{"id":191597,"date":"1981-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1981-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981"},"modified":"2018-08-11T12:45:40","modified_gmt":"2018-08-11T07:15:40","slug":"rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981","title":{"rendered":"Rajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1664, \t\t 1982 SCR (1) 174<\/div>\n
Author: B Islam<\/div>\n
Bench: Islam, Baharul (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAJAMMAL AND ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOOKAN @ PERIA PERUMAL THEVAL & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT06\/08\/1981\n\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nBENCH:\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nSEN, A.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR 1664\t\t  1982 SCR  (1) 174\n 1981 SCC  (3) 518\t  1981 SCALE  (3)1144\n\n\nACT:\n     Madras Bhoodan  Yagna Act (15 of 1958) sections 11, 16,\n17, 20\tand 23-\t Donation of  land to Bhoodan Board prior to\ncommencement of Act-Not invalid for want of registration.\n     Madras Bhoodan  (Amendment) Yagna\tAct 1964, section 11\nand 24-Meaning and scope of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The suit  land belonged  to one Naidu who donated it to\nBhoodan Yagna  in 1953 through unregistered deeds. Later the\nMadras Bhoodan\tYagna Act  1958 came into force and this Act\nof 1958 was further amended by Bhoodan (Amendment) Act 1964.\nThe said  land was allotted to the respondents under the Act\nwho claimed  to have  been in  possession of  the land since\nbefore the  donation. Naidu  sold  the\tsuit  lands  to\t the\nappellants by  a registered  sale deed. The appellants filed\nthe suit  for declaration  of their title to, and possession\nof, the\t said land  and pleaded\t that (i) as the donation of\nthe land  by Naidu  was not by any registered deed, no title\ncould be passed to the Bhoodan Board and subsequently to the\nrespondents and\t (ii) Naidu validly transferred title of the\nlands to  them. The  respondents pleaded  that (i)  the land\nvested in  the Bhoodan\tBoard under the Bhoodan Act and (ii)\nNaidu had  no  saleable\t interest  thereto  which  he  could\ntransfer to  the appellants  by the  deed of sale. The trial\ncourt decreed  the appellant's\tsuit which was upheld by the\nfirst appellate\t court.\t The  respondents  preferred  second\nappeal before  the High\t Court which  reversed the decree of\nthe courts  below and  dismissed the  plaintiff's  suit.  On\nappeal, it  was argued\tby the\tappellants that the donation\nwas invalid  for want  of registered deed and the provisions\nof the\tBhoodan (Amendment)  Act do  not have  retrospective\neffect.\n     Dismissing the appeal,\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The object  of the  Bhoodan Yagna  Act is \"to\nfacilitate the\tdonation of  lands  for\t the  Bhoodan  Yagna\ninitiated by  Shri Acharya Vinoba Bhave and the transfer and\nsettlement of  such land  for the  benefit of  poor landless\npersons or  for community purposes and to provide in Gramdan\nvillages for  the vesting of lands in, and the management of\nthose lands  by the  Sarvodaya Panchayat  in  the  State  of\nMadras.\" [176 H, 177 A-B]\n     2. Section\t 11 clearly  shows  that  intention  of\t the\nLegislature was\t to bring  in to  the purview of the Bhoodan\nAct lands  donated by  any person before the commencement of\nthe Bhoodan  Act. The  law ingrained in section 11 is merely\ndeclaratory in\texpress terms  of the  already existing\t law\nunder the Bhoodan Act of 1958. [177 E-F, 182 B]\n175\n     3. Clause\t(b) of section 11 of the Bhoodan (Amendment)\nAct puts  a bar\t on the\t maintenance  of  a  suit  or  other\nproceedings in any Court for the declaration of title to, or\nrecovery of  possession of, any land donated for the Bhoodan\nYagna on  the ground that the transfer (donation) was not in\naccordance with\t the provisions\t of the Transfer of Property\nAct or\tIndian Registration  Act. Clause  (c) to  section 11\ngoes one  step further\tand lays  down that even if a decree\nhas already  been passed  in such  a suit,  no\tcourt  shall\nexecute a  decree in  a suit referred to in clause (b). [181\nG-H, 182 A-B]\n     4. Section\t 24 of\tthe Act\t leaves no  doubt  that\t the\nprovisions of  the Bhoodan  Act had retrospective effect and\nintended to  include donations\tof land by any person to the\nBhoodan Yagna  made before  the commencement  of the Bhoodan\nAct, and such donations were also exempted from the relevant\nprovisions of  the Transfer  of Property  Act and the Indian\nRegistration Act with retrospective effective. [180 B-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1932 of
\n1970.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t judgment and decree
\ndated the  31st December,  1969, of the Madras High Court in
\nSecond Appeal No. 348 of 1966,
\n     M. Natesan,  Mrs. Janaki  Ramachandran and K. Kumar for
\nthe Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     Vepa  P.\tSarathy,  Gopal\t  Subramanian  and  Mrs.  S.
\nGopalakrishnan, for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     BAHARUL ISLAM,  J. This  appeal by\t special leave is by
\nthe plaintiffs.\t The material facts of the case are that the
\nsuit  land   belonged  to  one\tVenkataramabhadra  Naidu,  a
\nZamindar (hereinafter  ‘Naidu’), who  donated it  to Bhoodan
\nYagna on  August 18,  1953 by  executing documents, Exs. B-1
\nand B-2,  which were  unregistered deeds.  Later in 1958, in
\nMadras Bhoodan\tYagna Act,  1958 (hereinafter  ‘The  Bhoodan
\nAct’) came  into  force.  The  Madras  Bhoodan\tYagna  Board
\nconstituted  under   section  3\t  of  the  Bhoodan  Act\t and
\nfunctioning under  the Act  allotted the  suit land  to\t the
\ndefendants who\tclaimed to  have been  in possession  of the
\nland since  before the\tdonation. On  August 3,\t 1960, Naidu
\nsold the  suit land  to the  plaintiff by a registered sale-
\ndeed for a sum of Rs. 2000. The plaintiffs alleged that they
\nwere in\t possession of\tthe suit  land but as the defendants
\nwere interfering  in their  possession, they  filed the suit
\nfor declaration\t of their  title to,  and possession of, the
\nsuit land.\n<\/p>\n
176<\/span><\/p>\n
The plaintiffs’ case was that as the donation of the land by
\nNaidu was not by any registered deed, no title passed to the
\nBhoodan Board and subsequently to its allottees, namely, the
\ndefendants and that Naidu validly transferred title to them.\n<\/p>\n
     2. The  defendants’ case, inter alia, was that the land
\nvested in  the Bhoodan\tBoard under  the provisions  of\t the
\nBhoodan Act,  and Naidu\t had no\t saleable  interest  thereto
\nwhich he could transfer to the plaintiffs by the sale deed.\n<\/p>\n
     3. The  Trial Court  decreed the  plaintiffs’ suit. The
\ndecree was  upheld by the First Appellate Court on appeal by
\nthe defendants.\t Both the  courts held\tthat the donation of
\nthe suit  and by Naidu was not in conformity with Section 17
\nof the\tRegistration Act  and Section  12 of the Transfer of
\nProperty Act and as such title to the suit land did not pass
\nfrom Naidu  to the Bhoodan Board. The defendants preferred a
\nsecond appeal before the High Court. The High Court reversed
\nthe decree of the courts below and dismissed the plaintiffs’
\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n
     4. It  has to  be mentioned  that the  First  Appellate
\nCourt passed  its decree  on October  1, 1962 while the High
\nCourt passed  its impugned  decree on  31st December,  1969;
\nwhile in the meantime, in 1964, the Madras Bhoodan Yagna Act
\nof 1958\t was amended by the Madras Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment)
\nAct, 1964 (hereinafter ‘the Bhoodan (Amendment) Act’).\n<\/p>\n
     5. Learned\t counsel for the appellants submits that the
\ndonation of  the suit land by Naidu to the Bhoodan Board was
\nbefore the  passing of\tthe Bhoodan  Act  of  1958  and\t the
\nBhoodan (Amendment)  Act of  1964; as such the provisions of
\nthese two  Acts could not save the donation of the suit land
\nby Naidu to Bhoodan Board from the operation of the relevant
\nprovisions of  the Transfer  of Property  Act and the Indian
\nRegistration Act. In other words, the submission is that the
\ndonation was invalid for want of a registered deed.\n<\/p>\n
     6. It  may be  mentioned that counsel of the appellants
\nhas not\t challenged the\t validity or vires of the provisions
\nof  the\t  Bhoodan  Act\t or  Bhoodan  (Amendment)  Act.\t His
\nsubmission  is\t that  the  above  provisions  do  not\thave
\nretrospective effect.\n<\/p>\n
     7. The object of the Bhoodan Act is, as it appears from
\nthe preamble,  “to facilitate  the donation of lands for the
\nBhoodan Yagna
\n177<\/span>
\ninitiated by Shri Acharya Vinobha Bhave and the transfer and
\nsettlement of  such lands  for the  benefit of landless poor
\npersons or  for community purposes and to provide in Gramdan
\nVillages for  the vesting of lands in, and the management of
\nthose lands  by the  Sarvodaya Panchayat  in  the  State  of
\nMadras.”\n<\/p>\n
     ‘Bhoodan Yagna’  has been\tdefined under  clause (a) of
\nsection 2 as meaning “the movement initiated by Shri Acharya
\nVinobha Bhave for the acquisition of lands through voluntary
\ngifts for distribution to landless poor persons, cooperative
\nsocieties  or\tSarvodaya  Panchayats\tor   for   community
\npurposes.” It  is why,\ttherefore; it appears, the donations
\nof land to Bhoodan Yagna were exempted from the operation of
\nthe Indian  Registration Act  and the  Transfer of  Property
\nAct, as it will, presently appear.\n<\/p>\n
     8. I  shall first\trefer to  the relevant provisions of
\nthe original  Bhoodan Act (of 1958) and examine the position
\nof the\tlaw that was before the amendment of 1964. Section 3
\nof the\tBhoodan\t Act  provided\tfor  the  establishment\t and
\nincorporation of  a Board-to  be called\t “The  Madras  State
\nBhoodan Yagna  Board” (herein-after  the  ‘Bhoodan  Board’).
\nSection 11  of the  Bhoodan Act provided, “All lands donated
\nfor  the  purposes  of\tthe  Bhoodan  Yagna  whether  before
\n(emphasis added)  or after  the\t commencement  of  this\t Act
\nshall, subject\tto the\tprovisions of section 16, 17 and 20,
\nvest in the State Board”.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 11\t clearly shows\tthat the  intention  of\t the
\nLegislature was\t to bring  in to  the purview of the Bhoodan
\nAct lands  donated by  any person before the commencement of
\nthe Bhoodan Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Clause (a)\t of sub-section\t (1) of\t Section 16 which is
\nmaterial is in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “16(1)-Notwithstanding anything  to  the  contrary
\n     contained in any other law for the time being in force,<\/p>\n
     (a)  any  owner   may,  by\t  declaration  made  in\t the
\n\t  prescribed manner, donate his land for the Bhoodan
\n\t  Yagna.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Provided that ……………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Provided further that ……….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Sub-section (3) to Section 16 reads:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
178<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “Every  declaration  made  under  sub-section\t (1)
\n     shall  be\tfiled  with  the  Tahsildar  or\t the  Deputy
\n     Tahsildar in  independent charge having jurisdiction in
\n     the taluk or sub-taluk where the land is situate.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Sub-section  (1)\tof  Section   17   provided   “Every
\ndeclaration filed under sub-section (3) of section 16 shall,
\nas soon\t as may\t be, be\t published in  the Fort\t St.  George
\nGazette and in such other manner as may be prescribed.”\n<\/p>\n
     Any  person   whose  interest   were  affected  by\t the
\ndeclaration of the donation might file objections before the
\nTahsildar or  Deputy Tahsildar\tunder sub-section (2). Under
\nsub-section (3),  the Tahsildar\t or the Deputy Tahsildar had
\nto register  every such objection, fix a date of hearing and
\ngive notice  of the  date of  hearing to  the donor, and the
\nobjector,  the\t Bhoodan  Board\t  and  the  Local  Committee
\nconcerned,  and\t  then\tunder\tsub-section  (4),   had\t  to
\ninvestigate and\t dispose of  the objection,  and by an order
\nconfirm the  declaration or  declare it\t null and void. Sub-
\nsections (5)  and  (6)\twhich  are  important  were  in\t the
\nfollowing terms:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Sub-section (5)-If  the Tahsildar  or the  Deputy
\n     Tahsildar\t  confirms     the    declaration,     then,
\n     notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
\n     the time  being in\t force, all  the  right,  title\t and
\n     interest  of   the\t donor\tin  such  land\tshall  stand
\n     transferred to  and vest  in the  State Board  for\t the
\n     purchases of the Bhoodan Yagna (emphasis added).
\n\t  Sub-section (6)-Every\t order under sub-section (5)
\n     confirming a declaration shall be published in the Fort
\n     St.  George   Gazette  and\t on  such  publication,\t the
\n     donation of  land shall,  subject to  the provisions of
\n     section 23, be irrevocable.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Sub-section (5)  in clear\tterms lays  down that on the
\nconfirmation   of   the\t  declaration\tof   the   donation,
\nnotwithstanding the  provisions of  ‘any other law’, (to wit
\nthe Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Registration Act
\nin this\t case) right,  title and interest in the land “shall
\nstand transferred  to and  vest in”  the Bhoodan  Board. And
\nafter publication  of  the  order  of  confirmation  of\t the
\ndonation, it  can be  challenged only by a suit contemplated
\nby Section 23.\n<\/p>\n
179<\/span><\/p>\n
     Sub-section (1)  of section 20 provided that “The State
\nBoard shall prepare a list of all lands donated for purposes
\nof Bhoodan  Yagna prior to (emphasis added) the commencement
\nof  this  Act”\tshowing\t the  area,  description  and  other
\nparticulars of\tthe land,  the name and address of the donor
\nand allied matters. Sub-section (1) to section 20 also shows
\nthat the  Bhoodan Act  was intended to include the donations
\nmade prior  to the commencement of this Act. Sub-section (2)
\nprovides for  publication of  the list\tprepared under\tsub-
\nsection (1) in the Fort St. George Gazette.\n<\/p>\n
     The proviso  added after sub-section (3) of section 20,
\nand sub-section\t (4) of section 20 are important and need be
\nextracted. They are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Sub-section (3)……………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  Provided that\t where\tan  order  is  made  by\t the
\n     Inquiry Officer  under sub-section\t (4) of\t section  17
\n     confirming the  donation, such donation shall be deemed
\n     to have  been accepted  with effect  from the  date  on
\n     which the\tdonation was made and for this purpose, this
\n     Act shall be deemed to have been in force on such date.
\n\t  Sub-section (4)-Where\t such land  has been granted
\n     to any  person it\tshall, with  effect from the date of
\n     grant, be\tdeemed further\tto have\t been granted to the
\n     grantee under  and in accordance with the provisions of
\n     Section 19.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     These two\tare deeming  provisions and  are a  complete
\nanswer to  the appellants’  contention. The  meaning of\t the
\nproviso\t is  that  although  the  Bhoodan  Act\twas  not  in
\nexistence at  the time a donation was made its acceptance by
\nthe  Tahsildar\tor  Deputy  Tahsildar  later  on  after\t the
\ncommencement of the Act, (as in the case in hand), by virtue
\nof the\tdeeming provision,  the Act shall be deemed to be in
\nexistence on  the date\tof the donation. Sub-section (4) had
\nmade a\tsimilar deeming\t provision for\tthe  grant  made  in
\nfavour of  a grantee  before the  coming into  force of\t the
\nBhoodan Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 24\t reads: “Notwithstanding  anything contained
\nin any\tother law, every declaration and every grant of land
\nmade or deemed to have been made under this Act shall be and
\nbe deemed  always to  have been\t exempt from  the payment of
\nstamp duty  and of encumbrance certificate fee, registration
\nfee or\tof the fee payable for the attestation of a power of
\nattorney under section 33, sub-section
\n180<\/span>
\n(2), of\t the Indian  Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI
\nof 1908).”  (emphasis added).  The provision of this section
\nalso shows  that donations  and grants under the Bhoodan Act
\nwere  exempted\tfrom  the  provisions  of  the\tTransfer  of
\nProperty  Act\tand  the   Indian  Registration\t  Act\twith
\nretrospective effect.\n<\/p>\n
     The above considerations leave no doubt at all that the
\nprovisions of  the Bhoodan  Act had retrospective effect and
\nintended to  include donations\tof land by any person to the
\nBhoodan Yagna  made before  the commencement  of the Bhoodan
\nAct, and such donations were also exempted from the relevant
\nprovisions of  the Transfer  of Property  Act and the Indian
\nRegistration Act with retrospective effect.\n<\/p>\n
     8. Section\t 23 made  the order  of Tahsildar  or Deputy
\nTahsildar under sub-section (4) of Section 17, final and not
\nsubject to  appeal or  revision. An  aggrieved party however
\nwas not without remedy. Under the proviso of section 23, any
\nperson whose  interest was  affected  as  a  result  of\t the
\ndonation to  the Bhoodan  Yagna, whether before or after the
\ncommencement of\t the Act, might file a suit to set aside the
\norder  of   the\t Tahsildar  or\tthe  Deputy  Tahsildar.\t The
\nplaintiffs in  the present suit (appellants before us) filed
\nno such suit.\n<\/p>\n
     9. Let  us now  turn to  the relevant provisions of the
\nBhoodan (Amendment)  Act of  1964.  There  was\tno  material
\namendment to section 16 of the original Act. Only “The State
\nBoard” was  substituted for “Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar”.
\nThere  was   also  no  material\t amendment  to\tSection\t 17.
\n“Tahsildar or  Deputy Tahsildar”  was replaced\tby  ‘Inquiry
\nOfficer’. Only\twith the  substitution of  ‘Inquiry Officer’
\nfor ‘Tahsildar\tor Deputy Tahsildar’, section 20 and section
\n23 have been retained. Section 24 as amended is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Notwithstanding anything  contained in  any other
\n     law, every\t declaration and every grant of land made or
\n     deemed to have been made under this Act shall be and be
\n     deemed always to have been exempt from registration and
\n     payment of\t stamp duty  and of  encumbrance certificate
\n     fee.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A comparison of the new section 24 with the old section
\n24 shows  that there has been no change in the law so far as
\nregistration and stamp duty were concerned.\n<\/p>\n
181<\/span><\/p>\n
     10. Section  11 of\t the Bhoodan (Amendment) Act of 1964
\nis new\tand very  important. Clauses  (b) and  (c) which are
\nmaterial for our purpose need be extracted:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Section 11-Notwithstanding  anything contained in
\n     any judgment, decree or order of any Court, no donation
\n     of any land for the Bhoodan Yagna or for Gramdan and no
\n     grant of any such land made or deemed to have been made
\n     under the\tprincipal Act as in force immediately before
\n     the commencement  of this\tAct, shall  be deemed  to be
\n     invalid on\t the ground  only that\tthe donation  or the
\n     grant of  land as\taforesaid was not made in accordance
\n     with any  law  relating  to  transfer  of\tproperty  or
\n     registration, and\tany such  donation or  grant of land
\n     shall, for\t all purposes,\tbe deemed  to be and to have
\n     always been validly made and accordingly-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)  …..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  no suit or other proceeding shall be maintained or
\n\t  continued in\tany Court  for\tthe  declaration  of
\n\t  title to,  or the  recovery of  possession of, any
\n\t  land donated\tfor the Bhoodan Yagna or for Gramdan
\n\t  on the  ground that  the donation  was not made in
\n\t  accordance with  the law  relating to\t transfer of
\n\t  property or registration;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (c)  no  Court   shall  enforce  any  decree  or  order
\n\t  declaring any\t donation of  land for\tthe  Bhoodan
\n\t  Yagna or  for Gramdan\t to be\tinvalid or directing
\n\t  the recovery of possession of any such land by the
\n\t  person who donated it or any other person claiming
\n\t  under him, on ground referred to in clause (b):\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       Provided that………………
\n\t       Provided further that………………
\n\t       Provided also that…………………
\n\t       Explanation……………………….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     Clause (b) of section 11 of the Bhoodan (Amendment) Act
\nputs a bar on the maintenance of a suit or other proceedings
\nin any Court for the declaration of title to, or recovery of
\npossession of, any land donated for the Bhoodan Yagna on the
\nground that  the transfer  (donation) was  not in accordance
\nwith the provisions of the
\n182<\/span>
\nTransfer of  Property Act or Indian Registration Act. Clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(c) to\tsection 11  goes one step further and lays down that
\neven if\t a decree has already been passed in such a suit, no
\ncourt shall execute a decree in a suit referred to in clause\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(b).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     11. It is thus seen that the law both under the old and
\nthe new\t Acts so  far as  the operation of the provisions of
\nthe Transfer  of Property  Act and  the Registration  Act is
\nconcerned, is  the same.  The law ingrained in section 11 is
\nmerely declaratory  in express terms of the already existing
\nlaw under the Bhoodan Act of 1958.\n<\/p>\n
     12. The  second appeal that was pending before the High
\nCourt fell  within the mischief of clause (b) of section 11.
\nEven if\t there had  been no  appeal by\tthe defendants,\t the
\nexecution of  the decree passed by the First Appellate Court
\ncould have been successfully objected to by the defendant or
\nany other  person as void on the ground that the suit itself
\nwas barred under section 23 of the old Act itself.\n<\/p>\n
     13. This  appeal has  no merit  and is  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
N.K.A.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n183<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1664, 1982 SCR (1) 174 Author: B Islam Bench: Islam, Baharul (J) PETITIONER: RAJAMMAL AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: MOOKAN @ PERIA PERUMAL THEVAL & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT06\/08\/1981 BENCH: ISLAM, BAHARUL (J) […]<\/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-191597","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981 - 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\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981\" \/>\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=\"1981-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-11T07:15:40+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981\",\"datePublished\":\"1981-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-11T07:15:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981\"},\"wordCount\":2511,\"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\\\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981\",\"name\":\"Rajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1981-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-11T07:15:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981 - 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\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1981-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-11T07:15:40+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981","datePublished":"1981-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-11T07:15:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981"},"wordCount":2511,"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\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981","name":"Rajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1981-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-11T07:15:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajammal-and-anr-vs-mookan-peria-perumal-theval-ors-on-6-august-1981#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajammal And Anr vs Mookan @ Peria Perumal Theval & Ors on 6 August, 1981"}]},{"@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\/191597","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=191597"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191597\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191597"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191597"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191597"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}