{"id":108793,"date":"2007-02-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-02-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007"},"modified":"2018-02-17T17:46:15","modified_gmt":"2018-02-17T12:16:15","slug":"lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007","title":{"rendered":"Lakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Lakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                      DATE : 09.02.2007\n\n                           CORAM:\n\n    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN\n\n                     S.A.No.263 of 1997\n                              \n\n1.Lakshmi Ammal\n2.N.Kasiviswanathan                .. Appellants\/Plaintiffs\n                              \n\n                             vs.\n\n\nT.M.Mohamad Kasim                 .. Respondent\/Defendant\n\n\n\nPrayer:  This second appeal has been preferred  against  the\ndecree   and  judgment  dated  31.07.1996  passed   by   the\nSubordinate  Judge, Nilgries, Ootacamund,   in  A.S.No.6  of\n1995,  which was filed against the decree and judgment dated\n30.10.1988,  in  O.S.No.237 of  1986  on  the  file  of  the\nDistrict Munsif, Ootacamund.\n\n\n     For Appellants     : Mr.S.Jayaraman\n\n     For Respondent   : Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan\n\n\n\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      This appeal has been preferred against the decree  and<\/p>\n
judgment  in  A.S.No.6 of 1995 on the file of the  Court  of<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge, Nilgries, Ootacamund.  The appellants are<\/p>\n
the  plaintiffs in O.S.No.327\/1996 of the file of the  Court<\/p>\n
of District Munsif, Ootacamund.\n<\/p>\n
     2.  The short facts of the case of the plaintiff in the<\/p>\n
plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal  are<\/p>\n
as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
           2(a)  The  suit is for declaration in respect  of<\/p>\n
plaintiffs’ right of way over the Singiri Gowder lane by way<\/p>\n
of  easement  and also for declaration that  the  plaintiffs<\/p>\n
have  a right of way by way of right of easment of necessity<\/p>\n
and  for  consequential permanent injunction and for removal<\/p>\n
of  construction  put up on a portion of  the  said  Singiri<\/p>\n
Gowder  lane  by  way of mandatory injunction.   The  plaint<\/p>\n
schedule  property is S.No.E 33-A\/2,  Rs.No.2380 in  Singiri<\/p>\n
Gowder  lane  measuring 3.4 meters in width on  the  western<\/p>\n
side  and  1.9  meters  on the Eastern  side  running  to  a<\/p>\n
distance  of 13.2 meters and passing through R.S.No.2380  of<\/p>\n
Ootacamund town.\n<\/p>\n
           2(b) Thiru.T.Nanjundiah was the absolute owner of<\/p>\n
the  suit  property  Door No.16, Ward No.17,  Station  View,<\/p>\n
Peyton’s Road, Ootacamund. The Said T.Nanjundiah died in  or<\/p>\n
about the year 1971 leaving behind the plaintiffs herein and<\/p>\n
other  as  his  legal representatives.  The  Plaintiffs  are<\/p>\n
looking  after the property.  The suit property was assessed<\/p>\n
to  house  tax  by Ootacamund Municipality under  Assessment<\/p>\n
No.7909 and the plaintiffs are paying the house tax for  the<\/p>\n
suit property.  The defendant is the owner of the  adjoining<\/p>\n
property by virtue of sale deeds bearing Document No.798 and<\/p>\n
799  of 1995 dated 6.9.1985 on the file of the Sub Registrar<\/p>\n
Ottacamund.  In the said title deed of the defendant  itself<\/p>\n
bearing document No.799 of 1985, it has been clearly  stated<\/p>\n
that  the  Northern boundary of the defendant’s property  is<\/p>\n
Singiri  Gowder  lane which the lane leading  from  Peyton’s<\/p>\n
Road  also  known as Railway Station Road to the plaintiffs’<\/p>\n
house through R.S.No.2380 of Ootacamund Town.<\/p>\n
          2(c)  The said Singiri Gownder lane was and is the<\/p>\n
approach road which starts from Peyton’s Road alias  Railway<\/p>\n
Station  Road leading to the Plaintiffs’ property by passing<\/p>\n
along  the defendant’s property through R.S.No.2380  and  is<\/p>\n
the  Northern boundary of the defendant.  The said  lane  is<\/p>\n
shown  as  a footpath and is coloured in Green in  the  plan<\/p>\n
filed.  The said lane is 3.4 meters wide on the Western  end<\/p>\n
known  as Railway Station Road alias Peyton’s road  and  1.9<\/p>\n
meters wide on the Eastern end and runs to a distant of 13.2<\/p>\n
meters from the said Railway Station Road to the Plaintiffs’<\/p>\n
house.  The said lane is situate between hotel Vijaya  Vilas<\/p>\n
building and the plaintiffs’ and defendant’s property.<\/p>\n
           2(d)  The said Singiri Gowder Lane has been  used<\/p>\n
and  is being used by the plaintiffs to reach their property<\/p>\n
for  long over the statutory period for over 30 years.   The<\/p>\n
plaintiffs  and  their predecessor in title  have  perfected<\/p>\n
their  right  over the said lane as an easmentary  right  by<\/p>\n
using  the said lane to reach their house for long over  the<\/p>\n
statutory period.  The said Singiri Gowder Lane is the  only<\/p>\n
approach  road  to reach their house and is an  easement  of<\/p>\n
necessity.  The plaintiffs therefore are entitled to use the<\/p>\n
said  lane both as an easementary right as also an  easement<\/p>\n
of necessity.\n<\/p>\n
           2(e) The defendant in the 2nd week of July, 1986,<\/p>\n
has  partly blocked the said lane with a view to prevent the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs from going to their house.  The defendant has put<\/p>\n
up  a  construction on part of the said lane leaving only  a<\/p>\n
small  gap  between  it  and  the adjoining  property,  thus<\/p>\n
causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and blocking part of<\/p>\n
the  right  of  way.   The  said  construction  is  also  an<\/p>\n
unauthorised construction not sanctioned by the rules and by-<\/p>\n
laws  of  the Municipality and Town planning Act and  Rules.<\/p>\n
The  plaintiffs  are  entitled for  a  mandatory  injunction<\/p>\n
directing the defendant to demolish the construction put  up<\/p>\n
which blocks the said Singiri Gowder Lane.<\/p>\n
           2(f)  If  the defendant succeeds in blocking  the<\/p>\n
said  lane  the  plaintiffs will be  prevented  from  having<\/p>\n
access  to  their property.  The defendant  who  is  only  a<\/p>\n
recent  purchaser has no manner of right or title  over  the<\/p>\n
said  Singiri  Gowder Lane and the defendant’s own  document<\/p>\n
would  show  the  existence of the said lane  which  is  his<\/p>\n
northern  boundary.    Even as per the  title  deed  of  the<\/p>\n
defendant itself, he is only entitled to use the pathway  in<\/p>\n
common with plaintiffs as was being used by his predecessors<\/p>\n
in  title.  The defendant  is a very influential person with<\/p>\n
men, material and money at his command and if he succeeds in<\/p>\n
his  attempts  to  block the said Singiri Gowder  Lane,  the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs  will  be  put  to  irreparable  loss  and  great<\/p>\n
hardship as their very approach road to go to their property<\/p>\n
will  be  lost. The plaintiffs are having the right  of  way<\/p>\n
over the suit Singiri Gowder Lane.  Hence, the suit.<\/p>\n
      3.  The defendant has filed written statement with the<\/p>\n
following averments:-\n<\/p>\n
           3(a) The plaintiffs alone are not the legal heirs<\/p>\n
of  T.Nanjundiah and the plaintiffs are not entitled to file<\/p>\n
the suit. The rest of the heirs of the deceased T.Nanjundiah<\/p>\n
are necessary parties to the suit and the suit therefore  is<\/p>\n
bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties.  Regarding the<\/p>\n
northern boundary of the defendant’s property which has been<\/p>\n
shown  as  Singiri Gowder Lane in one of the Sale  deeds  in<\/p>\n
favour of the defendant, the defendant states that the  said<\/p>\n
Singiri  Gowder Lane was in existence only in the  sourthern<\/p>\n
most  part  of the land in R.S.No.2379 adjoining R.S.No.2380<\/p>\n
and not in the northern portion of R.S.No.2380 purchased  by<\/p>\n
the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
           3(b)   As  a  matter of fact, when the  defendant<\/p>\n
purchased  his property and took possession of his property,<\/p>\n
the  defendant could not see any traces of existence of  any<\/p>\n
lane at his northern boundary but there is a strip of vacant<\/p>\n
land  between  the  northern  boundary  of  the  defendant’s<\/p>\n
property  and the buildings in R.S.No.2379 and the width  of<\/p>\n
the  said  open space varies from 4 feet to 2 +  feet.   The<\/p>\n
defendant’s enquiries reveal that this narrow strip of  land<\/p>\n
was  called as Singiri Gowder Lane and whether the same  was<\/p>\n
used  by  anyone as a footbath or not is not  known  to  the<\/p>\n
defendant.   This defendant is not concerned with  the  said<\/p>\n
gap  as  this  defendant  is not  using  the  same  for  any<\/p>\n
purposes.\n<\/p>\n
           3(c) The alleged Singiri Gowder Lane as described<\/p>\n
in  the  plaint  schedule  and as  delineated  in  the  plan<\/p>\n
attached to the plaint is not in existence on the ground  at<\/p>\n
all.   The  description of the lane given in the  plaint  is<\/p>\n
incorrect.  The alleged lane had never been in existence  in<\/p>\n
any  portion of the land in R.S.No.2380.  The plaintiffs are<\/p>\n
falsely  claiming the pathway over the northern  portion  of<\/p>\n
R.S.No.2380  with  the  sole  objection  of  harassing   the<\/p>\n
defendant and putting the defendant to wrongful loss.<\/p>\n
          3(d) It is utterly false to state that the alleged<\/p>\n
Singiri Gowder Lane passes along the defendant’s property in<\/p>\n
R.S.No.2380.   No  portion  of  the  land   in   R.S.No.2380<\/p>\n
particularly  the northern portion thereof  constituted  any<\/p>\n
lane  at  any point of time.  The plan filed along with  the<\/p>\n
plaint is only a self-serving document and no credence could<\/p>\n
be  attached  to the same.    It is utterly false  to  state<\/p>\n
that  the alleged lane is 3.4 meters in width on the western<\/p>\n
end  and 1.9 meters in width on the eastern end and that the<\/p>\n
pathway  runs to a distance of 13.2 meters.  As a matter  of<\/p>\n
fact,  the northern wall of the defendant’s building extents<\/p>\n
up  to  the  northern  boundary line of RS.No.2380  and  the<\/p>\n
northern boundary wall of the old building also was touching<\/p>\n
the northern boundary line of R.S.No.2380.<\/p>\n
           3(e)  Even assuming the plaintiffs had  used  any<\/p>\n
portion of the land as passage to have access to their house<\/p>\n
in  R.S.No.2380,  the plaintiffs could have  used  only  the<\/p>\n
southern  most  portion  of  the  land  in  R.S.No.2379   of<\/p>\n
Ootacamund Town for such access and not the northern portion<\/p>\n
of  the  land in R.S.No.2380 now belonging to the defendant.<\/p>\n
The  defendant has been given to understand that the  owners<\/p>\n
of the property in R.S.No.2379 viz. V.M.Chidambaram Iyer had<\/p>\n
filed  the suit O.S.No.110 of 1984 on the file of  the  Sub-<\/p>\n
Court,  Ootacamund against the 1st plaintiff and one of  the<\/p>\n
sons  of  the  1st  plaintiff viz. Sivaraj for  a  permanent<\/p>\n
injunction  restraining  them  from  trespassing  into   any<\/p>\n
portion  of the land in R.S.No.2379 of Ootacamund  Town  and<\/p>\n
the  said  owner had also obtained an interim injunction  in<\/p>\n
I.A.No.266\/1984 as early as 7th April 1984.  It  is  evident<\/p>\n
that it is only after the said order of injunction which has<\/p>\n
been  passed  by  the  Court against  the  plaintiffs,   the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs have filed this suit with false contentions.  The<\/p>\n
plaintiffs  have no right over the suit lane. If really  any<\/p>\n
lane  had existed then the same could have existed  only  in<\/p>\n
the  southern  portion  of R.S.No.2379  and  the  plaintiffs<\/p>\n
should have contested the suit O.S.No.110\/1984 referred  and<\/p>\n
established  their right for the passage in the  suit  site.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs having failed to do so cannot now falsely set<\/p>\n
up a right of way in the northern portion of the defendant’s<\/p>\n
land.   The  plaintiffs  are indeed  estopped  from  putting<\/p>\n
forward  any  such claim for any passage or  right  of  way.<\/p>\n
Hence,  the  suit is liable to be dismissed.  The boundaries<\/p>\n
mentioned  in  the rough sketch are also not  correct.   The<\/p>\n
allegation  that the defendant in the second  week  of  July<\/p>\n
1986  with  a view to prevent the plaintiffs from using  the<\/p>\n
land had partly blocked the same is misleading.  The suit is<\/p>\n
bad  for  non-joinder of parties.  The  plaintiffs  have  no<\/p>\n
cause of action.  Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.<\/p>\n
           4.  On the above pleading the learned trial Judge<\/p>\n
has  framed  eight issues for trial.  On  the  side  of  the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs  P.W.1  and  P.W.2 were examined  and  Ex.A.1  to<\/p>\n
Ex.A.7  were  marked.  On the side of the defendant,   D.W.1<\/p>\n
was examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.8 were marked.   After going<\/p>\n
through  the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned<\/p>\n
trial Judge has dismissed the suit with costs.  Aggrieved by<\/p>\n
the findings of the learned trial Judge, the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
preferred  an appeal in A.S.No.6\/1995, which was also  ended<\/p>\n
against  the plaintiffs.  Hence, the plaintiffs  are  before<\/p>\n
this Court by way of this second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      5.  The substantial questions of law involved in  this<\/p>\n
second appeal are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
             i)  Whether the Court below was right
\n       in  law, in rejecting the evidence afforded
\n       by  Ex.B.2 merely on the surmise  that  the
\n       description of the Singiri Gowder  Lane  as
\n       the   Northern  boundary  of  the  property
\n       coveyed thereunder to the respondent  is  a
\n       mistake  without there being any  plea  and
\n       evidence irrespect thereof?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             ii)  Whether the Court below is right
\n       and  justified  in rejecting I.A.No.146  of
\n       1996   merely  for  the  reason  that   the
\n       appellants  had  not filed a  petition  for
\n       appointment of a commissioner in the  trial
\n       court?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             iii)Whether the court below was right
\n       in  law  in  rejecting I.A.No.168  of  1996
\n       filed  by the Appellants herein under Order
\n       41  Rule  27  CPC  for  letting  additional
\n       evidence  in  the shape of two  photographs
\n       showing the existence of the lane, when the
\n       geniuses thereof was not disputed?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     6.The Points:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           6(a)  The suit property is a lane by name Singiri<\/p>\n
Gowder  Lane shown in green coloured portion in  the  rough-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
sketch attached to the plaint.  According to the plaintiffs,<\/p>\n
the  said disputed land is in S.No.E 33-A\/2  in R.S.No.2380.<\/p>\n
Admittedly both the plaintiffs and the defendant are  having<\/p>\n
land  in  S.No.2380.  In the plaint schedule  property,  the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs  would say that the said Singiri Gowder  lane  is<\/p>\n
going along R.S.No.2380.\n<\/p>\n
           6(b)   The  learned  counsel for  the  appellants<\/p>\n
relying  on the description in Ex.B.2-sale deed infavour  of<\/p>\n
the  defendant  would contend that the said  Singiri  Gowder<\/p>\n
Lane is on the north of his property purchased under Ex.B.2.<\/p>\n
The  exact  recital  in Ex.B.2-sale deed dated  6.9.1985  in<\/p>\n
favour of the defendant-Mohamad Kasim runs as follows:-<\/p>\n
          In  S.No.E 33-A\/2  R.S.No.2380,  out of 0.02<\/p>\n
    11\/16 cents    0.01 6\/16 cents were sold with  the<\/p>\n
    following boundaries:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         East    – House of Subramanian
\n         West  – Railway station road
\n         North  –  Singiri Gowder Lane
\n         South  –  Remaining portion of the house
\nA  perusal of the rough sketch will go to show that there is<\/p>\n
no  house on the East of S.No.2380 belonging to Subramanian.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  learned counsel for the appellants would fairly concede<\/p>\n
that  the description of the property on the East to  Ex.B.2<\/p>\n
is incorrect,  at the same time he relied on the description<\/p>\n
of the boundary for northern side for the property purchased<\/p>\n
under  Ex.A.2  which is Singiri Gowder Lane.     Either  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff should rely on the four boundaries in entirety  or<\/p>\n
to  leave  it  in  toto. He cannot approbate and  reprobate.<\/p>\n
Either he must stick to the boundary description in entirety<\/p>\n
or  to  discard  the  same in toto.  So  the  claim  of  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is on the basis of the boundary recitals in Ex.B.2<\/p>\n
to  show  that  Singiri Gowder Lane is in existence  on  the<\/p>\n
north of R.S.No.2380.  But to the dismay there is no mention<\/p>\n
about Singiri Gowder Lane in plaintiffs’ document Ex.A.1.<\/p>\n
           6(c)  Both  the Courts below have disallowed  the<\/p>\n
contentions  of the plaintiffs only on the ground  that  the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs’  document  Ex.A.1 has  no  boundary  description<\/p>\n
comprising   the  Singiri  Gowder  lane.   No   doubt,   the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs  have failed to take any steps before  the  trial<\/p>\n
Court  for appointment of a Commissioner to show that  there<\/p>\n
is a lane on the north of R.S.No.2380.\n<\/p>\n
          6(d) The learned counsel for the appellant relying<\/p>\n
on  the  evidence  of D.W.1 in the cross-examination,  would<\/p>\n
contend  that the existence of Singiri Gowder Lane has  been<\/p>\n
admitted by the defendant.  But D.W.1 would say in the cross-<\/p>\n
examination that the extent of Singiri Gowder Lane is  10  +<\/p>\n
cents and he does not know the length and width of the  said<\/p>\n
lane.   Even  the suit property scheduled to the  plaint  is<\/p>\n
that  3.4 meters in width on the western end and 1.9  meters<\/p>\n
on  the  eastern end running for the distance of 13.2 meters<\/p>\n
only.   So  it  must  be roughly around  2  cents.   So  the<\/p>\n
contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the<\/p>\n
extent of the lane itself has been admitted by the defendant<\/p>\n
cannot  hold  any  water  because  even  according  to   the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs  the extend of Singiri Gowder Lane is  not  10  +<\/p>\n
cents.  I am of the considered opinion that unless and until<\/p>\n
the  suit  lane viz. Singiri Gowder Lane is fixed  on  land,<\/p>\n
there  cannot be an effective finding rendered in the  suit.<\/p>\n
Points are answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the decree<\/p>\n
and  judgment in A.S.No.6\/1995 on the file of the  Court  of<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge, Nilgries, is set aside and the matter  is<\/p>\n
remanded  to  the  trial Court (Court  of  District  Munsif,<\/p>\n
Ootacamund).   The  trial Court is directed  to  appoint  an<\/p>\n
Advocate  Commissioner  to localize whether  Singiri  Gowder<\/p>\n
Lane  is  situated or not with the help of a Taluk Surveyer,<\/p>\n
and dispose of the case according to law, within a period of<\/p>\n
two  months from the date of receipt of copy of this  order.<\/p>\n
Both parties are at liberty to let in further evidence.<\/p>\n
\nssv<\/p>\n
To,<\/p>\n
1.The Subordinate Judge,
\nNilgries,
\nOotacamund.\n<\/p>\n
2.The District Munsif,
\nOotacamund.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Lakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 09.02.2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN S.A.No.263 of 1997 1.Lakshmi Ammal 2.N.Kasiviswanathan .. Appellants\/Plaintiffs vs. T.M.Mohamad Kasim .. Respondent\/Defendant Prayer: This second appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment dated […]<\/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-108793","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nLakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-17T12:16:15+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-17T12:16:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2674,\"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\\\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007\",\"name\":\"Lakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-02-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-17T12:16:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 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":"Lakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-17T12:16:15+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 2007","datePublished":"2007-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-17T12:16:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007"},"wordCount":2674,"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\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007","name":"Lakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-02-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-17T12:16:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-ammal-vs-t-m-mohamad-kasim-on-9-february-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lakshmi Ammal vs T.M.Mohamad Kasim on 9 February, 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\/108793","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=108793"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/108793\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=108793"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=108793"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=108793"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}