{"id":88526,"date":"2006-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006"},"modified":"2018-07-22T02:37:08","modified_gmt":"2018-07-21T21:07:08","slug":"balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, R.V. Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2062 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nBalakrishnan\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMalaiyandi Konar\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/02\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT & R.V. RAVEENDRAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tChallenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a
\nlearned Single Judge of the Madras High Court holding that
\nthe auction sale held in an execution proceeding and
\nconfirmation thereof was illegal.  The matter was remitted to
\nthe Executing Court  with a direction to consider the objection
\nin terms of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in
\nshort the ‘Code’) and to consider whether there was any need
\nfor sale of the property in view of the deposit made by the
\njudgment debtor-respondent herein. The appellant who is the
\ndecree holder purchased the property in the Court auction
\nsale. The proceedings relate to O.S.No.385\/1977 on the file of
\nDistrict Munsif, Kulithalai.\n<\/p>\n
The background facts need to be noted in brief.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe suit was filed by the appellant on the basis of a
\npromissory note executed by the respondent in favour of the
\nappellant. The suit was decreed. In the proceeding for
\nexecution of the decree in his favour (E.P.No.725\/1981 on the
\nfile of District Munsif, Kulithalai later renumbered as
\nE.P.45\/1983 on the file of District Munsif, Manapparai)  the
\nappellant purchased the judgment debtor’s property on
\n8.7.1981 in Court auction after obtaining permission of the
\nCourt for a sum of Rs.7,510\/-. The sale was confirmed on
\n22.8.1983.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent filed EA 17\/83 to set aside the sale on the
\nground that he is entitled to the benefits under Tamil Nadu
\nDebt Relief Act, 1980 (in short the ‘Debt Relief Act’). On
\n30.4.1983 application filed by the respondent was dismissed
\non the ground that the respondent has not made out a case
\nfor getting benefit under the Debt Relief Act. It was also held
\nthat apart from the property covered by the auction sale, he
\nhad got income from other properties.  Respondent filed Civil
\nRevision Petition No.3963 1983 before the Madras High Court
\nagainst the order of dismissal of EA 17\/83. By order dated
\n10.9.1987 the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition
\nupholding the findings of the Executing Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tEP 80\/93 was filed by the appellant on 13.8.1993 under
\nOrder XXI Rule 95 of the Code for delivery of possession.
\nRespondent filed counter affidavit inter alia taking the stand
\nthat the Execution Petition was liable to be dismissed, as it
\nwas filed beyond the limitation period of one year prescribed
\nunder Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the
\n‘Limitation Act’). The trial Court overruled the objections and
\nordered delivery. Respondent thereafter filed Civil Revision
\nPetition No.2328\/1994 before the High Court which was
\nallowed on 13.7.1998 by the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tDuring the hearing of the case, the High Court in order to
\nshorten litigation gave option to the judgment debtor to
\ndeposit decretal amount with interest. In fact the respondent
\ndeposited Rs.35,000\/-.  Though at the time of hearing, learned
\ncounsel appearing for the present appellant accepted that the
\noffer of judgment debtor (respondent herein) was a reasonable
\none, he informed the Court that his client was not agreeable to
\nreceive any amount and wanted the property.  The High Court
\non examining the scope and ambit of Order XXI Rule 64 of the
\nCode held that the Executing Court while directing the sale
\nhad not kept in view the correct parameters of the
\nrequirements enjoined by the said provision, in particular to
\ndecide first whether it is necessary to bring the entire attached
\nproperty to sale. Accordingly, the following directions were
\ngiven:\n<\/p>\n
“In view of the abovesaid principle, I am of the
\nview that the Executing Court without
\napplication of mind has directed the sale of the
\nproperty of nearly 5 acres for a paltry sum of
\nRs.4,000\/- and odd. Now the petitioner has
\nshown his bona fide by depositing the amount
\nof Rs.35,000\/- and I am of the view that the
\nparties can be given an opportunity to
\nestablish the same. It is open to the petitioner
\nto convince the lower Court as to which
\nportion of the property is sufficient to satisfy
\nthe decree amount and the lower Court is
\ndirected to consider the matter afresh, in the
\nlight of the decisions of the Supreme Court as
\nwell as the judgment of this Court referred
\nabove, dispose of the claim of the parties in
\naccordance with law. Since the Executing
\nCourt has not acted in accordance with the
\nabove said principles of the Supreme Court, I
\nam of the view that the sale itself is liable to be
\nset aside even though no application has been
\nfiled by the petitioner. However, the objection
\nfiled by the petitioner is directed to be treated
\nas a petition under Section 47 CPC. Hence, the
\nmatter is remitted back to the Executing Court
\nwith direction to dispose of the objection
\npetition afresh. The Executing Court can also
\nconsider the need for the sale of property in
\nview of the deposit made by the petitioner.”\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellant in support of the
\nappeal submitted that the High Court has lost sight of the fact
\nthat the sale was confirmed on 22.8.1983. The earlier petition
\nfiled in the execution proceedings was rejected and the High
\nCourt also did not interfere.  That matter had attained finality.
\nThe subsequent execution proceeding for delivery was filed.
\nThe objection filed by respondent related to the applicability of
\nArticle 134 of the Limitation Act and the High Court could not
\nhave examined the matter in the background of Order XXI
\nRule 64 of the Code. It is further submitted that even
\nconceding for the sake of arguments that Article 134 of the
\nLimitation Act had application, the delay in filing the
\napplication is clearly attributable to the respondent himself.
\nHe had filed the objection and after its dismissal by the trial
\nCourt had moved the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn response, learned counsel for the respondent
\nsubmitted that Article 134 of the Limitation Act clearly applies
\nto the facts of the case. Though the High Court did not advert
\nto that provision yet for doing substantial justice the Court
\nhad indicated the parameters of Order XXI Rule 64 of the
\nCode. Property measuring about 5 acres was sold for a paltry
\nsum of Rs. four thousand. The judgment debtor had deposited
\nRs.35,000\/- which was sufficient to satisfy the decretal
\namount and the interest that would have earned had the
\npayment been made at the initial stage.\n<\/p>\n
\tOrder XXI Rule 64 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Power to order property attached to be sold
\nand proceeds to be paid to person entitled-
\nAny Court executing a decree may order that
\nany property attached by it and liable to sale,
\nor such portion thereof, as may seem
\nnecessary to satisfy the decree, shall be sold,
\nand that the proceeds of such sale, or a
\nsufficient portion thereof, shall be paid to the
\nparty entitled under the decree to receive the
\nsame.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe provision contains some significant words. They are
\n“necessary to satisfy the decree”. Use of the said expression
\nclearly indicates the legislative intent that no sale can be
\nallowed beyond the decretal amount mentioned in the sale
\nproclamation. (See Takkaseela Pedda Subba Reddi v Pujari
\nPadmavathamma (AIR 1977 SC 1789). In all execution
\nproceedings, Court has to first decide whether it is necessary
\nto bring the entire property to sale or such portion thereof as
\nmay seem necessary to satisfy the decree. If the property is
\nlarge and the decree to be satisfied is small the Court must
\nbring only such portion of the property the proceeds of which
\nwould be sufficient to satisfy the claim of the decree holder. It
\nis immaterial whether the property is one or several. Even if
\nthe property is one, if a separate portion could be sold without
\nviolating any provision of law only such portion of the property
\nshould be sold. This is not just a discretion but an obligation
\nimposed on the Court.  The sale held without examining this
\naspect and not in conformity with this mandatory requirement
\nwould be illegal and without jurisdiction. (See: Ambati
\nNarasayya v. M. Subba Rao and Anr.<\/a> 1989 Suppl. (2) SCC\n<\/p>\n
693). The duty cast upon the Court to sale only such portion
\nor portion thereof as is necessary to satisfy the decree is a
\nmandate of the legislature which cannot be ignored. Similar,
\nview has been expressed in S. Mariyappa (Dead) by LRs. And
\nOrs. v. Siddappa and Anr.<\/a> (2005 (10) SCC 235).\n<\/p>\n
\tIn S.S. Dayananda v. K.S. Nagesh Rao and Ors.<\/a> (1997 (4)
\nSCC 451) it was held that the procedural compliance of Order
\nXXI Rule 64 of the Code is a mandatory requirement. This was
\nalso the view expressed in Desh Bandhu Gupta  v. N.L. Anand
\nand Rajinder Singh<\/a>  (1994 (1) SCC 131).\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore, on the background facts noted by the High
\nCourt the auction sale did not meet the requirements of law.
\nBut at the same time it appears that the question regarding
\nthe legality of the sale had attained finality because of the
\nconfirmation of sale on 22.8.1983.  Though it is contended by
\nlearned counsel for the respondent that the order dated
\n10.9.1987 passed by the High Court rejecting CRP 3963\/1983
\nfiled by the judgment debtor seeking relief, was relatable to the
\nDebt Relief Act, that did not have the effect of reviving the
\nquestion relating to violation of Order XXI Rule 64 of the Code.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe residual question is the effect of Article 134 of the
\nLimitation Act, as appearing in the Schedule to the Limitation
\nAct relatable to, Sections 2(j) and 3 providing for periods of
\nlimitation. Article 134 reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Description of
\napplication
\nPeriod of limitation
\nTime from which
\nperiod begins to
\nrun<\/p>\n
134.  For delivery of
\npossession by a
\npurchaser of
\nimmovable property
\nat a sale in
\nexecution of a
\ndecree.\n<\/p>\n
One year<\/p>\n
When the sale
\nbecomes absolute.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe limitation for the purpose of Article 134 starts from
\nthe date of confirmation of sale. (See Ganpat Singh (dead) by
\nLrs. v. Kailash Shankar and Ors.<\/a> 1987 (3) SCC 146). In Pattam
\nKhader Khan v. Pattem Sardar Khan and Anr.<\/a> (1996 (5) SCC\n<\/p>\n
48) this court held that it is not from the date when sale
\ncertificate is issued that the limitation starts running. The sale
\nbecomes absolute on confirmation under Order XXI Rule 92 of
\nthe Code effectively passing title. It cannot be said to attain
\nfinality only when sale certificate is issued under Order XXI
\nRule 94.  There can be variety of factors conceivable for which
\ndelay can be caused in issuing a sale certificate. The period of
\none year limitation now prescribed under Article 134 of the
\nLimitation Act in substitution of a three year period prescribed
\nunder Article 180 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 is
\nreflective of the legislative policy of finalizing proceedings in
\nexecution as quickly as possible by providing a quick forum to
\nthe auction purchaser to ask for the delivery of possession of
\nthe property purchased within that period from the date of the
\nsale becoming absolute rather than from the date of issuance
\nof the sale certificate.  On his failure to avail such a quick
\nremedy the law relegates him to the remedy of a regular suit
\nfor possession based on title, subject again to limitation.\n<\/p>\n
\tThough it was submitted by learned counsel for the
\nappellant that the respondent was responsible for the delay
\ncaused as he had filed the Civil Revision before the High
\nCourt, the plea is clearly untenable. The Civil Revision Petition
\nwas dismissed on 10.09.1987.\n<\/p>\n
Above being the position, we are not inclined to interfere
\nin the matter. Though the question of applicability of Order
\nXXI Rule 64 of the Code should not have been considered by
\nthe High Court in view of the dismissal of earlier Civil Revision
\nPetition, even otherwise no relief could have been granted to
\nthe appellant in view of Article 134 of the Limitation Act.
\nSubstantive justice can be done to the parties if the order
\npassed by the High Court remitting the matter is maintained.
\nBut the question that has to be considered will not be the
\nvalidity of the sale, but the maintainability of the application
\nfor delivery of the property.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, R.V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2062 of 2000 PETITIONER: Balakrishnan RESPONDENT: Malaiyandi Konar DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/02\/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & R.V. RAVEENDRAN JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-88526","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBalakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006 - 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\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-21T21:07:08+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-21T21:07:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2008,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-21T21:07:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006 - 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\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-21T21:07:08+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-21T21:07:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006"},"wordCount":2008,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006","name":"Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-21T21:07:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balakrishnan-vs-malaiyandi-konar-on-17-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balakrishnan vs Malaiyandi Konar on 17 February, 2006"}]},{"@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\/88526","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=88526"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88526\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88526"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88526"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88526"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}