{"id":101916,"date":"2002-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002"},"modified":"2019-03-13T00:21:04","modified_gmt":"2019-03-12T18:51:04","slug":"n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 01\/03\/2002  \n\nCORAM:   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH        \n\nS.A.No. 1371 of 1987 \n\n1. N.S. Ramanathan  \n  2. N.R. Panchamirtha Iyer             ...             Appellants\n\n                                                        Vs.\n\n1. N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died)\n2. Chandran @ Chandrasekaran   \n3. Mohan \n4. N. Ayyasamy  \n5. N. Narayanan \n6. N. Sankaran \n7. N. Srinivassan\n8. Madhuram (Died) \n\n Respondents 4 to 8 are brought on\n record as the legal representatives\n of deceased 1st respondent  Vide\n order dated 6-3-1996 in CMP No.12661\/89. \n9. P. Srinivasan\n10.Vatsala\n11.Ganesan  \n12.Rama  \n\n   Respondents 9 to 12 are brought on\n   record as legal representatives of\n   deceased 8th respondent  Vide order\n   dated 11-11-1993 in CMP No.17196\/92 ...      Respondents  \n\n\n!For Appellants:         ...     Mr.K. Hariharan\n^For Respondents 4 to 7:  Mrs.C.R. Rukmani \n For other Respondents:   No Appearance         \n\n                This second appeal is  filed  against  the  judgment  and\ndecree  dated  8 -12-1988 made in A.S.No.89\/87 on the file of the learned\nDistrict Judge, Chengalpattu.\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n<p>                Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.207\/82 on the  file  of  the<br \/>\nlearned  District  Munsif, Chengalpattu, are the appellants in the second<br \/>\nappeal.  The first respondent herein filed the suit  for  declaration  of<br \/>\nhis  title  over  B  Schedule  property to the plaint and for a permanent<br \/>\ninjunction.  He died pending second appeal.   His  legal  representatives<br \/>\nwere brought on record as respondents 4 to 8.  The eighth respondent also<br \/>\npassed  away  and  her  legal  representatives  were brought on record as<br \/>\nrespondents 9 to 12.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The case of the plaintiff was as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>                The suit A Schedule property was a vacant  site  allotted<br \/>\nto  him in a partition suit in O.S.No.97\/61 on the file of the Sub Court,<br \/>\nChengalpattu.  He was having his house opposite to this site.  This house<br \/>\nalso fell to his share in the partition.  Prior  to  this  suit,  it  was<br \/>\nenjoyed by  the  plaintiff&#8217;s  family  exclusively.  He had put up a small<br \/>\nconstruction and was enjoying the same.   On  the  eastern  side  of  the<br \/>\nproperty,  he  had  grown  velikathan  trees  and  using this portion for<br \/>\ntethering cattle and also parking carts.   The  property  in  dispute  is<br \/>\nshown  as  B  Schedule  property  being the eastern portion of A Schedule<br \/>\nproperty.  The defendants did not have any right or title over  the  same<br \/>\nand  as they were attempting to interfere with the plaintiff&#8217;s possession<br \/>\nas if the property belonged to them, the present suit for declaration  of<br \/>\nhis  title  to  B  Schedule  property  and  for  injunction  against  the<br \/>\ndefendants came to be filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  The first defendant filed a written statement and the<br \/>\nsame was adopted by the second defendant.  It was false to state that the<br \/>\nsuit property was allotted to the plaintiff in a partition  and  that  he<br \/>\nwas in  possession  of the same.  The plaintiff never enjoyed the eastern<br \/>\n23 feet east west shown as B Schedule in the  plaint.    The  B  Schedule<br \/>\nproperty  originally  belonged to one Duraiswamy Iyer and later inherited<br \/>\nby his only son Viswanatha Iyer, who endowed the property  by  way  of  a<br \/>\ngift deed  along  with his major sons on 27-10-1965.  The defendants were<br \/>\nenjoying the properties as trustees of the Vinayagar Temple.  The  entire<br \/>\nA  Schedule  property  was  not  allotted to the plaintiff&#8217;s share in the<br \/>\npartition suit.  The fact that there was a partition and a compound  wall<br \/>\non  the  eastern side would itself show that there was no right, title or<br \/>\ninterest to the plaintiff over the B Schedule property.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   On  the  pleadings,  the  trial  Court  framed   the<br \/>\nnecessary  issues  and  on the oral and the documentary evidence, held by<br \/>\njudgment and decree dated 28-4-1987 that the  plaintiff  had  established<br \/>\nhis  title  over  the B Schedule property and that he was entitled to the<br \/>\nrelief of injunction prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  On appeal by defendants 1 and 2 in  A.S.No.89\/87  the<br \/>\nlearned District Judge, Chengalpattu, confirmed the decision of the trial<br \/>\nCourt.  It is as against that, the present second appeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.   At  the  time of admission the following substantial<br \/>\nquestions of law were framed for decision in the second appeal:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;1.  The plaintiff having filed the suit for declaration of title and for<br \/>\ninjunction, can the title  be  established  without  any  title  deed  or<br \/>\ndocument of title?; and\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   Ex.A-1  which  alone  is contended to be the document of title being<br \/>\nonly a judgment or order can the  suit  property  be  identified  without<br \/>\ntheir being a decree?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Mr.K.  Hariharan, learned Counsel for the appellants,<br \/>\nsubmitted that the lower Appellate Court failed to see that the plaintiff<br \/>\nhaving specifically come forward with the case of declaration regarding B<br \/>\nSchedule  property, part of A Schedule property, had not given the actual<br \/>\nextent and  that  from  the  description  given,  no  identification  was<br \/>\npossible.   Ex.A-1  under which he claimed title to the suit property and<br \/>\nhe had been allotted the suit A Schedule property, did not refer  to  the<br \/>\nsuit  property  and in the absence of final decree in the partition suit,<br \/>\nno property could be identified from Ex.A-1, which is  a  mere  judgment.<br \/>\nAccording  to the learned Counsel, none of the exhibits filed on the side<br \/>\nof the plaintiff would in any way help his case to establish  his  title.<br \/>\nThe  approach  by the Courts below is that the defendants having admitted<br \/>\nthe plaintiff&#8217;s possession, there was no need for the plaintiff to  prove<br \/>\ntitle independently.    As the plaintiff, it was for him to establish his<br \/>\ntitle and he could not say that the defendants had not established  their<br \/>\ncase.   In any event, according to the learned Counsel, Ex.B-2 the report<br \/>\nof the Commissioner in the earlier suit, would clearly show that the suit<br \/>\nB Schedule property had not been allotted to the plaintiff.  The  learned<br \/>\nCounsel  also  made  a point of the fact that before the Appellate Court,<br \/>\nthe appellants sought to produce an ancient  document  dated  10-11-1911.<br \/>\nIt  would  clearly  identify the suit property and establish the title of<br \/>\nthe defendants to the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.  Per contra, Mrs.C.R.  Rukmani,  learned  Counsel  for<br \/>\nthe  contesting  respondents,  submitted that in the earlier proceedings,<br \/>\nthe  property  had  been  described  as  a  vacant  site  though  without<br \/>\nmeasurement  and it was not the case of the appellants that there was any<br \/>\nvacant site other than the suit site, which was the subject matter of the<br \/>\nearlier suit.  Further, the defendants had not put  forward  their  claim<br \/>\nfor  the suit property at any earlier point of time and in fact, they had<br \/>\nadmitted that they were not in possession of  any  portion  of  the  suit<br \/>\nsurvey number as would be evident from the reply notice Ex.A-12 issued by<br \/>\nthem during the prior suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.   During  the  course  of  the hearing, I directed the<br \/>\ncontesting  respondents&#8217;  Counsel  to  produce  the  final   decree   and<br \/>\naccordingly, she has produced the final decree passed by the Court in the<br \/>\nearlier suit.    Ex.A-1  which is the printed copy of the judgment in the<br \/>\nearlier suit O.S.No.97\/61, shows that the second and the third  items  in<br \/>\nthe  schedule  to  the earlier plaint, viz., the house at Nemmeli Village<br \/>\nand the vacant site in that village  were  allotted  to  the  plaintiff&#8217;s<br \/>\nshare.  No doubt, from Ex.B-1, copy of the plaint in the earlier suit, in<br \/>\nA  Schedule,  for  the  second item, the house at Nemmeli Village and the<br \/>\nthird item, the site opposite to the Nemmeli house shown as  item  2,  no<br \/>\nmeasurements are  given.    Whatever  the  family  possessed  in  Nemmeli<br \/>\nVillage, viz.  the house (item 2) and  the  site  (item  3)  came  to  be<br \/>\nallotted to  the  plaintiff&#8217;s share.  In the Commissioner&#8217;s report in the<br \/>\nprevious suit marked as Ex.B-2 in the present suit, the measurements  are<br \/>\ngiven  as  22.3  feet  by  184.3 feet extending practically till the next<br \/>\nstreet.  There is nothing to show that there was any  other  property  to<br \/>\nthe  east  of  this  vacant  site  in the same survey number belonging to<br \/>\nanybody else and in particular, defendants 1  and  2  herein.    This  is<br \/>\nfortified by  the  contents of Ex.A12.  Ex.A-12 is the reply notice given<br \/>\nby the first defendant herein to the notice Ex.A-11 given  on  behalf  of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff herein on 31-12-1971.  Ex.A-11 runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;My   client   has   been  appointed  as  receiver  in  I.A.No.310\/71  in<br \/>\nO.S.No.97\/61 by the Additional Sub  Judge,  Chengalpattu.    You  are  in<br \/>\npossession  of  Gramanatham S.No.150\/7 a vacant site opposite to the suit<br \/>\nhouse.  In your letter dated 24-10-1971, you have stated that 8 marakkals<br \/>\nof chilli was harvested by you during March, 1971.  There were number  of<br \/>\ntrees  which  you  have cut and the late Advocate Commissioner Thiru C.V.<br \/>\nKrishnaswamy Iyengar  auctioned  it  previously.    You  know  that   the<br \/>\nproperties are  under  civil  litigation.    You said that 4 marrakals of<br \/>\nchill was taken by you as waram.  The balance of 4 marrakkals you have to<br \/>\naccount for my client.  You are hereby prohibited from  interfering  with<br \/>\nthe said land without previous sanction from my client or the Court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Ex.A12,  which is the reply from the first defendant herein on 26-1-19 72<br \/>\nruns as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I am not aware of your client being a receiver.  I am not in  possession<br \/>\nof S.No.150\/7.    In  January,  1971  I approached your elder brother for<br \/>\npermission to raise chilly crop.  As I had arranged to  raise  a  similar<br \/>\ncrop on the vacant land adjoining the said survey number and I also tried<br \/>\nto  contact  your  client, who was then living at Kancheepuram, but since<br \/>\nyour client was not available and as the season for  raising  the  chilly<br \/>\ncrop was closing, I have raised the crop.  I am in possession of the said<br \/>\nvacant site  after harvest of the chilly crop was over.  I do not propose<br \/>\nto interfere with your client&#8217;s possession as I  have  a  lot  of  landed<br \/>\nproperties.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.   As  rightly  pointed  out by the Courts below, this<br \/>\nreply should clinch the issue in favour of the plaintiff.   Defendants  1<br \/>\nand  2 do not claim any right in S.No.150\/7 in which the suit property is<br \/>\nsituate.  When once there is  a  vital  admission  on  the  side  of  the<br \/>\ncontesting  defendants  disowning  any  claim  in the suit property, they<br \/>\ncannot try to take advantage of the want  of  measurements  to  the  suit<br \/>\nproperty in  the  previous suit.  At no point of time did they claim that<br \/>\nthey were in possession of the present  suit  as  trustees  of  Vinayagar<br \/>\nTemple.   They  are estopped from claiming any right in the suit property<br \/>\nin view of the prior admission of plaintiff&#8217;s right to be  in  possession<br \/>\nunder Ex.A-12.\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.   The  learned  Counsel  for the appellants wanted to<br \/>\npoint out that the measurements given by the commissioner in the previous<br \/>\nsuit did not at all tally with the claim made by  the  plaintiff  in  the<br \/>\npresent suit.    May be with regard to measurements the plaintiff has not<br \/>\ntallied.  But, that by itself will not disprove his  right  to  the  suit<br \/>\nproperty.   As  long as defendants 1 and 2 have not produced any material<br \/>\nto show their title to the suit property, they cannot defend the  present<br \/>\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.   The  lower  Appellate  Court  also  dealt  with the<br \/>\napplication for reception of additional evidence and in my view,  rightly<br \/>\nrejected the same on the ground that the defendants failed to produce any<br \/>\ndocuments  between  1911  and  1961 to prove that B Schedule property was<br \/>\nallotted to their predecessor in title long after the document sought  to<br \/>\nbe produced  as  additional evidence.  The suit property had been divided<br \/>\nin the family of the plaintiff and the same  had  been  allotted  to  the<br \/>\nshare of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.   On  the records available, the Court is entitled to<br \/>\nfind title in favour of  either  of  the  parties.    When  it  has  been<br \/>\nestablished  that defendants 1 and 2 have no right whatsoever in the suit<br \/>\nproperty, in view of the prior proceedings and the vital  admission  made<br \/>\nby  the first defendant in Ex.A-12, the plaintiff&#8217;s suit has been rightly<br \/>\ndecreed by the Courts below.    The  substantial  questions  of  law  are<br \/>\nanswered against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.   The  second appeal fails and the same is dismissed.<br \/>\nThere will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                 1-3-2002<br \/>\nIndex:  Yes<br \/>\nIGP <\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The District Judge,<br \/>\nChengalpattu (with records).\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District Munsif,<br \/>\nChengalpattu.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Record Keeper, V.R.  Section,<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>K.  SAMPATH, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Judgment<br \/>\nin<br \/>\nS.A.No.1371 of 1989<br \/>\n1-3-2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01\/03\/2002 CORAM: THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH S.A.No. 1371 of 1987 1. N.S. Ramanathan 2. N.R. Panchamirtha Iyer &#8230; Appellants Vs. 1. N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) 2. Chandran @ Chandrasekaran 3. Mohan [&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-101916","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>N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002 - 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\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-12T18:51:04+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\\\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-12T18:51:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1915,\"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\\\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002\",\"name\":\"N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-12T18:51:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002 - 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\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-12T18:51:04+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\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-12T18:51:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002"},"wordCount":1915,"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\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002","name":"N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-12T18:51:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/n-s-ramanathan-vs-n-krishnamoorthy-iyer-died-on-1-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"N.S. Ramanathan vs N. Krishnamoorthy Iyer (Died) on 1 March, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101916","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=101916"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101916\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101916"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101916"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101916"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}