{"id":148797,"date":"2011-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011"},"modified":"2018-10-02T16:12:20","modified_gmt":"2018-10-02T10:42:20","slug":"vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011","title":{"rendered":"Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 30\/06\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\nSECOND APPEAL(MD)No.148 of 2011\nand\nMISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2 of 2011\n\nVedambal\t\t       \t.. Appellant\n\t\t   \t\nVs.\n\n1.Ponnarasi\n\n2.Kulandaivel Solagar\t\t.. Respondents\n  (R2 - Given up)\t  \t\n\n\tSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and\ndecree dated 09.12.2009 passed in Appeal Suit No.3 of 2009 by the Sub Court,\nPattukkottai confirming the Judgment and decree dated 10.03.2005 passed in\nOriginal Suit No.57 of 2004 by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate's\nCourt, Orathanadu.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t... Mr.S.Deenadhayalan\n^For Respondent No.1\t... Mr.A.Anbalagan\t\t\t\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tChallenge in this second appeal is to the  concurrent Judgments and<br \/>\ndecrees passed in Original Suit No.57 of 2004 by the District Munsif cum<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate&#8217;s Court, Orathanadu and in Appeal Suit No.3 of 2009 by the<br \/>\nSub Court, Pattukkottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit<br \/>\nNo.57 of 2004 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of partition and<br \/>\nseparate possession of her half share, wherein the present appellant and the<br \/>\nsecond respondent have been shown as defendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. In the plaint it is averred that the suit property and some other<br \/>\nproperties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and first defendant.<br \/>\nThe first defendant is the father of the plaintiff.  The paternal uncle of the<br \/>\nplaintiff has brought up and also educated her and subsequently conducted her<br \/>\nmarriage on 08.04.1998.  The first defendant after the demise of his wife<br \/>\n(mother of the plaintiff) has been leading a wavered life.  Under the said<br \/>\ncircumstances, the first defendant has sold the suit property in favour of the<br \/>\nsecond defendant and the same is not binding upon the plaintiff.  In the suit<br \/>\nproperty, the plaintiff is having half share and since the defendants are not<br \/>\namenable for having amicable partition, the present suit has been instituted for<br \/>\nthe reliefs sought for in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. In the written statement filed on the side of the second defendant, it<br \/>\nis averred that it is false to contend that the father of the plaintiff has been<br \/>\nleading a wavered life.  It is also equally false to say that the marriage of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff has not been conducted by the first defendant.  The first<br \/>\ndefendant has created a mortgage deed in respect of the suit property and some<br \/>\nother properties and in order to redeem the same, he sold the suit property in<br \/>\nfavour of the second defendant under a registered sale deed dated 01.01.1992.<br \/>\nThe sale deed executed by the first defendant for himself and also on behalf of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff is binding upon her.  The plaintiff has filed the present suit<br \/>\nerroneously without seeking the relief of cancellation of the sale deed, which<br \/>\nstands in the name of the second defendant and there is no merit in the suit and<br \/>\nthe same deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. On the basis of the divergent pleadings raised on either side, the<br \/>\ntrial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence has decreed the suit as prayed for.  Against the Judgment<br \/>\nand decree passed by the trial Court, the second defendant as appellant has<br \/>\npreferred Appeal Suit No.3 of 2009 on the file of the first appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon<br \/>\nreappraising the evidence available on record has dismissed the appeal and<br \/>\nthereby confirmed the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.  Against<br \/>\nthe concurrent Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below,  the present<br \/>\nsecond appeal has been preferred at the instance of the second defendant as<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. As agreed by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, the present<br \/>\nsecond appeal is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. On the side of the appellant\/second defendant, the following<br \/>\nsubstantial questions of law have been raised for consideration:\n<\/p>\n<p>\ta) Whether the suit for partition is maintainable without setting aside<br \/>\nthe earlier sale deed (Ex.B.1) dated 01.01.1992 in favour of the appellant, when<br \/>\nthe plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession of the suit schedule<br \/>\nproperties?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tb) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred by limitation as<br \/>\nper Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tc) When the minor child was shown as party to the sale deed executed by<br \/>\nher father on behalf of himself and for his minor daughter and for the benefit<br \/>\nof family and the said transaction could be questioned by way of initiating mere<br \/>\npartition suit?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Before perpending the rival submissions made by either side, it would<br \/>\nbe condign to narrate the following admitted facts.  The suit property and some<br \/>\nother properties are the joint family properties of the first defendant and<br \/>\nplaintiff.  The plaintiff is the only daughter of the first defendant and the<br \/>\nplaintiff has been given in marriage on 08.04.1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The epitome of the case of the plaintiff is that the suit property and<br \/>\nsome other properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and her<br \/>\nfather viz., first defendant and after the demise of the mother of the<br \/>\nplaintiff, the first defendant has been leading a wavered life and he sold the<br \/>\nsuit property in favour of the second defendant without legal necessity and<br \/>\ntherefore the sale effected by the first defendant in favour of the second<br \/>\ndefendant is not binding upon the plaintiff and since the suit property is the<br \/>\njoint family property, the plaintiff is having half share and under the said<br \/>\ncircumstances the present suit has been filed for the reliefs sought for in the<br \/>\nplaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The main defence taken on the side of the second defendant is that the<br \/>\nfirst defendant for the purpose of discharging loan, has executed the sale deed<br \/>\ndated 01.01.1992 in favour of the second defendant with regard to the suit<br \/>\nproperty and the same is binding upon the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff<br \/>\nis not entitled to institute the present suit for the relief of partition and if<br \/>\nat all the plaintiff wants to enforce her right over the suit property, she has<br \/>\nto take necessary legal proceedings for setting aside the sale deed, which<br \/>\nstands in the name of the second defendant and therefore the present suit<br \/>\ndeserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The Courts below have concurrently rejected the defence taken on the<br \/>\nside of the appellant\/second defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. The sale deed which stands in the name of the second defendant has<br \/>\nbeen marked as Ex.B.1.  The main substantial question of law involves in the<br \/>\npresent second appeal is as to whether the present suit is legally maintainable<br \/>\nwithout setting aside Ex.B.1, the sale deed which stands in the name of the<br \/>\nsecond defendant?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/second defendant has<br \/>\nlaconically contended that Ex.B.1 is a sale deed, which stands in the name of<br \/>\nthe second defendant and the same has been executed by the first defendant for<br \/>\nhimself and also on behalf of the plaintiff and since in Ex.B.1, the plaintiff<br \/>\nhas been shown as eo nominee party, the same is binding upon her and therefore<br \/>\nshe is bound to set aside the same by way of taking legal proceedings and since<br \/>\nshe has not taken any steps so as to set aside Ex.B.1, the present suit is not<br \/>\nlegally maintainable and the Courts below without considering the aforesaid<br \/>\nvital legal point, have erroneously rejected the defence putforth on the side of<br \/>\nthe appellant\/second defendant and therefore the concurrent Judgments and<br \/>\ndecrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. As stated earlier, the sale deed dated 01.01.1992, which stands in the<br \/>\nname of the second defendant has been marked as Ex.B.1 and the same has been<br \/>\nexecuted by the first defendant for himself and also on behalf of the plaintiff.<br \/>\nIt is an admitted fact that at the time of execution of Ex.B.1, the first<br \/>\ndefendant is the natural guardian of the plaintiff and also the so-called joint<br \/>\nfamily manager.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/second defendant has<br \/>\nbefittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the decision in P.B.Ramjee and<br \/>\ntwo others v. P.B.Lakshmanaswamy Naidu and ten others reported in 1996(I) CTC<br \/>\n661, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that if<br \/>\nminor is eo nominee party to sale deed or other document of alienation, he must<br \/>\nsue for cancellation of document and apply for possession irrespective of the<br \/>\nfact whether sale deed is executed by his father as natural guardian or as<br \/>\nmanager of joint family.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. In the decision referred to supra, the decision in Sankaranarayana<br \/>\nPillai v. Kandasamipillai reported in 1956(2) M.L.J. 411 has been referred to,<br \/>\nwherein the Full Bench of this Court has held as follows:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;Our answer to the first question is that if the minor is eo nominee a<br \/>\nparty to a sale deed or other document of alienations, he must sue for the<br \/>\ncancellation of the document under Section 7(iv-A) of the Court-Fees Act and it<br \/>\nis not enough if he applies for possession under Section 7(v) of the Act; &#8230;&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. From the conjoint reading of the decisions referred to supra, it is<br \/>\neasily discernible that in any transaction if a minor has been shown as eo<br \/>\nnominee party and he has been represented by his lawful guardian, the alleged<br \/>\ntransaction is binding upon him and necessarily he has to take steps for<br \/>\ncancelling the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. In the instant case in Ex.B.1, it has been stated that the first<br \/>\ndefendant for himself and also on behalf of the then minor (plaintiff) has sold<br \/>\nthe suit property in favour of the second defendant.  The first defendant is the<br \/>\nfather of the plaintiff and also joint family manager of the so-called joint<br \/>\nfamily.  Under the said circumstances, the first defendant is having every legal<br \/>\nright so as to deal with the joint family property by way of impleading the<br \/>\nplaintiff as eo nominee party.  Since in Ex.B.1, the plaintiff has been shown as<br \/>\neo nominee party, the transaction entered into under Ex.B.1 is binding upon her<br \/>\nand if at all she wants to agitate the same, she has to take necessary steps for<br \/>\ncancelling the same.  But in the instant case, the present suit has been<br \/>\nstraight away filed for the reliefs of partition and separate possession without<br \/>\nseeking relief of cancellation of Ex.B.1.  Therefore in view of the decisions<br \/>\nreferred to supra, it is needless to say that the present suit is not legally<br \/>\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. In order to fizzle out the argument advanced by the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the appellant\/second defendant, the learned counsel appearing for<br \/>\nthe first respondent\/plaintiff has contended that even though Ex.B.1 has been<br \/>\nexecuted by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, since the<br \/>\nsuit property is a joint family property, the first defendant can execute the<br \/>\nsame only for legal necessity and in the instant case such necessity has not<br \/>\nbeen proved by the second defendant and under the said circumstances so far as<br \/>\nthe share of the plaintiff is concerned, the transaction routed through Ex.B.1<br \/>\nis nothing, but void and therefore the same need not be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21. In many places, it has been stated that the first defendant has acted<br \/>\nas father\/ manager of the so-called joint family.  It is an archaic and pristine<br \/>\nprinciple of law that if any transaction has been made by father\/manager of a<br \/>\njoint family, legal necessity need not be proved.  In the instant case, Ex.B.1<br \/>\nhas been executed by the first defendant as father\/manager of the erstwhile so-<br \/>\ncalled joint family.  In Ex.B.1 it has been clearly stated that Ex.B.1 has come<br \/>\ninto existence for the purpose of discharging loan.  Even though the second<br \/>\ndefendant has failed to prove the recitals found in Ex.B.1 with regard to<br \/>\ndischarging of loan, as per the settled principle of law, legal necessity need<br \/>\nnot be proved in case of sale or any transaction made by father\/ manager and<br \/>\ntherefore the argument advanced on the side of the first respondent\/plaintiff is<br \/>\ntotally erroneous.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22. The first and foremost substantial question of law raised in the<br \/>\npresent second appeal as stated supra is as to whether the present suit is<br \/>\nlegally maintainable without setting aside Ex.B.1?  It has already been<br \/>\ndiscussed in detail and ultimately found that Ex.B.1 is a valid document.  Since<br \/>\nEx.B.1 is a valid document, the plaintiff ought to have sought for relief of<br \/>\ncancellation.  But the plaintiff has straight away filed the present suit for<br \/>\nthe relief of partition and separate possession without setting aside Ex.B.1.<br \/>\nSince the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the reliefs of partition and<br \/>\nseparate possession without setting aside Ex.B.1, it is needless to say that the<br \/>\npresent suit is not legally maintainable and the same is liable to be thrown out<br \/>\nin limini.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t23. The Courts below without considering the correct legal point involves<br \/>\nin the present case have erroneously rejected the defence taken on the side of<br \/>\nthe appellant\/second defendant.  In view of the discussion made earlier, this<br \/>\nCourt has found considerable force in the contention urged on the side of the<br \/>\nappellant\/ second defendant and the contention urged on the side of the first<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff is sans merit and the first and foremost substantial<br \/>\nquestion of law raised in the present second appeal is decided in favour of the<br \/>\nappellant\/ second defendant.  Since the first and foremost substantial question<br \/>\nof law raised in the present second appeal is decided in favour of the<br \/>\nappellant\/second defendant, the remaining substantial questions of law raised in<br \/>\nthe present second appeal need not be decided.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t24. In fine, this second appeal is allowed without costs at the stage of<br \/>\nadmission and the concurrent Judgments and decrees by the Courts below are set<br \/>\naside and Original Suit No.57 of 2004 is dismissed without costs.  Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>smn<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Sub Court,<br \/>\n  Pattukkottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Munsif cum Judicial<br \/>\n    Magistrate&#8217;s Court,<br \/>\n  Orathanadu.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30\/06\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM SECOND APPEAL(MD)No.148 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2 of 2011 Vedambal .. Appellant Vs. 1.Ponnarasi 2.Kulandaivel Solagar .. Respondents (R2 &#8211; Given up) Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of [&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-148797","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-02T10:42:20+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\\\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T10:42:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2257,\"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\\\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011\",\"name\":\"Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-02T10:42:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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":"Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-02T10:42:20+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\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T10:42:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011"},"wordCount":2257,"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\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011","name":"Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-02T10:42:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/vedambal-vs-ponnarasi-on-30-june-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Vedambal vs Ponnarasi on 30 June, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/148797","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=148797"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/148797\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=148797"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=148797"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=148797"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}