{"id":127578,"date":"2003-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003"},"modified":"2018-04-30T21:53:43","modified_gmt":"2018-04-30T16:23:43","slug":"ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003","title":{"rendered":"Ramachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ramachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 07\/04\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN\n\nSecond Appeal No. 1930 of 1991\n\n\nRamachandran                                   ... Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nY. Theva Nesom Ammal                           ... Respondent\n\n\n        Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the Judgment and Decree  made  in\nA.S.  No.   180 of 1990 dated 28-10-1991 on the file of the Principal District\nJudge, Tirunelveli reversing the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.  No.  26  of\n1986  dated  28-08-1989  on  the  file  of  the  Additional Subordinate Judge,\nTirunelveli.\n\n\n!For Appellant          :       Mr.  Peppin Fernando\n\n^For Respondent :       Mr.  I.  Meerasahib\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
        The defendant, who lost his case before the lower Appellate  Court  is
\nthe appellant in this second appeal.  The respondent herein has filed the suit
\nO.S.   No.26  of 1986 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli
\nfor recovery of amount.\n<\/p>\n
        2.      The case of  the  respondent  herein  is  that  she  sold  the
\nproperty  under  Ex.A1 on 31-08-1984 for a total consideration of Rs.35,990\/-,
\nbut the sale consideration is mentioned only as Rs.9,900\/- in the deed as  the
\nappellant herein has agreed to pay the balance sum of Rs.26,00 0\/- separately,
\nlater.   Since  the  appellant  failed  to  pay the said sum, as promised, the
\nrespondent has filed the above suit.\n<\/p>\n
        3.      Before the trial court, the respondent herein has marked  Exs.
\nA1  to  A9  and examined herself as PW1 and one Devasundaram, Advocate as PW2.
\nThe case of the appellant herein  is  that  the  sale  consideration  is  only
\nRs.9,900\/-,  the  claim  of  the respondent is false besides that barred under
\nSection 92 of Indian Evidence Act.  The appellant herein has marked Exs.    B1
\nto B4  and  examined  himself  as  PW1.    The trial court dismissed the suit.
\nAggrieved by the Decree and Judgment of the trial court, the respondent herein
\nhas preferred appeal A.S.  No.  180 of 1990  on  the  file  of  the  Principal
\nDistrict Judge,  Tirunelveli.  The lower appellate Court reversed the Judgment
\nand Decree passed by the trial court, hence this second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        4.      This  second  appeal  has  been  admitted  on  the   following
\nsubstantial questions of law namely<\/p>\n
1.      Whether the lower Appellate Court failed to note that the claim of the
\nrespondent  is  barred  under  provisions of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence
\nAct?\n<\/p>\n
2.      Whether the lower Appellate Court failed to  note  that  the  suit  is
\nbarred under Section 23 of the Contract Act?\n<\/p>\n
3.      Whether  the  lower Appellate Court has erred in relying upon Ex.A8 to
\nreverse the well considered judgment of the trial court?\n<\/p>\n
4.      Whether the lower Appellate Court is justified  in  awarding  cost  of
\ncourts below?\n<\/p>\n
        5.      Mr.   Peppin  Fernando,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\nappellant submitted as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        The First Appellate Court erred in granting the  Decree  relying  upon
\nEx.A8  but  it  did  not  make  any  reference to the appellant or the alleged
\ntransaction; that the evidence of PW2 cannot be relied upon for  any  purpose;
\nthat  the  sale  consideration in Ex.A1 was Rs.9,900\/- and at the time of sale
\nthere was a dispute on that property; that the  suit  claim  is  barred  under
\nSection  92 of the Indian Evidence Act; that the First Appellate Court, having
\nrejected Exs.  A2 and A3 ought to  have  rejected  the  entire  claim  of  the
\nrespondents; that  Exs.    B1  to  B4 clearly prove the consideration shown in
\nEx.A1 is the correct market value and prayed for setting aside the Decree  and
\nJudgment passed by the First Appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n
        6.      The  learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the
\nfollowing decisions in support of his case:-\n<\/p>\n
        i)      Land  Acquisition  Officer  &  Mandal  Revenue   Officer   Vs.
\nNarasaiah    2001    1  Law Weekly 881 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court,
\nwhile dealing with Section 51 (A) of Land Acquisition Act, Section 64 and 6  5
\nof  Indian  Evidence  Act and Section 57 of the Registration Act pertaining to
\nLand Acquisition cases held that “in the case of Section 51 (A)  of  the  Land
\nAcquisition  Act  also, the position cannot be different, as it is open to the
\nCourt to  act  on  the  documents  regarding  transactions  recorded  in  such
\ndocuments.   However,  this will not prevent any party, who supports or oppose
\nthe said document  or  the  transactions  recorded  therein  to  adduce  other
\nevidence to  substantiate their stand regarding such transactions.  But, it is
\nnot possible to hold that even after the introduction  of  Section  51  A  the
\nposition would remain the same as before.”\n<\/p>\n
        In  this  case,  the  Honourable  Supreme Court held that Section 51 A
\nenables the Court to treat what is recorded in the document as evidence  which
\nis like  any  other  evidence.  But, it is for the Court to weigh all the pros
\nand cons whether such transactions can be relied upon  for  understanding  the
\nreal price of the land.\n<\/p>\n
        ii)     Nawab Masjid Trust, by its Manager, A.  Ahmed Akli Mohagir Vs.
\nChubhagmuell  Gulecha  (2002) 3 MLJ 496  wherein the learned Single Judge of
\nthis Court, while dealing with Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act held that
\nit is well established in law that no party can be permitted to  let  in  oral
\nevidence contrary to the recitals in a written document and negatived the plea
\nof the defendants as the same is contrary to the written resolution.\n<\/p>\n
        iii)    Mohammed Sheriff   Alnahary,   rep.     by  its  Attorney,  T.
\nVenkatachalam Vs.  K.T.  Kunjumon  2002-2-Law Weekly 63 – wherein the learned
\nSingle Judge of this Court held that the best evidence about the  contents  of
\nthe document  is  the  document itself.  Section 91 is called a exclusive Rule
\nsince it excludes admission of oral  evidence  for  proving  the  contents  of
\ndocuments except where secondary evidence is allowed.  Section 92 does not bar
\nconsideration  of  any document, it prohibits admission of oral evidence which
\nis contrary to the terms of the agreement.\n<\/p>\n
        iv)     K.S.  Narasimhachari Vs.  The Indo Commercial Bank Ltd.,  G.T.
\nMadras,  represented by the Punjab National Bank and another  AIR 1965 Madras
\n147  wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that  under  Section  92  of
\nIndian  Evidence  Act, while a party admits passing of consideration specified
\nin the document attempts to show that the consideration  was  either  less  or
\nmore than what is specified is not to be permitted.\n<\/p>\n
        7.      The learned  counsel Mr.  Meera Sahib appearing for respondent
\nsubmits as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable to  the  facts
\nand  circumstance  of  the  case; that the suit has been filed for recovery of
\namount based on Pronote dated 29-12-1984 namely Ex.A2 supported by Ex.A3 dated
\n27-12-1984 i.e., letter of undertaking executed by Thangamuthu, brother-in-law
\nof the appellant herein.  The respondent herein has sold land to an extent  of
\n2.33  acres  and  executed Ex.A1, sale deed wherein the sale consideration was
\nmentioned as Rs.9,900\/- but the real sale consideration was Rs.35,990\/-.    It
\nis  also  further  argued  that  the  appellant has executed the Pronote dated
\n29-12-1984 agreeing to pay the sum of Rs.26,000\/-; that the brother-in-law  of
\nthe  appellant  has executed a letter of undertaking dated 27-12-1984 which is
\nmarked as Ex.A3; that Ex.A4 is the reply in May  1985  sent  by  Devasundaram,
\nAdvocate  to  the respondent herein; that Ex.A5 is the Advocate notice sent to
\nthe appellant; that Ex.A6 is the reply notice sent by the appellant’s advocate
\nto the respondent’s advocate.  Ex.A7 is the telegram dated 11-09-1984 sent  by
\nDevasundaram, Advocate to the respondent herein; that Ex.A8 is the letter sent
\nby  Devasundaram,  Advocate to the respondent herein and Ex.A9 is the specimen
\nsignature of the  appellant;  that  the  judgment  and  decree  of  the  First
\nAppellate Court is based on the oral and documentary evidence and applying the
\ncorrect  proposition  of  law  as  such  interference  of  this  Court  is not
\nwarranted.\n<\/p>\n
        8.      The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted  that
\nEx.B1  is  sale  deed dated 17-01-1985 executed by sister of the respondent in
\nrespect of the  land  to  an  extent  of  55  cents  for  a  consideration  of
\nRs.2,750\/-;  Ex.B2  is  dated  29-09-1984, sale deed executed by sister of the
\nrespondent to an extent of 40 cents for a sum of Rs.4,050\/-;  Ex.B3  is  dated
\n05-10-1984  sale  deed  executed  by the sister of the respondent herein to an
\nextent of 40 cents for a total sale  consideration  of  Rs.2,750\/-;  Ex.B4  is
\ndated  15-10-1984,  sale deed executed by sister of the appellant to an extent
\nof 51 cents for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,500\/-.    When  taken  into
\naccount of the sale consideration in Ex.B1 to B4 and the amount of Rs.35,990\/-
\nclaimed  towards  sale consideration of Ex.A1 is proportionate and the alleged
\nconsideration  of  Rs.9,900\/-  mentioned  in  the  sale  deed  is   apparently
\ndisproportionate.\n<\/p>\n
        9.      The  trial  court  dismissed the suit relying on Section 92 of
\nthe Indian Evidence Act and held that the amount mentioned in  the  sale  deed
\ncannot be  disputed  later  as lesser or more.  On appeal, the First Appellate
\nCourt found that the alleged signature of the appellant contained in Ex.A2  is
\nnot  similar  as per the specimen signature obtained by the trial court in the
\nopen Court in Ex.A9 and the said pronote was not  attested  by  witnesses  and
\nrightly eschewed  the same from consideration as done by the trial court.  The
\nFirst Appellate Court held that the signature of the appellant found in  Ex.A3
\nas  witness  is  not  tallying  with  the  specimen signature namely Ex.A9 and
\nrejected Ex.A3.  The First  Appellate  Court  further  pointed  out  that  the
\naverment that  Advocate namely Devasundaram has written Ex.  A4 was not proved
\nby the respondent and rightly  rejected  both.    The  First  Appellate  Court
\ncompared  the sale considerations passed in Ex.B1 to B4 and held that the real
\nconsideration could be Rs.35,990\/-.\n<\/p>\n
        10.     Admittedly, the respondent herein  has  not  filed  any  cross
\nappeal  or  cross objection against the rejection of Ex.A2 and A3 by the First
\nAppellate Court.  The only document relied on by the First Appellate Court  is
\nEx.A8 which was written by the Devasundaram, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
        11.     Now, I  proceed  to  consider  Ex.A8.  Ex.A8 is a letter dated
\n24-0 1-1985 written by PW2 to the respondent herein in which the appellant  is
\nnot a  party.    In the said letter, he has requested the respondent herein to
\nsend a telegram instructing him to collect money from the appellant herein, so
\nthat he could make use of the same to speak to the  appellant.    It  is  also
\nfurther  mentioned  in  the  said  letter  that he would meet the appellant in
\nperson.  Nothing was stated in the letter about the appellant’s  admission  of
\nhis liability.\n<\/p>\n
        12.     Ex.A5  is  notice  dated 10-05-1985 issued by the respondent’s
\nadvocate to the appellant herein wherein no whispering about Ex.A8.    PW2  in
\nhis  evidence  stated  that he was not aware that the appellant was due to the
\nrespondent a sum of Rs.26,000\/- but  he  admitted  in  his  evidence  that  he
\nrequested  the  respondent  herein  to  send a telegram so as to enable him to
\nspeak to the appellant herein.  I am of considered view that the  evidence  of
\nPW2 do not support the case of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
        13.     The counsel appearing for either side advanced arguments about
\nthe  applicability  and non-applicability of Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act
\nto the facts and circumstance of the case.  Section 92  and  Sub-clause  4  of
\nSection 92 of Indian Evidence Act runs as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
Section  92   Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement  When the terms of any
\nsuch contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter  required
\nby  law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to
\nthe last section, no evidence of any oral  agreement  or  statement  shall  be
\nadmitted,   as   between   the   parties  to  any  such  instrument  or  their
\nrepresentatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding
\nto, or subtracting from, its terms;\n<\/p>\n
Proviso (4)  The existence of  any  distinct  subsequent  oral  agreement  to
\nrescind  or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be
\nproved, except in cases in  which  such  contract,  grant  or  disposition  of
\nproperty is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according
\nto the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.\n<\/p>\n
        Section  92  contemplates  that  when  terms of any contract, grant or
\nother disposition of the property or any matter required by law to be  reduced
\nin  the  form  of  written documents have been proved, no evidence of any oral
\nagreement or statement  is  permissible  for  the  purpose  of  contradicting,
\nvarying, adding or subtracting the said written document.\n<\/p>\n
        The  pith  and  substance  of  sub-clause  4  of  Section 92 of Indian
\nEvidence Act is, if a party has entered into a contract which is not  required
\nto  be  reduced in writing, but such a contract has been reduced in writing or
\nit is oral, in such situation, it  is  always  open  to  the  parties  to  the
\ncontract to modify its terms and even substitute a new by oral contract and it
\ncan be substituted by parole evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        14.     In terms of Section 92, I proceed to examine the case on hand.
\nEx.A1 is  a registered sale deed.  Parties to the document cannot be permitted
\nto let in parole evidence for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding or
\nsubtracting from its the said document.\n<\/p>\n
        15.     It is the case of the respondent that the suit has  been  laid
\nbased  on Ex.A2, pronote which was rejected as invalid by the Appellate Court,
\nwhich was not challenged by the respondent either by  cross  appeal  or  cross
\nobjection.  Hence, the substantial questions of law 1, 3 and 4 are answered in
\nfavour of the appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n
        16.     The  2nd  substantial  question  of law is whether the suit is
\nbarred in terms of Section 23 of the Contract Act or not.   Section  23  deals
\nwith  contracts which are illegal in the strict sense and it would be affected
\nby doctrine of ex-turpy ciusa oritur non actio.  The said section would  apply
\nonly  if  the  consideration  or  object  of  the  agreement is unlawful or is
\nfradulent or involves or implies injury to the person or property  of  another
\nor in the opinion of the Court is immoral or opposed to public policy.  Hence,
\nthe  second  substantial  question  of  law  does  not  arise in this case for
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
        17.     In view of the above said findings, I set aside  the  judgment
\nand  decree  passed  by the First Appellate Court and restore the judgment and
\ndecree passed by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
With the result, the second appeal  is  allowed.    However,  considering  the
\ncircumstance of the case, no costs.\n<\/p>\n
rsh
\nIndex :  Yes
\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Principal District Judge
\nDistrict Court
\nTirunelveli<\/p>\n
2.  The Subordinate Judge
\nSub-court
\nTirunelveli<\/p>\n
3.  The Section Officer
\nVR Section
\nHigh Court
\nMadras 600 104<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ramachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07\/04\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN Second Appeal No. 1930 of 1991 Ramachandran … Appellant -Vs- Y. Theva Nesom Ammal … Respondent Appeal under Section 100 CPC against the Judgment and […]<\/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-127578","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003 - 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\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-30T16:23:43+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-30T16:23:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2367,\"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\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003\",\"name\":\"Ramachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-30T16:23:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Ramachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003 - 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\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-30T16:23:43+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003","datePublished":"2003-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-30T16:23:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003"},"wordCount":2367,"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\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003","name":"Ramachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-30T16:23:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramachandran-vs-y-theva-nesom-ammal-on-7-april-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramachandran vs Y. Theva Nesom Ammal on 7 April, 2003"}]},{"@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\/127578","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=127578"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/127578\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=127578"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=127578"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=127578"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}