{"id":107440,"date":"2004-04-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-04-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004"},"modified":"2015-10-04T05:45:07","modified_gmt":"2015-10-04T00:15:07","slug":"yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004","title":{"rendered":"Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 16\/04\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.GNANAPRAKASAM\n\nCivil Revision Petition (PD)No.1661 of 2003\nand\nC.M.P.No.12221 of 2003\n\n1. Yashoda\n2. K.Raja\n3. K.Jawahar                                      ...  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Perumal\n2. Kannammal\n3. Parimala\n(Respondents 2 and 3 are given up)      ...  Respondents\n\n\n        Civil Revision Petition filed against  the  fair  and  decretal  order\ndated  18.06.2003  in I.A.No.662 of 2003 in O.S.No.735 of 1990, on the file of\nthe Principal District Munsif, Salem.\n\n!For petitioners :  Mr.D.Shivakumaran\n\n^For Respondents :  Ms.P.Veena\n                for T.R.Rajaram\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>        This  Civil  Revision  Petition  is  directed  against the order dated<br \/>\n18.06.2003 in I.A.No.662 of 2003 in O.S.No.735 of 1990, on  the  file  of  the<br \/>\nPrincipal District Munsif, Salem.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The revision petitioners are defendants 7 to 9 in the suit,  which<br \/>\nsuit was  filed  by the respondents 2 and 3 herein for partition.  In the said<br \/>\nsuit, the first respondent herein, namely, Perumal was  the  fourth  defendant<br \/>\nwho remained  ex  parte.   But, however, the first respondent gave evidence on<br \/>\nbehalf of the plaintiffs.  Thereafter  the  first  defendant\/fourth  defendant<br \/>\nfiled  an application under Order 9 Rule 7 under Section 151 CPC, to set aside<br \/>\nthe ex parte order dated  12.1  0.1990  and  the  same  came  to  be  allowed.<br \/>\nAggrieved  by  the  same,  the  defendants  7  to  9 have preferred this civil<br \/>\nrevision petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  The first respondent\/fourth defendant in the  affidavit  filed  in<br \/>\nsupport  of  the petition, has stated that the defendants 1 to 3 and 5 are his<br \/>\nbrothers and 6th defendant is his paternal uncle.  The suit was filed  by  his<br \/>\nsister for  partition  and  allotment of their share in the suit property.  He<br \/>\nwas set ex parte on 12.10.1990 and he has been under the hope all along,  that<br \/>\nhis  brothers\/defendants 2,3 and 5 would help him to get his lawful share also<br \/>\nin the entire suit property.  But, it was not done so and  only  in  the  said<br \/>\ncircumstances,  he  has filed the application claiming his share, i.e., 8\/56th<br \/>\nshare and prayed for setting aside the ex  parte  decree  passed  against  him<br \/>\ndated 12.10.1990.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   The  revision  petitioners  who are defendants 7 to 9 opposed the<br \/>\nsaid petition contending that the fourth defendant wantonly  and  deliberately<br \/>\nrefrained  from  appearing  in  the  suit and he was set ex parte more than 12<br \/>\nyears back.  According to them, the first respondent\/ fourth defendant is only<br \/>\na collusive party to the plaintiffs and because of that only he  was  examined<br \/>\non  the  side  of  the plaintiffs as a second witness on 06.01.2003 and he was<br \/>\nalso cross examined  by  the  other  defendants  on  13.01.2003.    The  first<br \/>\nrespondent in support of the case of the plaintiff, gave evidence on behalf of<br \/>\nthe  plaintiff  as  P.W.2, it is not now open to him to take a different stand<br \/>\nfor which he has filed an application to set aside the order against  him  and<br \/>\nalso to  file  written  statement.   The first respondent also filed a written<br \/>\nstatement along with the application and it was done only after  having  given<br \/>\nevidence  in  support  of  the plaintiffs and therefore his request to examine<br \/>\nhimself as the defendant was opposed by the  other  defendants,  as  it  would<br \/>\nprejudice their  case.    But,  however  the  Court below has allowed the said<br \/>\npetition.  Aggrieved by the same, defendants 7 to 9 have preferred this  Civil<br \/>\nRevision Petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   Heard  the  learned Advocate for the revision petitioners and the<br \/>\nfirst respondent.  Respondents 2 and 3 were given up.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  It is the contention of the  learned  Advocate  for  the  revision<br \/>\npetitioners  that  the  first  respondent  was made as party defendant only to<br \/>\nsupport the case of the plaintiffs and only  in  the  said  circumstances,  he<br \/>\nremained ex  parte.    That  apart, the first respondent\/fourth defendant also<br \/>\ngave evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs and it would clearly establish  that<br \/>\nthe  first  respondent  is  only colluding with the plaintiffs and he was made<br \/>\nonly as a formal party that too as a defendant in order to support the case of<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs.  What has been thought of  by  the  revision  petitioners  has<br \/>\nbecome  true  when  the  first  respondent  gave  evidence  in  favour  of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs.  Having given evidence in favour of the plaintiffs, it is not open<br \/>\nto the first respondent to set up a case of his own by filing  an  application<br \/>\nto set aside the ex parte order passed against him and also filing a statement<br \/>\nand  his defence runs contra to the evidence given by him, supporting the case<br \/>\nof the plantiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  Now the  question  is  when  the  first  respondent  was  a  party<br \/>\ndefendant  in  the  suit, remained ex parte but gave evidence on behalf of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs, would he be permitted to set  aside  the  ex  parte  order  passed<br \/>\nagainst  him  and  also  to  file written statement and contest the suit, as a<br \/>\ndefendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The parties to a suit are classified as plaintiffs and  defendants<br \/>\nand the plaintiffs are the persons who come to the Court making some claim and<br \/>\nit is  for  the  plaintiffs  to establish their claim.  The defendants are the<br \/>\npersons who resist the claim of the plaintiffs and if they  do  not  have  any<br \/>\nright, they may say that they are unnecessary parties to the suit.  Therefore,<br \/>\nit  is always open to the defendants either to contest or to say that they are<br \/>\nunnecessary parties to the suit or if they agree with  the  plaintiffs  claim,<br \/>\nthey  can even submit to a decree, if it is otherwise, after completion of the<br \/>\npleadings, issues could be framed and the suit could be tried.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Here a peculiar situation has arisen  for  consideration  wherein,<br \/>\nthe  fourth  defendant  remained  ex  parte but gave evidence on behalf of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs by supporting their case and thereafter filed an application to set<br \/>\naside the ex parte order passed against him and also to file written statement<br \/>\n( as a matter of fact he filed the written statement) supporting the  case  of<br \/>\nthe  plaintiffs  which is adverse and prejudicial to the interest of the other<br \/>\ndefendants.  Now the question is whether such an action taken  by  the  fourth<br \/>\ndefendant is permissible.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  The suit is one for partition.  No doubt, it is true that all the<br \/>\npersons  who are having interest in a suit for partition, can be transposed as<br \/>\nplaintiffs or defendants.  But that is not the situation in  our  case.    The<br \/>\ndefendants  7  to 9 are the purchasers of the suit properties who are opposing<br \/>\nthe claim of the plaintiffs tooth and nail.    The  first  respondent  is  the<br \/>\nfourth  defendant  in  the  suit  and  has added as a party, and if he had any<br \/>\ndefense in the suit, he should have filed the written  statement  and  opposed<br \/>\nthe  claim  or  he  could have even remained ex parte or even submitted to the<br \/>\ndecree.  But the fourth defendant has not done so.  On  the  other  hand,  the<br \/>\nfourth  defendant  has  crossed  the  floor,  joined  with the plaintiffs gave<br \/>\nevidence and was also cross examined and that thereafter finding himself,  not<br \/>\nhaving  fit  in  as  he liked, filed the application to set aside the ex parte<br \/>\norder passed against him along with written statement.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  Usually, an ex parte order when it is not ripen  into  a  decree,<br \/>\nwould be  set aside for reasonable or on bonafide grounds.  In this case also,<br \/>\nex parte decree order alone was passed against the fourth  defendant,  as  the<br \/>\nsuit  is  pending, it has not ripen into a decree, but that does not mean that<br \/>\nthe fourth defendant is always entitled and empowered to file  an  application<br \/>\nto  set  aside  the ex parte order and take different stand at different time.<br \/>\nIf the fourth defendant has not given evidence on behalf  of  the  plaintiffs,<br \/>\nthe  matter  would  have  been  different  or if the fourth defendant filed an<br \/>\napplication to transpose himself as the plaintiff in that  context  also,  the<br \/>\nmatter would  have  been different.  But, here altogether the fourth defendant<br \/>\nhad taken a different stand by joining hands with  the  plaintiffs  by  giving<br \/>\nevidence  in their favour and thereafter taken steps to set aside the ex parte<br \/>\norder.  Feeling that his evidence  inconvenient  to  him  or  it  may  not  be<br \/>\naccepted  by  the  Court  as  such the same is not supported by any pleadings,<br \/>\nfourth defendant has chosen to file the application to set aside the ex  parte<br \/>\norder and the same can neither be accepted nor encouraged.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.   It  is  settled  law,  that  no amount of evidence is admissible<br \/>\nwithout pleadings and it may be the reason that the fourth defendant has  come<br \/>\nforward  at  this  belated  stage to file this application to set aside the ex<br \/>\nparte order and also to file the written  statement,  virtually  he  wants  to<br \/>\nsupport his  evidence  which has also been given without any pleadings.  As it<br \/>\nhas already been pointed out, if the fourth  defendant  has  not  crossed  the<br \/>\nfloor and  given  evidence, the situation would have been different.  But here<br \/>\nthe fourth defendant having figured as a witness on behalf of the  plaintiffs,<br \/>\nand the said evidence would naturally be adverse to the case of the defendants<br \/>\n7  to  9, cannot be permitted to file written statement after giving evidence.<br \/>\nIf this kind of practice is allowed, it would be an abuse of  process  of  law<br \/>\nand there  would  not  be  any  end at all for the litigation.  As a matter of<br \/>\nfact, courts would take a lenient view in  allowing  the  application  to  set<br \/>\naside  the ex parte order, but that yard stick cannot be followed in this case<br \/>\nas the fourth defendant has all along been taking part in the proceedings  and<br \/>\nhe  has  been closely watching the proceedings also gave evidence on behalf of<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs, now cannot turn around and file an application  to  set  aside<br \/>\nthe order  and  also file the written statement.  This kind of practice is not<br \/>\npermissible and the same has got to be deprecated.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  The learned Advocate for the revision petitioners  would  contend<br \/>\nthat when it has been made out that the fourth defendant is colluding with the<br \/>\nplaintiffs and when he has already given evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs,<br \/>\nit  has been made out that he is a colluding defendant and therefore he cannot<br \/>\nbe permitted to file any written statement also after having given evidence on<br \/>\nbehalf of the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>        14.  The learned Advocate for the respondent would  contend  that  the<br \/>\norder  passed  against  the  first  respondent is only an order and he must be<br \/>\ngiven opportunity to set forth his defence.  In  support  thereof,  he  relied<br \/>\nupon the  decision  rendered  in  Om  Parkash  Vs.   Amarjit Singh and Another<br \/>\n(1989(1)LW 470) and that is a suit for specific performance of the contract of<br \/>\nsale, the relief in the suit itself is a discretionary one.  That in the  said<br \/>\ncontext,   it  was  held  &#8220;the  Court  after  consideration  of  all  relevant<br \/>\ncircumstances must be persuaded to exercise its  equitable  and  discretionary<br \/>\njurisdiction in  favour  of  the  specific  enforcement.   The jurisdiction is<br \/>\nsubject to all the conditions to which  all  discretionary  jurisdictions  are<br \/>\nsubject.  There  are  certain  personal bars to relief.  Respondent-1, who was<br \/>\nthe plaintiff in the suit, did not enter the box and  tender  evidence.    The<br \/>\nsubject  matter of the suit is a small piece of property of 68 sq.yds., and is<br \/>\nsaid to be the only  worldly  goods  of  the  appellant.&#8221;  Only  in  the  said<br \/>\ncircumstances,  and  also  the  facts  peculiar  to that case it was observed,<br \/>\nhaving regard to all circumstances of the case  and  in  order  that  complete<br \/>\njustice is done, the order commenced itself as appropriate is to set aside the<br \/>\ndecrees  of  the  Court  below  and  remit  the  suit for fresh disposal after<br \/>\naffording fresh opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence  on  respective<br \/>\nside.   The  appellant is also entitled to have witness examined in his behalf<br \/>\nfor cross examination.\n<\/p>\n<p>        15.  The facts in the said case is totally different from the case  on<br \/>\nhand.   If the fourth defendant was not aware of the proceedings and if he has<br \/>\nnot taken part in the proceedings, then the matter  would  be  different,  but<br \/>\nhowever  the fourth defendant figured as a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs<br \/>\nand also watching the proceedings closely and filed  the  application  to  set<br \/>\naside the ex parte order, it cannot be said that fourth defendant did not have<br \/>\nany opportunity  to  put  forward  his  case.   The fourth defendant had ample<br \/>\nopportunity, but he wantonly did not make use  of  the  same.    In  the  said<br \/>\ncircumstances,  I  am  of  the  view that the fourth defendant cannot be heard<br \/>\nagain as a defendant by permitting to  file  written  statement  and  also  to<br \/>\nadduce evidence on the basis of the written statement.\n<\/p>\n<p>        16.   For the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat the Court below has fallen into an error in allowing the application  and<br \/>\nthe  same is not proper and therefore I have to necessarily interfere with the<br \/>\nsaid order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        17.  In the result, the civil revision petition  is  allowed  and  the<br \/>\norder passed  by the Court below is set aside.  Consequently, connected CMP is<br \/>\nclosed.  No costs.  But however,  it  is  open  to  the  fourth  defendant  to<br \/>\ntranspose himself as plaintiff, if he is so advised.\n<\/p>\n<p>ksr<br \/>\nIndex:Yes<br \/>\nWebsite:yes<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Principal District Munsif, Salem.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16\/04\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.GNANAPRAKASAM Civil Revision Petition (PD)No.1661 of 2003 and C.M.P.No.12221 of 2003 1. Yashoda 2. K.Raja 3. K.Jawahar &#8230; Petitioner -Vs- 1. Perumal 2. Kannammal 3. Parimala (Respondents 2 and 3 [&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-107440","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004 - 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\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-04T00:15:07+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\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-04T00:15:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2108,\"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\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004\",\"name\":\"Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-04-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-04T00:15:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004 - 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\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-04T00:15:07+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\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004","datePublished":"2004-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-04T00:15:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004"},"wordCount":2108,"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\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004","name":"Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-04-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-04T00:15:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/yashoda-vs-perumal-on-16-april-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Yashoda vs Perumal on 16 April, 2004"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/107440","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=107440"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107440\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}