{"id":136550,"date":"2009-07-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009"},"modified":"2018-05-09T20:06:26","modified_gmt":"2018-05-09T14:36:26","slug":"a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 07\/07\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nA.S.No.755 of 1997\nand\nC.M.P.No.12746 of 1997\n\nA.Arokiamary             ... Appellant\/6th defendant\n\nVs.\n\n1.C.Sesuraj\n2.A.Vedamanickam\n3.A.Soosairaj\n4.A.Savarimuthu\n5.L.Danamary\n6.Minor L.Christina\n7.Minor Jenatha\n  [Minors-Respondents 6 &amp; 7\n  represented by their mother\n  and guardian next friend\n  the 5th respondent]\n                          ... Respondents\/\n                              Defendants 2 to 5, 7 to 9\n\nPrayer\n\nThis Appeal has been filed under Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., against the\njudgment and decree dated 06.04.1993 made in O.S.No.67 of 1989 on the file of\nthe Sub Judge, Thanjavur.\n\n!For Appellant    ... Mr.C.Sundaravadivel\n^For Respondents  ... No appearance\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe 6th defendant in O.S.No.67 of 1989 on the file of the Sub Court,<br \/>\nThanjavur, is the appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming 7\/36th share in the<br \/>\nsuit properties.  The plaintiff is the son of Chinniah @ Arokkiasamy Odayar, the<br \/>\ndeceased first defendant and A.Arokiamary, the appellant herein, who is the 6th<br \/>\ndefendant in the lower Court was the wife of Chinniah @ Arokkiasamy.  The said<br \/>\nArokkiasamy Odayar had 5 sons, the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 and the<br \/>\n3rd defendant Lourdusamy, died pending trial and his legal-heirs are defendant<br \/>\nNos.7 to 9.  The first defendant, Chinniah @ Arokkiasamy also died and the 6th<br \/>\ndefendant was recorded as his legal-heir.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The case of the plaintiff is that his father got 2 acres of &#8216;punja&#8217;<br \/>\nlands and 100 &#8216;Kulis of Manaikat&#8217; lands from his mother and he sold 2 acres in<br \/>\nthe year 1979.  Thereafter, the father of the plaintiff got lease of &#8216;cashew<br \/>\ntope&#8217; and out of their joint exertion and from the joint income, 20 acres of<br \/>\nlands were purchased and they were the joint properties of the plaintiff and the<br \/>\nfirst defendant.  The plaintiff further stated that for the education of the 2nd<br \/>\ndefendant, 9 acres were sold and for establishing a medical shop at Chennai for<br \/>\nthe 2nd defendant, another 4 acres were sold and out of the sale consideration,<br \/>\nRs.10,000\/- was spent for the plaintiff&#8217;s marriage.  Further, for the marriage<br \/>\nof the 2nd  defendant, 4.55 acres of lands were sold and at the instance of the<br \/>\nplaintiff, a tractor was purchased on loan and after selling 4.55 acres of lands<br \/>\nthe dues of tractor was paid and in the panchayat held in the month of April<br \/>\n1987, the tractor was transferred in the name of the 1st and 6th defendant and<br \/>\nat that time, it was assured that the plaintiff would be given his due share and<br \/>\nas the defendants refused to give the plaintiff&#8217;s share, he filed the suit for<br \/>\npartition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.As the 1st defendant died on 18.08.1990, the plaint was amended and the<br \/>\nplaintiff claimed 7\/36th  share in the suit properties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.The defendant Nos.2 to 5, 7 to 9 filed a written statement denying the<br \/>\nallegations made in the plaint and contended that the suit properties were<br \/>\nabsolute properties of the 1st defendant and they have also spent various<br \/>\nexpenses as mentioned in the plaint and the plaintiff suppressed the income from<br \/>\nthe tractor, which belonged to the 1st defendant. Hence, the plaintiff is not<br \/>\nentitled to any share.  The 6th defendant, the mother, filed a separate written<br \/>\nstatement stating that under a Will dated 31.05.1990, the 1st defendant<br \/>\nbequeathed all his properties in her favour and the Will had come into force on<br \/>\n18.08.1980, after the death of the 1st defendant and therefore, she became the<br \/>\nabsolute owner of the property and also claimed that the suit is bad for partial<br \/>\npartition and the plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 to 5 have no right in the suit<br \/>\nproperties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.On the side of the plaintiff, 67 documents were marked and he examined<br \/>\nthree witnesses including himself as P.W.1. On the side of the defendants, 13<br \/>\ndocuments were marked and the 6th defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and the<br \/>\n2nd defendant examined himself as D.W.2<\/p>\n<p>\t7.On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence, the following issues<br \/>\nframed by the lower Court:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1.Whether the suit properties were purchased by the joint exertion of the<br \/>\nplaintiff and the first defendant?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.Whether the suit properties were the absolute properties of the first<br \/>\ndefendant?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.Whether the first defendant executed a Will dated 31.05.1990 in favour<br \/>\nof the 6th defendant?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.Whether the 6th defendant is having exclusive right over the suit<br \/>\nproperties?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any share in the suit properties<br \/>\nand if so, whether the share claimed by the plaintiff is correct?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?\n<\/p>\n<p>and an additional issue was framed and it is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.The lower Court tried the Issue Nos.1 and 2 and after elaborately<br \/>\ndiscussing various documents and evidence held that the suit properties were the<br \/>\nabsolute properties of the 1st defendant.  While answering the Issue Nos.3 and<br \/>\n4, the lower Court held that the 6th defendant failed to produce the Will dated<br \/>\n31.05.1990 alleged to have been executed by the 1st defendant and therefore, the<br \/>\nWill has not been properly proved and hence, the 6th defendant will not get any<br \/>\nexclusive right over the suit properties as the Will has not been produced and<br \/>\nproved.  The lower Court also held that the suit is not bad for mis- joinder of<br \/>\nparties and finally, the lower Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to<br \/>\n2\/15th share in the suit properties and accordingly, passed a preliminary decree<br \/>\ndeclaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 2\/15th share in the suit properties.<br \/>\nAggrieved over the same, the 6th defendant filed the above appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.As stated supra, during trial the 1st defendant, the father, died<br \/>\nleaving behind his wife, the 6th defendant, sons, viz., the plaintiff and the<br \/>\ndefendant Nos.2 to 5.  Therefore, the lower Court has calculated the share of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff holding that the entire properties belonged to the 1st defendant<br \/>\nand the plaintiff had no right over the same., during his life time.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.The points for consideration in this appeal are:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1.Whether the suit properties were purchased jointly by the plaintiff and<br \/>\nthe first defendant from and out of the income from the &#8216;cashew tope&#8217;?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.Whether the Will dated 31.05.1990 is legally valid?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.Whether the 6th defendant gets any right in the appeal?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.What is the share, the plaintiff is entitled to?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.Point No.2: Though the 6th defendant, the appellant herein, claimed<br \/>\nthat her husband executed a Will dated 31.05.1990 bequeathing all the properties<br \/>\nin her favour and after the death of the 1st defendant, she became entitled to<br \/>\nthe properties under that Will, the alleged Will was not produced before the<br \/>\nlower Court and it was not validly proved by the 6th defendant. It is well<br \/>\nsettled that any person claiming right under a Will, has to produce the original<br \/>\nWill and prove the due execution of the Will by examining at least one attesting<br \/>\nwitness.  In this case, admittedly the Will was not produced and no witness was<br \/>\nexamined and therefore, as rightly held by the lower Court, this point is<br \/>\nanswered against the appellant holding that the appellant\/6th defendant will not<br \/>\nget any right under the alleged Will as the same was not produced and proved in<br \/>\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.Point No.1: It is alleged by the plaintiff that in the year 1970, he<br \/>\nand his father obtained a lease of &#8216;cashew tope&#8217; and he and his father jointly<br \/>\nput their labour and from and out of the said earnings the suit properties were<br \/>\npurchased.  It is stated in the plaint that at the time of filing the plaint in<br \/>\nthe year 1989, the age of the plaintiff was shown as 31 years. In the year 1970,<br \/>\nhe must be 12 years old and therefore, it cannot be believed that at that age,<br \/>\nthe plaintiff contributed his labour with his father and from and out of the<br \/>\njoint exertion the suit properties were purchased. Except the oral evidence of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff, no other evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff to prove that<br \/>\nfrom and out of the joint exertion of himself and the first defendant, the suit<br \/>\nproperties were purchased.  Though, P.W.2 was examined by the plaintiff to prove<br \/>\nthat the suit properties were purchased by the joint exertion of plaintiff and<br \/>\nthe first defendant, his evidence did not inspire confidence and no details have<br \/>\nbeen stated about the joint exertion of the plaintiff along with his father.<br \/>\nFurther, P.W.2 is aged about 55 years and he is a Carpenter and he is not able<br \/>\nto say the details of properties purchased by the plaintiff. Similarly P.W.3,<br \/>\nwas examined for the purpose of proving that Rs.40,000\/- was paid to the 2nd<br \/>\ndefendant for his business purpose and even according to P.W.3, he did not say<br \/>\nthat the plaintiff and the 1st defendant worked together and purchased the<br \/>\nproperties.  Therefore, there is no evidence except the evidence of P.W.1 to the<br \/>\neffect that he contributed his physical labour along with his father and the<br \/>\nproperties were purchased out of their joint exertion.  Further, he was not able<br \/>\nto produce any sale deed in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties.<br \/>\nThe lower Court discussed all these aspects in the judgment and correctly come<br \/>\nto the conclusion that the properties are the absolute properties of the 1st<br \/>\ndefendant and the plaintiff had no right over the suit properties and the<br \/>\nproperties were not purchased out of the joint exertion of the plaintiff and the<br \/>\n1st defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.Points No.3 and 4: The lower Court having regard to the religion, to<br \/>\nwhich the parties belonged to viz., Christianity, rightly held that the 6th<br \/>\ndefendant become entitled to 1\/3rd share as widow and the remaining 2\/3th share<br \/>\nis to be divided among the sons.  While holding so, the lower Court held that<br \/>\nthe plaintiff is entitled to 2\/15th share in the suit properties. In my opinion,<br \/>\nthe shares allotted by the lower Court in favour of the plaintiff is not<br \/>\ncorrect.  Admittedly, the 3rd item of the suit property was purchased in the<br \/>\njoint names of the 1st and 6th defendant viz., Exs.A1 and B2.  Therefore, in the<br \/>\n3rd item of the suit property, the 6th defendant has half share and 1st<br \/>\ndefendant had half share and 1st defendant&#8217;s half share devolved on the 6th<br \/>\ndefendant and her children and the 6th defendant got 1\/3rd of half share from<br \/>\nher husband&#8217;s share in the 3rd item of the suit property and she has half share<br \/>\nin the 3rd item of the suit property in her own right.  Therefore, in the 3rd<br \/>\nitem of the suit property the 6th defendant gets 2\/3rd share and the plaintiff<br \/>\ngets 1\/15th share.  In the 1st and 2nd item of the suit properties, the<br \/>\nplaintiff gets 2\/15th  share as held by the lower Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed holding that in respect of<br \/>\nplaint 1st and 2nd items, the preliminary decree passed by the lower Court is<br \/>\nconfirmed and in respect of the 3rd item of the suit property, the plaintiff is<br \/>\nentitled to 1\/15th share only and the 6th defendant is entitled to 2\/3rd share.<br \/>\nIn other aspects, the order of the lower Court is confirmed. Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected C.M.P. is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>er<\/p>\n<p>To,<\/p>\n<p>The Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nThanjavur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07\/07\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN A.S.No.755 of 1997 and C.M.P.No.12746 of 1997 A.Arokiamary &#8230; Appellant\/6th defendant Vs. 1.C.Sesuraj 2.A.Vedamanickam 3.A.Soosairaj 4.A.Savarimuthu 5.L.Danamary 6.Minor L.Christina 7.Minor Jenatha [Minors-Respondents 6 &amp; 7 represented by their mother and [&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-136550","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>A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009 - 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-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-09T14:36:26+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-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T14:36:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1774,\"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-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009\",\"name\":\"A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-09T14:36:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009 - 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-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-09T14:36:26+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-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T14:36:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009"},"wordCount":1774,"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-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009","name":"A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-09T14:36:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-arokiamary-vs-c-sesuraj-on-7-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A.Arokiamary vs C.Sesuraj on 7 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/136550","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=136550"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136550\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}