{"id":153273,"date":"2006-07-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006"},"modified":"2017-06-13T13:53:35","modified_gmt":"2017-06-13T08:23:35","slug":"arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams &#8230; on 25 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams &#8230; on 25 July, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 25\/07\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM\n\n\nCRP PD (MD) No.214 of 2005\n\n\nArulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy\nThirukkoil Devasthanam, through\nits Joint Commissioner\/Executive Officer,\nPalani, Dindigul District.\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t... \tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t1st Defendant\n\nvs.\n\n\n\n1.Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams Sangam,\n  through its secretary, Palani,\n  Dindigul.\n\n2.R.Ganesan\t\t\t... \tRespondents\n\t\t\t\t\tPlaintiff 1 and 3\n\n\t\tCivil Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India\nagainst the fair and Ex.order passed in I.A.No.419\/2004 in O.S.No.95\/1996, dated\n11.01.2005, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Palani.\n\n\n\n!For Petitioner       ...  Mr.S.S.Ramasubramanian\n\n\n^For Respondents       ...  Mr.R.Nandakumar\n\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tThe above civil revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of<br \/>\nIndia is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Palani,<br \/>\npassed in I.A.No.419\/2004 in O.S.No.95\/1996, dated 11.01.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.The first defendant in the suit, namely Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani<br \/>\nThirukoil, Palani, filed I.A.No.419\/2004 under Section 63 of the Evidence Act<br \/>\nread with Section 151 C.P.C. for reception of xerox copy of a certified copy of<br \/>\nthe order of this Court, as secondary evidence.  The learned Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nafter finding that the document sought to be marked is a public document in<br \/>\nterms of Section 65(e) of the Evidence Act and xerox copy of the same is not<br \/>\npermissible, dismissed the said application.  Hence the present revision.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the<br \/>\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.It is not in dispute that the xerox copy sought be marked is the<br \/>\norder dated 16.05.2000 passed by this court in W.P.No.7741\/2000 on the file of<br \/>\nthis Court (Principal Bench, Madras).  No doubt it is a xerox copy of the<br \/>\ncertified copy.  Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act speaks about Secondary<br \/>\nEvidence and enumerate the cases, referred (a) to (g), where secondary evidence<br \/>\nis permissible.    While considering the above provision, the learned<br \/>\nSubordiante Judge, on verifying the document i.e. order of the High Court, came<br \/>\nto the conclusion that it is a public document and sub-clause (e) alone is<br \/>\napplicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by drawing my<br \/>\nattention to the relevant provision, namely the various categories mentioned in<br \/>\nSection 65 of the Evidence Act, submitted that considering the nature of the<br \/>\ndocument sought to be marked, sub-clause (a) alone is applicable and the same<br \/>\ncan be considered as secondary evidence and according to him, sub-clause (e) is<br \/>\nnot applicable to the case on hand.  In order to understand, it is useful to<br \/>\nrefer both the sub-sections.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;65.Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given.-\n<\/p>\n<p>-Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents of a<br \/>\ndocument in the following cases:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a)when the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tof the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or<br \/>\n\tof any person out of reach of or not subject to the process of the Court,<br \/>\nor<br \/>\n\tof any person legally bound to produce it,<br \/>\n\tand when after the notice mentioned in section 66, such person does not<br \/>\nproduce it;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b)&#8230;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c)&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(d)&#8230;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(e)When the original is a public document within the meaning of section<br \/>\n74; &#8230;&#8230;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision<br \/>\nof the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 253 <a href=\"\/doc\/1444483\/\">(Bibi Aisha  v.  Bihar<br \/>\nS.S.M.Avaqaf) and<\/a> a judgment of a learned Judge of this Court reported in 2001<br \/>\n(3) CTC 34 <a href=\"\/doc\/1276606\/\">(Rajathi  vs.  Arukkani Ammal).  In the Supreme Court<\/a> decision cited<br \/>\nSupra, their Lordships have held that when case falls under clause (a), any<br \/>\nsecondary evidence (a plain copy of the document) and not necessarily certified<br \/>\ncopy of document is admissible, though the case may also fall under clause (f).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.In the decision in 2001(3) CTC 34 cited supra, F.M.IBRAHIM<br \/>\nKALIFULLA,J had an occasion to consider a similar question.  In the case before<br \/>\nthe learned Judge, the document sought to be marked as a secondary evidence was<br \/>\nphotocopy of a partition deed.  After referring Section 65(a) of the Evidence<br \/>\nAct, the learned Judge has observed that statute does not say that for the<br \/>\npurpose of invoking Section 65(a) of the Act, one should assert that the<br \/>\ndocument in question is, in the possession of the party concerned but it is<br \/>\nsufficient, if the petitioner is able to demonstrate that the said document is<br \/>\nappeared to have been possessed or by the concerned person.  After verifying the<br \/>\nfactual details and after satisfying that  sub-clause (a) of Section 65 is fully<br \/>\nsatisfied in the case, the learned Judge concluded that the rejection of the<br \/>\nvery document at the threshold is totally unjustified and not in accordance with<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.On going through the factual details in our case and the relevant<br \/>\nprovision of the statute, namely     sub-clause (a) of Section 65 of the<br \/>\nEvidence Act, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived by the learned<br \/>\nJudge.  The court below unfortunately failed to adhere to the above principle to<br \/>\nconsider whether the said document could be received as secondary evidence under<br \/>\nSection 65(a) of the Evidence Act.  As rightly pointed out, the mere receipt of<br \/>\ndocument subject proof, would not, in any way, cause prejudice to the<br \/>\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order<br \/>\nimpugned in the civil revision petition is set aside.  The learned Subordinate<br \/>\nJudge, Palani, is directed receive the document in question, subject to proof by<br \/>\nthe petitioner in the manner known to law.  No costs. Connected CMP(MD)No.2088<br \/>\nof 2005 is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>gb.\n<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nPalani.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams &#8230; on 25 July, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25\/07\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.SATHASIVAM CRP PD (MD) No.214 of 2005 Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy Thirukkoil Devasthanam, through its Joint Commissioner\/Executive Officer, Palani, Dindigul District. &#8230; Petitioner 1st Defendant [&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-153273","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>Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams ... on 25 July, 2006 - 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\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams ... on 25 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-13T08:23:35+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams &#8230; on 25 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-13T08:23:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":840,\"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\\\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006\",\"name\":\"Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams ... on 25 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-13T08:23:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams &#8230; on 25 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams ... on 25 July, 2006 - 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\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams ... on 25 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-13T08:23:35+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams &#8230; on 25 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-13T08:23:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006"},"wordCount":840,"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\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006","name":"Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams ... on 25 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-13T08:23:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arulmigu-dhandayuthapani-swamy-vs-sthanika-miras-64-pandarams-on-25-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arulmigu Dhandayuthapani Swamy vs Sthanika Miras 64 Pandarams &#8230; on 25 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/153273","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=153273"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153273\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153273"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153273"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153273"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}