{"id":150923,"date":"2007-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007"},"modified":"2016-05-14T13:45:42","modified_gmt":"2016-05-14T08:15:42","slug":"a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"A. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 22\/03\/2007\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN\n\nC.R.P.PD.(MD).No.709 of 2006\nand\nM.P.(MD).No.1 of 2006\n\n\n1. A. Rekha\n2. A. Subha\t\t\t...  Petitioners\n\nVs.\n\n\n1. D. Murugan thevar\n2. A. Rajeswari\t\t     \t...  Respondents\n\t\n\nPrayer\n\n\nPetition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set\naside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.07.2006 made in I.A.No.78 of 2006 in\nO.S.No.304 of 2004 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Dindigul.\n\n\n!For Petitioners\t: M. Marivel\n\n\n^For Respondent No.1\t: Mr.R. Subramanian\n\n\t      for R2\t: No appearance\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe third party petitioners who filed I.A.No.78 of 2006 under Order 1 Rule<br \/>\n10(2) of C.P.C. In O.S.No.304 of 2004 are the revision petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The first respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.304 of 2004 against<br \/>\nthe second respondent herein for the specific performance of the sale agreement<br \/>\ndated 11.12.2002 and also for possession of the suit schedule property.  The<br \/>\nrevision petitioners filed I.A.No.78 of 2006 to impleaded themselves as<br \/>\ndefendant 2 and 3 in O.S.No.304 of 2004.  In the affidavit filed in support of<br \/>\nthe impleading application, it is stated that they filed the suit in O.S.No.313<br \/>\nof 2004 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul against the first and<br \/>\nsecond respondents along with others for partition with other reliefs and the<br \/>\nsuit schedule property in O.S.No.313 of 2004 and the suit schedule property in<br \/>\nO.S.No.304 of 2004 is one and the same and they have got 2\/3rd share in the<br \/>\nproperty.  The trial Court by order dated 21.07.2006 dismissed the I.A.No.78 of<br \/>\n2006 and aggrieved by the same, the above Civil Revision Petition has been filed<br \/>\nunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor the 1st respondent.  I have also gone through the documents and judgements<br \/>\nfiled in support of their submissions.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as the<br \/>\npetitioners have got 2\/3rd share in the suit schedule properties, they ought to<br \/>\nhave been impleaded in the suit filed by the first respondent to specifically<br \/>\nenforce the sale deed against the second respondent with regard to the very same<br \/>\nproperties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that<br \/>\nthe revision petitioners are neither necessary parties nor proper parties as<br \/>\nthey are not parties to the sale agreement dated 11.12.2002.  He relied on the<br \/>\ndecision of the Supreme Court reported in 2005(2) CTC 676(Kasturi Vs.<br \/>\nIyyamperumal and others) in this regard.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. I have considered the rival submissions carefully with regard to the<br \/>\nfacts and citations.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. In 2005(2) CTC 676(cited supra) the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court held that<br \/>\npersons who are claiming adverse to the title of the vendor are not necessary<br \/>\nnor proper parties in a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale<br \/>\nas if such persons are impleaded, the scope of the suit for specific performance<br \/>\nwould be enlarged and it would be practically converted into a suit for title.<br \/>\nThe relevant portion of the judgement reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Para 10. As noted herein earlier, two tests are required to be satisfied to<br \/>\ndetermine the question who is a necessary party, let us now consider who is a<br \/>\nproper party in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale.  For<br \/>\ndeciding the question who is a proper party in a suit for specific performance<br \/>\nthe guiding principle is that the presence of such a party is necessary to<br \/>\nadjudicate the controversies involved in the suit for specific performance of<br \/>\nthe contract for sale.  Thus, the question is to be decided keeping in mind the<br \/>\nscope of the suit.  The question that is to be decided in a suit for specific<br \/>\nperformance of the contract for sale is to the enforceability of the contract<br \/>\nentered into between the parties to the contract.  If the person seeking<br \/>\naddition is added in such a suit, the scope of the suit for specific performance<br \/>\nwould be enlarged and it would be practically converted into a suit for title.<br \/>\nTherefore, for effective adjudication of the controversies involved in the suit,<br \/>\npresence of such parties cannot be said to be necessary at all.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Para 12. From the aforesaid discussion, it is pellucid that necessary parties<br \/>\nare those persons in whose absence no decree can be passed by the Court or that<br \/>\nthere must be a right to some relief against some party in respect of the<br \/>\ncontroversy involved in the proceedings and proper parties are those whose<br \/>\npresence before the Court would be necessary in order to enable the Court<br \/>\neffectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions<br \/>\ninvolved in the suit although no relief in the suit was claimed against such<br \/>\nperson.\n<\/p>\n<p>Para 13. Keeping the principles as stated above in mind, let us now, on the<br \/>\nadmitted facts of this case, first consider whether the respondent Nos.1 and 4<br \/>\nto 11 are necessary parties or not.  In our opinion, the respondent Nos.1 and 4<br \/>\nto 11 are not necessary parties as effective decree could be passed in their<br \/>\nabsence as they had not purchased the contracted property from the vendor after<br \/>\nthe contract was entered into.  They were also not necessary parties as they<br \/>\nwould not be affected by the contract entered into between the appellant and the<br \/>\nrespondent Nos.2 and 3.  In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/590954\/\">Anil Kumar Singh V. Shivnath Mishra<br \/>\nAlias Gadasa Guru,<\/a> 1995 (3) SC 147, it has been held that since the applicant<br \/>\nwho sought for his addition is not a party to the agreement for sale, it cannot<br \/>\nbe said that in his absence, the dispute as to specific performance cannot be<br \/>\ndecided.  In this case at paragraph 9, the Supreme Court while deciding whether<br \/>\na person is a necessary party or not in a suit for specific performance of a<br \/>\ncontract for sale made the following observation:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Since the respondent is not a party to the agreement of sale, it cannot be said<br \/>\nthat without his presence the dispute as to specific performance cannot be<br \/>\ndetermined.  Therefore, he is not a necessary party.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Para 14. As discussed herein earlier, whether respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11 were<br \/>\nproper parties nor not the governing principle for deciding the question would<br \/>\nbe that the presence of respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11 before the Court would be<br \/>\nnecessary to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle<br \/>\nall the questions involved in the suit.  As noted hereinearlier, in a suit for<br \/>\nspecific performance of a contract for sale, the issue to be decided is the<br \/>\nenforceability of the contract entered into between the appellant and the<br \/>\nrespondent Nos.2 and 3 and whether contract was executed property, whether the<br \/>\nplaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and<br \/>\nwhether the appellant is entitled to a decree for specific performance of a<br \/>\ncontract for sale against the respondent Nos.2 and 3.  It is an admitted<br \/>\nposition that the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11 did not seek their addition in<br \/>\nthe suit on the strength of the contract inrespect of which the suit for<br \/>\nspecific performance of the contract for sale has been filed.  Admittedly, they<br \/>\nbased their claim on independent title and possession of the contracted<br \/>\nproperty.  It is, therefore, obvious as noted hereinearlier but in the event,<br \/>\nthe respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11 are added or impleaded in the suit, the scope<br \/>\nof the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale shall be enlarged<br \/>\nfrom the suit for specific performance to a suit for title and possession which<br \/>\nis not permissible in law.  In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1627032\/\">Vijay Pratrap &amp; others V. Sambhu<br \/>\nSaran Sinha &amp; Others,<\/a> 1966 (10) SCC 53, this Court had taken the same view which<br \/>\nis being taken by us in this judgement as discussed above.  This Court in that<br \/>\ndecision clearly held that to decide the right, title and interest in the suit<br \/>\nproperty of the stranger to the contract and the same cannot be turned into a<br \/>\nregular title suit.  Therefore, in our view, a third party or a stranger to the<br \/>\ncontract cannot be added so as to convert a suit of one character into a suit of<br \/>\ndifferent character.  As discussed above, in the event any decree is passed<br \/>\nagainst the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and in favour of the appellant for specific<br \/>\nperformance of the contract for sale in respect of the contracted property, the<br \/>\ndecree that would be passed in the said suit, obviously, cannot bind the<br \/>\nrespondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11.  It may also be observed that in the event, the<br \/>\nappellant obtains a decree for specific performance of the contracted property<br \/>\nagainst the respondent Nos.2 and 3, then, the Court shall direct execution of<br \/>\ndeed of sale in favour of the appellant in the event respondent Nos.2 and 3<br \/>\nrefusing to execute the deed of sale and to obtain possession of the contracted<br \/>\nproperty he has to put the decree in execution.  As noted hereinearlier, since<br \/>\nthe respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11 were not parties in the suit for specific<br \/>\nperformance of a contract for sale of the contracted, property, a decree passed<br \/>\nin such a suit shall not bind them and in that case, the respondent Nos. 1 and 4<br \/>\nto 11 would be at liberty either to obstruct execution in order to protect their<br \/>\npossession by taking recourse to the relevant provisions of the CPC, if they are<br \/>\navailable to them, or to file an independent suit for declaration of title and<br \/>\npossession against the appellant or respondent No.3.  On the other hand, if the<br \/>\ndecree is passed in favour of the appellant and sale deed is executed, the<br \/>\nstranger to the contract being the respondent Nos.1 and 4 to 11 have to be sued<br \/>\nfor taking possession if they are in possession of the decretal property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, the Civil Revision<br \/>\nPetition is to be dismissed as devoid of merits.  Further an elaborate suit has<br \/>\nbeen already instituted by the revision petitioners in O.S.No.313 of 2004 in<br \/>\nwhich both the first respondent and the second respondent are parties and in<br \/>\nsuch circumstances and all the issues affecting the rights of the revision<br \/>\npetitioners could be agitated in that suit itself and they need not be impleaded<br \/>\nin the present suit in which the issue to be decided is the enforceability of<br \/>\nthe sale agreement entered into between the first respondent and second<br \/>\nrespondent and whether the first respondent is always ready or willing to<br \/>\nperform his part of the contract to get a decree for specic performance of<br \/>\ncontract for sale against the second respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Therefore, there is no infirmity nor illegality in the order of the<br \/>\ntrial Court warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.  No costs.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected M.P. is also closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. Fast Track Court,<br \/>\n   Dindigul.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court A. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22\/03\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN C.R.P.PD.(MD).No.709 of 2006 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2006 1. A. Rekha 2. A. Subha &#8230; Petitioners Vs. 1. D. Murugan thevar 2. A. Rajeswari &#8230; Respondents Prayer [&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-150923","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>A. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007 - 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-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-14T08:15:42+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-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-14T08:15:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1727,\"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-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007\",\"name\":\"A. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-14T08:15:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@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. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007 - 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-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-14T08:15:42+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-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-14T08:15:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007"},"wordCount":1727,"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-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007","name":"A. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-14T08:15:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-rekha-vs-d-murugan-thevar-on-22-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. Rekha vs D. Murugan Thevar on 22 March, 2007"}]},{"@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\/150923","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=150923"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150923\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150923"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150923"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150923"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}