{"id":194067,"date":"2004-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004"},"modified":"2017-09-14T13:35:58","modified_gmt":"2017-09-14T08:05:58","slug":"abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy &#8230; on 29 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy &#8230; on 29 March, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 29\/03\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM\n\nSECOND APPEAL NO.1258 OF 1993\n\n1. Abdul Hameed (died)\n2. Shaheeda Beevi\n3. Mohamed Aariff\n4. Mohamed Yousuf\n5. Fathahunnisa\n6. Tajudeen\n7. Rowlathunnisa\n8. Anwar Sadath\n9. Rasinna Fathima\n   (The appellants 2 to 9 are impleaded as\n    appellants LRs of the deceased first\n    appellant vide CMP.3082\/97\n    dt.24.1.98)                                         .. Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nArulmigu Somanathaswamy Devasthanam\nrep by its Executive Officer\nNidur,\nNagai Kai-de-Millet District                                    .. Respondent\n\n        This second appeal is preferred under Section 100 of CPC  against  the\njudgment  and  decree  dated 31.3.1993 made in AS No.66 of 1987 on the file of\nthe learned Subordinate Judge,  Mayiladuthurai  confirming  the  judgment  and\ndecree  dated  31.7.87  made  in  OS No.810 of 1974 on the file of the learned\nDistrict Munsif, Sirkali.\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.Srinath Sridevan\n\n^For Respondent :  Mr.B.Kumar\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        This second appeal has been brought forth by the first defendant in  a<br \/>\nsuit  for  permanent  injunction,  whose defence plea was rejected by both the<br \/>\ncourts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties.<br \/>\n        The immovable property more fully described in  the  schedule  to  the<br \/>\nplaint belonged  to  the  plaintiff Devasthanam.  It is a punja land measuring<br \/>\n11-2\/3 cents.   The  second  defendant,  pursuant  to  the  lease  chit  dated<br \/>\n11.1.1941 in favour of the temple, was put in possession.  The total extent of<br \/>\nthe lease was  95 kulis.  Pagathy was fixed at Rs.6\/- per annum.  While so, by<br \/>\nmistake, the Authorised Officer granted Kudiyiruppu patta to an extent  of  20<br \/>\ncents to  Viswanathan  and Arunachalam, the sons of the second defendant.  The<br \/>\nprevious Executive Officer of the temple has not  taken  any  action  for  the<br \/>\ngrant of  patta.   No action was initiated to set aside the grant of patta and<br \/>\nthe same is pending.  The present suit was only in respect  of  11-2\/3  cents,<br \/>\nwhich is  shown as C in the plan attached to the plaint.  All the three plots,<br \/>\nnamely A, B and C, totally measuring 95 kulis  are  comprised  in  S.No.220\/1.<br \/>\nTaking advantage of the patta granted in favour of the second defendant&#8217;s sons<br \/>\nfor an extent of 60 kulis, they have conveyed the same to the first defendant.<br \/>\nThe said  portions  are shown as A and B.  The plot C, which was originally in<br \/>\nthe occupation of  the  second  defendant  was  also  assigned  to  the  first<br \/>\ndefendant without  the  permission of the temple.  The second defendant had no<br \/>\nmanner of right to transfer his leasehold to the first defendant.   The  first<br \/>\ndefendant is  only a trespasser and is in possession of the entire block.  The<br \/>\nsecond defendant left the suit place and is residing in Kaduvangudy.  The suit<br \/>\nproperty, which was marked as C in the plan, is surrounded by plots A  and  B,<br \/>\nwhich are  in  the  occupation  of  the first defendant.  They are situated on<br \/>\nsouth and West.  On the north is the big wall of the temple and  the  West  is<br \/>\nthe property  of  Abdul  Kadar.    The old thatched house put up by the second<br \/>\ndefendant has fallen long back.  The entire block is now vacant.    Since  the<br \/>\nfirst  defendant was making arrangements to put up pacca house in the portions<br \/>\nmarked as A and B and has excavated the earth and bricks were stored up around<br \/>\nthe plot, the plaintiff has filed the suit for  permanent  injunction  against<br \/>\nthe first defendant restraining him from making any construction in A and B .\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   The  suit  was  resisted  by the first defendant stating that the<br \/>\npatta granted in favour of the sons of the second defendant  are  valid;  that<br \/>\nthey  were  originally  tenants  of  the plaintiff in respect of the sites for<br \/>\nwhich pattas were subsequently issued; that they were entitled to the  benefit<br \/>\nof  Act  40\/71; that the plaintiff, knowing fully well that they were eligible<br \/>\nto claim the benefit of Act 40\/71, consented for  the  grant  of  patta  being<br \/>\nissued  and also received the compensation amount due to the temple; that now,<br \/>\nthe plaintiff cannot question the same; that the first defendant has purchased<br \/>\nfor good and valuable consideration the entire 95 kulis on 25.8.1974 by  means<br \/>\nof  a  registered  sale  deed  from Pakkirisamy and his sons, and thus, he has<br \/>\nbecome the owner exclusively for 95 kulis and he has been  in  possession  all<br \/>\nalong; that the plaintiff cannot have any claim for 11-2\/3 cents also; that it<br \/>\nis not correct to state that 11-2\/3 cents was vacant; that the first defendant<br \/>\nhas  also  put up construction over the property comprised in S.Nos.220\/1B and<br \/>\n1C also; that the plaintiff cannot seek any right  of  ingress  or  egress  in<br \/>\nS.Nos.220\/1B  and  1C;  that the right of the plaintiff over the suit property<br \/>\nhas become extinguished by operation of Act 40\/71; that no right of way  could<br \/>\nexist  or  available  to  the  plaintiff  over  S.No.220\/1B  and  1C; that the<br \/>\nplaintiff is not entitled to recover the possession of property  marked  as  A<br \/>\nfrom  the defendant and has no title to the same also, and hence, the suit was<br \/>\nto be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The trial court  framed  necessary  issues,  tried  the  suit  and<br \/>\ndecreed the same.  Aggrieved, the first defendant took it on appeal, which was<br \/>\nalso dismissed.  Hence, this second appeal has been brought forth by the first<br \/>\ndefendant aggrieved over the judgment of courts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.   At  the time of admission, the following substantial questions of<br \/>\nlaw were formulated by this Court for consideration:\n<\/p>\n<p>        1) When a tenant forfeits his right of tenancy by  breach  of  express<br \/>\nconditions  in  the  lease  which gives the landlord a right of re-entry, then<br \/>\nwhether the tenant is not entitled to a notice of forfeiture of tenancy before<br \/>\nbeing evicted?\n<\/p>\n<p>        2) Whether a dominant owner can claim an easement  of  necessity  over<br \/>\nonly  a  particular  portion of the servient owner&#8217;s land and not by any other<br \/>\nroute on the ground that the other route would be inconvenient?\n<\/p>\n<p>        3) Whether the servient owner does not have the right to  dictate  the<br \/>\ndominant owner as to where the right of way is to be created?\n<\/p>\n<p>        4)  Whether a dominant owner can claim an easement of necessity over a<br \/>\nvast extent of the servient owner&#8217;s land when it would be far easier  for  him<br \/>\nand  for  the  servient  owner  to make an apperture in a wall adjacent to the<br \/>\ndominant owner&#8217;s land and create a pathway thereby?\n<\/p>\n<p>        5) Whether vesting of land in a Kudiyiruppu under the Tamil  Nadu  Act<br \/>\n40\/71 does not extinguish all rights of other in the property so vested?\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   Heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellants and the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The plaintiff temple Sri  Somanathaswamy  Devasthanam,  Nidur  has<br \/>\nfiled  a  suit  seeking permanent injunction simplicitor restraining the first<br \/>\ndefendant from in any way putting  up  any  construction  in  such  a  way  to<br \/>\nobstruct the plaintiff&#8217;s right to have ingress and egress through the portions<br \/>\nA and  B.  Admittedly, the suit property, which is shown as C in the plan with<br \/>\nan extent of 11-2\/3 cents belonged to the temple and along with this property,<br \/>\nan extent of 95 kulis were originally leased out to the  second  defendant  in<br \/>\nthe year  1941.    It  is not in controversy that originally the survey number<br \/>\npertaining to the property was  189  and  subsequently,  it  was  assigned  in<br \/>\nS.No.220\/1.   According to the plaintiff, the Authorised Officer, Kudiyiruppu,<br \/>\nby mistake has granted patta to an extent of 20  cents  to  the  sons  of  the<br \/>\nsecond  defendant  and  proceedings  have already been initiated to cancel the<br \/>\nsame.  The second defendant, admittedly, who is in possession of the property,<br \/>\nin question, has put forth the defence plea stating that the portions shown as<br \/>\nA and B were conveyed to him by a proper sale deed and the rest shown as C was<br \/>\nalso assigned by the second defendant and his sons.  At this juncture, it  has<br \/>\nto  be  pointed  out  that there was no material placed by the defence to show<br \/>\nthat for such a transfer, any consent or prior permission  was  obtained  from<br \/>\nthe temple and needless to say that such a transfer is invalid.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   From  the  available  evidence, it is clear that on 20.10.1974, a<br \/>\ncommunication was addressed to the temple stating  that  the  lease  agreement<br \/>\ncould  be obtained from the first defendant and the same could also be sold to<br \/>\nhim.  Now, it would be clear from the materials that the first defendant,  who<br \/>\nhas  been  contesting the suit, was the trespasser in respect of the property,<br \/>\nin question.  From the communication dated 20.10.1974, as  referred  to  above<br \/>\nunder  Ex.A.3,  the  second  defendant surrendered the possession to the first<br \/>\ndefendant pursuant to the lease inter se  between  them.    Under  the  stated<br \/>\ncircumstances,  it would be futile on the part of the first defendant to claim<br \/>\nany benefit under Act 40\/71.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial court  and  on<br \/>\ninspection,  he has filed his report and plan, which are marked as Exs.C.1 and<br \/>\nC.2.  A perusal of Ex.C.2 would clearly indicate that a lane is  available  on<br \/>\nthe  East  of  B  schedule  property and that could be used as passage to have<br \/>\ningress and egress to C schedule.  Taking into consideration of the same,  the<br \/>\ntrial court has granted permanent injunction in respect of B schedule only and<br \/>\nin  appreciation  of  the  evidence  available,  the first appellate court has<br \/>\naffirmed the judgment of the trial court.  This Court is unable to notice  any<br \/>\nreason  why  the  concurrent  finding  of  both the courts below has got to be<br \/>\ndisturbed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  In the result, this  second  appeal  is  dismissed,  leaving  the<br \/>\nparties to bear their costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>vvk<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District Munsif, Sirkali\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Record Keeper, VR Section,<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy &#8230; on 29 March, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29\/03\/2004 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM SECOND APPEAL NO.1258 OF 1993 1. Abdul Hameed (died) 2. Shaheeda Beevi 3. Mohamed Aariff 4. Mohamed Yousuf 5. Fathahunnisa 6. Tajudeen 7. Rowlathunnisa 8. [&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-194067","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 v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy ... on 29 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\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy ... on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-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=\"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-14T08:05:58+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy &#8230; on 29 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-14T08:05:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1491,\"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\\\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004\",\"name\":\"Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy ... on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-14T08:05:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy &#8230; on 29 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy ... on 29 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\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy ... on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-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":"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-14T08:05:58+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy &#8230; on 29 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-14T08:05:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004"},"wordCount":1491,"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\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004","name":"Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy ... on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-14T08:05:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/abdul-hameed-died-vs-arulmigu-somanathaswamy-on-29-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abdul Hameed (Died) vs Arulmigu Somanathaswamy &#8230; on 29 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:\/\/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\/194067","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=194067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}