{"id":154238,"date":"2004-03-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004"},"modified":"2019-02-20T18:23:15","modified_gmt":"2019-02-20T12:53:15","slug":"c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 03\/03\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nSECOND APPEAL No.1029 of 1993\n\n1. C.Subramanian\n2. C.Siddherthan\n3. C.Muthaiyan                                          .. Appellants\n\n-vs-\n\n\n1. Subramaniyan\n2. Arunachalam\n3. Gangeyan                                             .. Respondents\n\n        This second appeal is preferred under Sec.100 of  the  Code  of  Civil\nProcedure  against  the  judgment  and  decree made in A.S.No.75 of 1985 dated\n16.11.1987 on the file of the Sub Court, (and in West Thanjavur District Court\nA.S.No.81 of 1985) Thanjavur, confirming  the  judgment  and  decree  made  in\nO.S.No.152\/81   dated   30.11.1983   on  the  file  of  the  District  Munsif,\nThiruvaiyaru.\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.A.Thamizharasan\n\n^For Respondents :  Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan\n                for RR2 and 3\n\n                R1 - No appearance\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        The unsuccessful plaintiffs before the Courts  below  in  a  suit  for<br \/>\npermanent injunction or in the alternative, for recovery of possession, is the<br \/>\nappellants herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   Necessary  facts  for  the  disposal of this second appeal are as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>        The suit properties were the absolute properties of one  Muruganantham<br \/>\nPillai, who  was  the  maternal  grandfather of the plaintiffs.  He executed a<br \/>\nregistered Will on 4.12.1973 in respect of his properties including  the  suit<br \/>\nproperties.   As  per  the  terms  of  the Will, the property comprised in &#8216;A&#8217;<br \/>\nSchedule was  given  to  the  plaintiffs.    Muruganantham  Pillai   died   on<br \/>\n17.12.1978.   Thus, the Will came into force, and consequently, the plaintiffs<br \/>\nhave become entitled to &#8216;A&#8217; Schedule  property  under  the  said  Will.    The<br \/>\nplaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the properties in &#8216;A&#8217; Schedule.<br \/>\nWhile so, the defendants made an attempt to interfere in the lawful possession<br \/>\nof  the  plaintiffs,  which  constrained  the  plaintiffs to file the suit for<br \/>\npermanent injunction.  If the Court was to come to  the  conclusion  that  the<br \/>\nplaintiffs were not entitled to the properties, they were entitled to recovery<br \/>\nof possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  The  first  defendant  was  absent and set ex-parte.  The suit was<br \/>\nvehemently resisted by the defendants 2 and 3 stating that the suit properties<br \/>\nwere the absolute properties of Muruganantham Pillai; that he has not executed<br \/>\nany Will; that even assuming that he executed any Will,  Muruganantham  Pillai<br \/>\nhad no right in the properties to execute such a Will; that after the death of<br \/>\nMuruganantham  Pillai,  when  the said Will was produced for registration, the<br \/>\nsecond defendant objected to the same; that he also made it clear  during  the<br \/>\nregistration proceedings that his father Muruganantham Pillai had not executed<br \/>\nany  Will,  and  thus, the plaintiffs have not become entitled to &#8216;A&#8217; Schedule<br \/>\nproperty in the Will; that the properties in question belonged  to  the  joint<br \/>\nfamily;  that  the  plaintiffs  have  suppressed  an  important  fact that the<br \/>\ndocument of the  year  1920,  on  the  basis  of  which  Muruganantham  Pillai<br \/>\npurported  to  deal  with  the said properties, was not a Will; but, it was an<br \/>\narrangement by the second defendant&#8217;s grandfather Arunachalam Pillai  for  the<br \/>\nmanagement of the joint family properties during the minority of their father;<br \/>\nthat  a  perusal  of  the  document  of the year 1920 would make it clear that<br \/>\nArunachalam Pillai merely appointed a guardian under the  terms  thereof,  and<br \/>\nthus,  he  has  not  executed  any  Will; that the plaintiffs were also not in<br \/>\npossession of the  properties,  and  thus,  they  were  neither  entitled  for<br \/>\ninjunction  nor  for  recovery  of  possession,  and hence, the suit was to be<br \/>\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The trial Court framed the necessary issues, tried  the  suit  and<br \/>\ndismissed the  same.    An  appeal  filed by the aggrieved plaintiffs was also<br \/>\ndismissed by the first appellate Court.  Hence, this second  appeal  has  been<br \/>\nbrought forth by the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   At  the time of admission, the following substantial questions of<br \/>\nlaw were formulated for consideration by this Court:<br \/>\n(1) Was the lower appellate Court right  in  dismissing  the  application  for<br \/>\nreception of additional documents, and whether such rejection has affected the<br \/>\ncase of the appellants?\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)  Were  the  Courts  below  right  in  holding  that no right flowed to the<br \/>\nplaintiffs\/appellants on the basis of the Will dated 4.12.1973?\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  This Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellants  and  also<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 on those contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  This Court is unable to notice any substance in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.    As  could  be  seen  from  the  averments  in  the  plaint,  the<br \/>\nplaintiffs\/appellants  sought  for  the  reliefs  of  injunction  and  in  the<br \/>\nalternative,  recovery  of  possession,  basing  their title in respect of &#8216;A&#8217;<br \/>\nSchedule property, alleging that one Muruganantham Pillai executed a Will, the<br \/>\nregistration copy of which was marked as Ex.A4 dated 4.12.197 3; that he  died<br \/>\non  17.12.1978,  and  thus,  the  Will  has  come into force; that they became<br \/>\nentitled to the properties, and they were also in possession of the same.  The<br \/>\nsecond defendant, the son of the said Muruganantham Pillai, contested the suit<br \/>\nby stating that neither his father executed a Will as found under  Ex.A4,  nor<br \/>\nhad he got any right to execute so, since the properties belonged to the joint<br \/>\nfamily; and that the anterior document, relied on by the plaintiffs would also<br \/>\nstand contra  to the plaintiffs case.  Many are the circumstances, which stood<br \/>\nagainst the case of the plaintiffs.  The  plaintiffs  have  not  produced  the<br \/>\noriginal  Will,  alleged  to  have  been  executed  by Muruganantham Pillai on<br \/>\n4.12.1973.  No satisfactory explanation was tendered why the original Will was<br \/>\nnot produced before the trial Court.  It is not the case, where the defendants<br \/>\nhave admitted the existence or the  execution  of  the  Will;  but  they  have<br \/>\nstrongly denied  the  same.    In such circumstances, a duty was cast upon the<br \/>\nplaintifs to prove the truth and genuineness  of  the  Will,  as  contemplated<br \/>\nunder law.    Not even one witness was examined to prove the alleged Will, and<br \/>\nthe original Will was not produced.  Also no proof as  to  the  execution  and<br \/>\nattestation of the Will was forthcoming from the plaintiffs&#8217; side.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   The  plaintiffs  relied  on  an earlier Will alleged to have been<br \/>\nexecuted by  Arunachalam  Pillai,  the  father  of  Muruganantham  Pillai  and<br \/>\ngrandfather of  the  second  defendant.    Both  the Courts below have clearly<br \/>\npointed out that the document alleged to have  been  executed  by  Arunachalam<br \/>\nPillai  in  the year 1920 would clearly reveal that the properties in question<br \/>\nbelonged to the joint family.  Under such circumstances, Muruganantham  Pillai<br \/>\nwas also  not  competent  to execute a Will, as alleged by the plaintiffs.  It<br \/>\nremains to be stated further that the three properties were covered under  the<br \/>\nsaid Will.   But, the plaintiffs have come forward in respect of only one item<br \/>\nof property, while the other two properties  have  already  been  dealt  with.<br \/>\nThere   is  no  evidence  that  there  was  any  partition  between  the  said<br \/>\nMuruganantham Pillai  and  the  second  defendant.      In   such   situation,<br \/>\nMuruganantham  Pillai was not competent to execute any Will, as alleged by the<br \/>\nplaintiffs, in respect of the suit item, which belonged to the  joint  family.<br \/>\nAll  the  above would clearly indicate that the plaintiffs have not proved the<br \/>\ncase to obtain the relief of either  injunction  or  recovery  of  possession.<br \/>\nHence,  both the Courts below were perfectly correct in recording a concurrent<br \/>\nfinding that the Will alleged to have been executed by  Muruganantham  Pillai,<br \/>\nwas  not  proved in any way, and the plaintiffs claiming title under the Will,<br \/>\ncould not get any relief.  This Court  is  unable  to  notice  any  reason  to<br \/>\ndisturb the concurrent finding recorded by the lower Courts.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  For the foregoing reasons, this second appeal fails, and the same<br \/>\nis  dismissed,  confirming  the  judgments and decrees of the lower Courts and<br \/>\nleaving the parties to bear their costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>Internet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Subordinate Judge<br \/>\nThanjavur\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District Munsif<br \/>\nThanjavur\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Record Keeper<br \/>\nV.R.  Section<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03\/03\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM SECOND APPEAL No.1029 of 1993 1. C.Subramanian 2. C.Siddherthan 3. C.Muthaiyan .. Appellants -vs- 1. Subramaniyan 2. Arunachalam 3. Gangeyan .. Respondents This second appeal is preferred under Sec.100 of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-154238","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004 - 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\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-20T12:53:15+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-20T12:53:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1156,\"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\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004\",\"name\":\"C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-20T12:53:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004 - 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\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-20T12:53:15+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-20T12:53:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004"},"wordCount":1156,"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\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004","name":"C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-20T12:53:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-subramanian-vs-subramaniyan-on-3-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.Subramanian vs Subramaniyan on 3 March, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154238","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=154238"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154238\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154238"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154238"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154238"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}