{"id":138158,"date":"2002-07-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-07-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002"},"modified":"2017-06-05T09:24:46","modified_gmt":"2017-06-05T03:54:46","slug":"s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002","title":{"rendered":"S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 05\/07\/2002\n\nCoram\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM\n\nA.S. No.23 of 1988\n\n\nS.P. Muthusamy                                         ..  Appellant\n\n                vs.\n\n1.  V. Thayammal\n2.  A. Balasubramaniam\n3.  P.G. Vijayalakshmi\n4.  Pappammal\n5.  A. Palanisamy\n6.  P. Vimala\n7.  Dr. N. Venkatachalam\n8.  R. Kamalammal\n9.  M. Balasubramaniam\n10. G. Geeva\n11. M. Duraisamy\n12. Palanisamy Gounder\n13. Kuppathal\n14. G. Duraisamy\n15. Velusamy\n16. Muthuvel\n17. Neelamegam\n18. Sundaramurthy\n19. A. Suseela\n20. Subbaraya Gounder\n21. R. Santhamani\n22. P. Subbaraya Gounder\n23. Sundarambal\n\n24. M\/s. Tirupur Fulchand &amp; Sons,\n    52\/B-4, P.N. Salai,\n    Tirupur-2.\n\n25. V. Palanisamy\n    (R-25 brought on record as\n        L.R. of the deceased R-1\n        vide court order dated\n        4.12.2000 in CMP No.2475\/93)            ..  Respondents\n\nPRAYER :  Appeal against  the  Judgment  and  Decree  of  the  III  Additional\nSubordinate Judge, Coimbatore dated 14.12.1987 made in O.S.  No.346 of 1986.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.  R.  Sekar for\n                M\/s.  Sarvabhauman Associates.\n\n^Respondents :  Mr.  K.  Chandramouli, Sr.  Counsel\n                for Mr.  K.  Rakhmathan\n                (For R-5 to R-10)\n\n                Mr.  K.  Ravichandra Babu\n                (For R-1 to R-25)\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>        Plaintiff is  the  appellant.    The  suit for specific performance to<br \/>\nexecute a gift deed as per the agreement dated 16.2.1977 was dismissed by  the<br \/>\nSubcourt, Coimbatore and the present appeal is against this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The facts of the case are as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>        The  plaintiff claimed that he was a close and intimate friend and the<br \/>\nconfidential adviser of the first defendant&#8217;s father Late Palanisamy  Gounder,<br \/>\nwho owned  large  extent of properties.  The first defendant&#8217;s was living with<br \/>\nher father Palanisamy Gounder.  According to the plaintiff,  in  view  of  his<br \/>\nclose  association  with  the first defendant&#8217; s father and at her request, he<br \/>\ninfluenced the mind of the first defendant&#8217;s  father  and  got  a  will  dated<br \/>\n27.11.1967 executed by him, bequeathing almost all his properties in favour of<br \/>\nthe first  defendant.    The  plaintiff helped the first defendant in the suit<br \/>\nfiled by one P.K.  Palanisamy for specific performance.  According to him,  he<br \/>\nalso helped  her  when  a dispute about the will of her father was raised.  In<br \/>\nrecognition of the plaintiff&#8217;s assistance and  support,  the  first  defendant<br \/>\npromised  to  convey,  by  means of gift, an extent of three acres of land and<br \/>\nexecuted a letter of agreement dated 16.2.1977.  However, she did not  execute<br \/>\nthe  gift  deed  inspite of several repeated demands, and on the contrary, she<br \/>\nalienated certain portions of the land promised to be conveyed  to  him,  both<br \/>\nprior to  and subsequent to the suit and hence, the above suit was filed.  The<br \/>\nfirst defendant opposed the relief and denied any such assistance  pleaded  by<br \/>\nthe plaintiff  in  her favour.  She denied of having executed any agreement as<br \/>\nalleged.  She also pleaded that the plaintiff would have utilised blank papers<br \/>\nobtained from her when certain litigations  were  pending,  in  the  guise  of<br \/>\npreparing affidavits.  On these pleadings, nine issues were framed and after a<br \/>\ndetailed examination of the matter, the learned Judge found that the agreement<br \/>\ndated 16.2.1977  in  favour  of  the  plaintiff is true.  However, the learned<br \/>\nJudge held that the agreement is opposed to public policy inasmuch as the gift<br \/>\ndeed was agreed to be given for assisting the first defendant to obtain a will<br \/>\nin her favour and to defend the case unlawfully.  The learned Judge also found<br \/>\nthat the plaintiff cannot seek for specific performance of such an  agreement.<br \/>\nIt  was  also  found that the alienations made in favour of defendants 2 to 12<br \/>\nwere valid and that they were bonafide purchasers  of  the  properties.    The<br \/>\nappeal is against this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   Learned  counsel  appearing  on behalf of the appellant submitted<br \/>\nthat the trial court having found that the  agreement  is  true  and  genuine,<br \/>\nought to  have  decreed  the  suit.    According to him, in the absence of any<br \/>\npleading that the agreement is opposed  to  public  policy,  the  court  below<br \/>\nerroneously  held so, that this amounts to a special pleading on behalf of the<br \/>\ndefendant and that the trial court failed to consider  the  valuable  services<br \/>\nrendered  by  the  plaintiff  and in lieu of the same, as a consideration, the<br \/>\nfirst defendant agreed  to  convey  the  property.    According  to  him,  the<br \/>\nconclusion  of  the  learned  Judge  that  the  assistance of the plaintiff is<br \/>\nmotivated and therefore it is hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act  on<br \/>\nthe vice of inducement is erroneous.  The learned Judge, having found that the<br \/>\nappellant had helped the first defendant to lay out the land belonging to her,<br \/>\nthe expression of the word &#8216;gift&#8217; used in Ex.A.20 is merely a nomenclature for<br \/>\na  transaction  that  has  to  be  taken  and  therefore, it will not make the<br \/>\nagreement is one without consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The respondents, besides supporting the findings  of  the  learned<br \/>\nSubordinate  Judge, contended that the suit prayer as such is not maintainable<br \/>\nand that the judgment and the finding does not require any interference except<br \/>\nreiteration of the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Before I go into the factual aspect of the matter and the findings<br \/>\nof the court below, I feel that the appeal can be disposed  of  on  the  legal<br \/>\nquestion itself.  The prayer in the plaint in the suit is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;The  plaintiff therefore prays that this Hon&#8217;ble Court may be pleased<br \/>\nto grant a decree :\n<\/p>\n<p>        (i) directing the 1st defendant to execute a  gift  deed  as  per  the<br \/>\nagreement dt.16.2.77, and get the same registered at her expenses;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (ii)  on  her  failure,  to  execute  the document within a time to be<br \/>\nspecified, then the court may be pleased to execute a gift deed in respect  of<br \/>\nthree acres of land from the suit properties;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (iii)  directing the 1st defendant to demarcate and deliver possession<br \/>\nof the three acres of land gifted to the plaintiff within a specified period;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (iv) directing the 1st defendant or such of  them  who  may  be  found<br \/>\nliable to pay the costs of the suit to the plaintiff; and\n<\/p>\n<p>        (v)  for  such  other  and  further  reliefs as may be deemed just and<br \/>\nnecessary in the circumstances of the case.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  The plaintiff has categorically stated in the plaint as follows  :<br \/>\n&#8220;The first defendant promised to convey by means of a gift, an extent of three<br \/>\nacres of  land  in  T.S.    Nos.442 and 443 of Thottipalayam Village, Tiruppur<br \/>\nTown.&#8221; Again, it is stated in paragraph 7, &#8220;The  first  defendant  executed  a<br \/>\nletter  of  agreement on 16.2.1977 whereunder she assured to gift an extent of<br \/>\nthree acres of land&#8221;; and again, in paragraph 9, it is stated,  &#8220;she  did  not<br \/>\nexecute  the  gift  deed  pursuant  to the letter of agreement dated 16.2.1977<br \/>\ninspite of several and repeated demands personally and through her  son.    On<br \/>\nthe other hand, in contravention of the agreement, the first defendant, in the<br \/>\ncourse  of  a couple of months, sold certain portions of the land agreed to be<br \/>\ngifted to the plaintiff in favour of defendants 2 to 4.  He  further  says  as<br \/>\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;So,  the  plaintiff sent a registered lawyer&#8217;s notice dated 30.4.1985<br \/>\nto the first defendant calling upon her to fulfill the assurances and promises<br \/>\nand to execute the gift deed.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In the cause of action paragraph also, it is stated that the agreement assured<br \/>\na gift deed to be executed.  Therefore, from the pleadings and the prayer,  it<br \/>\nis clear that the plaintiff wants a gift deed to be executed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   &#8220;Gift&#8221;  has  been  defined  under  Section 122 of the Transfer of<br \/>\nProperty Act as the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property<br \/>\nmade voluntarily and without consideration by one person called the  donor  to<br \/>\nanother called  the  donee  and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.  As per<br \/>\nthis  definition,  the  gift  could  be  made  only  voluntarily  and  without<br \/>\nconsideration.  The appellant, in his plaint, has categorically stated that he<br \/>\nseeks  for  a  direction  and decree to the first respondent to execute a gift<br \/>\ndeed.  He further says that the agreement was made  in  consideration  of  his<br \/>\nalleged assistance to the first defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   Section  20  of  the  Specific  Relief  Act,  1963  says that the<br \/>\njurisdiction of a civil court to grant a decree for  specific  performance  is<br \/>\ndiscretionary  and  the discretion of the court has to be exercised on a sound<br \/>\nand reasonable principle.  Sub-section 20(a) says that a decree  for  specific<br \/>\nperformance cannot be granted if the contract or the conduct of the parties or<br \/>\nthe  other  circumstances  under  which the contract was entered into are such<br \/>\nthat the  contract,  though  not  voidable,  gives  the  plaintiff  an  unfair<br \/>\nadvantage  over  the  defendant  and  that under the circumstances, though the<br \/>\ncontract cannot be rendered voidable, makes  it  inequitable  to  enforce  the<br \/>\nspecific performance.  It has been well settled that if the court is satisfied<br \/>\nthat  there  has  been an illegality, it is bound to take the point of its own<br \/>\nnotion.  In such a case, it must apply  the  over-riding  basic  principle  of<br \/>\npublic  policy  and  the  court  should not assist a plaintiff by enforcing an<br \/>\nillegal contract.  If the illegality is disclosed, the court must take  notice<br \/>\nof it although  it is not pleaded.  In STATE OF PUNJAB VS.  AMAR SINGH (A.I.R.<br \/>\n1974 S.C.  994), it was held that by an agreement, parties cannot  be  achieve<br \/>\nwhat  is  contrary  to  law and a decree merely based on such agreement cannot<br \/>\nfurnish a judicial amulet against  statutory  violation.    In  UNION  CARBIDE<br \/>\nCORPORATION VS.  UNION OF INDIA (A.I.R.  1992 S.C.  248), their lordships held<br \/>\nthat  the  validity  and durability of a consent order are wholly dependent on<br \/>\nthe legal validity of the agreement on which it  rests.    Such  an  order  is<br \/>\namenable  to  be set aside on any ground which would justify the setting aside<br \/>\nof the agreement itself and these principles are unexceptionable.   Therefore,<br \/>\nthe  argument  of  the  counsel  for  the  appellant  that there was a special<br \/>\npleading by the learned Judge in holding that  the  agreement  is  opposed  to<br \/>\npublic policy  cannot be accepted.  As stated earlier, gift cannot be obtained<br \/>\nby compulsion through a decree of a court and it can only be obtained  without<br \/>\nconsideration.   An  enforcement  of  such a gift will be clearly contravening<br \/>\nSection 122 of the Transfer of Property Act.  The definition  of  &#8216;Gift&#8217;  says<br \/>\nthat it  should  be  without  any  consideration.    Section  23 of the Indian<br \/>\nContract Act says that the consideration of an agreement is lawful unless  the<br \/>\ncourt regards  it  as  opposed to public policy.  Therefore, it is open to the<br \/>\ncourt to consider whether the consideration is lawful and is  not  opposed  to<br \/>\npublic policy.    The  relief of specific performance being discretionary, the<br \/>\ncourt is always entitled to consider whether  the  contract  is  fair  and  is<br \/>\nequitable before  seeking  to enforce the agreement.  Thus, looked at from any<br \/>\nangle, I find that the appellant cannot enforce the agreement  to  compel  the<br \/>\nfirst respondent to execute a gift.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that though<br \/>\nthe terminology used in the agreement is gift, the court can mould the  relief<br \/>\nto direct  the  conveyance  in  favour of the appellant.  The said argument is<br \/>\ntotally unacceptable.  The court cannot modify the terms of the contract.   As<br \/>\nper  the  terms  of Ex.A.20, it is seen that what the parties intended is only<br \/>\nexecution  of  a  gift  deed  and  not  any  other  document  and  the  plaint<br \/>\ncategorically  and clearly proceeds that the first defendant agreed to execute<br \/>\na gift deed in favour of the plaintiff and therefore, there is  absolutely  no<br \/>\nscope  to grant the specific performance of such an agreement, and the finding<br \/>\nof the court below that the agreement is opposed to public policy  is  correct<br \/>\nand calls for no interference in the facts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   It  is  rightly  pointed  out  that  in case where the plaintiff<br \/>\nhimself accepted the alienation of the properties in favour of defendants 2 to<br \/>\n24 prior to and pending the suit, the plaintiff ought to  have  sought  for  a<br \/>\ndirection to  those  respondents  to  execute the sale deed.  In this case, no<br \/>\nsuch relief had been sought for.  On this ground also, the suit is  liable  to<br \/>\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   For  all the above reasons, the appeal is liable to be dismissed<br \/>\nand is accordingly dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>Index :  Yes                                            05..07..2002\nInternet :  Yes\n\nab\n\nTo\n\n1.  The III Additional Subordinate Judge,\nCoimbatore (with records).\n\n2.  The Record Keeper,\nV.R.  Section,\nHigh Court, Chennai.\n\nP.  SHANMUGAM, J.\n\nJudgment in\nA.S.  No.23 of 1988\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 05\/07\/2002 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM A.S. No.23 of 1988 S.P. Muthusamy .. Appellant vs. 1. V. Thayammal 2. A. Balasubramaniam 3. P.G. Vijayalakshmi 4. Pappammal 5. A. Palanisamy 6. P. Vimala [&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-138158","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>S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002 - 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\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-05T03:54:46+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-05T03:54:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1859,\"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\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002\",\"name\":\"S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-07-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-05T03:54:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002 - 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\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-05T03:54:46+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002","datePublished":"2002-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-05T03:54:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002"},"wordCount":1859,"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\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002","name":"S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-07-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-05T03:54:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-p-muthusamy-vs-v-thayammal-on-5-july-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.P. Muthusamy vs V. Thayammal on 5 July, 2002"}]},{"@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\/138158","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=138158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138158\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}