{"id":11153,"date":"2007-04-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007"},"modified":"2017-05-08T17:47:17","modified_gmt":"2017-05-08T12:17:17","slug":"anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Anantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Anantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                     Dated :  09.04.2007\n\n                           CORAM\n\n           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI\n\n                Second Appeal No.1340 of 1994\n                              \n                              \n1. Anantham Ammal\n\n2. Murugesan\n\n3. Rangarajan\n\n4. Jayanthi             \t\t..Appellants\n\n\n         Vs\n\n\n1. Kamalambal (Exparte)\n\n2. Balasubramanian\n\n3. Rajammal (Exparte)\n\n4. Lalitha (Exparte)\n\n    (R1 and R4 dismissed \n     with vide order\n     of this Court\n     dated 28.09.2006)                  ..Respondents\n\n\n\nAPPEAL  under  Section 100 of the Code  of  Civil  Procedure\nagainst the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.51 of  1990\non  the  file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam,  dated\n23.06.1993, as confirmed the judgment and decree  passed  in\nO.S.No.224  of 1983, dated 31.10.1989, on the  file  of  the\nDistrict Musnif Court, Thirutharaipoondi.\n\n\n     For Appellants      :    Mr. N.Pappiah\n\n     For Respondents     :    Mr. N.Srinivasan, for R2.\n                              No appearance for R3.\n\n\n                              \n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the Courts below are the<\/p>\n
appellants in the above second appeal.  The plaintiffs filed<\/p>\n
the  suit for declaration of title and possession apart from<\/p>\n
rendering  of  accounts.  The suit property is described  as<\/p>\n
comprised in R.S.No.202\/14 in 0.10 cents manai with thatched<\/p>\n
house bearing Door Nos.7 and 8, Thoothukudi Town and circle,<\/p>\n
Nagapattinam District, of course with boundaries on all  the<\/p>\n
four  sides.  The plaintiff laid the case on the basis  that<\/p>\n
the  said properties were originally owned by Ramu Chettiar,<\/p>\n
husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to<\/p>\n
4,  and his purchase was under a registered sale deed  dated<\/p>\n
04.10.1939, marked as Ex.A-26 and he was in possession  till<\/p>\n
his death in 1961 by residing in the said house.  He is also<\/p>\n
stated  to have mortgaged the said house, by way of Mortgage<\/p>\n
Deeds, on 11.04.1944 and 27.07.1943 marked as Exs.A-23 and A-<\/p>\n
24  respectively.   It  is the case of the  plaintiffs  that<\/p>\n
after  the death of Ramu Chettiar, they were living  in  the<\/p>\n
said  suit property.  Since they had no one to support them,<\/p>\n
the  first  plaintiff’s sister, who was in  Assam  took  the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs  and  the fourth defendant to Assam  leaving  the<\/p>\n
house  under  the control of the two tenants.  At  the  time<\/p>\n
when  the plaintiffs went to Assam, they requested the first<\/p>\n
defendant,  who is the sister of Ramu Chettiar,  to  collect<\/p>\n
the  rent from the tenants and she has also leased  out  the<\/p>\n
house  to various tenants.  The second defendant is the  son<\/p>\n
of another sister of Ramu Chettiar.  The first defendant has<\/p>\n
also  written  many  letters to the plaintiffs.   Since  the<\/p>\n
first defendant had no issues, she had brought up the second<\/p>\n
respondent as her adopted son.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.  According to the plaintiffs, the first and  second<\/p>\n
defendants have colluded with each other and created various<\/p>\n
documents  taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
and  in  that way, a sale deed was obtained from one Suseela<\/p>\n
Rajagopalan in the year 1975 for the same land, but with the<\/p>\n
different  survey number in respect of three  cents  without<\/p>\n
mentioning  any boundaries.  Inasmuch as, the  said  Suseela<\/p>\n
Rajagopalan  is  not the owner of the property,  the  second<\/p>\n
defendant,  who  has stated to have purchased  the  property<\/p>\n
from her cannot have any right.  Even in respect of the suit<\/p>\n
property the second respondent has set up the title as if he<\/p>\n
has  purchased the said property before 20 years that is  on<\/p>\n
20.05.1975.  The plaintiff would also submit that in respect<\/p>\n
of  the  Rent Control Proceedings also, the second defendant<\/p>\n
has stated that he has acted as the Agent of the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
The   second  defendant  has  obtained  the  change  of  the<\/p>\n
assessment from Panchayat in respect of the suit property in<\/p>\n
his  name.   Both the first and second defendants  have  not<\/p>\n
paid  any amount of rent to the plaintiffs, even though they<\/p>\n
have  collected the same from the tenants on behalf  of  the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs.  The first and second defendants are  liable  to<\/p>\n
put the plaintiffs in possession and therefore, the suit has<\/p>\n
been filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      3.  The fourth defendant is the daughter of the  first<\/p>\n
plaintiff and she is also entitled for the joint possession.<\/p>\n
The  said suit was defended by the second defendant, denying<\/p>\n
the  title  of  the plaintiffs and the second defendant  has<\/p>\n
also relied upon an earlier order of this Court, wherein the<\/p>\n
title  of  the  plaintiffs  was not  accepted.   The  second<\/p>\n
defendant  also  disputes that the  boundary  given  in  the<\/p>\n
plaint are not correct and the disputed property is situated<\/p>\n
only  in R.S.No.202\/14 and not in 202\/13.  According to  the<\/p>\n
second  defendant,  the husband of the first  plaintiff-Ramu<\/p>\n
Chettiar  did not reside in the property and in fact,  eight<\/p>\n
years  before  his  death,  Ramu  Chettiar  had  shifted  to<\/p>\n
Thanjavur and at that time, he had sold the property to  the<\/p>\n
second  defendant’s father.  However, there was no  document<\/p>\n
given in writing.  But the super-structure was put up by the<\/p>\n
second defendant’s father and the second defendant continued<\/p>\n
to  be  in  possession  for more than twenty  years  and  in<\/p>\n
enjoyment by changing the mutation of public records in  his<\/p>\n
name.   The case of the second defendant is that even though<\/p>\n
he  has  taken  sale  deed for a lesser  extent,  he  is  in<\/p>\n
possession of the entire suit property and the document  for<\/p>\n
three cents was made by mistake.  However, according to him,<\/p>\n
the  boundaries  are stated, therefore, the boundaries  will<\/p>\n
prevail.   It is also the case of the second defendant  that<\/p>\n
after  the  death of Ramu Chettiar, the plaintiffs  went  to<\/p>\n
Assam  and  settled there itself permanently and  they  have<\/p>\n
abandoned  the suit property.  It is also the  case  of  the<\/p>\n
second  defendant  that  the plaintiffs  are  aware  of  the<\/p>\n
receipt of sale price and oral sale in favour of the  second<\/p>\n
defendant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     4. It is also the case of the second defendant that the<\/p>\n
second  defendant  has  never  acted  as  an  Agent  of  the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs.  Even though the second defendant has  perfected<\/p>\n
the  title by adverse possession and prescription in respect<\/p>\n
of  the  suit  property  and out of  care  and  caution,  he<\/p>\n
purchased   the   property  from  the  real  owner   Suseela<\/p>\n
Rajagopalan   to   the  entire  extent  of   10   cents   in<\/p>\n
R.S.No.202\/14 and building thereon, that was under the  sale<\/p>\n
deed dated 26.04.1975 marked as Ex.B-1.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       5.   On  an  analysis  of  the  entire  evidence  and<\/p>\n
appreciation of documents, the Trial Court has dismissed the<\/p>\n
suit  filed  by the plaintiffs, after giving a finding  that<\/p>\n
the  second  defendant has been in possession,  as  seen  in<\/p>\n
various  documents  filed  on the side  of  the  defendants,<\/p>\n
including Ex.B-70.  It was as against the said judgment, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs  have  filed  the  first  appeal  and  the  First<\/p>\n
Appellate  Court  also  finding that there  is  no  material<\/p>\n
irregularity  or  wrong appreciation of evidence  etc.,  has<\/p>\n
dismissed the appeal against which the plaintiffs have filed<\/p>\n
the present second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.  While  admitting  the  above  second  appeal,  the<\/p>\n
following substantial questions of law were framed:-<\/p>\n
         “1.  Whether the findings of the Courts below<\/p>\n
         that  title  of the plaintiff  has  not  been<\/p>\n
         established on the basis of Exs.A26, 23,  24,<\/p>\n
         12, 13 and A62 are sustainable?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         2.  Whether  the  plea of oral  purchase  and<\/p>\n
         adverse  possession  on  the  part   of   the<\/p>\n
         defendant is sustainable?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      7.  The  above second appeal was already dismissed  as<\/p>\n
against  the  first and fourth respondents, by an  order  of<\/p>\n
this Court, dated 28.09.2006.  The third respondent has  not<\/p>\n
appeared  inspite  of  service.   It  is  only  the   second<\/p>\n
respondent, who has appeared through counsel.<\/p>\n
     8. According to the learned counsel for the appellants,<\/p>\n
when the plaintiffs have produced the document, namely Ex.A-<\/p>\n
26,  under which the first plaintiff’s husband-Ramu Chettiar<\/p>\n
has  purchased the property and it is the case of the second<\/p>\n
defendant that Ramu Chettiar, eight years before his  death,<\/p>\n
which was in 1961, has orally sold the property in favour of<\/p>\n
his  father,  it was for the second defendant to  prove  the<\/p>\n
same,  especially  in the circumstance that  till  the  year<\/p>\n
1978, the property tax has been standing only in the name of<\/p>\n
the  Ramu  Chettiar and it was only after that,  the  second<\/p>\n
defendant has made change.  It is also the contention of the<\/p>\n
learned  counsel  for the appellants that  when  the  second<\/p>\n
defendant  has chosen to claim title by adverse  possession,<\/p>\n
the  condition must be that he must admit the  ownership  of<\/p>\n
the  plaintiffs and then prove that to the knowledge of  the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs,  he has been in possession of the  property  for<\/p>\n
more than the prescribed period and according to the learned<\/p>\n
counsel,  there  was  no  evidence produced  by  the  second<\/p>\n
defendant to prove adverse possession.  He would also  state<\/p>\n
that admittedly the second defendant has denied the title of<\/p>\n
the  plaintiffs  and  therefore there  was  no  question  of<\/p>\n
adverse  possession in such circumstances.   He  would  also<\/p>\n
state  that  if adverse possession is claimed by the  second<\/p>\n
defendant against the plaintiffs on the basis that the first<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s  husband-Ramu  Chettiar  has  orally  sold   the<\/p>\n
property to the second defendant’s father, eight years prior<\/p>\n
to  1961, what is the necessity for the second defendant  to<\/p>\n
get  a sale deed from Suseela Rajagopalan in respect of  the<\/p>\n
said  suit property under Ex.B-1-sale deed dated 26.04.1975,<\/p>\n
especially  when  the recital of the said document  contains<\/p>\n
that it relates to three cents, whereas the suit property is<\/p>\n
to the extent of 10 cents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.  On  the  other hand, the learned counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
second  respondent would rely upon Exs.B-14 to  B-16,  which<\/p>\n
are  all  demand  notices sent to the  second  defendant  in<\/p>\n
respect of the suit property relating to the years 1973  and<\/p>\n
1980  and  so on, and subsequent documents under  which  the<\/p>\n
second defendant has paid the property tax as seen in Exs.B-<\/p>\n
17 to B-30 and there are various documents filed on the side<\/p>\n
of  the  second  defendant  to show  that  he  has  been  in<\/p>\n
continuous  possession.  He would also submit that  Ex.A-26-<\/p>\n
Sale  Deed,  dated  04.10.1939, purchased by  Ramu  Chettiar<\/p>\n
itself contain the boundaries, which are defective and there<\/p>\n
has  been contradictory clauses.  He would submit that while<\/p>\n
the  plaint  reveals the survey number of  the  property  as<\/p>\n
202\/14, Ex.A-26 states the survey number as 202\/13.  On  the<\/p>\n
other  hand, Ex.B-1-sale deed by which the second  defendant<\/p>\n
has  purchased the property is relating to 202\/14  and  even<\/p>\n
though  it  is  in  respect of three cents,  it  is  in  the<\/p>\n
categoric stand of the second defendant that he has been  in<\/p>\n
enjoyment of the entire extent of ten cents.<\/p>\n
      10.  A  reference to the judgments of both the  Courts<\/p>\n
below  show  that on fact both the Courts have come  to  the<\/p>\n
conclusion  that the second defendant has been in possession<\/p>\n
of  the property for more than the prescribed period and  in<\/p>\n
any event perfected title by adverse possession.  The Courts<\/p>\n
below have also found, by referring to Ex.A-26-sale deed, by<\/p>\n
which  Ramu  Chettiar has purchased the property that  there<\/p>\n
has  been  some discrepancy in respect of the survey  number<\/p>\n
and  also the boundaries by referring to evidence of  P.W.1-<\/p>\n
herself, and also have come to the conclusion that the  plea<\/p>\n
of Agency given to the second respondent to collect rent has<\/p>\n
not been proved.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      11. In view of the above said factual findings by both<\/p>\n
the  Courts below in respect of the possession of  the  suit<\/p>\n
properties  by  the  second  defendant  for  more  than  the<\/p>\n
prescribed  period, even assuming that the  defence  of  the<\/p>\n
second  defendant that his father has purchased the property<\/p>\n
by  oral sale from Ramu Chettiar, namely, his brother, eight<\/p>\n
years  before  1961,  when he died,  is  not  accepted,  his<\/p>\n
continuous possession has been proved.  As far the documents<\/p>\n
filed on the side of the plaintiff especially in respect  of<\/p>\n
Ex.A-26-sale deed is concerned, there is a specific  finding<\/p>\n
by  both  the  Courts below that not only the survey  number<\/p>\n
differs, but also the boundaries do not tally apart from the<\/p>\n
contradictory  evidence of P.W.1 and in such  circumstances,<\/p>\n
even  if  the  contention of the plaintiff is admitted  that<\/p>\n
Ramu  Chettiar was the owner of the suit property, based  on<\/p>\n
Exs.A-23  and 24, by which he has mortgaged the property  in<\/p>\n
favour  of  third  parties,  on  the  claim  of  the  second<\/p>\n
defendant  that  it was eight years before  1961  when  Ramu<\/p>\n
Chettiar  died, he has sold away the property in  favour  of<\/p>\n
the  second  defendant’s father and based on the  same,  the<\/p>\n
second  defendant  and  his father had  been  in  continuous<\/p>\n
possession  through out, it is certainly a finding  of  fact<\/p>\n
and  I do not think that this Court can interfere with  such<\/p>\n
finding   of   facts  inasmuch  as  there  is  no   material<\/p>\n
irregularity or perversity in such finding of facts.   As  I<\/p>\n
have considered the judgments of both the Courts below, this<\/p>\n
Court  is  of the opinion that the Courts below  have  given<\/p>\n
acceptable reasons.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     12. In view of the above said position, as held by this<\/p>\n
Court  in  the judgment rendered in the case of  Pappayammal<\/p>\n
Vs.  Palanisamy and Others and reported in 2005  (3)  C.T.C.<\/p>\n
292,  while exercising the powers under Section 100  of  the<\/p>\n
Code  of Civil Procedure in the second appeal in respect  of<\/p>\n
the  finding of facts recorded by both the Courts below,  if<\/p>\n
they are not perverse or there is no irregularity, there  is<\/p>\n
no  question of interference.  The relevant portion  of  the<\/p>\n
judgment  wherein  this  Court  has  narrated  the  previous<\/p>\n
judgments in respect of the scope of Section 100 of the Code<\/p>\n
of Civil Procedure is follows:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         “This   Court,   sitting  in  Second   Appeal,<\/p>\n
         invoking    Section   100,   C.P.C.,    cannot<\/p>\n
         interfere with the findings, recorded  by  the<\/p>\n
         two  Courts below, which are based  on  proper<\/p>\n
         appreciation   of   the   evidence   and   the<\/p>\n
         materials  on  record, and when  there  is  no<\/p>\n
         perversity or irregularity in those  findings.<\/p>\n
         As  laid  down by the Supreme Court in  Ishwar<\/p>\n
         Dass  Jain  (Dead) through LRs. V.  Sohan  Lal<\/p>\n
         (Dead)  by Lrs., 2000 (1) CTC 359 :  2000  (1)<\/p>\n
         SCC  434;  Deena Nath V. Pooran Lal,<\/a> 2001  (5)<\/p>\n
         SCC  705;  Hafazat Hussain V. Abdul Majeed and<\/p>\n
         others<\/a>,  2001  (7) SCC 189 and  Krishna  Mohan<\/p>\n
         Kul  alias  Nani  Charan Kul  and  another  V.<\/p>\n
         Pratima  Maity and Others, 2004 (9)  SCC  468,<\/p>\n
         the  scope  of  Section  100,  C.P.C.  is   so<\/p>\n
         limited.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  facts  of  the  case which I have narrated  above  also<\/p>\n
reveals  that it is not as if the second defendant has  been<\/p>\n
in  possession of the suit property without the knowledge of<\/p>\n
the  plaintiffs.  The possession of the second defendant  is<\/p>\n
open  and  continuous as found on facts to the knowledge  of<\/p>\n
the   plaintiffs  especially  in  the  circumstance  of  the<\/p>\n
relationship  between the plaintiffs and the defendants  and<\/p>\n
in  the  circumstances that it is admitted by the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
themselves  that in the Rent Control Proceedings the  second<\/p>\n
defendant while filing the counter affidavit has denied  the<\/p>\n
title   of  the  plaintiffs,  it  is  certainly  a   hostile<\/p>\n
possession,  which  is  a  requirement,  as  held   by   the<\/p>\n
Honourable  Supreme Court in the judgment  rendered  in  the<\/p>\n
case  of T.Anjanappa and Others Vs. Somalingappa and another<\/p>\n
reported in 2006 AIR SCW 4368 wherein the Honourable Supreme<\/p>\n
Court  while holding that mere continuous possession  for  a<\/p>\n
long  time  is  not sufficient, unless it  is  hostilely  or<\/p>\n
expressly  or impliedly a denial of title of the true  owner<\/p>\n
and  to the knowledge of the true owner, even though  it  is<\/p>\n
not  necessary  that  there should be any  evidence  of  the<\/p>\n
adverse  possession actually informing the real owner.   The<\/p>\n
operative portion of the judgment of the Honourable  Supreme<\/p>\n
Court is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
         “22. It is well recognized proposition in  law<\/p>\n
         that  mere  possession however long  does  not<\/p>\n
         necessarily  means that it is adverse  to  the<\/p>\n
         true  owner.  Adverse possession really  means<\/p>\n
         the  hostile possession which is expressly  or<\/p>\n
         impliedly  in  denial of  title  of  the  true<\/p>\n
         owner  and  in  order  to  constitute  adverse<\/p>\n
         possession  the  possession  proved  must   be<\/p>\n
         adequate  in continuity, in publicity  and  in<\/p>\n
         extent  so  as to show that it is  adverse  to<\/p>\n
         the  true  owner.  The classical  requirements<\/p>\n
         of  acquisition of title by adverse possession<\/p>\n
         are  that  such  possession is denial  of  the<\/p>\n
         true owner’s title must be peaceful, open  and<\/p>\n
         continuous.  The possession must be  open  and<\/p>\n
         hostile  enough to be capable of  being  known<\/p>\n
         by  the  parties interested in  the  property,<\/p>\n
         though  it is not necessary that there  should<\/p>\n
         be  evidence of the adverse possessor actually<\/p>\n
         informing  the  real  owner  of  the  former’s<\/p>\n
         hostile action.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     13. As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the  second respondent, the scope of this Court to interfere<\/p>\n
with  the  findings of facts by both the Courts below  while<\/p>\n
exercising  jurisdiction under Section 100 of  the  Code  of<\/p>\n
Civil  Procedure, especially while speaking about the  scope<\/p>\n
after the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure and  also<\/p>\n
by  considering the legislative background in  that  regard,<\/p>\n
has  been  extracted only in respect of substantial question<\/p>\n
of  law  and  as  it  has been categorically  found  by  the<\/p>\n
Honourable Supreme Court in the various judgments  including<\/p>\n
the  latest  judgment in the case of Gurdev Kaur and  Others<\/p>\n
Vs.  Kaki  and Others and reported in 2007 (1)  C.T.C.  334.<\/p>\n
The operative portion of the judgments is as follows:-<\/p>\n
           “70.   Now, after 1976 Amendment, the scope<\/p>\n
           of   Section   100  has  been   drastically<\/p>\n
           curtailed  and  narrowed  down.   The  High<\/p>\n
           Courts    would   have   jurisdiction    of<\/p>\n
           interfering under Section 100, C.P.C.  only<\/p>\n
           in  a  case where substantial questions  of<\/p>\n
           law  are involved and those questions  have<\/p>\n
           been  clearly formulated in the  Memorandum<\/p>\n
           of  Appeal.   At the time of  admission  of<\/p>\n
           the  Second Appeal, it is the bounden  duty<\/p>\n
           and   obligation  of  the  High  Court   to<\/p>\n
           formulate substantial questions of law  and<\/p>\n
           then  only  the High Court is permitted  to<\/p>\n
           proceed  with  the  case  to  decide  those<\/p>\n
           questions  of  law.  The language  used  in<\/p>\n
           the     amended     section    specifically<\/p>\n
           incorporates   the  words  as  “substantial<\/p>\n
           question  of  law” which is  indicative  of<\/p>\n
           the  legislative  intention.   It  must  be<\/p>\n
           clearly  understood  that  the  legislative<\/p>\n
           intention  was very clear that  legislature<\/p>\n
           never   wanted  Second  Appeal  to   become<\/p>\n
           “third  trial on facts” or “one  more  dice<\/p>\n
           in   the   gamble”.   The  effect  of   the<\/p>\n
           amendment mainly, according to the  amended<\/p>\n
           Section, was:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (i)  The  High Court would be justified  in<\/p>\n
           admitting  the Second Appeal  only  when  a<\/p>\n
           substantial question of law is involved.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (ii)  The  substantial question of  law  to<\/p>\n
           precisely state such question;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (ii)  A  duty  has been cast  on  the  High<\/p>\n
           Court to formulate substantial question  of<\/p>\n
           law before hearing the Appeal;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (iv)  Another part of the Section  is  that<\/p>\n
           the  Appeal  shall be heard  only  on  that<\/p>\n
           question”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      14.  In  view  of  the same, there is  no  substantial<\/p>\n
question of law involved in this case.  Therefore, the above<\/p>\n
second  appeal  fails  and the same is dismissed.   However,<\/p>\n
there will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
srk<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Learned Subordinate Judge,
\n   Nagapattinam.\n<\/p>\n
2. The District Musnif,
\n   Thirutharaipoondi.\n<\/p>\n
[PRV\/10186]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Anantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 09.04.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI Second Appeal No.1340 of 1994 1. Anantham Ammal 2. Murugesan 3. Rangarajan 4. Jayanthi ..Appellants Vs 1. Kamalambal (Exparte) 2. Balasubramanian 3. Rajammal (Exparte) 4. Lalitha […]<\/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-11153","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 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\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Anantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-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=\"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-08T12:17:17+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Anantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-08T12:17:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2964,\"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\\\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Anantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-08T12:17:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Anantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 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":"Anantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 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\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Anantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-08T12:17:17+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Anantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-08T12:17:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007"},"wordCount":2964,"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\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007","name":"Anantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-08T12:17:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/anantham-ammal-vs-kamalambal-exparte-on-9-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Anantham Ammal vs Kamalambal (Exparte) on 9 April, 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\/11153","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=11153"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11153\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11153"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11153"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11153"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}