{"id":198226,"date":"2010-03-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-05T08:56:09","modified_gmt":"2018-11-05T03:26:09","slug":"k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 24\/03\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI\n\nS.A(MD)No.1295 of 2004\nand\nC.M.P.(MD)No.9566 of 2004\n\n\nK.Arumugham\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t...\tAppellant\/\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAppellant\/\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDefendant\n\nVs\n\n1.M.Saraswathi\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t...\t1st Respondent\/\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent\/\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPlaintiff\n2.S.Murugaih\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t...\tRespondents\/\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2nd Respondent\/\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2nd Defendant\n\nPRAYER\n\nThe appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and\ndecree dated 30.04.2003 in A.S.No.44 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sub\nCourt, Tenkasi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 01.06.2001 in O.S.No.80\nof 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.\n\n!For Appellant\t  ...  Mr.R.Subramanian\n^For Respondents  ...  Mr.A.Sankarasubramanian\n\t\t       for R1\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2003 in<br \/>\nA.S.No.44 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Tenkasi, confirming<br \/>\nthe judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.80 of 1996 of on the file of  the<br \/>\nPrincipal District Court, Tenaksi.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The first defendant is the appellant. The suit was filed for<br \/>\ndeclaration, recovery of possession and for mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The facts for the case is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe suit property originally belonged to one Kali and his brother Mookan.<br \/>\nUnder an oral partition, the suit property was allotted to the said Kali, who is<br \/>\nthe father of the plaintiff.  By a registered settlement deed dated 22.03.1995,<br \/>\nthe property was given to the plaintiff by her father and she is in possession<br \/>\nand enjoyment of the same. The first defendant trespassed into the property<br \/>\n04.11.1995 and claiming rights in the property therefore, the suit is filed for<br \/>\nthe above relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The suit was resisted by the first defendant by filing the written<br \/>\nstatement.  According to the defendant, the suit property is the joint family<br \/>\nproperty of the defendant and his brother Kandasamy and their father Kali.  In<br \/>\nan oral partition, the suit property was allotted to the first defendant and he<br \/>\nis in possession and enjoyment.  The allotted settlement deed is a fraudulent<br \/>\ndocument and not acted upon.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.Based on the above brief averments, the learned Principal District<br \/>\nMunsif, Tenkasi, framed triable issues and found that the property is the<br \/>\nabsolute property of the said Kali and he had executed the settlement deed in<br \/>\nfavour of the plaintiff and has decreed the suit.  Aggrieved by which the first<br \/>\ndefendant has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.44 of 2001 before the Sub Court<br \/>\nTenakasi, and the learned Sub Judge also concurred to the findings of the Trial<br \/>\nCourt and has dismissed the appeal Aggrieved by which the first  appellant has<br \/>\npreferred the present appeal on various grounds.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.On admission this Court framed the following substantial questions of<br \/>\nlaw:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;a. Whether in law the courts below are right in failing to see that Ex.A.2 gift<br \/>\nwas not proved by examining an independent attesting witness and that it was not<br \/>\naccepted and acted upon as mandated under Sec.122 of the Transfer of Property<br \/>\nAct?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tb. Whether in law the courts below are right in overlooking that when<br \/>\nadmittedly there was joint family ancestral necleus yielding income, the burden<br \/>\nshifted on the plaintiff to prove that the suit properties were purchased out of<br \/>\nseparate income as laid down in 1998(3) MLJ 167 and that the plaintiff had<br \/>\nneither pleaded nor proved independent income?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tc. Whether in law the courts below are right in ignoring the admissions of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff as P.W.1 regarding the gift (that she never took possession and<br \/>\nthat her father, the donor, continued in possession) thus inviting interference<br \/>\nunder Section 100 C.P.C.?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.According to the appellant, the suit property is a joint family property<br \/>\nof Kali the Father, the defendant and one of his brother Kandasamy.  According<br \/>\nto him, there was a oral partition between the male members of the joint family<br \/>\nand the suit property was allotted to him and he is in possession and enjoyment<br \/>\nof the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.On the contrary, the case of the plaintiff is that the property belonged<br \/>\nto the said Kali who purchased the property under a registration sale deed dated<br \/>\n6.9.1958 and settled the property in favour of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.Mr.R.Subramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would<br \/>\nsubmit that the presence of the joint family ancestor nucleus yielding income<br \/>\nhas been admitted by the plaintiff and the presumption has to be drawn that the<br \/>\nproperty was purchased by a member of the joint family is also a property<br \/>\nbelonged to the joint family unless the contrary is proved.   The learned<br \/>\ncounsel pointed out that once the defendant is discharged from the burden of<br \/>\nproving existence of ancestral nucleus yielding income the burden shifts on the<br \/>\nplaintiff to prove that the property was purchased from the separate income of<br \/>\nthe joint family members.  The learned counsel also pointed out that the gift<br \/>\ndeed was not proved by examining independent attesting witnesses and was not<br \/>\nacted upon.  The learned counsel pointed out that the husband of the plaintiff<br \/>\nwas examined as attesting witnesses and no independent witnesses was examined to<br \/>\nprove the gift deed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.On the contrary, Mr.A.Sankarasubramanian the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nRespondents would submit that both the courts below have concurrently found on<br \/>\nfacts that the plaintiff is entitled for the property and has decreed the suit<br \/>\nand there is no substantial question of law raised in the second appeal and the<br \/>\nsame is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.The admitted facts are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tOne Kali and Mookan were brothers.  The suit properties of the three<br \/>\nitems and some other properties were purchased by the said brothers under a sale<br \/>\ndeed dated 06.09.1958 under Ex.A3.  One of the brother Kali had executed a<br \/>\nsettlement deed dated 22.03.1995 under Ex.A2 in favour of the plaintiff in<br \/>\nrespect of the suit properties.  The recital would show that the suit properties<br \/>\nwere allotted to him in an oral partition.  This settlement was executed at the<br \/>\ntime of the plaintiff&#8217;s marriage with P.W.2.  The said P.W.2 is an attesting<br \/>\nwitness in this document. The first defendant and one Kandasamy are the sons of<br \/>\nthe said Kali.  Though the settlement was executed by the said Kali he continued<br \/>\nto be in possession.  Meanwhile the plaintiff has filed the present suit on<br \/>\n14.02.1996 for recovery of possession of the suit property from the first<br \/>\ndefendant.  The second defendant is the grandson of the above said Mookaiyan who<br \/>\nis the brother of Kali.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.The disputed fact is that the suit property and other properties of<br \/>\nKali are the joint family properties in which, the said Kali and his two sons<br \/>\nare co-sharers.  According to the first defendant there was a oral partition<br \/>\nbetween the father and sons and the suit property was allotted in favour of the<br \/>\nfirst defendant and he is in possession and enjoyment. The settlement was denied<br \/>\nas not genuine and was accepted and acted upon.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.Both the courts below have found that the burden is upon the first<br \/>\ndefendant to prove that the suit property is the joint family property and he<br \/>\nhas failed.  Both the courts below have also found that the plaintiff is<br \/>\nentitled for the suit property and decreed the suit as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.It is settled law that the burden of proof is on the person who claims<br \/>\nthe existence of joint family and the availability of the joint family<br \/>\nproperties.  It is also settled law that once a joint family nucleus yielding<br \/>\nincome is proved then the burden shifts upon the plaintiff to prove that the<br \/>\nproperties were purchased out of separate income of the member of the joint<br \/>\nfamily.  Therefore, the burden is upon the first defendant to prove that a joint<br \/>\nfamily and a joint family nucleus.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.The first defendant would state that his father Kali and his brother<br \/>\nMookan lived as joint family and they have purchased properties in their name.<br \/>\nHe would also state that the suit properties were purchased from the income of<br \/>\nthe joint family property.  It is further stated that the said Kali and his<br \/>\nbrother Mookan partitioned the properties among themselves and the suit property<br \/>\nand some other properties were allotted to the share of the said Kali.  It is<br \/>\nthe further case of the first defendant that in 1988 the father and the two sons<br \/>\neffected a partition between themselves and the suit property was allotted to<br \/>\nthe first defendant.  To prove that there was a joint family nucleus available<br \/>\nfor the original joint family members namely Kali and Mookan except the oral<br \/>\nevidence of the first defendants there is no other evidence available.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.Ex.A3 is a sale deed in favour of the said Kali and Mookan and the<br \/>\nproperty was purchased for a sum of Rs.3,000\/- and the payments were also<br \/>\nrecorded in the sale deed by stating that a sum of Rs.1,400\/- received as loan<br \/>\nand balance sum of Rs.1,600\/- was paid in the presence of the Sub Registrar.<br \/>\nUnder Ex.A2, the properties purchased under Ex.A3 was given in settlement in<br \/>\nfavour of the plaintiffs on 22.03.1995.  The recitals would show that the<br \/>\npossession was also given to her.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17.It is elicited that the said Kali has having other properties of his<br \/>\nown which were enjoyed by the first defendant and his brother one Kandasamy.<br \/>\nThere is no evidence to show that these properties are the ancestral properties<br \/>\nof the said Kali and his two sons.  Therefore, it cannot be said that an<br \/>\navailability of ancestral nucleus is proved by the first defendant to draw a<br \/>\npresumption that the property purchased by the members of the joint family was<br \/>\nfrom the income from the nucleus.  Therefore, the principle that once such<br \/>\nnucleus is proved the burden shifts on the plaintiff to prove that the property<br \/>\nwas purchased from the separate income of the member of the joint family is not<br \/>\napplicable.  As per the documentary evidences, the suit properties were<br \/>\npurchased by two brothers under Ex.A3 and one of the brother has settled the<br \/>\nproperty in favour of his daughter stating that he had acquired the property<br \/>\nunder a partition.  Therefore, the existence of the joint family and the<br \/>\navailability of the joint family properties and income from such properties as<br \/>\nsource money for purchase of the suit property is not proved by the first<br \/>\ndefendant who claimed the joint family status.  What was admitted by the<br \/>\nplaintiff is that there are some other properties of the father which are being<br \/>\nenjoyed by the brothers and such admission will not go to show that those<br \/>\nproperties are the ancestral properties to draw a presumption.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18.Ex.A2 is a registered settlement deed.  P.W.1 and 2 had spoken about<br \/>\nthe settlement deed.  There is nothing to show that it was not accepted and<br \/>\nacted upon.  Merely because one of the attesting witness happened to be the<br \/>\nhusband of the settlee the settlement deed cannot be disregarded.   Therefore,<br \/>\nboth the courts below have found on fact that the settlement deed are proved<br \/>\naccepted and acted upon and the first defendant had not proved the existence of<br \/>\nthe joint family and the availability of the joint family property.  The<br \/>\nrecitals in the settlement deed would show that the settler has given possession<br \/>\nto the plaintiff but in her evidence the plaintiff would state that her father<br \/>\ncontinued to be in possession and was cultivating the same.  The settlement deed<br \/>\nwas effected in March 1995 and the suit was filed in 1996 and the plaintiff<br \/>\nwould state that her father was alive when the suit was filed.  On the date of<br \/>\nfiling of the suit, the property was under the possession of the first<br \/>\ndefendant.  That being so, the donor has not handed over possession is<br \/>\nuntenable.  The person who is in possession at the time of filing of the suit<br \/>\nhas no right in the property and he has to hand over possession to the rightful<br \/>\nowner.  The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the result, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed.  No<br \/>\ncosts.  Consequently, connected C.M.P.is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>nbj<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24\/03\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI S.A(MD)No.1295 of 2004 and C.M.P.(MD)No.9566 of 2004 K.Arumugham &#8230; Appellant\/ Appellant\/ Defendant Vs 1.M.Saraswathi &#8230; 1st Respondent\/ Respondent\/ Plaintiff 2.S.Murugaih &#8230; Respondents\/ 2nd Respondent\/ 2nd Defendant PRAYER The appeal [&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-198226","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>K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010 - 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\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-05T03:26:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-05T03:26:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1913,\"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\\\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010\",\"name\":\"K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-05T03:26:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010 - 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\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-05T03:26:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-05T03:26:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010"},"wordCount":1913,"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\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010","name":"K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-05T03:26:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-arumugham-vs-m-saraswathi-on-24-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Arumugham vs M.Saraswathi on 24 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/198226","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=198226"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198226\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198226"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198226"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198226"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}