{"id":187941,"date":"2011-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011"},"modified":"2016-01-09T12:20:45","modified_gmt":"2016-01-09T06:50:45","slug":"sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Sarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Sarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 03\/08\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN\n\nC.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.456 of 2011\nand\nM.P(MD)No.1 of 2011\n\nSarala Ammal\n\t\t\t\t\t..Petitioner\nVs\t\t\n\nElayanthangudi Okkur Nagarathar Sangam,\nThrough its Executive Trustees,\n1.K.T.Mohan\n2.K.D.R.Chockalingam Chettiar\n  Elayathangudi,\n  Sivagangai District.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nCivil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of\nIndia to direct the learned I Additional District Munsif, Madurai Town to\ndispose of the I.A.No.188 of 2009 in O.S.No.928 of 2005 expeditiously as early\nas possible.\n\t\t\t\t\t\n!For Petitioner    ... Mr.L.Muthusuthanan\n^For Respondents   ... Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThis petition has been filed by the petitioner to direct the learned I
\nAdditional District Munsif, Madurai Town to dispose of the I.A.No.188 of 2009 in
\nO.S.No.928 of 2005 expeditiously as early as possible.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The Brief facts of the case are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent\/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.928 of 2005 against
\nthe revision petitioner\/defendant to direct the defendant to make delivery of
\npossession of the suit property and has sought further direction to pay a sum of
\nRs.60,000\/- for damage for use and occupation of the property together with
\ninterest at the rate of 12% per annum till date of payment and other relief.
\nThe said suit was filed on 18.12.2001. The defendant also entered appearance
\nthrough his counsel.  The said case was adjourned from time to time.  On
\n21.11.2005, when the said suit came for hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel and the
\ndefendant’s counsel appeared but the defendant was called absent.  Therefore,
\nthe learned Judge passed an ex-parte decree in favour of the plaintiff.
\nPursuant to the decree and judgment, the plaintiff has filed E.P. proceedings in
\nE.P.No.547 of 2008 in O.S.No.928 of 2005.  In the said E.P. proceedings,
\ndelivery was ordered, after due notice.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The Revision petitioner\/defendant has filed interlocutory application in
\nI.A.No.188 of 2009 on 04.03.2009.  The same was resisted by the
\nrespondent\/plaintiff and the said I.A. is still pending on the file  of the I
\nAdditional District Munsif Court, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.Under the circumstances, the revision petitioner has filed the above
\ncivil revision petition to direct the learned I Additional District Munsif,
\nMadurai to dispose the interlocutory application in I.A.NO.188 of 2009 in
\nO.S.N.928 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that the revision
\npetitioner is a lawful tenant for several years.  The plaintiff has filed the
\nsuit against the revision petitioner for delivery of possession.  The said suit
\nwas decreed ex-parte.  The learned counsel further argued that an ex-parte
\ndecree can be set aside at any time, since several issues have arisen in this
\nsuit.  All the issues have to be decided only after proper trial.  If the ex-
\nparte decree is executed, against the revision petitioner, he will be put into
\nhardship.  At the same time, if the ex-parte decree is set aside and if the case
\nis disposed on merits, the interests of the plaintiff will not be prejudiced.\n<\/p>\n
\t 6.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner
\ncited a judgment in the case of Nazruddin  vs. The Idol of Arulmigu Navaneedha
\nKrishnasami and Durgai Amman Vahaira Tamples<\/a> reported in 1999(1) MLJ 747.  The
\nrelevant portion of this Judgment reads as follow:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), O.21, Rule 26 – Scope – Ex parte
\ndecree passed – Execution petition filed – Judgment-debtor filing petition to
\nstay execution petition pending orders on his application for setting aside ex
\nparte decree and for condonation of delay – Executing court to the transferor
\ncourt, held, had power to stay execution.\n<\/p>\n
\tO.21, Rule 26 of the Civil Procedure Code will empower the execution court
\nor the transferor court to grant stay of execution of ex parte decree for a
\nreasonable time so as to enable the judgment debtor to get further orders from
\nthe trial court either on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
\nor under O.9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code.”\n<\/p>\n
\t7.In another Judgment in the case of A.Gopalakrishnan  vs. Cochin Devaswam
\nBoard<\/a>  reported in AIR 2007 SC 3162.  The relevant portion of this Judgment
\nreads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“(A) Civil P.C.(5 of 1908), O.23, R.3A – constitution of India, Art.226 –
\nCompromise decree – Protection from further challenge – Does not bar High Court,
\nexamining allegations of fraud against statutory authority.\n<\/p>\n
\tO.P.No.19728 of 2001 (S), D\/- 18-10-2005 (Ker), Reserved.\n<\/p>\n
\tOrder 23, Rule 34 provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on
\nthe ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful.  The
\nbar contained in Rule 3A will not come in the way of the High Court examining
\nthe validity of a compromise decree, when allegations of fraud\/collusion are
\nmade against a statutory authority which entered into such compromise.  It is
\ntrue that decrees of Civil Courts which have attained finality should not be
\ninterfered lightly.  But when on an order being passed by High Court directing
\nTemple Board to take possession of Temple property from respondent, the Board
\nentered into compromise with respondent to give up their rights in property in
\nquestion in lieu of respondents giving possession of another property which was
\nalso a Temple property and got a compromise decree passed, challenge to such
\ncompromise decree by an aggrieved devotee, who was not a party to the suit,
\ncannot be rejected, where fraud\/collusion on the part of officers of a Statutory
\nBoard is made out.  Further, when the High Court by order had directed the Board
\nto take possession of suit land immediately from respondents in a complaint by
\nanother devotee, it was improper for the Board to enter into a settlement with
\nrespondents, giving up the right, title and interest in suit property without
\nthe permission of the Court which passed such order.”\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The learned counsel for the respondent\/plaintiff argued that the ex-
\nparte decree passed on 21.11.2005, but the E.P. proceedings was initiated in the
\nyear 2008.  Only after sufficient opportunity was given to the revision
\npetitioner, the E.P. was ordered for delivery of property.  Subsequently, the
\nlearned executing court Judge ordered for break open the lock with the help of
\npolice aid.  This order was passed on the basis of proper petition of the
\nplaintiff.  This is the factual position.  This C.R.P. has been filed by the
\npetitioner for speedy disposal of the interlocutory application in I.A.No.188 of
\n2009.  This application along with condone delay petition to condone delay of
\nmore than 1000 days, was made to set aside the ex-parte decree.  Therefore, E.P.
\nproceedings cannot be stayed.  As such, the stay petition for stay of the E.P.
\nproceedings is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.In support of his contention, he cited a judgment in the case of
\nT.Govindarajan vs. T.soundarajan<\/a> reported in (2007)2 MLJ 901.  The relevant
\nportion of this Judgment reads as follow:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“(A) Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908), Order 21 Rule 64 – Execution
\nProceedings – Property attached and liable to be sold – Only such portion of the
\nproperty necessary to satisfy the decree could be sold- Executing Court has a
\nduty cast upon it to hear the judgment-debtor, so also the decree-holder and
\norder sale of only such property or a portion there of necessary to satisfy the
\ndecree – Non-compliance of Order 21 Rule 64 C.P.C., vitiates impugned order –
\nDirections issued to the Executing Court to comply with the mandatory
\nrequirement of Order 21 Rule 64 C.P.C.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.In another Judgment in the case of G.Suresh Mohan  vs. S.Lilly and<\/a>
\nanother  reported in 2010-4-L.W. 512.  The relevant portion of this Judgment
\nreads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t” C.P.C., Order 41, R.5\/Appeal, delay in filing, Condoning of, Order 21,
\nR.26, Section 115.\n<\/p>\n
\tRespondent filed the suit and obtained a decree for recovery of possession
\nagainst the revision petitioner and filed E.P. for enforcing the decree –
\nPetitioner\/defendant filed an appeal with application to get the delay 225 days
\ncondoned and that application is still pending in the Sub Court, Perundurai –
\nAfter hearing both sides, the Executing Court ordered delivery.  Being aggrieved
\nby and dissatisfied with the said order, this revision has been filed.
\n\tHeld: Transferee Court in certain circumstances has got the right to stay
\nthe execution –  But here the Executing Court and the Court which passed the
\ndecree in the suit are one and the same –  In such a case, Order 41 Rule 5 of
\nCPC would be the proper provision of law – Order 41 Rule 5 of CPC could not be
\npressed into service for the simple reason that admittedly the appeal time was
\nover long ago – Revision petitioner\/judgment debtor had presented the appeal
\nwith the delay of 225 days and it is not pending before the appellate forum and
\nin such a case, the Executing Court appropriately rejected the plea of the
\nrevision petitioner\/Judgment debtor to postpone the execution of the decree.
\n\tJudgment debtor brought forth on himself such disadvantageous position
\nwhereby he incapacitated himself to invoke O.41 Rule 5 of C.P.C. – Order 21 Rule
\n26 of C.P.C. is inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of this case – CRP
\ndismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11.In another Judgment in the case of Popat and Kotecha Property vs. State
\nBank of India Staff Association<\/a>  reported in 2005(4) CTC 489.  The relevant
\nportion of this Judgment reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11 – Object of Order 7, Rule
\n11, is to keep out of courts irresponsible suits – Averments made in plaint
\nalone would be looked into while considering application for rejection of plaint
\nunder Order 7, Rule 11 – Pleas raised in Written statement are irrelevant at
\nsuch stage – Power vested under Order 7, Rule 11 would be invoked if on
\nmeaningful reading of plaint no clear right to sue is found and where plaint is
\nvexatious and meritless –  Whole plaint must be read and there cannot be
\ncompartmentalisation, dissection, segregation and inversions of language of
\nvarious paragraphs in plaint – Averments in plaint is to be construed as its
\nstands without addition or subtraction of words or change its apparent
\ngrammatical sense – Remedy given to defendant to challenge maintainability of
\nsuit can be restored to at any stage – Order 7, Rule 11, casts duty on Court to
\nperform its obligations in rejecting plaint when such plaint is hit by
\ninfirmities provided in 4 clauses of Rule 11 and such power is to be exercised
\neven without intervention of defendant – Plaintiff can file fresh suit in terms
\nof Rule 13 and rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 does not preclude
\nplaintiff from filing fresh suit – Case law discussed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12.In another Judgment in the case of Rathinathammal vs. Muthusamy<\/a>
\nreported in (2004)3 M.L.J. 36.  The relevant portion of this Judgment reads as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t” Limitation Act (XXXVI of 1963), Sec. 5 – Ex parte decree – One of the
\ndefendants seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree with a delay of 545 days –
\nApplication rejected – Order challenged in revision – Though the petitioner was
\nimpleaded at a later stage, she was aware of the suit – Suit was allowed to be
\ndecreed ex parte – Only at the time of delivery of property, the petitioner has
\nchosen to file application for condonation of delay – Petitioner was aware of
\nexecution proceedings – Delay cannot be condoned.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.In another Judgment in the case of Gulf Air Company vs. V.M.Rajalingam<\/a>
\nreported in (2005)5 C.T.C. 662.  The relevant portion of this Judgment reads as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13 – Application to set
\naside ex parte decree – Absence of sufficient cause – Application is liable to
\nbe dismissed – Delay of 3415 days in filing application to set aside ex parte
\ndecree –  Suit filed on 26.12.1991 – Summons served on applicant company on
\n21.01.1995 – Ex parte decree passed by High Court on 31.8.1995 – Application to
\nset aside decree filed on 4.2.2005 – Application dismissed – Original Side
\nAppeal filed by defendant – Contention that applicant may be given opportunity
\nto contest suit on merits – It was held that questions about sufficient cause
\nand bona fides would depend upon facts of each case – On facts held no
\nsufficient cause was shown for delay and no bona fide reason brought out to
\nexplain delay of 10 years – Silence of company till summons were served on
\n21.1.1995 not explained in affidavit – Belated explanation about service of
\nsummons to old address held unacceptable – Delay by plaintiff to file Execution
\nPetition will not help defendant – Reasons given not bona fide – Sufficient
\ncause not made out – O.S.A. Dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Per contra, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that
\nthe suit property is a temple property.  After delivery of the property, it will
\nbe let out to third parties.  The revision petitioner is prepared to pay entire
\narrears of rent.\n<\/p>\n
\t15.The learned counsel for the respondent relied in his arguments that
\nthis offer of the petitioner has been made at a belated stage, since the E.P.
\nwas ordered for delivery of property and to break open the lock with police aid.
\nAlmost, the entire E.P. proceedings is in the closing stage.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and arugments
\nadvanced by the learned counsel on both sides, this court is of the considered
\nopinion that the revision petitioner prayer is to dispose of the I.A.No.188 of
\n2009 in O.S.No.928 of 2005 on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court,
\nMadurai Town, and this Court holds that this prayer is justified.  Hence, this
\nCourt directs the learned I Additional District Munsif,
\nMadurai Town to dispose the above case within a period of three months from the
\ndate of receipt of this order, without being influenced by this Courts
\ndiscussion.  Accordingly ordered.\n<\/p>\n
\t17.Resultantly, the above civil revision petition is disposed of with the
\nabove observations.  Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
\nThere is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
skn<\/p>\n
To
\nThe I Additional Subordinate Judge,
\nMadurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Sarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03\/08\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN C.R.P(NPD)(MD)No.456 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Sarala Ammal ..Petitioner Vs Elayanthangudi Okkur Nagarathar Sangam, Through its Executive Trustees, 1.K.T.Mohan 2.K.D.R.Chockalingam Chettiar Elayathangudi, Sivagangai District. ..Respondents PRAYER Civil Revision […]<\/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-187941","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011 - 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\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-09T06:50:45+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T06:50:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2255,\"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\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Sarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-09T06:50:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Sarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011 - 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\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-09T06:50:45+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T06:50:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011"},"wordCount":2255,"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\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011","name":"Sarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-09T06:50:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sarala-ammal-vs-k-t-mohan-on-3-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sarala Ammal vs K.T.Mohan on 3 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/187941","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=187941"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/187941\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=187941"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=187941"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=187941"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}