{"id":112569,"date":"2011-10-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011"},"modified":"2018-01-16T05:17:40","modified_gmt":"2018-01-15T23:47:40","slug":"a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 11\/10\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nAppeal Suit(MD)No.181 of 2011\nand\nM.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011\n\n1.A.Mariya Thangam\n2.R.Regina Mary\t\t  .. Appellants\/Plaintiffs\n\nVs.\n\n1.Annammal\n2.A.Gracy\n3.A.Selva Ruby\n4.A.John Selvaraj\n5.J.Arnold\n6.J.Reynold (Minor)\n7.J.Jeyrold (Minor)\n8.K.M.S.A.Ranjitham\n9.Sevanth\t\t .. Respondents\/Defendants 1 \t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tto 9\n(Respondents\/Defendants 1 to 7 and 9\n are Exparte in the suit. So they are\n given up)\n\nPrayer\n\nThe Appeal Suit has been filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure\nCode, against the judgment and decree dated 21.04.2011 made in O.S.No.38 of 2010\non the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul,\nchallenging only the dismissal of the relief of declaration of nullity of sale\ndeed document No.5316 of 2008 dated 10.10.2008 executed by the 4th Defendant in\nfavour of the 8th Defendant in the suit alone.\n\n!For Appellants \t ... Ms.S.Vijayashanthi\n^For 8th Respondent\t ... Mr.A.Hariharan\nFor Respondents 1 to 7\n\tand 9\t\t ... Given up\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe gist and kernel, the pith and marrow of the averments made in the<br \/>\nplaint filed by the appellants herein would run thus:<br \/>\n\tThe suit properties comprised of 10 items, originally belonged to one<br \/>\nS.A.Arockiam. The plaintiffs are the children of the said Arockiam. The 1st<br \/>\ndefendant is the daughter-in-law, the defendants 2 to 4 are the paternal grand-<br \/>\nchildren, the defendants 5 to 7 are the great-grand-children, of the said<br \/>\nArockiam. No partition took place among them in respect of the suit properties.<br \/>\nThe fourth defendant for himself and on behalf of the defendants 5 to 7, out of<br \/>\ntheir undivided share, sold an extent of 7 cents of land in item No.1 in favour<br \/>\nthe 8th defendant and another 9 cents of land in item No.1 in favour of the 9th<br \/>\ndefendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The plaintiffs sought for the following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;(a) preliminary decree for partition of their 3\/4th share in the suit<br \/>\nproperties and for separate possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) final decree for separate possession, if the defendants fail to give<br \/>\nseparate possession of their 3\/4th shares in the suit properties, after<br \/>\nappointing an advocate commissioner and getting report from him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) permanent injunction restraining the 4th defendant from alienating or<br \/>\nencumbering items 2 to 10 of the suit properties till the plaintiffs are given<br \/>\nwith the separate possession of their 3\/4th share.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d) declaration that the registered sale deed No.5316 of 2008 dated<br \/>\n10.10.2008 executed by the 4th defendant representing the defendants 5 to 7 in<br \/>\nfavour of the 8th defendant in respect of the 7 cents of land in the 1st item<br \/>\nproperty as null and void in respect of the 3\/4th share of the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(e) declaration that the registered sale deed No.1108 of 2010 dated<br \/>\n19.02.2010 executed by the 4th defendant representing the defendants 5 to 7 in<br \/>\nfavour of the 9th defendant in respect of 9 cents of land in the 1st item<br \/>\nproperty as null and void in respect of the 3\/4th share of the plaintiffs and\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(f) awarding costs of the suit to the plaintiffs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The 8th defendant contested the suit whereas the other defendants<br \/>\nremained ex-parte. During the trial on the side of the plaintiffs, they examined<br \/>\nthemselves as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 to 10. On the side of the 8th<br \/>\ndefendant, he examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Ultimately the suit was partly decreed as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;(i) The suit is decreed partly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) Preliminary decree is granted directing the defendants 1 to 7 to<br \/>\npartition the suit properties and to put the plaintiffs on separate possession<br \/>\nof their 3\/4 shares.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) If the defendants 1 to 7 fail to do so, the plaintiffs are permitted<br \/>\nto file final decree application for getting appointed an advocate commissioner<br \/>\nto partition the plaintiffs 3\/4 share and to put them in separate possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) permanent injunction is granted against the 4th defendant restraining<br \/>\nhim from alienating or encumbering the suit items 2 to 10 till the plaintiffs<br \/>\nare put in separate possession of their 3\/4th shares.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(v) It is declared that Ex.A.10 executed by 4th defendant in favour of the<br \/>\n9th defendant in respect of the 1st item property, is null and void regarding<br \/>\nthe 3\/4th share of the plaintiffs in the suit properties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vi) the claim of the plaintiffs to declare Ex.A.9 executed by the 4th<br \/>\ndefendant representing himself and the defendants 5 to 7 in favour of the 8th<br \/>\ndefendant in respect of the 1st item property as null and void in respect of the<br \/>\n3\/4 share of the plaintiffs, is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(vii) the respective parties shall bear their own cots.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(viii) Plaintiffs&#8217; side suit expenses is Rs.3076.50.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ix) 8th respondent&#8217;s side suit expenses is Rs.5,030\/-.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a part of the judgment and<br \/>\ndecree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred this appeal suit mainly on<br \/>\nthe ground that the trial court was not justified in giving a finding in the<br \/>\njudgment that the 8th defendant is entitled to the said 7 cents of land by metes<br \/>\nand bounds, which he purchased as per Ex.A.9 from the 4th defendant and his<br \/>\nminor children, namely defendants 5 to 7.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. When the matter came up for hearing the injunction petition, by consent<br \/>\nthe main appeal itself has been taken up for final disposal as it involves only<br \/>\na short point for consideration as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhether the trial Court was justified in rendering the finding to the<br \/>\neffect that the 8th defendant, the third party purchaser of an extent of 7 cents<br \/>\nof land in the undivided 1st item of the suit properties, is entitled to be<br \/>\nallotted with the same during partition?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The long and the short of the arguments of the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellants would run thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe trial Court was not justified in rendering a finding based on some<br \/>\nalleged admissions made by P.W.1 during the course of cross-examination to the<br \/>\neffect that the third party purchaser, namely the 8th defendant, is entitled to<br \/>\nbe allotted with the said 7 cents of land by metes and bounds as contemplated in<br \/>\nEx.A.9, the sale deed which was executed by the 4th defendant for himself and on<br \/>\nbehalf of his minor children, namely defendants 5 to 7; whatever be the right of<br \/>\nthe eighth defendant, which is allegedly derived from defendants 4 to 7 should<br \/>\nbe worked out on equity basis only at the final decree proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the eighth defendant in a bid to<br \/>\nmince meat and torpedo the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants<br \/>\nhas advanced his arguments which could tersely and precisely be set out thus:<br \/>\n\tIn the preliminary decree, the trial Court did not say anything to the<br \/>\neffect that the 8th defendant is entitled to the said 7 cents of land by metes<br \/>\nand bounds as contemplated in the sale deed Ex.A.9; however, in the judgment,<br \/>\nthe trial Court appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly placed<br \/>\nreliance upon the admission made by P.W.1 (first plaintiff) during the course of<br \/>\ncross-examination and held that the 8th defendant being an adjacent owner of the<br \/>\nsuit property No.1, who also carved out his lands into plots utilising the<br \/>\nportion of 7 cents purchased by him for the ingress and egress to his plots, is<br \/>\nentitled to retain the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Trite, the proposition of law is that the trial Court at the time of<br \/>\npassing the preliminary decree would not be justified in working out the equity<br \/>\nin favour of the 8th defendant, a third party purchaser, who purchased the<br \/>\nundivided share in a joint property. Normally that exercise should be undertaken<br \/>\nonly at the time of the final decree proceedings. The matter would be different,<br \/>\nif both the contesting parties filed any joint memo in respect of a portion of<br \/>\nthe suit property is concerned. Here, ex-facie and prima-facie, it is clear that<br \/>\nthe trial Court culled out certain portions from the cross-examination of P.W.1<br \/>\nto hold that P.W.1 had no objection for the said 7 cents of land as contemplated<br \/>\nin Ex.A.9 for having allotted in favour of the 8th defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In my considered view, the trial Court at the time of passing the<br \/>\npreliminary decree was not justified in making such final observation in the<br \/>\njudgment. However, I would like to readily countenance the submission of the<br \/>\nlearned counsel for the 8th respondent\/8th defendant that the trial Court was<br \/>\njustified in not declaring the sale deed under Ex.A.9 as null and void, even<br \/>\nthough the learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that the said deed<br \/>\nwas null and void. Simply because an un-divided share was sold by one of the co-<br \/>\nsharers to a third party, the sale deed itself need not be declared as null and<br \/>\nvoid. Whatever share that could be actually allotted to the co-sharer, who<br \/>\nalienated his share, would be allotted to the purchaser and as such the metes<br \/>\nand bounds of the share of the said co-sharer would be worked out at the time of<br \/>\nfinal decree proceedings and the purchaser would ultimately step into the shoes<br \/>\nof his vendor. When such is the legal position, I am of the considered view that<br \/>\nthe trial Court was not justified in finally giving the verdict to the effect<br \/>\nthat the 8th defendant was to be allotted by metes and bounds the said 7 cents<br \/>\nas contemplated in Ex.A.9.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. To the risk of repetition and pleonasm, but without being tautologous,<br \/>\nI would like to reiterate that the matter would be different if there is any<br \/>\npartial compromise regarding the area purchased by the 8th defendant from<br \/>\ndefendants 4 to 7; on the contrary the trial court culling out certain portion<br \/>\nin the cross-examination of P.W.1, placed reliance on the same and rendered its<br \/>\nverdict and such an exercise is not contemplated while passing the preliminary<br \/>\ndecree. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the matter requires<br \/>\ninterference to the limited extent and the legal position should be clarified so<br \/>\nthat there will not be any further legal complication in working out the<br \/>\nremedies by the parties during the final decree proceedings. The judgment of the<br \/>\ntrial Court at para No.16 giving the verdict in favour of the 8th defendant that<br \/>\nthe 8th defendant should be allotted with the said 7 cents of land as<br \/>\ncontemplated in Ex.A.9 by metes and bounds should be expunged and it is open for<br \/>\nthe 8th defendant to, workout his equity at the time of final decree proceedings<br \/>\nbased on the evidence available on record and the evidence to be adduced by him.<br \/>\nWith this modification, no further interference with the judgment and decree of<br \/>\nthe trial Court is warranted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is partly allowed. Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. The learned counsel for the 8th respondent has made an extempore<br \/>\nsubmission that pending final decree proceedings, the parties should be directed<br \/>\nto maintain status-quo and they should not alienate or encumber the suit<br \/>\nproperties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. There could be no second thought over it and the 8th defendant is<br \/>\nexpected to maintain status-quo in respect of the property as in Ex.A.9 without<br \/>\nin any way modifying the physical features or encumbering it and similarly the<br \/>\nplaintiffs are also expected to maintain status-quo.\n<\/p>\n<p>sj<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Additional District Judge,<br \/>\n  Fast Track Court,<br \/>\n  Dindigul.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11\/10\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Appeal Suit(MD)No.181 of 2011 and M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 1.A.Mariya Thangam 2.R.Regina Mary .. Appellants\/Plaintiffs Vs. 1.Annammal 2.A.Gracy 3.A.Selva Ruby 4.A.John Selvaraj 5.J.Arnold 6.J.Reynold (Minor) 7.J.Jeyrold (Minor) 8.K.M.S.A.Ranjitham 9.Sevanth [&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-112569","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011 - 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\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-15T23:47:40+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\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-15T23:47:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1715,\"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\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011\",\"name\":\"A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-15T23:47:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011 - 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\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-15T23:47:40+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\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-15T23:47:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011"},"wordCount":1715,"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\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011","name":"A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-15T23:47:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-mariya-thangam-vs-annammal-on-11-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Mariya Thangam vs Annammal on 11 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112569","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=112569"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112569\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112569"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}