{"id":88697,"date":"2007-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007"},"modified":"2018-12-28T14:38:16","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T09:08:16","slug":"g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007","title":{"rendered":"G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDated : 28\/08\/2007\n\n\nCoram\nThe HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\n\nC.R.P.NPD.No.624 of 2003\n\n\nG.Shanmugavel\t\t\t... \t\tPetitioner\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nP.N.Panchaili Ammal\t\t... \t\tRespondent\n\n\n\n\t  This appeal has been filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings\n(Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, as amended by Act 23\/73 and Act 1\/80, against\nthe judgment and decree dated 13.01.2003 passed in R.C.A.No.4 of 2002 by the\nRent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Court) Kovilpatti, confirming the\nfair and decretal order dated 17.04.2002 passed in R.C.O.P.No.7 of 2000 by the\nRent Controller (District Munsif Court) Kovilpatti.\n\n\n!For petitioner     \t...\tMr.S.Subbiah\n\n\n^For respondent     \t...\tMr.S.Pon Senthil Kumar\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis civil revision petition has been filed against the concurrent orders<br \/>\npassed in Rent Control Original Petition No.7 of 2000 and in Rent Control Appeal<br \/>\nNo.4 of 2000 by the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court), Kovilpatti and by<br \/>\nthe Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Court), Kovilpatti,<br \/>\nrespectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The respondent\/landlady herein as petitioner has filed Rent Control<br \/>\nOriginal Petition No.7 of 2000  on the file Rent Controller (District Munsif<br \/>\nCourt), Kovilpatti, under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamilnadu Buildings (Lease and<br \/>\nRent Control) Act, 1960 praying to evict the revision petitioner\/tenant on the<br \/>\nground of demolition and reconstruction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. It has been contended on the side of the petitioner that the demised<br \/>\npremises is a non-residential building and the same belongs to the petitioner.<br \/>\nThe respondent is a tenant and monthly rent is Rs.150\/- payable on or before 5th<br \/>\nday of following months.  During 1990 the petitioner has demanded the respondent<br \/>\nto vacate the demised premises so as to demolish and reconstruct the same.  The<br \/>\nsaid building is hundred years old.  The respondent has also promised to vacate<br \/>\nthe building, but he has failed to keep up his assurance.  Under the said<br \/>\ncircumstances, the present petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Per contra, it has been contended on the side of the respondent that<br \/>\nthe respondent has never agreed to vacate the building.  The building in<br \/>\nquestion has been constructed only by the respondent.  The petitioner has<br \/>\nalready filed Rent Control Original Petition No.5 of 2000.  The respondent has<br \/>\nalso filed Rent Control Original Petition No.6 of 2000.  It is false to say that<br \/>\nthe petitioner has decided to demolish and reconstruct the  building and there<br \/>\nis no merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. On the basis of divergent contentions raised by either party, the Rent<br \/>\nController has allowed the petition.  Against the order passed by the Rent<br \/>\nController, the respondent\/tenant has preferred Rent Control Appeal No.4 of 2002<br \/>\non the file of the Rent Control Appellate Authority (Subordinate Court),<br \/>\nKovilpatti.  The first appellate Court after considering the rival contentions<br \/>\nraised by either party, has dismissed the Rent Control Appeal No.4 of 2002.<br \/>\nAgainst the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below, the present civil<br \/>\nrevision petition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision<br \/>\npetitioner\/respondent\/tenant has contended with great vehemence that as per<br \/>\nSection 14 (2)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease &amp; Rent Control) Act, 1960<br \/>\n(hereinafter referred to as &#8220;the Act&#8221;), the petitioner should have filed an<br \/>\nundertaking, but the petitioner has not done it and therefore, the present<br \/>\npetition is not legally maintainable and the Courts below without considering<br \/>\nthe same, have allowed the petition and therefore, the orders passed by the<br \/>\nCourts below are liable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent\/petitioner\/landlady<br \/>\nhas also equally contended that the respondent\/petitioner\/landlady has not filed<br \/>\nundertaking under Section 14(2)(b) of the Act and subsequently, she has filed<br \/>\nthe same and even before recording delivery, the landlady is entitled to give<br \/>\nsuch undertaking and the failure on the part of the revision<br \/>\nrespondent\/petitioner\/landlady to file undertaking as contemplated under Section<br \/>\n14(2) of the Act is not a  flaw to the petition and the Courts below after<br \/>\nconsidering the contentions urged on the side of the revision<br \/>\nrespondent\/petitioner\/landlady, has rightly allowed the petition and therefore,<br \/>\nthe contention urged on the side of the revision petitioner\/respondent\/tenant is<br \/>\nnot legally maintainable and under the said circumstances, the present civil<br \/>\nrevision petition deserves dismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. On the basis of divergent submissions made by either counsel, the only<br \/>\npoint that has now winched to the fore in the present civil revision petition<br \/>\nis;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t whether failure of giving undertaking under Section 14(2)(b) of the said<br \/>\nAct, would pave the way for dismissal of the petition filed under Section<br \/>\n14(1)(b) of the said Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Section 14(2)(b) of the Act reads as follows;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;14.Recovery of possession by landlord for repairs or for reconstruction-<br \/>\n(1).. (a).. (b)..\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2) No order directing the tenant to deliver possession of the building<br \/>\nunder this Section shall be passed- (a)&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) on the ground specified in clause(b) of sub-section (1), unless the<br \/>\nlandlord gives an undertaking that the work of demolishing any material portion<br \/>\nof the building shall be substantially commenced by him not later than one month<br \/>\nand shall be completed before the expiry of three moths from the date he<br \/>\nrecovers possession of the entire building or before the expiry of such further<br \/>\nperiod as the Controller may, for reasons to be recorded in writing allow.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. From the close reading of the provision mentioned supra, it is<br \/>\nneedless to say that the petitioner who has filed a petition under Section<br \/>\n14(1)(b) of the Act should also give an undertaking inconsonance with the<br \/>\nprovisions of 14(2)(b) of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the revision petitioner\/respondent\/tenant that the landlady has<br \/>\nfailed to file an undertaking as envisaged under Section 14(2)(b) of the Act,<br \/>\nbut in the appellate forum, she has filed such undertaking to that effect.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The main contention urged on the side of the revision<br \/>\npetitioner\/respondent\/tenant is that such undertaking should be given along with<br \/>\nthe main petition filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act.  The learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the revision petitioner\/respondent\/tenant has accentuated the<br \/>\nCourt to look into the decisions referred to infra.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) The first and foremost decision is reported in 1999(1) CTC 657<br \/>\n(Krishan and two others  Vs.  Ravindranath)  wherein this Court has held that<br \/>\nSection 14(2)(b) clearly contemplates giving of undertaking before ordering<br \/>\neviction and not later.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) The second decision is reported in 2005 (5) CTC 585 (M.Abu Tahir and<br \/>\nM.Rahamathulla)  wherein the also this Court has held that landlord cannot give<br \/>\nundertaking either in appeal or in revision under Section 14(2)(b) of the said<br \/>\nAct.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In order to controvert the decisions accited by the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the revision petitioner\/respondent\/tenant, the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the revision respondent\/petitioner\/landlady has accentuated the<br \/>\nCourt to look into the following decisions;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) The first and foremost decision is reported in 2002 (4) Supreme Court<br \/>\nCases 437 (R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder  Vs.  Venkatesha Gupta and others) wherein<br \/>\nthe Honourable Apex Court has held that it is directed that the executing Court<br \/>\nshall before directing the tenants to be evicted and possession being given to<br \/>\nthe landlord, direct the landlord to file plans of proposed construction, duly<br \/>\napproved by the local authority, and give an undertaking in terms of Section<br \/>\n14(2)(b) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) The second decision is reported in 2006 (2) M.L.J. 524 (K.Sanjeevi<br \/>\nKumar Vs. P.Somasundaram)  wherein this Court has held that in this case as it<br \/>\nwas found that the order of the eviction is proper, the Court deem it fit to<br \/>\ngrant opportunity for the landlord to give an undertaking under section 14(2)(b)<br \/>\nbefore ever the order of eviction is implemented.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) The third decision is reported in 2007(2) C.T.C. 518 (Lakshmi  Vs.<br \/>\nM.V.Balamurali and another) wherein this Court has held that landlord can be<br \/>\ngiven opportunity to rectify error by giving fresh undertaking before eviction<br \/>\norder is implemented and eviction petition cannot be rejected on the ground that<br \/>\nno undertaking was given as contemplated under Section 14(2)(b) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. Therefore, from the cumulative effect of reading of the decisions<br \/>\naccited by the learned counsel appearing for the revision respondent\/petitioner<br \/>\n\/landlady, the Court can easily discern that there must be an undertaking as<br \/>\ncontemplated under Section 14(2)(b) of the saud Act and if the landlord has<br \/>\nfailed to give the some, he can file the same even at the stage of execution<br \/>\nbefore eviction order is implemented.  Simply because, such undertaking has not<br \/>\nbeen given along with the main petition, the main petition cannot be rejected on<br \/>\nthe part of the failure of the landlord.  Therefore, it is manifestly clear that<br \/>\nan undertaking as contemplated under Section 14(2)(b) of the said Act, can be<br \/>\ngiven even at the stage of execution proceedings.  Since the Honourbale Apex<br \/>\nCourt has given the dictum as mentioned supra  and the same has been followed by<br \/>\nthis Court in subsequent decisions, this Court is in a position to follow the<br \/>\ndictum given by the Honourable Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. In view of the discussion made earlier, it is very clear that the<br \/>\narugment advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revision<br \/>\npetitioner\/respondent\/tenant is sans merit and whereas the argument advanced by<br \/>\nthe learned counsel appearing for the revision respondent\/petitioner\/landlady is<br \/>\nreally having subsisting force.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. In fine, this civil revision petition deserves dismissal and<br \/>\naccordingly, is dismissed with costs.  The order passed in Rent Control Original<br \/>\nPetition No.7 of 2000 by the Rent Controller (District Munsif Court) Kovilpatti,<br \/>\nupheld in Rent Control Appeal No.4 of 2002 by the Rent Control Appellate<br \/>\nAuthority (Subordinate Court), Kovilpatti is confirmed. The revision petitioner\/<br \/>\nrespondent\/tenant is directed to vacate the demised premises within two months<br \/>\nfrom today.\n<\/p>\n<p>gcg<\/p>\n<p>To.\n<\/p>\n<p>1. The Rent Control Appellate<br \/>\n Authority, Subordinate<br \/>\n Judge,  Kovilpatti.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Rent Controller,<br \/>\n  District Munsif,<br \/>\n  Kovilpatti.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 28\/08\/2007 Coram The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM C.R.P.NPD.No.624 of 2003 G.Shanmugavel &#8230; Petitioner Vs. P.N.Panchaili Ammal &#8230; Respondent This appeal has been filed under Section 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act [&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-88697","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>G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007 - 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\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-12-28T09:08:16+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-28T09:08:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1530,\"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\\\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007\",\"name\":\"G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-12-28T09:08:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007 - 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\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-12-28T09:08:16+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007","datePublished":"2007-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-28T09:08:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007"},"wordCount":1530,"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\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007","name":"G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-12-28T09:08:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-shanmugavel-vs-p-n-panchaili-ammal-on-28-august-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.Shanmugavel vs P.N.Panchaili Ammal on 28 August, 2007"}]},{"@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\/88697","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=88697"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88697\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88697"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88697"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88697"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}