{"id":107960,"date":"2004-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004"},"modified":"2018-05-11T16:37:27","modified_gmt":"2018-05-11T11:07:27","slug":"c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 24\/03\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM\n\nSECOND APPEAL NO.441 OF 1993\n\n1. C. Arumugam\n2. C. Subramaniam\n3. C. Selvaraj\n4. Muthathal                                            .. Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. T.Arumugam\n2. R. Sornavalli\n3. R. Vellaichamy\n4. R. Ramesh\n5. R. Venkatesh                                         .. Respondents\n\n\n        This second appeal is preferred under Section 100 of CPC  against  the\njudgment  and  decree  dated 31.1.1992 made in AS No.30 of 1989 on the file of\nthe learned Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga reversing  the  judgment  and  decree\ndated 21.12.1988 made in OS No.248 of 1988 on the file of the learned District\nMunsif, Sivaganga.\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.K.Lavan\n                for Mr.E.M.Sudarsana Natchiappan\n\n^For Respondents :  Mr.S.Natarajan\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        This  second  appeal  is  directed against the judgment of the learned<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge, Sivaganga made in AS No.30 of 1989 wherein the judgment  of<br \/>\nthe  trial  court  in  a  suit  for  declaration  and permanent injunction was<br \/>\nreversed by granting a decree in favour of the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The short facts for the disposal of  this  second  appeal  are  as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The  first plaintiff&#8217;s father Doraisamy Ambalam and the husband of the<br \/>\nsecond plaintiff late Ramanathan Ambalam were brothers and the plaintiffs 3 to<br \/>\n5 are the children of the second plaintiff and late Ramanathan Ambalam.    The<br \/>\nsuit property  originally  belonged to the ancestors of these plaintiffs.  The<br \/>\ngreat grand  father  of  the  first  plaintiff  and  his  brother  executed  a<br \/>\nhypothecation  deed  on  22.10.1910  hypothecating  the  suit  property to one<br \/>\nSubramanian Chettiar.  The said Subramanian Chettiar filed a suit in OS No.752<br \/>\nof 1917 before the District Munsif, Sivaganga for recovery  of  mortgage  debt<br \/>\nand obtained  decree.    From  the  date of the delivery, the said Subramanian<br \/>\nChettiar had been in possession of the property till his life time and on  his<br \/>\ndeath,  his  son sold the land to Doraichamy Ambalam by a registered sale deed<br \/>\ndated 26.12.1952.  Hence the property belonged to the family of the plaintiff.<br \/>\nThe defendants claimed the property on the  basis  of  certain  Revenue  Court<br \/>\nproceedings before  Settlement  Department.  Patta was issued in favour of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs and the land has  also  been  subdivided  amongst  the  plaintiffs&#8217;<br \/>\nfamily  and  till  date  they continued to be in possession of the property by<br \/>\npaying kist.  Now, recently, the Special Tahsildar for land records under  the<br \/>\nupdating  of  land records has passed orders cancelling patta issued in favour<br \/>\nof the plaintiffs  and  issued  patta  in  favour  of  the  defendants.    The<br \/>\ncontinuous  payment of kists from 1958 till date with records of title proving<br \/>\nthe origin of their title and possession of the plaintiffs  to  the  property.<br \/>\nThe  defendants  are  trying to interfere with the possession of the property,<br \/>\nand hence, there arose a necessity for filing of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  The suit was resisted by the defendants stating  that  except  the<br \/>\ndefendants  2  to  5, the first defendant is having other daughters; that they<br \/>\nwere not added as parties to the suit; that the plaint  averments  are  false;<br \/>\nthat  the  suit  property was not in possession of the predecessor-in-title of<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs; that the property was not mortgaged to  Subramaniam  Chettiar;<br \/>\nthat  the  property  was  allotted  to  the first defendant, subsequent to the<br \/>\npartition between the  first  defendant  and  his  pankalis;  that  the  first<br \/>\ndefendant  has  been  paying  tax;  that  it  is false to state that the first<br \/>\ndefendant attempted to trespass in to the suit property, and hence,  the  suit<br \/>\nwas to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   The  trial  court  framed  necessary  issues,  tried the suit and<br \/>\ndismissed the same.  Aggrieved, the plaintiffs took it on  appeal,  where  the<br \/>\njudgment  of  the  trial  court was reversed and a decree was granted in their<br \/>\nfavour.  Thus, the defendants have brought forth this second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  At the time of admission, the following substantial  questions  of<br \/>\nlaw were formulated by this Court for consideration:\n<\/p>\n<p>        1) Whether the patta issued under the Estate Abolition Act 26 of 194 8<br \/>\nis binding on the rival claimants after fulfilling all the appeal provisions?\n<\/p>\n<p>        2) Whether the records maintained by the Revenue authorities perfected<br \/>\nafter  giving  all  chances of hearing according to the Revenue Board Standing<br \/>\nOrder is final upon the rival claimants?\n<\/p>\n<p>        3) Whether the up-dating land records  scheme  patta  confirmed  after<br \/>\nsatisfying  all  the requirements of appeal provisions in binding on the rival<br \/>\nclaimant?\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the  learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondents on those contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   This  Court  has paid its full attention on the rival submissions<br \/>\nand made a thorough scrutiny of the materials available.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  As could be seen  above,  the  plaintiffs  sought  declaration  in<br \/>\nrespect  of  the  suit  mentioned  landed property measuring to an extent of 8<br \/>\nacres and 12 cents in S.No.276\/2 basing on their title under  Ex.A.1  to  A.3.<br \/>\nFrom  those documents, it could be seen that the mortgage deed was executed in<br \/>\nfavour of one Subramaniam Chettiar by the plaintiffs&#8217; ancestors  under  Ex.A.1<br \/>\ndated 22.10.1910.    Since the same was not discharged, a suit was filed in OS<br \/>\nNo.752 of 1917 and following the decree, the property was brought in execution<br \/>\nin EA No.439 of 1921.  Ex.A.2 would evidence the delivery of the  property  to<br \/>\nSubramaniam Chettiar.   During the life time of Subramaniam Chettiar and after<br \/>\nhis life time,  the  property  was  under  the  enjoyment  of  one  Kumarappan<br \/>\nChettiar, who  was  the  son  of  Subramaniam  Chettiar.   The said Kumarappan<br \/>\nChettiar has executed a sale deed in the year 1952 under Ex.A.3 in  favour  of<br \/>\nthe father of the first plaintiff, and thus, the father of the first plaintiff<br \/>\ngot title to the property and it devolved upon the plaintiffs.  9.        From<br \/>\nExs.A.4, A.5 and A.6, it could also be seen that originally pattas  were  also<br \/>\ngranted in  favour  of  the  plaintiffs&#8217;  family.    In  order  to prove their<br \/>\npossession, the plaintiffs had relied on Ex.A.7 to Ex.A.50, the kist receipts,<br \/>\nwhich would cover the period from 1959 to 1986 and also the  adungal  extracts<br \/>\nfrom 9.6.1987  to  30.11.1988.  It is pertinent to point out that the suit was<br \/>\nbrought by the plaintiffs in the year 1988,  and  thus,  the  above  documents<br \/>\nwould  speak  of  the  title as to how the plaintiffs derived the title of the<br \/>\nproperty and the property continued to be in their possession till the time of<br \/>\nfiling of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  What was all contended by the defendants before the courts  below<br \/>\nand  equally  here  also  was  that the property belonged to the family of the<br \/>\nfirst defendant ancestrally; that there  was  a  family  partition  among  the<br \/>\nmembers  of  the  family;  that  a  suit  was  filed in OS No.99 of 1952 and a<br \/>\nrajinama decree was entered into between the parties,  wherein  this  property<br \/>\nwas  allotted to the first defendant and the same was shown as 10th item; that<br \/>\npursuant to the said Rajinama decree, the first defendant got  the  possession<br \/>\nof  the  property and has been in continuous enjoyment of the same; that while<br \/>\nthe defendants came to know about the grant of patta, they made an application<br \/>\nbefore the Tahsildar; that the patta granted in favour of the plaintiffs  were<br \/>\ncancelled  and pattas were issued in favour of the defendants; that though the<br \/>\nsame was agitated by the plaintiffs before the appellate forum and also in the<br \/>\nHigh Court in WP No.264\/1962, their claims were rejected, and thus, the  grant<br \/>\nof  patta  in favour of the defendants and the cancellation of patta in favour<br \/>\nof the plaintiffs have become final.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  Though the writ proceedings came to an end in the year 1964,  the<br \/>\nplaintiff have brought forth the suit in the year 1988, i.e.  after a delay of<br \/>\n22 years.    It  is  not in controversy that pattas were originally granted in<br \/>\nfavour of the plaintiffs&#8217; predecessor-in-title under  Exs.A.4,  A.5  and  A.6.<br \/>\nWhile  the  rival claim was made by the defendants, patta was granted in their<br \/>\nfavour.  It is true that  a  writ  petition  filed  by  the  plaintiff  in  WP<br \/>\nNo.264\/62  was  dismissed,  but  with an observation that the plaintiffs could<br \/>\napproach the civil Court and establish their title.   It  is  also  true  that<br \/>\nthere was a delay of 22 years in filing the present suit.  But, the plaintiffs<br \/>\ncome  forward  to state that the property continuous to be in their possession<br \/>\nall along as it would be quite evident from the available materials and  since<br \/>\nthere  was  an attempted encroachment in the peaceful possession and enjoyment<br \/>\nof the property, there arose a necessity in filing the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.   Needless  to say that there were settlement proceedings, wherein<br \/>\npattas were issued in favour of the defendants.  Even it was also observed  in<br \/>\nWP  No.264\/62  that  the plaintiffs could establish their right by approaching<br \/>\nthe Court of Civil law.  Now, the  instant  suit  was  brought  forth  seeking<br \/>\ndeclaration of  their  title  and  for  permanent  injunction  also.   At this<br \/>\njuncture, it has to be pointed out that the plaintiffs have placed  sufficient<br \/>\ndocumentary  evidence  to show that they have been in continuous possession of<br \/>\nthe property till the time of filing of the instant suit.   Under  the  stated<br \/>\ncircumstances,  the  suit  was  filed  after  22  years  from  the time of the<br \/>\ndismissal of the writ petition cannot be a reason to  deny  the  relief  asked<br \/>\nfor.  If it was found by sufficient evidence that they are entitled to, it has<br \/>\nto  be  pointed  out  that  the defendants have not stopped with the denial of<br \/>\ntitle of the  plaintiffs,  but  also  claimed  title  to  the  property.    No<br \/>\ndocumentary  evidence  has been brought forth to speak the origin of the title<br \/>\nexcept the mere assertion that the property belonged to them  ancestrally  and<br \/>\nsubsequently, by way of a rajinama decree in OS No.99 of 1 952, it was divided<br \/>\namong  the  members  of  the family and that it came to the hands of the first<br \/>\ndefendant.  But, no documentary evidence was available.    Even  the  Rajinama<br \/>\ndecree  would not be binding on the plaintiffs, since they were not parties of<br \/>\nthe said proceedings.  On the contrary, the plaintiffs have  proved  title  of<br \/>\nthe  property and continuous possession by sufficient documentary evidence, as<br \/>\ndiscussed above.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  Hence, the first appellate court, on discussion and consideration<br \/>\nof the evidence,  in  extenso,  has  granted  the  relief  in  favour  of  the<br \/>\nplaintiffs as  asked  for and rightly too.  This Court is unable to notice any<br \/>\nreason to interfere in the judgment of the first appellate Court.  This second<br \/>\nappeal fails and the same is dismissed, leaving  the  parties  to  bear  their<br \/>\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>vvk<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Subordinate Judge, Sivaganga\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District Munsif, Sivaganga\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Record Keeper, VR Section,<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24\/03\/2004 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM SECOND APPEAL NO.441 OF 1993 1. C. Arumugam 2. C. Subramaniam 3. C. Selvaraj 4. Muthathal .. Appellants -Vs- 1. T.Arumugam 2. R. Sornavalli 3. R. Vellaichamy 4. [&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-107960","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 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\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-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=\"2004-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-11T11:07:27+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-11T11:07:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1630,\"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\\\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004\",\"name\":\"C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-11T11:07:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 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\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-11T11:07:27+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-11T11:07:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004"},"wordCount":1630,"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\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004","name":"C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-11T11:07:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-arumugam-vs-t-arumugam-on-24-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C. Arumugam vs T.Arumugam on 24 March, 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:\/\/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\/107960","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=107960"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107960\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107960"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}