{"id":197652,"date":"1987-11-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-11-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987"},"modified":"2015-07-28T18:27:43","modified_gmt":"2015-07-28T12:57:43","slug":"maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987","title":{"rendered":"Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom … on 3 November, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom … on 3 November, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1988 SCR (1) 780, \t 1988 SCC (1)\t 99<\/div>\n
Author: K Shetty<\/div>\n
Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMAHARAJA PILLAI LAKSHMI AMMAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMAHARAJA PILLAI THILLANAYAKOM PILLAI AND ANOTHER\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT03\/11\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nBENCH:\nSHETTY, K.J. (J)\nRAY, B.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 SCR  (1) 780\t  1988 SCC  (1)\t 99\n JT 1987 (4)   281\t  1987 SCALE  (2)933\n\n\nACT:\n     Hindu Succession  Act, 1956 Right of widow to property-\nWhether absolute  right under  section 14(1)  or  restricted\nright under section 14(2) of the Act.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n%\n     Under a  family partition\tdeed (Ex. 1), the properties\nunder 'A'  schedule were  allotted to  Maharaja Pillai,\t and\nafter his  death, his  widow was given the right to take the\nincome from the properties.\n     One of  the  sons\tof  Maharaja  Pillai  filed  a\tsuit\nclaiming his  right to\t1\/3rd share in the properties above-\nsaid. The trial court held that the widow got absolute right\nover the  properties in\t dispute under\tsection 14(1) of the\nHindu Succession  Act. On  appeal, the\tappellate court held\nthat the  widow got  only a  restricted right  under section\n14(2) of  the Act.  On further appeal, the High Court mainly\nupheld the  view of  the first\tappellate court. Against the\njudgment of  the High  Court, appeal was filed to this Court\nby special leave.\n     Allowing the  appeal and  restoring the judgment of the\ntrial court, the Court,\n^\n     HELD: The\tquestion to  be decided is whether the widow\ngot an\tabsolute  right\t or  a\trestricted  right  over\t the\nproperties in  the 'A'\tschedule after the coming into force\nof the\tHindu  Succession  Act.\t During\t the  life  time  of\nMaharaja Pillai,  his wife  (The  widow\t in  the  case)\t was\nmaintained by  him.  After  his\t death,\t the  widow  was  in\nexclusive possession  of the 'A' schedule properties and was\ntaking the  income from those properties. She had a right to\nutilise that  income for  her maintenance.  That  right\t was\nconferred on her under Ex. D. 1. The properties possessed by\nthe widow  fairly and  squarely fall  under Section 14(1) of\nthe Act.  The property\tmentioned in  section 14(1)  may  be\nacquired by  a female  by inheritance  or  devise  or  at  a\npartition  or\tin  lieu   of  maintenance   or\t arrears  of\nmaintenance, etc. The right to maintenance of a Hindu female\nis a  personal obligation of the husband. If the wife is put\nin exclusive possession of property with the right to take\n781\nincome for  her maintenance,  it must  be presumed  that the\nproperty is  given  to\ther  in\t lieu  of  maintenance.\t The\nproperty under\t'A' schedule  was allotted against the share\nof  Maharaja   Pillai.\tThat   property\t was  given  to\t the\npossession of  the widow with a right to take income for her\nmaintenance, and this is sufficient to get the protection of\nsection 14(1) of the Act. [782B; 783D-E; 784C-D; 786G]\n     Gulwant Kaur  & Anr.  v. Mohinder\tSingh &\t Ors., Civil\nAppeal\tNo.<\/a>   112  of  1980,  date  20.7.87;  Bai  Vajia  v.\nThakorbhai Chelabhai  & Ors.,<\/a>  [19793 3 SCR 291; V. Tulsamma\nv. Sesha Reddi, [1977] 3 SCR 261 at 310. referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal No. 266 of
\n1974. C
\n     From the  Judgment and  order  dated  7.2.1973  of\t the
\nKerala High Court in S.A. No. 763 of 1970.\n<\/p>\n
     S. Padmanabhan and N. Sudhakaran for the Appellant.
\n     G. Vishwanatha  Iyer  and\tMiss  Lily  Thomas  for\t the
\nRespondent N and 5.\n<\/p>\n
     D.M. Nargolkar for the Respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     JAGANNATHA SHETTY,\t J. This appeal by special leave has
\nbeen  preferred\t  against  the\tjudgment  and  decree  dated
\nFebruary 7,  1983 passed  by the  High Court  of  Kerala  in
\nSecond Appeal No. 763 of 1970.\n<\/p>\n
     Under the\tfamily partition  deed\tEx.  1\texecuted  on
\nAugust 2,  1950, the  properties  under\t ‘A’  schedule\twere
\nallotted to  Maharaja Pillai  and after\t his death his widow
\nwas given the right to take the income therefrom. One of the
\nsons of\t Maharaja Pillai  filed a suit claiming his right to
\ntake 1\/3rd  share in those properties. The trial court while
\nconstruing the\tterms of  Ex. 1\t held  that  the  widow\t got
\nabsolute right\tover ‘A’ schedule under section 14(1) of the
\nHindu Succession  Act. The  appellate court, however, took a
\ndifferent view.\t The appellate\tcourt held  that  the  widow
\ncould get only a restricted right under Section 14(2) of the
\nHindu Succession  Act. Upon  further appeal,  the High Court
\nagreed with the view taken by the appellate court. The
\n782<\/span>
\nHigh Court,  however, granted  a small\tshare to  the  widow
\nstating that  according to  law in  force in  the  erstwhile
\nTravancore State,  the widow  would have inherited the share
\nwhich would have fallen to any of the sons.\n<\/p>\n
     The question for our consideration is whether the widow
\ngot absolute  right or\tonly a restricted right over the ‘A’
\nschedule after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession
\nAct. The  answer to  the question  turns upon  the scope and
\nmeaning to  be given  to the  terms of\tEx. 1,\tthe relevant
\nportion of which is extracted hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “… 3.  As it  was decided by us to partition our
\n\t  family   properties\t providing    to    maintain
\n\t  Kothamachiyar Ammal,\twho is the wife of executant
\n\t  No. 1\t and mother  of\t others\t and  the  aforesaid
\n\t  Lakshmi Ammal, this partition deed is written with
\n\t  the stipulation  mentioned below  and it  is fully
\n\t  agreed by  us to abide by the provisions contained
\n\t  herein.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  9. During  the life  time of\tthe 1st executant as
\n\t  and when the marriage of the said Lakshmi Ammal is
\n\t  decided  to\tbe  conducted  the  first  executant
\n\t  himself shall\t meet the expense in connection with
\n\t  that and  conduct her marriage and if her marriage
\n\t  happened to  be conducted  after the\tdeath of 1st
\n\t  executant, executants\t Nos. 2\t and  3\t shall\thave
\n\t  right to encumber the ‘A’ schedule property for an
\n\t  amount up  to\t Rs.2,\tto  meet  the  expenses\t for
\n\t  marriage  ceremonies\t and  for   dowry  and\tgold
\n\t  ornaments and\t the A schedule proper ties shall be
\n\t  liable for  so much  amount. 10.  Kothamachi\tkyar
\n\t  Ammal, the  wife of  first executant and mother of
\n\t  other\t executants   may  reside  in  the  building
\n\t  included in  the A  Schedule during  her life time
\n\t  and take  the income of the properties included in
\n\t  the  A   schedule  after  the\t death\tof  the\t 1st
\n\t  executant; after  the death  of the  1st executant
\n\t  the successor-in-interest  of\t the  1st  executant
\n\t  shall have no right to create any document, except
\n\t  in  the   manner  stated  in\tparagraphs  9  above
\n\t  encumbering A\t schedule properties  so as  not  to
\n\t  affect the  right of\tenjoyment of the said person
\n\t  but this  provision will not be binding on the 1st
\n\t  executant as regards his absolute right over the A
\n\t  schedule properties.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
783<\/span><\/p>\n
     The first\texecutant referred  to\tabove  was  Maharaja
\nPillai. The  widow we  are concerned was his wife. On August
\n31, 1955  Maharaja Pillai  died.  There-after  ‘A’  schedule
\nitems in the partition deed were being enjoyed by the widow.
\nWhile she  was in  possession of  those properties the Hindu
\nSuccession Act\tof 1956\t came into  force. Subsequently, the
\nwidow had gifted those properties in favour of her daughter.
\nThe case  of the  plaintiff was\t that  after  the  death  of
\nMaharaja Pillai,  the said properties would devolve upon his
\nheirs and  he would  be entitled to 1\/3rd share. It has been
\nurged by  Mr.  Vishwanath  Iyer,  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents that  the properties  in A schedule would remain
\nin possession  of the  widow with  the right  to utilise the
\nincome therefrom for her maintenance but the properties were
\nnot given  to her  in lieu of maintenance. It was also urged
\nthat Maharaja Pillai had absolute power of disposal over the
\nproperties during  his life  time, and it would be therefore
\nnot proper to hold that the widow got the properties in lieu
\nof her maintenance.\n<\/p>\n
     We are  unable to\tagree with  these contentions. It is
\nnot necessary  for us to examine what would have happened to
\nthe rights  of the  wife if  Maharaja Pillai had disposed of
\nthe ‘A’\t schedule. The\tfact remains that he did not. During
\nthe life  time of  Maharaja Pillai, the wife was residing in
\nthe house  allotted to her husband. She was being maintained
\nby her\thusband. After\tthe death  of husband,\tshe  was  in
\nexclusive possession of the ‘A’ schedule. She was taking the
\nincome from  those properties.\tShe had\t a right  to utilise
\nthat income for her maintenance. That right was conferred on
\nher under  Ex. D1. The children also were, allotted separate
\nproperties under  Ex. D1.  They had  taken their  respective
\nshares from  the  family  properties.  In  our\topinion\t the
\nproperties possessed  by the  widow fairly and squarely fall
\nunder Section  14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Section 14
\nprovides:\n<\/p>\n
\t  ” 1.\tAny property  possessed by  a female  Hindu,
\n\t  whether acquired  before or after the commencement
\n\t  of this  Act, shall  be held\tby her as full owner
\n\t  thereof and not as a limited(l owner
\n\t  Explanation-In   this\t   sub-section,\t  “Property”
\n\t  includes  both   movable  and\t immovable  property
\n\t  acquired by  a  female  Hindu\t by  inheritance  or
\n\t  device  or   at  a   partition,  or\tin  lieu  of
\n\t  maintenance or  arrears of  maintenance or by gift
\n\t  from\tany  person,  whether  a  relative  or\tnot,
\n\t  before, at  or after\ther marriage  or by  her own
\n\t  skill\t or   exertion,\t or   by  purchase   or\t  by
\n\t  prescription or any other manner what so
\n784<\/span>
\n\t  ever, and  also any  such property  held by her as
\n\t  stridhan A  immediately before the commencement of
\n\t  this Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2) Nothing  contained in  sub-section  (1)  shall
\n\t  apply to  any property  acquired by way of gift or
\n\t  under a  will or  any other  instrument or under a
\n\t  degree or order of a civil court or under an award
\n\t  where\t the  terms  of\t the  gift,  will  or  other
\n\t  instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe
\n\t  “a restricted state in such property.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The property  possessed by\t a female  referred to under
\nSection 14(1)  includes property both movable and immovable,
\nproperty.  It\tmay  be\t  acquired  by\ta  female  Hindu  by
\ninheritance or\tdevise or  at a\t partition  or\tin  lieu  of
\nmaintenance or\tarrears of  maintenance etc. The deed or any
\nother arrangement by which the husband gives the property to
\nhis wife for maintenance need not specifically state that it
\nis given in lieu of maintenance. It is not an act of charity
\nthe husband  does. It  is out  of his personal obligation to
\nmaintain her. The right to maintenance of a Hindu woman is a
\npersonal obligation  of the husband. If, therefore, the wife
\nis put\tin exclusive  possession of  the property  with\t the
\nright to  take the  income for\ther maintenance,  it must be
\npresumed that  the property  is given  to  her\tin  lieu  of
\nmaintenance. The  very right to receive maintenance which is
\ninherent in her, is itself sufficient to enable the ripening
\nof possession  of any  property into  full  ownership  under
\nSection 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It was, however, urged for the respondents that Section
\n14(1) does  not take  within its  fold every  property\tthat
\ncomes into  possession. Of  the widow.\tIt must be a limited
\nestate in  the sense  of  ownership  without  the  right  of
\ndisposal. It  should be\t a specific property given to her in
\nlieu of her right to maintenance.\n<\/p>\n
     Similar contentions  have been  considered and rejected
\nin a recent decision of this Court in Gulwant Kaur & Anr. v.
\nMohinder Singh\t& Ors.,\t Civil Appeal  No.<\/a> 112\tof 1980 date
\n20.7.87 (to  which one\tof us  was a  party,  K.  Jagannatha
\nShetty, J. ) . There it was observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It  is  obvious  that  Section  14  is  aimed  at
\n\t  removing restriction no limitation on the right of
\n\t  a female  Hindu to enjoy, as a full owner property
\n\t  possessed by\ther so\tlong as\t her  possession  is
\n\t  traceable to\ta lawful  origin, that is to say, if
\n\t  she  has  a  vestige\tof  a  title.  It  makes  no
\n\t  difference whether  the property  is\tacquired  by
\n\t  inheritance or device or at a
\n785<\/span>
\n\t  partition or\tin lieu of maintenance or arrears of
\n\t  maintenance or  by gift  or by  her own  skill  or
\n\t  exertion or  by pruchase  or by prescription or in
\n\t  any  other   manner  whatsoever.  The\t explanation
\n\t  expressly refers  to property\t acquired in lieu of
\n\t  maintenance and  we do  not see what further title
\n\t  the widow  is required to establish before she can
\n\t  claim\t full\townership  under  Section  14(1)  in
\n\t  respect of  property given to her and possessed by
\n\t  her in  lieu of  maintenance. The  very  right  to
\n\t  receive maintenance  is sufficient title to enable
\n\t  the ripening\tof possession into full ownership if
\n\t  she is  in possession\t of the\t property in lieu of
\n\t  maintenance. Subsection  (2) of  Section 14  is in
\n\t  the nature  of an  exception to  Section 14(1) and
\n\t  provides  for\t  a  situation\t where\tproperty  is
\n\t  acquired  by\t a  female  Hindu  under  a  written
\n\t  instrument or a decree of court and not where such
\n\t  acquisition  is   traceable  to   any\t antecedents
\n\t  right.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     It was  urged that\t the view  taken in  above case\t was
\ncontrary  to   the  decision  in  Bai  Vajia  v.  Thakorbhai
\nChelabhai &  Ors.,<\/a> [1979]  3 SCR  291. We  do not agree with
\nthis contention\t also. Indeed a similar contention was urged
\nin Gulwant Kaur’s case and it was rejected by observing:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We do  not understand  that court  as laying down
\n\t  that what was enlarged by sub-section 1 of Section
\n\t  14 into a full estate was the Hindu women’s estate
\n\t  known to  Hindu law.\tWhen the Court uses the word
\n\t  limited estate,  the words  are used\tto connote a
\n\t  right in  the property  to which the possession of
\n\t  the female  Hindu may\t be legitimately traced, but
\n\t  which is  not a  full right  of  ownership.  If  a
\n\t  female Hindu\tis put\tin  possession\tof  property
\n\t  pursuant to  or  in  recognition  of\ta  right  to
\n\t  maintenance, it  cannot be  denied  that  she\t has
\n\t  acquired  a  limited\tright  or  interest  in\t the
\n\t  property and\tonce that  position is\taccepted  it
\n\t  follows that\tthe  right  gets  enlarged  to\tfull
\n\t  ownership under  Sec. 14(1) of the Act. That seems
\n\t  to us\t to follow clearly from the language of Sec.
\n\t  14(1) of the Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Bai Vijia’s  case, has  not  laid\tdown  any  different
\nprinciple. It  has expressly  accepted the  view taken in V.
\nTulsamma v.  Sesha Reddi, [1977] 3 SCR 261 at 310 this Court
\nsummarised the scope of Section 14 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
786<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “(1) The  Hindu female’s  right to  maintenance is
\n\t  not an  empty formality or an illusory claim being
\n\t  conceded as  a matter of grace and generosity, but
\n\t  is a\ttangible right\tagainst property which flows
\n\t  from\tthe   spiritual\t relationship\tbetween\t the
\n\t  husband  and\t the  wife  and\t is  recognised\t and
\n\t  enjoined by  pure Shastric  Hindu Law and has been
\n\t  strongly stressed even by the earlier Hindu jurist
\n\t  starting from\t Yajnavalkya to\t Manu. Such  a right
\n\t  may not  be a\t right to property but it is a right
\n\t  against property  and the  husband has  a personal
\n\t  obligation to\t maintain his  wife and if he or the
\n\t  family has property the female has the legal right
\n\t  to be maintained therefrom. If a charge is created
\n\t  for the  maintenance of  a female  the said  right
\n\t  becomes a  legally enforceable  one. At  any rate,
\n\t  even without a charge the claim for maintenance is
\n\t  doubtless  a\t pre-existing  right   so  that\t any
\n\t  transfer declaring  or recognising  such  a  right
\n\t  does not  confer any new title but merely endorses
\n\t  or confirms the pre existing rights.
\n\t  (2) Section 14(1) and the Explanation thereto have
\n\t  been couched\tin the widest possible term and must
\n\t  be liberally\tconstrued in favour of the female so
\n\t  as to\t advance the  object of 1956 Act and promote
\n\t  the socio  economic ends  sought to be achieved by
\n\t  this long need legislation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (3) Sub-section (2) of S. 14 is in the nature of a
\n\t  proviso  and\thas  a\tfield  of  its\town  without
\n\t  interfering  with   the  operation   of  S.  14(1)
\n\t  materially. The proviso should not be construed in
\n\t  a manner  so as  to destroy the effect of the main
\n\t  provision or the protection granted by S. 14(1) or
\n\t  in a way so as to become totally inconsistent with
\n\t  the main provision.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  XXX\t    XXX\t      XXX\tXXX\t  XXX
\n     In the  instant case  the property under A Schedule was
\nallotted against  the share  of Maharaja  Pillai.  The\tsame
\nproperty was  given to\tthe possession\tof the\twidow with a
\nright to  take the  income  for\t her  maintenance.  This  is
\nsufficient to  call into  aid Section  14(1)  of  the  Hindu
\nSuccession Act.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In the  result, we\t allow the  appeal,  set  aside\t the
\njudgment OF  the High  Court and  also the  lower  appellate
\ncourt and restore that of the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
S.L\t\t\t\t\t     Appeal allowed.\n787<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom … on 3 November, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1988 SCR (1) 780, 1988 SCC (1) 99 Author: K Shetty Bench: Shetty, K.J. (J) PETITIONER: MAHARAJA PILLAI LAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. RESPONDENT: MAHARAJA PILLAI THILLANAYAKOM PILLAI AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT03\/11\/1987 BENCH: SHETTY, K.J. (J) BENCH: […]<\/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-197652","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMaharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom ... on 3 November, 1987 - 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\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom ... on 3 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987\" \/>\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=\"1987-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-28T12:57:43+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom … on 3 November, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-28T12:57:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987\"},\"wordCount\":2226,\"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\\\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987\",\"name\":\"Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom ... on 3 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-11-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-28T12:57:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom … on 3 November, 1987\"}]},{\"@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":"Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom ... on 3 November, 1987 - 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\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom ... on 3 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-28T12:57:43+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom … on 3 November, 1987","datePublished":"1987-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-28T12:57:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987"},"wordCount":2226,"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\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987","name":"Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom ... on 3 November, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-11-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-28T12:57:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/maharaja-pillai-lakshmi-ammal-vs-maharaja-pillai-thillanayakom-on-3-november-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Maharaja Pillai Lakshmi Ammal vs Maharaja Pillai Thillanayakom … on 3 November, 1987"}]},{"@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\/197652","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=197652"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197652\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197652"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197652"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197652"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}