{"id":154026,"date":"2008-07-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008"},"modified":"2015-07-02T13:24:00","modified_gmt":"2015-07-02T07:54:00","slug":"sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Sivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Sivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:  23\/07\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN\n\nS.A.(MD).No.1618 of 1992\nand\nS.A.(MD).No.1619 of 1992\nand\nC.M.P.No.16228 of 1992\n\n1.Sivasamy\n2.Manickkam\n3.Karuppian\t\t... Appellants in S.A.No.1618\/1992\n\n1.Lakshmi (died)\n2.Sivasamy\n3.Manickam\n4.Karuppian\t\t\n  (Appellants 2 to 4 brought on record\n   as per the order of this Court dated\n   26.08.1997 in C.M.P.No.16476\/1996)\n\t\t\t... Appellants in S.A.No.1619\/1992\nvs.\n\n1.Poomalai\n2.Lakshmi\n3.Thirupathi\t\t... Respondents in S.A.No.1618\/1992\n\n1.Poomalai\n2.Sivasami\n3.Manickam\n4.Karuppaiyan\n5.Thirupathi\n  (Second Appeal was dismissed\n   as against RR-2 to 5 as per order\n   of this Court dated 27.02.2008)\n\t\t\t... Respondents in S.A.No.1619\/1992\n\nPRAYER\n\nSecond Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code\nagainst the judgment and decree passed in A.S.Nos.74 and 75 of 1991 on the file\nof the learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, dated 28.08.1992, confirming the\njudgment and decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Pattukottai in\nO.S.No.56 of 1988 dated 22.08.1991.\n\n(S.A.No.1618\/1992)\n!For Appellants 1 and 2... Mr.S.Sundaresan\n\nFor Appellant No.3     ... Mr.M.Palanisamy\n\n^For 1st Respondent    ... Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t   For Mr.Ramamurthy\n\nFor 3rd Respondent     ... No Appearance\n\n(S.A.No.1619\/1992)\n!For Appellants 2 & 3  ... No Appearance\n\nFor Appellant No.4     ... Mr.M.Palanisamy\n\n^For 1st Respondent    ... Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan\n\t\t\t   For Mr.Ramamurthy\n\t\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n **************\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tOne unfortunate Masi Ambalam died on 01.11.1987. We do not know
\nwhether his end came by fair means or foul. It is evident that the parties
\nherein including his only daughter were more interested in the suit properties
\nthan him.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2. The plaintiff, who is the first respondent, is the daughter of
\nMasi Ambalam. She filed the suit for injunction and declaration that she is the
\nowner of ‘A’ schedule property, for partition of ‘B’ schedule property and for
\ninjunction and alternatively for possession. Her mother pre-deceased her father.
\nThere was no other issue. Masi Ambalam died intestate. The plaintiff learnt that
\nher father was abducted by the third defendant on 08.09.1987 and later he was
\nreported to have died on 01.11.1987, allegedly killed by the third defendant and
\nhis henchmen. As the sole legal heir of Masi Ambalam, the plaintiff performed
\nthe Karumadi on 16.11.1987 at Tiruvayyaru. The plaintiff had also given a
\ncomplaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruvonam regarding the abduction.
\nMasi Ambalam was in possession of the suit property till his death and after his
\ndeath, the plaintiff went and took possession of her father’s property. The
\nplaintiff claimed half share in suit ‘B’ schedule 25 to 30,32,34,36,37,39 and 44
\nand 45. According to her, the defendants 1 to 5 have no title. The defendants 1
\nto 3 are the sons of the fourth defendant through her deceased husband one
\nMalayappan. The fifth defendant was associating herself with Masi Ambalam for
\nsome time. She was not a permanently kept concubine of Masi Ambalam. In 1986
\nMasi Ambalam was very old and afflicted with blood pressure and other ailments.
\nSo, the plaintiff made a publication in Dinamalar claiming her right and stating
\nthat some persons were taking advantage of the old-age of her father to create
\ncertain documents.  The plaintiff understood that some persons like defendants 1
\nto 5 in the name of Masi Ambalam belatedly published a repudiation in Dinamalar
\non 01.10.1986. There was no marriage between Masi Ambalam and the fifth
\ndefendant. The sixth defendant is an agnate of Masi Ambalam. The plaintiff
\nclaimed that she was entitled to all the properties mentioned in Plaint ‘A’
\nschedule and half undivided share in ‘B’ schedule along with the sixth
\ndefendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3. Written statements were filed by the third and fifth defendants
\ndenying the averments made in the plaint. According to the third defendant, it
\nwas the plaintiff’s husband who had spirited away Masi Ambalam. He had preferred
\na complaint to the effect that the plaintiff’s husband and his associates had
\nabducted Masi Ambalam, and the fifth defendant had also filed a Habeas Corpus
\nPetition. The third defendant’s father died, when he was a child. Masi Ambalam
\nhad been bringing up the third defendant and his brothers and managing the
\nfamily properties. Masi Ambalam performed the marriage of the plaintiff and
\ngifted valuable jewels, etc. In fact, the plaintiff and her husband wanted Masi
\nAmbalam to give them all the properties, which he was not willing to do. While
\nin a sound and disposing mind, Masi Ambalam had executed a Will on 17.11.1983
\nand produced the same for registration on 21.01.1983. The plaintiff is not
\nentitled to inherit the properties of Masi Ambalam. The fifth defendant, who is
\nthe second wife of Masi Ambalam, had a son who died, when he was three years old
\nin or about 1964 and, therefore, the fifth defendant is entitled to her share in
\nthe properties of Masi Ambalam and also as the mother of her deceased son. The
\nillness of Masi Ambalam is exaggerated. The so-called publication itself was
\nmade by the plaintiff and her associates, which has been repudiated by Masi
\nAmbalam during his life time. The fifth defendant is entitled to half share in
\nthe properties. The fifth defendant also filed a separate written statement in
\nwhich, she had stated that the plaintiff had pestered her father to give the
\nproperties, which he was not willing to do. She has given her own version of the
\ndeath of Masi Ambalam. She has claimed that she is the lawfully wedded wife of
\nthe deceased Masi Ambalam.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4. The Trial Court, on consideration of the materials available on
\nrecord, decreed the suit as prayed for. The Appellate Court also confirmed the
\nsame. Against that, the present second appeals have been filed and the following
\nsubstantial questions of law have been framed:\n<\/p>\n
\t“1.Whether the courts below have erred in requiring proof of recitals in
\nEx.B.82 and B.83 ignoring the proposition of law that under Section 57(4) of the
\nRegistration Act, production of a copy will prove the contents of the documents
\nas held in Karuppana Gounder v. Kolandasami Gounder<\/a>  (1953 (II) MLJ 717?\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Whether the courts below erred in insisting on the proof of the form of
\nmarriage between Masi Ambalam and D.5 Lakshmi ignoring that question of
\npresumption from long cohabitation is one mode of proof when it is not possible
\nto prove the actual marriage having regard to the law laid down in 18 MLJ 3?\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Whether the findings of the courts below with regard to the Will under
\nEx.B.36 are sustainable in law when the appellant has produced evidence for the
\ndue execution of the same?”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants\/defendants
\nsubmitted that there is enough evidence to show that the fifth defendant got
\nmarried to Masi Ambalam in 1946. There is the birth certificate Ex.B.87 of the
\nson born to Masi Ambalam and the fifth defendant, which shows that the names of
\nfather\/mother are Masi Ambalam and Lakshmi. Letters have been produced to show
\nthat Masi Ambalam had treated Lakshmi as his wife and the learned counsel also
\nrelied on 1987(1) MLJ 149 (Seerangamal v. Venkatsubramanian) and  AIR<\/a> 1978 SC
\n1557 (Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director, Consolidation)<\/a> to support his case.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6. The learned counsel also submitted that when a Will has been
\nexecuted and an attesting witness has been examined, law does not require that
\nthe doctors should also be examined and both the Courts below erred in
\nsuspecting the Will, merely because of non-examination of the doctor. The
\nlearned counsel submitted that there is enough evidence to show that the
\nrelationship between the father and daughter was not amicable and the daughter
\nhad filed Ex.B.40 and taken other steps against the father. Therefore, the fact
\nthat he had disinherited her is not a ground to suspect the Will, especially
\nwhen the relationship was strained. The learned counsel also submitted that it
\nis clear from Exs.A.11 and A.12, which are the repudiation statement given by
\nMasi Ambalam to show that Masi Ambalam was duly aware of what was happening and
\nhe had consciously disinherited his daughter.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7. The learned counsel for the first respondent\/plaintiff submitted
\nthat mere living together for ten years cannot be a ground for inferring there
\nwas a marriage.  Except for the electoral rolls, there is no other evidence to
\nshow “the long cohabitation”. The learned counsel also submitted that with
\nregard to a second marriage, even long cohabitation will not give rise to a
\npresumption of marriage, because a second marriage during the life time of the
\nfirst one would not be a valid marriage in any manner. The learned counsel
\nrelied on 1989(2) LW 15 [Govindasami Padayachi (dead) v. Boorasami Padayachi
\n(dead)], 1970 (2) MLJ 193 (Raghuvir Kumar v. Smt.Shanmughavadivu),<\/a> 1983(1) MLJ
\n311 (Alagammai v. Rakkammal) and<\/a> 1983 TLNJ 285  (S.Varalakshmi v. Alagammal
\nAchi) to support his case.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8. With regard to the Will, the learned counsel submitted that it is
\nextremely unnatural and while the Testamentary Court ought not to be a Court of
\nsuspicion, when there are many suspicious features, then the Court is bound to
\ntake note of the same. The learned counsel pointed out the following features
\naround suspicion:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(a) Only to explain his presence at the time of execution of the Will.
\nD.W.3 would say that the testator took him along to Tanjore, while he was going
\nto a doctor. This is artificial.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) When there is a registration office is close by, there was no reason
\nwhy the testator should want to go to Tanjore.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) Even assuming the testator was of the opinion that he had sufficiently
\nprovided for his daughter, the plaintiff, no explanation is given as to why no
\nprovision was made for the fifth defendant, who claims to be his wife.\n<\/p>\n
\t(d) Though the examination of one attesting witness is sufficient, when a
\ndoubt is cast regarding the second attesting witness and it is contended that he
\nis fictitious person, the propounder of the Will has to dispel the suspicion of
\nthe Court in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
\t(e) When the plaintiff was far away from her father and the testator was
\nsolely in the control of the beneficiaries of the Will, then the Court ought to
\nlook at the Will more carefully.\n<\/p>\n
\tHe relied on 1998(4) SCC 384 (Gurdial Kaur v. Kartar Kaur) and<\/a> 1962(2) MLJ
\n(SC) 27 (Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9. The Existence of Marriage:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tTwo substantial questions of law referred to above relate to the
\nexistence of marriage and the genuineness of the Will. I will first take up the
\nquestion as regards the existence of marriage and to see if the Courts below had
\ndrawn the correct conclusion and for this regard, I am constrained to look at
\nthe pleadings and evidence. According to the fifth defendant, she was married to
\nMasi Ambalam in 1946. D.W.1 had stated that the fifth defendant is the second
\nwife and a son was born to them and died after three years. He has also stated
\nthat it is only Masi Ambalam, who took care of them. D.W.5 is the second wife of
\nMasi Ambalam, whose marriage is now put in issue. She has stated that Ex.B.87 is
\nthe birth certificate of her son and that the marriage took place between her
\nand Masi Ambalam. She has produced two documents Exs.B.82 and B.83, which are
\nsale deeds executed by third parties in her favour. One is of the year 1955,
\nwhere she is referred to as Masi Ambalam’s wife. This is long before the
\ndispute. The other is dated 27.06.1955 in which document also, she is stated as
\nMasi Ambalam’s wife.  Ex.B.87, which is the birth certificate, also shows that
\nthe child was born to Masi Ambalam and Lakshmi. The electoral rolls have been
\nproduced to show that they were living at the same address. So, there are
\ndocuments from 1955 at least, which shows that the world looked upon her as the
\nwife of Masi Ambalam. It is true that she has stated in her evidence that when
\nthe plaintiff’s mother was alive, Masi Ambalam had married her.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10. Now, I will examine the decisions cited in this regard. In
\n1983(1) MLJ 311 cited supra, it was held that when a person is already married
\nto a woman and had a child by her, and then it is alleged that he had married
\nanother woman and there is no evidence of the woman being treated by the
\ncommunity as the wife of the man, no presumption of a second marriage arises by
\nreason of long cohabitation.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11. In 1983 TLNJ 285 cited supra, after a detailed discussion of the
\nActs in force, namely the Hindu Marriage Act and the Madras Hindu (Bigamy
\nPrevention & Divorce) Act. 1949, etc, it was concluded that the alleged marriage
\nwith the second wife was hit by Section 4(1) of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy
\nPrevention & Divorce) Act of 1949 and it is void in law.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12. In 1970 (2) MLJ 193 cited supra, the Division Bench accepted the
\nsecond marriage, but however the learned counsel distinguished this on the
\nground that on facts, it was established that some form of marriage was
\ncelebrated, whereas in the present case, it is not there, and, therefore, that
\njudgment would actually be adverse to the case of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13. Finally, in 1989(2) LW 15 cited supra, it was held that extract
\nfrom births and deaths registers are relevant only with reference to the fact of
\ndate of birth and death. They do not prove the marriage between the parents
\nreferred therein and in that case, they had lived together for ten years and
\nthey had lived separately for more than that and in those circumstances, the
\nCourt refused to raise the presumption of marriage.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14. AIR 1978 SC 1557 cited supra is a brief order, which deserves to
\nbe extracted, where the Supreme Court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“For around 50 years, a man and a woman, as the facts in this case unfold,
\nlived as husband and wife. An adventurist challenge to the factum of marriage
\nbetween the two, by the petitioner in this special leave petition, has been
\nnegatived by the High Court. A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock
\nwhere the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife.
\nAlthough the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to
\ndeprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and
\nfrowns upon bastardy. In this view, the contention of Shri Garg, for the
\npetitioner, that long after the alleged marriage, evidence has not been produced
\nto sustain its ceremonial process by examining the priest or other witnesses,
\ndeserves no consideration. If man and woman who live as husband and wife in
\nsociety are compelled to prove, half a century later, by eye-witness evidence
\nthat they were validly married, few will succeed. The contention deserves to be
\nnegatived and we do so without hesitation. The special leave petitions are
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tSpecial leave petitions dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15. In 1987 (1) MLJ 149 cited supra, a Division Bench has held as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“22.The other point taken by defendants is, if the origin was one of
\nconcubinage, it continues to be so for ever, and that once a concubinage always
\na concubinage. It depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. During the
\nlifetime of a wife, an irresponsible husband may develop incestuous relationship
\nwith another woman, but if he continues the said relationship after the death of
\nhis wedded wife, and thereafter lives exclusively with the other woman treating
\nher as his wife and begets children through her; and recognises them as
\nlegitimate children; lives together as a family for ever to the knowledge of the
\ngeneral public and if the documents executed by him confer rights upon them in
\nany of his properties with unstinted intention of treating them as wife and
\nchildren; then, as pointed out in the decisions above referred to, the evidence
\non record must be taken into account cumulatively to conclude on wifehood.
\nHence, for the reasons stated above, the first three aspects relied upon as if
\nthey are destructive factors, do not in any manner outweigh the other weighty
\nmaterials on record in favour of first plaintiff, and which have been referred
\nto above.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. Regarding the contents of affidavit and written statement (i.e. items
\n4 and 5); being interested in the usufructuary mortgage, and being relations,
\nthey would not have tolerated in those years, a Naidu woman claiming status of
\nthe wife of a Brahmin. It is not as if that status could be derived, only if
\nrelations recognise. Outside world had treated her as wife, as found in notices
\nby Bank (vide Exhibits A-31 and A-32), election records, Ration cards, etc., and
\nin entries found in school records about plaintiffs 2 to 4. When he had himself
\nrecognised her as having lived with him as a devoted, sincere, faithful wife,
\nand duration of cohabitation not being disputed; though the origin was in the
\nnature of a concubinage; after the death of Bagirathi Ammal in 1940, for 15 long
\nyears Ranganatha had treated her as his wife, lived with her in the same house
\nand three children were born to them and he had intended to confer upon them
\nrights in the property. But unfortunately, as happens when entire legal aspects
\nare not properly understood, the composition deed (Exhibit A-34) having not
\nbrought forth what was aimed at when his brother was in difficulties; plaintiffs
\ncould not derive the advantage under Exhibit A-33 will. As held in Muthayya
\nv.Kamu alias Kamala Ammal, (1981) 94 L.W.193 multitude of materials exist to
\nshow that Society had treated her as wife of Ranganatha. The status acquired by
\nlong cohabitation cannot also be lost.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16. In this case, the fifth defendant claimed that she got married
\nto Masi Ambalam in 1946. It is true that she has not referred to any form of
\nceremony of marriage, nor she has examined anyone, who had attended the
\nmarriage. But it may be well nigh impossible for her to examine a witness on the
\ndate of suit that a marriage took place in 1946. But we have two documents of
\nthe year 1955, in which she has been referred to as the wife of Masi Ambalam.
\nTill the date of the suit 1988, and till Masi Ambalam  died in 1987, evidently
\nthere has been cohabitation between her and Masi Ambalam i.e. over 30 years. So,
\nthe judgment, which referred to mere ten years of cohabitation, will not come to
\nthe aid of the respondents, nor the judgment, which holds there is no
\npresumption regarding a second marriage. In fact, in that judgment, there was no
\nevidence that the community treated them as husband and wife. But in this case,
\nthe community had treated Lakshmi as Masi Ambalam’s wife. In the judgment of the
\nDivision bench referred to above, wherein Paragraph-22 has been extracted, it
\nwas held that even if the association had commenced during the life time of the
\nfirst wife, but the relationship continued after the death of the first wife for
\nlong number of years and the second wife had borne children, then the
\npresumption of marriage can definitely be taken. Here in this case, even if the
\nmarriage of the fifth defendant with Masi Ambalam was in 1946 during the
\nlifetime of the plaintiff’s mother, it continued after the first wife’s death
\ntill Masi Ambalam died in 1987. All gender based discriminations, all practices
\nwhich affect the dignity of women are contrary to the Constitution & Convention
\non Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The  status of a
\nwoman who claims she is the wife and had lived as such for 40 years cannot be
\nreduced to a mere “association” at the instance of the plaintiff merely  because
\nshe wants the property especially when the world had labelled the fifth
\ndefendant as the wife of Masi Ambalam. To deny her status would rob her of the
\ndignity to which she is entitled to. On the materials before me and the
\nfollowing AIR 1978 SC 1557 and  1987 (1) MLJ 149, I find that the construction
\nplaced on the evidence by the Courts below is erroneous and the second
\nsubstantial question of law must be answered in favour of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17. Genuineness of the Will:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tNow we come to the Will. In the Will, the testator has not only
\ndisinherited his daughter but also his wife. Therefore, we must be convinced
\nthat it is genuine. The suspicious features in the Will are the fact that the
\ntestator did not execute the Will in his place of residence. Of course, there is
\nno presumption that merely because a Will is executed far away from the
\nresidence, it must be false. When a Will is executed and the normal course of
\ninheritance is deviated from, the testator may naturally want to maintain some
\nsecrecy and, therefore, execute the Will away from his residence. But we have to
\nlook at the cumulative effect of the various suspicion features referred to
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18. D.W.3 is the attesting witness. According to him, he had been
\ntaken by Masi Ambalam to Tanjore. After seeing the doctor on the way, Masi
\nAmbalam had told him that a Will must be written and they went to a park and
\nthere, Masi Ambalam is said to have dictated the recitals to some scribe and
\nsome one told Masi Ambalam that there should be two attesting witnesses and,
\ntherefore, Masi Ambalam went and brought one Vaithiya Nathan Iyer. Thereafter,
\nboth D.W.3 and the attesting witness saw the testator signed the Will and they
\nsaw each other attesting. Four days later, the Will was registered and again the
\nsame two persons had been taken along as witnesses during the registration. It
\nis seen from the evidence that this witness did not know the other attesting
\nwitness. He did not know whether Masi Ambalam knew the other attesting witness.
\nA question was asked to him as to whether there is such a person as Vaithiya
\nNathan Iyer. D.W.1 is the third defendant, who is the beneficiary under the
\nWill. He had denied the suggestion that D.W.3 is a close friend. He did not know
\nthe identity of the other attesting witness. The trial Court has commented upon
\nthe non-examination of the doctor, whom testator had allegedly visited before
\nexecution of the Will. It is not necessary to examine the doctor for proof of a
\nWill, if the evidence of the attesting witness is sufficient. In this case, the
\nexamination of the doctor is not so important in the context of the mental
\ncapacity of the testator, but it would help to corroborate the narration of
\nevents leading towards the execution of the Will as spoken to by the defendant
\nwitnesses. It is here that Exs.A.11 and A.12 assume importance. Ex.A.1 is a
\nnotice given by the first respondent\/plaintiff, where she claims that she is the
\nsole heir of her father Masi Ambalam and that certain persons are attempting to
\ncreate a Will or a settlement by fraud. This is denied allegedly by the testator
\nby Ex.A.11, which is produced by the plaintiff, where he has said that whatever
\nis stated in Ex.A.1 is contrary to truth and that his condition of health is
\ngood. Reference to the Will at this juncture, in Ex.A.11 would have dispelled
\nall suspicion regarding the Will. While it is true that the doctor need not have
\nbeen examined, it does create a doubt in our mind as to why Masi Ambalam went
\nsuddenly to Tanjore. According to D.W.3, the execution of the Will seems to have
\nbeen more on an impulse on his return from the doctor’s house. Masi Ambalam
\nseems to have said, “let me go and execute the Will”. This is very unnatural,
\nsince execution of a Will is not done on an impulse. It is preceded by much
\nthought and consideration as to how the property should be bequeathed. Then
\nagain, no one appears to know as to who is this Vaithiya Nathan Iyer, who is
\nalleged to be the second attesting witness. If the evidence of the first
\nattesting witness inspires confidence regarding the fact that the Will has been
\nduly executed and attested by two witnesses, then the examination of the second
\nattesting witness may not be necessary. But when there is some doubt regarding
\nthe very existence of the second attesting witness, the propounder of the Will
\nshould dispel the suspicion of the Court by proving that in fact, such a person
\nexists, but is not available to give evidence or produce the said second
\nattesting witness to speak about the attestation.  Nothing has been done and it
\nis very curious that even when the testator went to have the Will registered
\nfour days later, he again picked up the same Vaithiya Nathan Iyer, whose
\nresidence itself is now in doubt and about whom no one knows anything. Was the
\nWill duly attested i.e., attested by two witnesses?.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t19. In 2003(2) SCC 91 (Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam),
\nthe Supreme Court<\/a> has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“9. It is thus clear that one of the requirements of due execution of a
\nwill is its attestation by two or more witnesses, which is mandatory.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. Section 68 of the Evidence Act speaks of as to how a document required
\nby law to be attested can be proved. According to the said section, a document
\nrequired by law to be attested shall not be used as evidence until one attesting
\nwitness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if
\nthere be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and
\ncapable of giving evidence. …………………….
\n……………………………………\n<\/p>\n
That cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the will was that of
\nthe testator but must also prove that attestations were also made properly as
\nrequired by clause (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act. It is true that
\nSection 68 of the Evidence Act does not say that both or all the attesting
\nwitnesses must be examined. But at least one attesting witness has to be called
\nfor proving due execution of the will as envisaged in Section 63.
\n……………..\n<\/p>\n
……………………………………\n<\/p>\n
In a way, Section 68 gives a concession to those who want to prove and establish
\na will in a court of law by examining at least one attesting witness even though
\nthe will has to be attested at least by two witnesses mandatorily under Section
\n63 of the Succession Act. But what is significant and to be noted is that one
\nattesting witness examined should be in a position to prove the execution of a
\nwill.\n<\/p>\n
……………………………………\n<\/p>\n
……………………………………\n<\/p>\n
The one attesting witness examined, in his evidence has to satisfy the
\nattestation of a will by him and the other attesting witness in order to prove
\nthere was due execution of the will. If the attesting witness examined besides
\nhis attestation does not, in his evidence, satisfy the requirements of
\nattestation of the will by the other witness also it falls short of attestation
\nof will at least by two witnesses for the simple reason that the execution of
\nthe will does not merely mean the signing of it by the testator but it means
\nfulfilling and proof of all the formalities required under Section 63 of the
\nSuccession Act. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the will under
\nSection 68 of the Evidence Act fails to prove the due execution of the will then
\nthe other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his
\nevidence to make it complete in all respects. Where one attesting witness is
\nexamined and he fails to prove the attestation of the will by the other witness
\nthere will be deficiency in meeting the mandatory requirements of Section 68 of
\nthe Evidence Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn the present case, the examination of one attesting witness is not
\nsufficient, since the existence of the second attesting witness Vaithiya Nathan
\nIyer itself is in doubt and it has not been proved by the propounder to the
\nsatisfaction of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t20. It is true that a Will executed far away from the residence,
\ndeviating from the normal course of inheritance need not automatically be
\nsuspected. In this case, no explanation is given as to why the testator has
\ngiven his wife, who has been with him for 30 long years, only a life interest
\nwithout any right of alienation. He has no doubt given some reason as to why he
\nis not leaving anything for his daughter. But what about the wife?. The
\nbeneficiaries are only his sister-in-law’s son (bfhGe;jpahs; kfd;). This creates
\nsome doubt.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t21. In 1998(4) SCC 384, the Supreme Court held that wherever there
\nis any suspicious circumstance, the obligation is cast on the propounder of the
\nWill to dispel the suspicious circumstance and again in 1962(2) MLJ SC 27, the
\nSupreme Court held that the mere registration of the Will is insufficient to
\ndispel the suspicion attending the due execution and attestation of the Will.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t22. When the existence of the second attesting witness was put in
\ndoubt, the propounder did not do anything to dispel the suspicion of the Court
\nand the queries, that were raised. So, the Will has not been proved to be
\nexecuted and duly attested. In these circumstances, I find that the conclusion
\nof the Courts below cannot be interfered with and, therefore, the substantial
\nquestions of law 1 and 3 are answered against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t23. In view of my finding in favour of the appellants, with regard
\nto the second substantial question of law, the first respondent (deceased)\/fifth
\ndefendant is entitled to 1\/2 share. Instead of driving the parties to an other
\nsuit, the decree prayed can be modified to a preliminary decree for partition to
\ndo justice to the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t24. The decree of the Court below is modified as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“There shall be a preliminary decree for partition. The plaintiff in
\nO.S.No.56 of 1988, the daughter of Masi Ambalam and the fifth defendant Lakshmi
\nshall be entitled to half share each in ‘A’ schedule property and half share
\neach in half of ‘B’ schedule property.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t25. In the result, the Second Appeals are allowed in part as above.
\nNo costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n
SML<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Subordinate Judge,
\n  Pattukottai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The District Munsif,
\n  Pattukottai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Sivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23\/07\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN S.A.(MD).No.1618 of 1992 and S.A.(MD).No.1619 of 1992 and C.M.P.No.16228 of 1992 1.Sivasamy 2.Manickkam 3.Karuppian … Appellants in S.A.No.1618\/1992 1.Lakshmi (died) 2.Sivasamy 3.Manickam 4.Karuppian (Appellants 2 to 4 brought on […]<\/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-154026","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-02T07:54:00+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-02T07:54:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4782,\"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\\\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Sivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-02T07:54:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Sivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-02T07:54:00+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-02T07:54:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008"},"wordCount":4782,"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\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008","name":"Sivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-02T07:54:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sivasamy-vs-poomalai-on-23-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sivasamy vs Poomalai on 23 July, 2008"}]},{"@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\/154026","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=154026"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154026\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154026"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154026"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154026"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}