe Court to compare the signature, however, in cases like the present one,<br \/>\nwhere the signatures are found in so many documents, and execution of mortgage<br \/>\ndeed itself is in dispute, it is better to send those documents for expert<br \/>\nopinion.  In the same judgment, the learned Judges have also referred to the<br \/>\nSupreme Court decisions to the effect that it is not advisable that a Judge<br \/>\nshould take upon himself the task of comparison.  The relevant portion goes<br \/>\nthus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;34.  <a href=\"\/doc\/1658472\/\">In O.Bharathan v. K.Sudhakaran, AIR<\/a> 1996 SC 1140 : (1996) 2 SCC 704,<br \/>\nthe Apex Court, relying on an earlier judgment AIR 1979 SC 14, held that it is<br \/>\nnot advisable that a Judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the<br \/>\nadmitted handwriting with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree<br \/>\nwith each other and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance<br \/>\nof an expert.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.\tIn 2008 (3) MLJ 897, Chandran Udayar Vs. Kasivel, this Court is of<br \/>\nthe opinion that when an expert opinion is given, it is the duty of the Court to<br \/>\nsee for itself and with the assistance of an expert come to its own conclusion<br \/>\nwhether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person, no<br \/>\nwonder, the handwriting expert&#8217;s function is to opine after a scientific<br \/>\ncomparison of the disputed writing with the proved or admitted writing in regard<br \/>\nto the points of similarity and dissimilarity in the two sets of writing, the<br \/>\nCourt should then compare the handwriting with its own eyes for a proper<br \/>\nassessment of the value of the total evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.\tIn (2008) 4 MLJ 176, M.Govindaraj Vs. Dr.V.Nallasivan, this Court<br \/>\nhas followed a decision rendered earlier by this Court reported in 2005 (2) CTC<br \/>\n850, <a href=\"\/doc\/126411\/\">Chinnasamy.N. V. I.P.S.Swaminathan and<\/a> 2005 (2) MLJ 603, Vijay kumar <a href=\"\/doc\/179278\/\">S.N.<br \/>\nV. S.R.Velusamy. The<\/a> crux of the decisions is,  it is always safe for the Court<br \/>\nto take the aid of handwriting expert to have expertise to scientifically<br \/>\ncompare such handwriting with reasons.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.\tPer contra, a decision of this Court reported in AIR 2004 Madras<br \/>\n254, V.Chinniah Vs. Pitchaimuthu, has been cited in which it is held that the<br \/>\ntrial Court has to exercise its powers under Section 73 of the Evidence Act<br \/>\nbefore arriving at a correct conclusion and if the petition is filed with a view<br \/>\nto protract the proceedings, such course cannot be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.\tIn 2007 (3) Law Weekly 196, T.P.Mani &amp; another Vs. Krishnan, the<br \/>\nlearned Judge of this Court has observed that it is always open to the Court by<br \/>\ninvoking the powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, to compare the<br \/>\nsignature of the defendants in the disputed document and the admitted signature<br \/>\navailable in the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.\tIn yet another judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (2) Law<br \/>\nWeekly 450, Sakthivel Vs. Dhandapani, it is concluded that when the application<br \/>\nis filed after a long delay, it cannot be entertained.  In a judgment reported<br \/>\nin 2006 (4) CTC 850, <a href=\"\/doc\/126411\/\">N.Chinnasamy V. P.S.Swaminathan, the<\/a> learned Judge has<br \/>\nformulated as many as 12 guidelines of procedures to be adopted and followed by<br \/>\nthe subordinate Courts in dealing with the subject.  Among them, No.9 of the<br \/>\nguidelines reads that  filing application for examination of documents by<br \/>\nhandwriting expert at a late stage thereby protracting and holding up the<br \/>\nproceedings is highly objectionable and No.12 of which goes to the effect that<br \/>\nwhen the defendant denies the signature in a particular document which is very<br \/>\nmuch relied on by the plaintiff, it is for the plaintiff to take steps for<br \/>\nexamination of the disputed signature by sending the document to a handwriting<br \/>\nexpert.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.\tIn a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in 2006 (3) Law<br \/>\nWeekly 58, <a href=\"\/doc\/117755\/\">Central Bank of India V. Antony Hardware Mart, the<\/a> learned Judges<br \/>\nhave culled out operative portion in the decision of the Supreme Court, in<br \/>\npara:12 which goes thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;12.Learned counsel for the plaintiff \/ appellant relied upon another judgment<br \/>\nof the Apex Court reported in 1992 (3) SCC 701 (State of Maharashtra thro&#8217; CBI<br \/>\nVs. Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha and others).  In paragraph 32 at page 730, the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt has held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;We did not consider it advisable to venture a conclusion based on such<br \/>\ncomparison having regard to the state of evidence on record in regard to the<br \/>\nspecimen \/ admitted writings of the accused 1 and 2.  Although, the section<br \/>\nspecifically empowers the Court to compare the disputed writings with the<br \/>\nspecimen \/ admitted writings shown to be genuine, prudence demands that the<br \/>\nCourt should be extremely slow in venturing an opinion  on the basis of mere<br \/>\ncomparison, more so, when the quality of evidence in respect of specimen \/<br \/>\nadmitted writings is not of high standard.  We have already pointed out the<br \/>\nstate of evidence as regards the specimen \/ admitted writings earlier and we<br \/>\nthink it would be dangerous to take any opinion on the basis of mere comparison.<br \/>\n&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.\tIn 1996 (2) Supreme Court cases 704, O.Bharathan Vs. K.Sudhakaran<br \/>\nand another, Their Lordships while referring to (1979) 2 SCC 158 : 1979 SCC<br \/>\n(Cri) 389, <a href=\"\/doc\/763713\/\">State (Delhi Admn.) V. Pali Ram<\/a> decided that in Pali Ram&#8217;s case, the<br \/>\nopinion was expressed by the Supreme Court in a criminal case while considering<br \/>\nthe question whether the accused had committed the offence of forgery and<br \/>\ncheating, it is held that it is not advisable that a Judge should take up the<br \/>\ntask of comparing the admitted handwriting with the disputed one to find out<br \/>\nwhether the two agree with each other and the prudent course is to obtain<br \/>\ninformation and assistance of an expert.  Further, in the case of Fakhruddin V.<br \/>\nState of M.P., AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1326 : 1967 Cri LJ 1197,  the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt has observed that comparison of the handwriting expert by the Court with<br \/>\nthe other documents not challenged as fabricated, upon its own initiative and<br \/>\nwithout the guidance of an expert is hazardous and inconclusive and that these<br \/>\nobservations were made in the facts and circumstances of such case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.\tIn (2007) 2 Supreme Court Cases 258, Kalyani Baskar (Mrs.) Vs.<br \/>\nM.S.Sampoornam (Mrs), the Supreme Court has taken a view when dealing with the<br \/>\ncriminal case on cheque that the appellant in the said case requested for<br \/>\nsending the cheque in question for opinion of the handwriting expert after the<br \/>\nrespondent had closed her evidence, the Magistrate should have granted such a<br \/>\nrequest unless, he thinks that the object of the appellant is vexatious or<br \/>\ndelaying the criminal proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.\tIn 1998 (III) CTC 650, Kuppanna Gounder and another Vs. R.Sivakami,<br \/>\nthis Court has held that restriction of an application for appointment of<br \/>\nAdvocate Commissioner to take disputed Will to Government handwriting expert for<br \/>\ncomparison on the ground of delay is not justified and the approach of the Court<br \/>\nshould be to render substantial justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.\tIn MANU\/TN\/0480\/2005 = 2005 (3) CTC 286, (2005) 3 MLJ 268,<br \/>\nChinnappan and C.K.Dhanapal Vs. Chinnammal, this Court referred to another case<br \/>\nreported in <a href=\"\/doc\/314502\/\">Somasundaram V. Palani,<\/a> 2001-1-L.W.511, in which this Court has held<br \/>\nthat it is settled law that the Court cannot act as an expert.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.\tFollowing the principles laid down in the decisions of the Apex<br \/>\nCourt, it could be held that since the Court itself is not an expert, though it<br \/>\nhas got ample powers under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. By mere<br \/>\ncomparison, the desired result could not be obtained and information of a<br \/>\nhandwriting expert can be taken aid by the Court to come to a conclusion, which<br \/>\ncould be on the basis of the information of the expert.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.\tIt is for the Court to decide whether the information of the<br \/>\nhandwriting expert has to be strengthened  by any other materials and<br \/>\ncircumstances.  The Court may also decide that no corroboration is necessary for<br \/>\nsuch information, if the facts of the case warranted so.  If the Court thinks<br \/>\nthat the information by an expert would stand and establish a fact in issue<br \/>\nwithout the assistance of other circumstances and if it is in view of the Court<br \/>\na qualified one, then there is no impediment for it to place reliance upon that<br \/>\ninformation, provided it exercises its power under Section 73 Evidence Act.  It<br \/>\nis incumbent upon the Court to go through the inferences adduced by the expert<br \/>\nfor his reaching the conclusion and to render its own finding, after comparison<br \/>\nby itself. It will amount to rendering substantial justice.  Mere delay cannot<br \/>\nbe a ground to shut the evidence at the threshold. Even though if a petition for<br \/>\nsuch purpose is filed after a long delay and even if it is filed in the part<br \/>\nheard stage, the Court has to ascertain and find out, whether it is a vexatious<br \/>\nstep taken by the party to elongate the proceedings.  In case, if the Court<br \/>\ntakes the view that the request is genuine one and it is not for harassing the<br \/>\nother side, then the party filing such application could be afforded proper<br \/>\nremedy.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18.\tIt is no doubt true that the petitioner has not mentioned<br \/>\nspecifically in his affidavit as to which is the document which contained his<br \/>\nadmitted signatures for comparison.  However, for this failure on his part, his<br \/>\nclaim could not be rejected.  The Court may grant an opportunity to him to<br \/>\nproduce of such documents which are of contemporaneous period.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19.\tIn such view of this matter, in the considered opinion of this<br \/>\nCourt, the petition has to be allowed and the matter be referred to the wisdom<br \/>\nof the handwriting expert for assisting the Court to arrive at a just<br \/>\nconclusion.  So, the order passed by the Court below is set aside and the<br \/>\npetition deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18.\tIn the result, this civil revision petition is allowed setting aside<br \/>\nthe order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul in I.A.No.87<br \/>\nof 2005 in O.S.No.137 of 2004.  The learned Principal District Judge shall grant<br \/>\ntwo weeks time to the petitioner \/ defendant to produce any documents, which are<br \/>\ncontemporaneous to the period of pro-note, that is to say 2002 or any earlier<br \/>\ndocuments which contains his admitted signature and to refer the matter for<br \/>\ncomparison by the handwriting expert as per settled procedures. Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected M.P. is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>ssm<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Principal District Court,<br \/>\nDindigul.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :05\/12\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU C.R.P.(PD)(MD).No.1991 of 2008 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2008 T.Sikkannan &#8230; Petitioner Vs. N.K.Perumal &#8230; Respondent Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 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-68879","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>T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008 - 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\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-01T03:10:23+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-01T03:10:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2128,\"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\\\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008\",\"name\":\"T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-01T03:10:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008 - 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\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-01T03:10:23+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-01T03:10:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008"},"wordCount":2128,"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\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008","name":"T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-01T03:10:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-sikkannan-vs-n-k-perumal-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.Sikkannan vs N.K.Perumal on 5 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/68879","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=68879"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68879\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}