{"id":187082,"date":"2004-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004"},"modified":"2014-01-24T04:23:15","modified_gmt":"2014-01-23T22:53:15","slug":"mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 March, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 10\/03\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nSECOND APPEAL No.849 of 1993\n\nMohammed Mohideen Lebbai                               .. Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (died)\n2. Asiyal\n3. M.Abdul Khader\n4. Jamal Mohideen\n5. Meeran\n6. Ali\n7. Sulaiman\n8. Rasidal\n9. Mohideen Pathumal\n10.Habida\n    (RR2 to 10 brought on record\n    as LRs of the deceased 1st\n    respondent vide order in CMP\n    5097\/97 dated 12.6.97)                              .. 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.108 of 1992, dated\n6.4.1993 by the Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram, reversing  the  judgment  and\ndecree  made in O.S.No.690\/83 dated 31.1.90 by the Additional District Munsif,\nAmbasamudram.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.K.Chandrasekaran\n\n^For Respondents :  Mr.A.Sankara Subramanian\n                for RR2 to 10\n                R1- died\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        This second appeal  has  arisen  from  the  judgment  of  the  learned<br \/>\nSubordinate  Judge,  Ambasamudram, made in A.S.No.108\/92, whereby the judgment<br \/>\nof the trial Court in a suit for permanent injunction granting the relief, was<br \/>\nreversed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties:<br \/>\n        The suit property and other properties  belonged  ancestrally  to  the<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s  and  his brother&#8217;s families, and they have been enjoying the same<br \/>\nsolely.  There was a registered partition between the heirs of K.K.Umar Lebbai<br \/>\non 24.1.1949, wherein the suit property  among  others  was  allotted  to  the<br \/>\nplaintiff  and other heirs through the second wife of Umar Lebbai, as item 27.<br \/>\nFrom that time onwards, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment  of  the<br \/>\nsame.   The  defendant  has  no  right,  possession  or  interest  in the suit<br \/>\nproperty.  The property on the west of  the  suit  property  belonged  to  the<br \/>\ndefendant&#8217;s predecessorin-title.   In the said partition deed, the intervening<br \/>\nwall is shown as a common wall.  On the east of the wall, the defendant has no<br \/>\nright, title  or  interest.    This  was  also  admitted  by  the  defendant&#8217;s<br \/>\npredecessor-in-title  namely  Nalla  Mohideen Lebbai in the rectification deed<br \/>\ndated 22.6.1938.  Again on 15.12.1943, the grandfather of the defendant namely<br \/>\nUmar Lebbai had executed a gift deed, wherein he admitted the western wall  of<br \/>\nthe suit  property  as  a common wall.  Thus, the defendant is not entitled to<br \/>\nany right over the same.  There was  a  Ghadi  Kana  in  the  plaint  Schedule<br \/>\nproperty.  The  plaintiff  was  paying  the kist.  The defendant was trying to<br \/>\ninterfere with the plaintiff&#8217;s peaceful possession and enjoyment of  the  suit<br \/>\nproperty.  Hence, the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The suit was resisted by the defendant stating that the plaintiff<br \/>\nwas entitled to a space, measuring 2 + C.C.    east  west;  that  his  brother<br \/>\npurchased  the  same  from one Viswa Nalla Muhaideen Lebbai under a registered<br \/>\nsale deed dated 20.2.1943; that the plaintiff can claim only this extent; that<br \/>\nthe partition deed was a self serving document, and it cannot confer any right<br \/>\nupon the plaintiff; that the recitals  in  the  partition  deed  will  not  be<br \/>\nbinding  upon  the  defendant;  that  the  defendant  was  not  aware  of  the<br \/>\nrectification  deed  dated  22.6.1938;  that  the  rectification  deed  was  a<br \/>\nfraudulent one; that the plaintiff and his brother had fraudulently introduced<br \/>\nboundary  recitals in the documents; that no wall was ever in existence ; that<br \/>\nthe plaintiff made encroachment into  the  defendant&#8217;s  site;  that  the  suit<br \/>\nproperty originally belonged to Ahamed Meethi Lebbai, and after his death, his<br \/>\ntwo  sons  Kader Muhaideen Lebbai and Abu Bucker Lebbai and his daughter Saral<br \/>\nAmmal; that the daughter executed a sale deed on 17.5.1926 in  favour  of  the<br \/>\ndefendant&#8217;s   grandfather   Umar   Lebbai  and  defendant&#8217;s  mother  Muhaideen<br \/>\nBathummal, conveying her 3\/8th share of the properties; that  the  defendant&#8217;s<br \/>\ngrandfather purchased an extent measuring 5 C.C.  east west and 55 C.C.  north<br \/>\nsouth  from  Nalla  Muhaideen  Lebbai on 1.6.1938, and thus, Saral Ammal, Umar<br \/>\nLebbai and Muhaideen Bathummal became entitled to 9.5 C.C.  east west  and  55<br \/>\nC.C.   north  south;  that  except  2 + C.C., the remaining extent in the suit<br \/>\nproperty belonged to the defendant; that Naina Mohammed Muhaideen Lebbai,  the<br \/>\nmaternal  uncle  of  the  defendant&#8217;s  mother,  was  managing  the  properties<br \/>\nbelonging to the defendant and his brothers;  that  taking  advantage  of  the<br \/>\nclose  relationship,  he  has  introduced false recitals in the documents, and<br \/>\nhence, the suit was to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  On the above pleadings,  the  trial  Court  framed  the  necessary<br \/>\nissues, tried the suit and decreed the same.  Aggrieved, the defendant took it<br \/>\non  appeal,  wherein the finding of the trial Court was reversed, and the suit<br \/>\nwas dismissed by the lower appellate Court.  Hence, the plaintiff has  brought<br \/>\nforth this second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   At  the time of admission, the following substantial questions of<br \/>\nlaw were formulated by this Court:\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in  reversing  the  decree  and<br \/>\ndismissing  the  suit  on  the  ground  that  the  suit is filed for permanent<br \/>\ninjunction simplicitor without a prayer for declaration of the title when such<br \/>\na plea has not been raised in the written statement and more so when the trial<br \/>\nCourt has decided the question of title and has  given  time  for  payment  of<br \/>\nadditional Court fee for the relief of declaration?\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)  Whether  the  lower  appellate Court erred in reversing the decree on the<br \/>\nground that the non-appointment of Commissioner when no material was before it<br \/>\nto come to the conclusion  that  by  such  nonappointment,  the  case  of  the<br \/>\nplaintiff  has  not  been proved while on the other hand the defendant himself<br \/>\nhas let in evidence relying upon the plan filed by the plaintiff?\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  This Court heard the learned Counsel for the  appellant  and  also<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel for the respondents 2 to 10 on those contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   While  the plaintiff originally sought for a permanent injunction<br \/>\nthat the defendant should be restrained from  interfering  with  his  peaceful<br \/>\npossession  and  enjoyment  of  the  suit  property,  fully  described  in the<br \/>\nSchedule, annexed to the plaint, a relief of declaration was also included.  A<br \/>\nspecific issue was also framed by the trial Court, and the parties  were  also<br \/>\ngiven  opportunity to put forth their evidence on the issues including the one<br \/>\nfor declaration.  The comment made by  the  first  appellate  Court  that  the<br \/>\nplaintiff  had not made an attempt to seek a prayer for declaration in respect<br \/>\nof the suit property was one without proper  looking  into  the  case  papers.<br \/>\nHence, the said comment is not warranted for.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  The specific case of the plaintiff before the trial Court was that<br \/>\nthe suit property and other properties belonged ancestrally to the families of<br \/>\nthe  plaintiff  and  his brother; that they were enjoying the same; that there<br \/>\nwas a registered partition on 24.1.1949 as evidenced  by  Ex.A1,  wherein  the<br \/>\nsuit property is shown as 27th item; that in that partition, the suit property<br \/>\nwas  allotted  to the plaintiff; that he has been in enjoyment of the same all<br \/>\nalong; that the defendant, who has no manner of  right,  was  making  a  false<br \/>\nclaim  and  attempted to infringe over the rights of the plaintiff, and hence,<br \/>\nthere arose a necessity for filing the suit.  The defence plea  was  that  the<br \/>\nplaintiff  was  entitled  only  to 2 + Carpenter Cubic (jr;R KHk;) and not, as<br \/>\nmentioned in the plaint, to an extent of 6 Carpenter Cubic  (jr;R  KHk;)  east<br \/>\nwest;  that  all the documents filed by both sides would clearly indicate that<br \/>\nthe plaintiff was not entitled to the entire property as  sought  for  in  the<br \/>\nplaint, and  hence,  his claim was to be rejected.  A careful consideration of<br \/>\nthe documentary evidence would clearly reveal that the plaintiff was  entitled<br \/>\nto the property as asked for.  It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and his<br \/>\nbrother  entered  into  a  partition  in  respect  of the family properties on<br \/>\n24.1.1949 under Ex.A1, wherein the suit property was shown as 27th item.    It<br \/>\nis  also  not  in  controversy that the plaintiff was put in possession of the<br \/>\nproperty, which was allotted to him in the partition, and  has  been  enjoying<br \/>\nso.   According  to  the plaintiff, Naina Muhaideen Lebbai, the brother of the<br \/>\nplaintiff, purchased the  property  from  Viswa  Nalla  Muhaideen  Lebbai,  as<br \/>\nevidenced by Ex.B5 dated 20.2.1943.  That apart, it was added by the plaintiff<br \/>\nthat  he  was  put  in  possession  of the property by his brother, and he was<br \/>\nenjoying so.  A perusal of both the  documents  would  clearly  indicate  that<br \/>\nthere  has  been  a common wall dividing the property of the plaintiff and the<br \/>\nadjacent properties.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  The defendant has claimed title to his adjacent property through a<br \/>\ngift deed marked as Ex.B4  dated  15.12.1943,  wherein  it  has  been  clearly<br \/>\nreferred to  as  &#8220;bghJ  RtUf;F  nkw;F&#8221;.  The settlor under the same gift deed,<br \/>\nwhich was marked as Ex.A6 on the side of the plaintiff, got the property under<br \/>\nEx.B1 sale deed dated 1.6.1938, wherein a mistake crept in while  stating  one<br \/>\nof  the  boundaries  as &#8220;bghJ RtUf;F fpHf; F&#8221;, instead of &#8220;bghJ RtUf;F nkw;F&#8221;.<br \/>\nWhen the mistake was found, a rectification deed was executed under  Ex.A5  on<br \/>\n22.6.1938.  The subject matter of Ex.B1 dated 1.6.1938, which was subsequently<br \/>\nrectified  under  Ex.A5, was actually given by way of gift to the defendant on<br \/>\n15.12.1 943 under Ex.B4.  This would clearly indicate that there was a  common<br \/>\nwall dividing the properties.  Above all, there was a candid admission made by<br \/>\nD.W.1  in  the box that the plaintiff&#8217;s brother&#8217;s property was situated on the<br \/>\neast of the common wall.  He has also further added that from 1946 onwards the<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s brother was enjoying the property on the east of the common  wall.<br \/>\nIn  such  circumstances,  it  would  be futile on the part of the defendant to<br \/>\ncontend that there was neither a wall nor a common wall.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  The trial Court only on consideration  and  appreciation  of  the<br \/>\nevidence,  which  was  sufficient in the opinion of this Court, has recorded a<br \/>\nfinding that the plaintiff was entitled to the property, and hence, the relief<br \/>\nof declaration and permanent injunction should be granted.    But,  the  first<br \/>\nappellate  Court on erroneous consideration, has reversed the said finding and<br \/>\nset aside the judgment of the trial Court.   The  first  appellate  Court  has<br \/>\npointed  out  in its judgment that the plaintiff, despite the denial of title,<br \/>\nhas not asked for the relief of declaration of title.  But, that  finding  was<br \/>\nnot  correct, since on the pleadings available, an issue whether the plaintiff<br \/>\nwas entitled to the property in question was framed, and on evidence, the same<br \/>\nwas discussed and decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff.   The<br \/>\nsecond  ground,  by  which the judgment of the trial Court was reversed by the<br \/>\nfirst appellate Court, was that no appointment of  Advocate  Commissioner  was<br \/>\nsought for  by  the  plaintiff.    This  Court is of the firm opinion that the<br \/>\navailable evidence, in particular the documentary evidence, would  be  clearly<br \/>\npointing to  the title of the plaintiff.  In such circumstances, no need arose<br \/>\nfor seeking an appointment  of  Advocate  Commissioner  to  inspect  the  suit<br \/>\nproperty.   Therefore,  the  judgment  of  the first appellate Court cannot be<br \/>\nsustained, and instead, it is a fit case, where  the  judgment  of  the  trial<br \/>\nCourt  has  got to be restored, and the plaintiff has to be granted the relief<br \/>\nas asked for.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  In the result, this second appeal is allowed, setting  aside  the<br \/>\njudgment  and  decree  of the first appellate Court and restoring the judgment<br \/>\nand decree of the trial Court.  The parties are directed to bear their costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  yes<br \/>\nInternet:  yes<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Subordinate Judge<br \/>\nAmbasamudram\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Additional District Munsif<br \/>\nAmbasamudram\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Record Keeper<br \/>\nV.R.  Section<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>nsv\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 March, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/03\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM SECOND APPEAL No.849 of 1993 Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai .. Appellant -Vs- 1. Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (died) 2. Asiyal 3. M.Abdul Khader 4. Jamal Mohideen 5. [&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-187082","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>Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 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\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-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=\"2004-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-01-23T22:53:15+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-23T22:53:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1811,\"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\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004\",\"name\":\"Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-01-23T22:53:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 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":"Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 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\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-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":"2004-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-01-23T22:53:15+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-23T22:53:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004"},"wordCount":1811,"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\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004","name":"Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-01-23T22:53:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohammed-mohideen-lebbai-vs-mohammed-asan-tharaganar-died-on-10-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohammed Mohideen Lebbai vs Mohammed Asan Tharaganar (Died) on 10 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\/187082","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=187082"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187082\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187082"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187082"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187082"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}