{"id":126182,"date":"2004-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004"},"modified":"2014-06-02T12:04:40","modified_gmt":"2014-06-02T06:34:40","slug":"vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 29\/03\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM\n\nSECOND APPEAL NO.1273 OF 1993\n\n1. Vellammal\n2. Papathi\n3. Kannammal\n4. Veerasangili\n5. Ganapathy Konar\n6. Jayalakshmi\n7. Jayadevi\n8. Devi (minor)\n9. Ganesan\n10.Karuppan\n    (Appellants 6 to 8 are rep.\n    by Power of Attorney agent\n    fifth appellant herein)                                     .. Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nMinor Ramalakshmi\nrep by mother and guardian\nSubbalakshmi alias Valliammal                           .. Respondent\n\n\n        This second appeal is preferred under Section 100 of CPC  against  the\njudgment  and  decree  of  the learned District Judge, Chidambaranar District,\nTuticorin passed in AS No.36 of 1992 dated 9.7.1993 modifying the judgment and\ndecree on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin  passed  in  OS\nNo.100 of 1984 dated 12.8.1991.\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.K.Srinivasan\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.P.Rathinadurai\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        Aggrieved  over  the judgment of the learned District Judge, Tuticorin<br \/>\nmade in AS No.36 of 1992 wherein the judgment of the trial Court, namely,  the<br \/>\nSubordinate  Judge,  Tuticorin,  in  a  suit  for  partition was affirmed, the<br \/>\ndefendants 1,6, 7, 9, 10 and 13 to 17 have brought forth this second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Minor plaintiff sought for division asking for 1\/3rd share in  the<br \/>\nproperty  of  one  Kanniahdas  alleging  that  the said Kanniahdas married her<br \/>\nmother Subbalakshmi as his second wife;  that  the  said  Kanniahdas  died  on<br \/>\n28.1.1984  leaving  behind  him  his  first  wife, the first defendant and the<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s mother, the second defendant; that the said  Kanniahdass  did  not<br \/>\nmake any arrangement regarding the property; that by operation of law, she was<br \/>\nentitled to 1\/3rd share.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The  suit was resisted by the defendants stating that the alleged<br \/>\nmarriage between Kanniahdas and the mother of the plaintiff was  a  false  one<br \/>\nand  the  plaintiff  was not born to the said Subbalakshmi through Kanniahdas,<br \/>\nand hence, she was not entitled to any share by operation of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The trial court  framed  necessary  issues,  tried  the  suit  and<br \/>\ndecreed the same granting 1\/6th share in all the schedule mentioned properties<br \/>\nexcept 4th  item  of  B  schedule.    An appeal was preferred by the aggrieved<br \/>\ndefendants and the same was dismissed.  Hence, this  second  appeal  has  been<br \/>\nbrought forth challenging the judgment of courts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   At  the time of admission, the following substantial questions of<br \/>\nlaw were formulated by this Court for consideration:\n<\/p>\n<p>        1) Whether the finding of the courts below are vitiated by its failure<br \/>\nto draw the legal inferences on the proved and admitted facts set out  in  the<br \/>\ngrounds  as  regards  the  factum  of  second marriage between Kaniah doss and<br \/>\nSubbalakshmi?\n<\/p>\n<p>        2) Whether the courts below is right in granting a decree by virtue of<br \/>\nSection 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the absence of the factum of  marriage<br \/>\nnot established beyond the suspicious circumstances?\n<\/p>\n<p>        3)  Whether  the  findings  of  the  courts  below are vitiated by its<br \/>\nerroneous approach relying upon the birth extract  which  is  inadmissible  in<br \/>\nevidence  and the statements made before the Criminal court under Exhibits A-9<br \/>\nto A-11 which are inadmissible in evidence before the Civil Court?\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  This court has paid its full attention of the submissions made  by<br \/>\nthe  learned  counsel  for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent on those contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The plaintiff sought the relief of partition  in  respect  of  her<br \/>\n1\/3rd  share  in  the  property  of  one  Kanniahdas  alleging that she is the<br \/>\ndaughter of the said Kanniahdas  through  his  second  wife.    The  same  was<br \/>\nresisted  by  the  defendants  inter-alia  stating  that there was no marriage<br \/>\nbetween the  said  Kanniahdas  and  Subbalakshmi,  the  mother  of  the  minor<br \/>\nplaintiff and that she is not entitled to partition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   Both the courts below have discussed the evidence, in extenso and<br \/>\nhave recorded a concurrent finding that there was a marriage between the  said<br \/>\nSubbalakshmi,  the  mother of the minor plaintiff and the said Kanniahdas, but<br \/>\nthe marriage is void in view of the subsistence of the  marriage  between  the<br \/>\nsaid  Kanniahdas  and  the  first  defendant  and  though the plaintiff was an<br \/>\nillegitimate child, she was entitled to her share in view of the fact that the<br \/>\nproperty belonged to the joint family of the said Kanniahdas  and  his  father<br \/>\nand  Kanniahdas  was  entitled  to  half  share  and  in that half share minor<br \/>\nplaintiff was entitled to 1\/3rd share and  in  that  way,  the  plaintiff  was<br \/>\nentitled  to  1\/6th share in the entire property, except the 4th item in the B<br \/>\nschedule in respect of which, the plaintiff did not press her relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Advancing his arguments, the learned counsel  for  the  appellants<br \/>\nwould  submit that both the courts below have found that the property what was<br \/>\navailable for division was the ancestral property and not that  of  Kanniahdas<br \/>\nand the property continued to be joint even at the time when the partition was<br \/>\nsought for.    In  view  of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the minor<br \/>\nplaintiff could be treated as legitimate, though illegitimate for the  purpose<br \/>\nof  succession  or  inheritance which can only be confined to an extent of the<br \/>\nproperty of Kanniahdas and  not  in  respect  of  the  joint  family  property<br \/>\navailable.   In  support  of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the<br \/>\nfollowing decisions :\n<\/p>\n<p>        1)1989-LW-Mad.706    (SIVAGNANAVADIVU    NACHIAR    &amp;    OTHERS    VS.<br \/>\nKRISHNAKANTHAN AND OTHERS)\n<\/p>\n<p>        2) 1996(2)  MLJ  (SC)  82  (SMT.    PARAYANKANDIYAL  ERAVATH KANAPRAVA<br \/>\nKALLIANI AMMA AND OTHERS VS.  K.  DEVI AND OTHERS)\n<\/p>\n<p>        3) 2003 (1) CTC 250 (JINIA KEOTIN &amp; ORS.  VS.  KUMAR SITARAM MANJHI  &amp;<br \/>\nORS.)\n<\/p>\n<p>        4) 2003(3) LW 621 (RANGASAMI VS.  KASIAPPA GOUNDER AND TWO OTHERS)\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   In  answer to the above contentions, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent would submit that on the day when partition was sought for  by  the<br \/>\nplaintiff,  the  said  Kanniahdas  was entitled to half share in the property.<br \/>\nThe application was confined only to the  succession  or  inheritance  in  the<br \/>\nproperty of the parents only.  In the instant case, Kanniahdas was entitled to<br \/>\nhalf share  in  th  e  property.    The learned counsel would further add that<br \/>\nnowhere it was found in the provisions of Section 16(3) of the  Act  that  the<br \/>\nchildren though illegitimate, they can be treated as legitimate in view of the<br \/>\napplication  of  Section  16  of  the Act and they can have the remedy only in<br \/>\nrespect of the self acquisition, and hence, the contention of the  appellants&#8217;<br \/>\nside have  got  to  be  rejected.   Added further the learned counsel that the<br \/>\nfirst defendant has filed a suit against the said Kanniahdas in OS No.5 04  of<br \/>\n1983  before  the  District Munsif, Srivaikundam alleging that the property in<br \/>\nrespect of which she proceeded was shown therein  and  she  has  characterised<br \/>\nthat all the properties belonged to Kanniahdas.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   After  careful  consideration of the positions, both factual and<br \/>\nlegal, this Court is of the considered  opinion  that  though  attractive  the<br \/>\ncontention  put  forth  by the appellants&#8217; side may be, it would not stand the<br \/>\nscrutiny of law.  The prime contention now put forth in this Court is that the<br \/>\nproperty in respect of which partition  sought  for  by  the  minor  plaintiff<br \/>\nbelonged  to  the  joint  family of Kanniahdas and his father and the property<br \/>\ncontinued to be joint on the death of  Kanniahdas  and  the  minor  plaintiff,<br \/>\nthough  illegitimate  because  of  the  void  marriage,  has  to be treated as<br \/>\nlegitimate by application of Section 16 of the Act and the application has got<br \/>\nto be confined  only  to  an  extent  of  succession  or  inheritance  to  the<br \/>\nproperties  of  the  said  Kanniahdas, but in the instant case, the properties<br \/>\nwere ancestral, and hence, the claim has got to be rejected.  This  contention<br \/>\ncannot be  countenanced  for  more reason than one.  From the very averment in<br \/>\nthe plaint, it would be abundantly clear that the  plaintiff  sought  for  the<br \/>\nrelief  of  division  of 1\/3rd share alleging that the properties mentioned in<br \/>\nthe schedule belonged to her father Kanniahdas; that the  first  defendant  is<br \/>\nthe  first  wife  and the second defendant, who is the mother were entitled to<br \/>\n2\/3rd share and the minor plaintiff was entitled to 1\/3rd share.  Nowhere  has<br \/>\nshe whispered that the properties in question were joint or ancestral.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.   A  reading of the written statement would make it clear that the<br \/>\nproperties were originally enjoyed by the said Kanniahdas and his  mother  the<br \/>\nsecond  defendant  and  on  his  death, they were jointly enjoyed by the first<br \/>\ndefendant and the second defendant.  Nowhere it  is  averred  in  the  written<br \/>\nstatement that the properties were the ancestral or joint family property.  It<br \/>\nis  pertinent  to point out that there was a suit filed by the first defendant<br \/>\nseeking for the relief in OS No.504 of 1983 and the copy of which  was  marked<br \/>\nas  Ex.A.1  where  the  identical  properties  were shown as the properties of<br \/>\nKanniahdas and not  mentioned  as  ancestral  property,  and  thus,  from  the<br \/>\navailable  materials,  nothing  is  available to hold that the properties were<br \/>\nancestral properties, but the  properties  were  left  by  Kanniahdas  as  the<br \/>\nproperties of  his  own.  There cannot be any quarrel that by operation of law<br \/>\nunder Section 16 of the Act that the children though illegitimate  had  to  be<br \/>\ntreated  as legitimate notwithstanding that the marriage between their parents<br \/>\nwas void or voidable for the purpose of succession  or  inheritance  and  that<br \/>\nwhich is  available  only to the property of the parents only.  In the instant<br \/>\ncase, partition was sought for only in respect of the properties of Kanniahdas<br \/>\nwhat was available in the hands  of  the  defendants  at  the  time  when  the<br \/>\npartition was sought for.  Therefore, there cannot be any legal impediment for<br \/>\nthe grant  of  relief  in  view  of Section 16 of the Act.  It is not the case<br \/>\nwhere any attempt was made by demanding division of the property,  which  were<br \/>\nancestral  or  joint, but the properties of the Kanniahdas in the hands of the<br \/>\ndefendants at the time when the relief was sought for,  and  hence,  both  the<br \/>\ncourts  below  were perfectly correct in granting the relief to the plaintiff.<br \/>\nThe judgment of both the courts below do not require for any interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  In  the  result,  this  second  appeal  fails  and  the  same  is<br \/>\ndismissed, leaving the parties to bear their costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>vvk<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The District Judge, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Record Keeper, VR Section,<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29\/03\/2004 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM SECOND APPEAL NO.1273 OF 1993 1. Vellammal 2. Papathi 3. Kannammal 4. Veerasangili 5. Ganapathy Konar 6. Jayalakshmi 7. Jayadevi 8. Devi (minor) 9. Ganesan 10.Karuppan (Appellants 6 [&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-126182","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-02T06:34:40+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-02T06:34:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1555,\"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\\\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004\",\"name\":\"Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-02T06:34:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-02T06:34:40+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-02T06:34:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004"},"wordCount":1555,"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\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004","name":"Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-02T06:34:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vellammal-vs-minor-ramalakshmi-on-29-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vellammal vs Minor Ramalakshmi on 29 March, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126182","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=126182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126182\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}