{"id":158456,"date":"1966-03-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-03-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966"},"modified":"2015-08-26T04:50:59","modified_gmt":"2015-08-25T23:20:59","slug":"gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966","title":{"rendered":"Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 155, \t\t 1966 SCR (1)\t 28<\/div>\n
Author: R Bachawat<\/div>\n
Bench: Bachawat, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMEENAKSHI AYAL AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n31\/03\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nSARKAR, A.K. (CJ)\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  155\t\t  1966 SCR  (1)\t 28\n\n\nACT:\nCivil  Procedure  Code, 1908, Order 20, r. 12  future  mesne\nprofits When can be grated by Court.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nS.   died  in  1927 and by a will bequeathed some  items  of\nproperty  to  his wife N and certain other property  to\t his\nmother\tC.  He\talso  appointed C a,.;\ta  trustee  of\tsome\nproperty  for the benefit of a temple.\tUpon the death of  N\nin 1931, C inherited her properties as a limited heir.\nSome  of  this property was sold by C under a sale  deed  in\nJune 1957; by a deed executed in August 1940 she gifted some\nof  the\t other\tinherited  property  to\t M  and\t  thereafter\npurported  to execute a will in September 1940,\t bequeathing\nto M the remaining properties belonging to her and inherited\nby  her\t as a limited heir from N, as also  her\t trusteeship\nrights in the property left by S.\nAfter  C's death on September 15, 1940, M conveyed  all\t the\nproperties acquired by him under the gift deed and the\twill\nto  V. V died in 1943 leaving some of the defendants as\t his\nheirs.\nIn about.  August 1952 the respondents instituted a suit and\nclaimed the properties left by C and N as their heirs.\tThey\ndenied\tthe factum and validity of the sale deed,  the\tgift\ndeed as well as the will of September 1940.\nThe Courts below held that C had no power to dispose of\t the\nproperties which she had inherited from N as a limited heir;\nthat  there was no sale by the deed executed in\t June  1957:\nand  that  the gift deed executed by her was  valid.   These\nfindings were not challenged in the appeal to this Court.\nThe  Trial  Court, however, held that  the  respondents\t had\nfailed\tto  prove  that they were entitled  to\tinherit\t the\nproperties on the death of C, and that the will of September\n4, 1940 was forged.  On appeal to the High Court, the single\nbench  upheld the will and also directed that  the  question\nwhether\t the  respondents were the next\t reversioners  of  N\nshould be tried afresh by the Trial Court.  But in a Letters\nPatent\tAppeal\tthe  Division Bench held the  will  was\t not\ngenuine and its execution. and attestation were not  proved;\nit  also  held\tthat  on the materials\ton  the\t record\t the\nrespondents  must be held to be the next reversioners of  N.\nThe  Court  therefore  passed  a decree\t in  favour  of\t the\nrespondents  for recovery of the various, items of  property\nand  declared that they were entitled to mesne\tprofits\t for\nthree  years  prior  to the suit and also  to  future  mesne\nprofits in respect of the various properties; accordingly it\ndirected  an inquiry by the Trial Court to determine  future\nmesne profits.\nIn  the appeal to this Court by some of the  defendants.  it\nwas also contended that the High Court had no power to\tpass\na decree for mesne profits accrued after the institution  of\nthe suit as there was no specific prayer for such a decree.\n129\nHELD:On the facts, the High Court had rightly held that\t the\nappellants had failed to prove the execution and attestation\nof the will. [131 F-G]\nThe trial proceeded on the footing that the plaintiffs\twere\nthe next reversioners of N and the High Court was  therefore\nright  in holding that it was not open to the appellants  to\ncontend that the respondents were not the reversionary heirs\nof N. [132 B].\nOn  a reading of the plaint it was clear that the  suit\t was\nfor  recovery  of possession of immovable property  and\t for\nmesne  profits.\t  The  provisions of Order 20,\tr.  12\twere\ntherefore  attracted to the suit and the court had power  to\npass  a\t decree in the suit for both past and  future  mesne\nprofits. [132 F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Order 20, r. 12 enables the court to pass a decree for\tboth
\npast  and  future  mesne profits  but  there  are  important
\ndistinctions in the procedure for the enforcement of the two
\nclaims.\t With regard to past mesne profits, a plaintiff\t has
\nan  existing cause of action on the date of the\t institution
\nof the suit.  In view of 0. 7, rr. 1 and 2 and 0. 7, r. 7 of
\nthe  Code of Civil Procedure and s. 7(1) of the\t Court\tFees
\nAct,  the  plaintiff  must  plead  this\t cause\tof   action,
\nspecifically  claim  a decree for the  past  mesne  profits,
\nvalue  the claim approximately and pay\tcourt-fees  thereon.
\nWith  regard to future mesne profits, the plaintiff  has  no
\ncause of action on the date of the institution of the  suit,
\nand it is not possible for him to plead this cause of action
\nor  to value it or to pay court-fees thereon at the time  of
\nthe institution of the suit.  Moreover, he can obtain relief
\nin respect of this future cause of action only in a suit  to
\nwhich  the provisions of 0. 20, r. 12 apply.  But in a\tsuit
\nto which the provisions of 0.20, r. 12 apply, the court\t has
\na discretionary power to pass a decree directing an enquiry,
\ninto the future mesne profits, and the court may grant\tthis
\ngeneral\t relief, though it is not specifically asked for  in
\nthe plaint. [132 G133 B]
\nCase law referred to.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nFebruary 24, 1961 of the Madras High Court in L.P.A. No. 126
\nof 1957.\n<\/p>\n
N.   C.\t  Chatterjee   and  R.\tGanapathy  lyer,   for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
T.   V. R. Tatachari, for respondents Nos.  1 and 3 to 7.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBachawat,  J. The following pedigree shows the\trelationship
\nof Sivasami Odayar and the members of his family:\n<\/p>\n
\t  Chinnayal
\n     Sivasami Odayar\t Meenakshi\t  Kamakshi
\n     married\t\t  Ayal\t\t   Ayal
\n     Neelayadakshi    (Plff. No. 1)\t   (Plff. No. 2)
\nSivasami  died\tissueless  in  1927.   By  his\twill   dated
\nSeptember  14, 1927 he bequeathed items 1 to 4 and one\thalf
\nof  items  12  and 13 of the suit properties  to  his  wife,
\nNeelayadakshi  absolutely and items 5 to II and one half  of
\nitems  12  and 13 to his mother, Chinnayal  absolutely.\t  He
\nalso  appointed Chinnayal as the trustee of items 14  to  18
\nfor the benefit of the Pillayar temple.\t Neelayadakshi
\n130<\/span>
\ndied in 1931.  It is common case that on her death Chinnayal
\ninherited  her properties as a limited heir.   Defendants  6
\nand  7 claimed that their father purchased item 4  from\t one
\nMuthukumaraswami,  agent  of Chinnayal, under  a  sale\tdeed
\ndated June 5, 1937.  On August 28, 1940, Chinnayal  executed
\na  deed\t of gift in favour of  Muthukumaraswami\t giving\t him
\nitems  1,  3  and  8 and portions of items  5  and  13.\t  On
\nSeptember 4, 1940, Chinnayal is said to have executed a will
\nbequeathing  to\t Muthukumaraswami the  remaining  properties
\nbelonging  to  her  absolutely and inherited  by  her  as  a
\nlimited heir from Neelayadakshi and also items 14 to 18\t and
\nher trusteeship right in respect of those items.   Chinnayal
\ndied  on  September 15, 1940.  It is common  case  that\t the
\nplaintiffs   are   her\theirs.\t Soon\tafter\ther   death,
\nMuthukumaraswami   conveyed  to\t one  Venugopala   all\t the
\nproperties acquired by him under the aforesaid gift deed and
\nwill.  Venugopala died in 1943 leaving defendants 1 to 5  as
\nhis heirs.  In or about August 1952, Meenakshi and  Kamakshi
\ninstituted  a  suit in the Court of the\t Subordinate  Judge,
\nCuddalore  for\tpossession of the suit\tproperties  alleging
\nthat they were entitled to the properties left by  Chinnayal
\nand Neelayadakshi and denying the factum and validity of the
\ngift deed dated August 28, 1940, the will dated September 4,
\n1940  and  the\talleged\t sale in favour\t of  the  father  of
\ndefendants 6 and 7. The defendants contested the suit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  Courts below held that (1) Chinnayal had, no  power  to
\ndispose\t of  any of the properties which she  had  inherited
\nfrom  Neelayadakshi  as a limited heir, (2)  Chinnayal\tduly
\nexecuted  the  gift  deed  and by  that\t deed  she  lawfully
\ndisposed of items 8 and portions of items 5 and 13, and\t (3)
\nthere  was no sale of item 4 to the father of  defendants  6
\nand  7.\t These\tfindings  are  no  longer  challenged.\t The
\nSubordinate  Judge held that the plaintiffs failed to  prove
\nthat  they were the reversioners of Neelayadakshi,  or\twere
\nentitled   to  inherit\ther  properties\t on  the  death\t  of
\nChinnayal,  and\t that the will dated September 4,  1940\t was
\nforged\tand its execution and attestation were\tnot  proved.
\nThe plaintiffs and the defendants preferred separate appeals
\nfrom  this  decree to the Madras High Court.   Ramaswami,  J
\nheld  that  the will was genuine and was duly  executed\t and
\nattested  but it was inoperative with regard to items 14  to
\n18 and the trusteeship rights in those items.  He also\theld
\nthat  the  question  whether the plaintiffs  were  the\tnext
\nreversioners of Neelayadakshi should be tried afresh by\t the
\ntrial  Court.\tThereafter,  Kamakshi  died  and  her  legal
\nrepresentatives\t were substituted on the record.   Meenakshi
\nand  the legal representatives of Kamakshi filed  an  appeal
\nunder  cl. 15 of the Letters Patent of the High\t Court,\t and
\nthe  appellant filed cross-objections.\tA Division Bench  of
\nthe Madras High Court held that the will was not genuine and
\nits execution and attestation were not proved.\tIt also held
\nthat  on the materials on the record the plaintiffs must  be
\nheld to be the next reversioners of Neelavadakshi.  On\tthis
\nfinding, the Division
\n131<\/span>
\nBench  passed  a decree in favour of the  appellants  before
\nthem for the recovery of possession of items 1 to 4, 3 cents
\nin  item  5,  items 6, 7 and 9 to 13 and  items\t 14  to\t 18,
\ndeclared  that\tthey were entitled to mesne profits  for  it
\nthree years prior to the suit and to future mesne profits in
\nrespect\t of  the aforesaid properties,\tdirected  the  trial
\nCourt to make an enquiry into the mesne profits under  0.20,
\nr.  12\tof the Code of Civil Procedure and ordered  that  in
\nrespect\t of  the  rest of the suit properties  the  suit  be
\ndismissed.  Some of the defendants now appeal to this  Court
\nby Special leave.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellants challenged before us the correct-
\nness of the findings of the Division Bench of the High Court
\nwith regard to (1) the factum and execution of the will\t and
\n(2)  the  plaintiffs’ claim to be the next  reversioners  of
\nNeelayadakshi.\tHe also contended that the High Court had no
\npower  to pass a decree of mesne profits accrued  after\t the
\ninstitution of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellants’  case is that the will of  Chinnayal  dated
\nSeptember  4,  1940  was  attested  by\tBalasubramania\t and
\nSamiyappa.  The appellants rely solely ‘on the testimony  of
\nSamiyappa for proof of the execution and attestation of\t the
\nwill.  Samiyappa, was not present when Chinnayal is said  to
\nhave  put her thumb impression on the will.  Samiyappa\tsaid
\nthat  when he was passing along the  street,  Balasubramania
\nand Muthukumaraswami called him.  He went inside Chinnayal’s
\nhouse,\tMuthukumaraswami gave the will to him and  after  he
\nread  it aloud, Chinnayal acknowledged that she had  affixed
\nher thumb-impression on the will.  He then put his signature
\non  the will and Balasubramania completed it after he  left.
\nIn  his\t examination-in-chief,\the said\t nothing  about\t the
\nattestation  of\t the  will by  Balasubramannia.\t  In  cross-
\nexamination,  he said that after he  signed,  Balasubramania
\nwrote  certain words on the will and put his signature.\t  On
\nfurther\t crossexamination, he added that Balasubramania\t was
\nsaying\tand  writing something on the will, but he  did\t not
\nactually  see  Balasubramania  writing\tor  signing  We\t are
\nsatisfied that Samiyappa did not see Balasubramania  putting
\nhis signature on the will.  The High Court rightly held that
\nthe   appellants   failed   to\tprove\tthe   signature\t  of
\nBalasubramania\tor the attestation of the will by  him.\t  On
\nthis ground alone we must hold that the will was not proved.
\nWe  do\tnot  think  it necessary  to  consider\tthe  further
\nquestion whether the will was genuine.\n<\/p>\n
The  plaintiffs\t claimed  that\ton  Chinnayal’s\t death\t the
\nproperties  acquired  by  Neelayadakshi under  the  will  of
\nSivasami  devolved  upon them as the  next  reversioners  of
\nNeelayadakshi.\tRelying on a statement of P.W. 2,  Sethurama
\nNainar,\t that  Meenakshi had two daughters and\ta  son,\t the
\nappellants  contend  that  the\tson  of\t Meenakshi  was\t the
\nreversionary heir of Neelayadakshi.  Assuming that Meenakshi
\nhad a son, it is not possible to say that he was born before
\nthe death of Chinnayal, and, if so, he was alive at the time
\n132<\/span>
\nof her death.  In the absence of any son of Meenakshi at the
\ntime  of Chinnayal’s death, admittedly the plaintiffs  would
\nbe  the\t next reversioners of Nalayadakshi.   No  issue\t was
\nraised\ton  this question, and the trial  proceeded  on\t the
\nfooting\t that the plaintiffs were the next  reversioners  of
\nNeelayadakshi.\t The  trial  Court  refused  leave  to\t the
\nappellants to file an additional statement raising an  issue
\non this point.\tIn the circumstances, the Division Bench  of
\nthe  Madras High Court rightly held that it was not open  to
\nthe  appellants to contend that the plaintiffs were not\t the
\nreversionary heirs of Neelayadakshi, and were not entitled
\nto succeed to her estate on the death of Chinnayal.
\nIn the plaint, there was no specific prayer for a decree for
\nmesne  profits\tsubsequent to the institution of  the  suit.
\nCounsel\t for  the appellants argued that in the\t absence  of
\nsuch  a specific prayer, the High Court had no\tjurisdiction
\nto  pass a decree for such mesne profits.  We are unable  to
\naccept\tthis  contention.  Order 20, r. 12 of  the  Code  of
\nCivil  Procedure  provides  that “where a suit\tis  for\t the
\nrecovery of possession of immovable property and for rent or
\nmesne  profits”\t the  Court  may  pass\ta  decree  for\t the
\npossession  of the property and directing an inquiry  as  to
\nthe  rent  or  mesne  profits for  a  period  prior  to\t the
\ninstitution  of\t the  suit and as to  the  subsequent  mesne
\nprofits.  The question is whether the provisions of 0.20, r.
\n12  apply to the present suit.\tWe find that the  plaintiffs
\ndistinctly  pleaded in paragraph 9 of the plaint  that\tthey
\nwere  entitled\tto call upon the defendants to\taccount\t for
\nmesne profits since the death of Chinnayal in respect of the
\nsuit  properties.   For\t the purposes  of  jurisdiction\t and
\ncourt-fees, they valued their claim for possession and mesne
\nprofits\t for three years prior to the date of the  suit\t and
\npaid  court-fee\t thereon.   In the  prayer  portion  of\t the
\nplaint,\t they claimed recovery of possession, an account  of
\nmesne profits for three years prior to the date of the suit,
\ncosts  and such other relief as may seem fit and  proper  to
\nthe Court in the circumstances of the case.  On a reading of
\nthe plaint, we are satisfied that the suit was for  recovery
\nof  possession of immovable property and for mesne  profits.
\nThe provisions of 0.20, r. 12 were, therefore, attracted  to
\nthe  suit and the Court had power to pass a, decree  in\t the
\nsuit for both past and future mesne profits.
\nOrder 20, r. 12 enables the Court to pass a decree for\tboth
\npast  and  future  mesne profits  but  there  are  important
\ndistinctions in the procedure for the enforcement of the two
\nclaims.\t With regard to past mesne profits, a plaintiff\t has
\nan  existing cause of action on the date of the\t institution
\nof  the suit.  In view of 0.7, rr. 1 and 2 and 0.7, r. 7  of
\nthe  Code of Civil Procedure and s. 7(1) of the\t Court\tFees
\nAct,  the  plaintiff  must  plead  this\t cause\tof   action,
\nspecifically  claim  a decree for the  past  mesne  profits,
\nvalue  the claim approximately and pay court  fees  thereon.
\nWith  regard to future mesne profits, the plaintiff  has  no
\ncause of action on the
\n\t\t\t    133<\/span>
\ndate of the institution of the suit, and it is not  possible
\nfor  him to plead this case of action or to value it  or  to
\npay court-fees thereon at the time of the institution of the
\nsuit.\tMoreover,  he can obtain relief in respect  of\tthis
\nfuture\tcause  of  action  only\t in  a\tsuit  to  which\t the
\nprovisions of 0.20, r. 12 apply.  But in a suit to which the
\nprovisions   of\t 0.20,\tr.  12\tapply,\tthe  Court   has   a
\ndiscretionary  power to pass a decree directing\t an  enquiry
\ninto the future mesne profits, and the Court may grant\tthis
\ngeneral\t relief, though it is not specifically asked for  in
\nthe  plaint, see Basavayya v. Guruvayya(1).  In\t Fakharuddin
\nMahomed\t Ahsan, v. Official Trustee of Bengal(1), Sir R.  P.
\nCollier observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The plaint has been already read in the first
\n\t      case  and their Lordships are of opinion\tthat
\n\t      it  is at all events open to the\tconstruction
\n\t      that  the plaintiff intended to claim  wasilat
\n\t      up  to  the time of  delivery  of\t possession,
\n\t      although,\t for the purpose of valuation  only,
\n\t      so  much\twas valued as was then due;  but  be
\n\t      that  as\tit may, they are  of  opinion  that,
\n\t      under  s. 196 of Act VIII of 1859, it  was  in
\n\t      the power of the Court, if it thought fit,  to
\n\t      make a decree which should give the  plaintiff
\n\t      wasilat\tup   to\t the   date   of   obtaining
\n\t      possession.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 196  of Act VIII of 1859 empowered the Court  in  a
\nsuit for land or other property paying rent to pass a decree
\nfor  mesne profits from the date of the suit until the\tdate
\nof  delivery  of  possession  to  the  decree-holder.\t The
\nobservations of the Privy Council suggest that in a suit  to
\nwhich  s.  196 of Act VIII of 1859 applied,  the  Court\t had
\njurisdiction to pass a decree for mesne profits though there
\nwas  no\t specific  claim  in the  plaint  for  future  mesne
\nprofits.   The\tCourt has the like power to  pass  a  decree
\ndirecting an enquiry into future mesne profits in a suit  to
\nwhich the provisions of O.20,r.\t   12  of the Code of  Civil
\nProcedure, 1908 apply.\n<\/p>\n
In  support  of\t his  contention  that\tthe  Court  has\t  no
\njurisdiction  to pass a decree for future mesne\t profits  in
\nthe  absence of a specific prayer for the same, counsel\t for
\nthe  appellants relied upon the following passage  in  Mohd.
\nYamin and others v. Vakil Ahmed and others<\/a>(3).\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It  was\thowever pointed out by\tShri  S.  P.
\n\t      Sinha that the High Court erred in awarding to
\n\t      the plaintiffs mesne profits even though there
\n\t      was no demand for the same in the plaint.\t The
\n\t      learned  Solicitor-General appearing  for\t the
\n\t      plaintiffs  conceded that there was no  demand
\n\t      for  mesne profits as such but urged that\t the
\n\t      claim  for  mesne profits\t would\tbe  included
\n\t      within the expression ,awarding possession and
\n\t      occupation of the property aforesaid  together
\n\t      with all the rights appertaining
\n\t      (1)   I.L.R. 1952 Mad. 173 (F.B) at 177.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   [1952] S.C.R. 1133,1144.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2) (8181) I.L.R. 8 Cal. 178 (P.C), 189
\n\t      134<\/span>
\n\t      thereto’.\t  We are afraid that the  claim\t for
\n\t      mesne  profits cannot be included within\tthis
\n\t      expression and the High Court was in error  in
\n\t      awarding\tto  the\t plaintiffs  mesne   profits
\n\t      though  they  had\t not  been  claimed  in\t the
\n\t      plaint.  The provision in regard to the  mesne
\n\t      profits will therefore have to be deleted from
\n\t      the decree.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In our opinion, this passage does not support counsel’s con-
\ntention.  This Court made those observations in a case where
\nthe plaint claimed only declaration of title and recovery of
\npossession  of\timmovable properties and made no  demand  or
\nclaim  for either past or future mesne profits or rent.\t  It
\nmay  be\t that in these circumstances, the suit was  not\t one
\n“for  the recovery of possession of immovable  property\t and
\nfor  rent or mesne profits”, and the Court could not pass  a
\ndecree\tfor  future mesne profits under 0.20, r. 12  of\t the
\nCode  of Civil Procedure.  But where, as in this  case,\t the
\nsuit is for the recovery of possession of immovable property
\nand  for  past mesne profits, the Court has ample  power  to
\npass  a\t decree’  directing an enquiry as  to  future  mesne
\nprofits, though there is no specific prayer for the same  in
\nthe  plaint.  In the aforesaid case, this Court did not\t lay
\ndown  a\t contrary proposition, and this was pointed  out  by
\nSubba Rao, C.J. in Atchamma v. Rami Reddy(1).
\nWe  are,  therefore, satisfied that in this  case  the\tHigh
\nCourt had discretionary power to pass the decree for  future
\nmesne  profits.\t  It is not contended that  the\t High  Court
\nexercised its discretion improperly or erroneously.  We\t see
\nno  reason to interfere with the decree passed by  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) I.L.R. [1957] Andhra Pradesh, 52,56.\n<\/p>\n
135<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 155, 1966 SCR (1) 28 Author: R Bachawat Bench: Bachawat, R.S. PETITIONER: GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: MEENAKSHI AYAL AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/03\/1966 BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. SARKAR, A.K. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-158456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966 - 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\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-25T23:20:59+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T23:20:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966\"},\"wordCount\":2708,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966\",\"name\":\"Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-03-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-25T23:20:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966 - 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\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-25T23:20:59+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966","datePublished":"1966-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T23:20:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966"},"wordCount":2708,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966","name":"Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-03-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-25T23:20:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gopalakrishna-pillai-and-others-vs-meenakshi-ayal-and-others-on-31-march-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gopalakrishna Pillai And Others vs Meenakshi Ayal And Others on 31 March, 1966"}]},{"@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\/158456","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=158456"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158456\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}