{"id":202641,"date":"2008-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008"},"modified":"2016-02-18T20:54:20","modified_gmt":"2016-02-18T15:24:20","slug":"v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008","title":{"rendered":")V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">)V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 25\/04\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nS.A.(MD).No.1770 of 1996\nand\nC.M.P.17642 of 1996\n\n\n1)V.Subbiah\n2)S.P.Sethu Ambalam\t\t\t\t... \tAppellants\n\nVs.\n\n1)V.R.Rethinam\n2)N.V.Somasundaram\n3)R.Meenakshisundaram Chettiar\n4)Kannappa Valliappa\t\t\t\t...\tRespondents\n\n\n\tSecond appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and\ndecree of the Sub-court, Devakottai dated 26.07.1986 made in A.S.No.66\/1994\nconfirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court (Court of District Munsif,\nDevakottai) dated 09.08.1994 made in O.S.No.50 of 1992.\n\n\n!For Appellants  ... Mr.T.R.Rajaraman\n\n^For Respondents ... Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n:JUDGEMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tNotice of motion was served on the respondents indicating that the appeal<br \/>\nmight be disposed of at the stage of admission itself.  Meanwhile records were<br \/>\nalso sent for from the courts below.  After the records were received from the<br \/>\ncourts below and the respondents entered appearance, the second appeal came up<br \/>\nfor disposal on merits even without being formally admitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The defendants 2 and 4 in O.S.No.50 of 1992 on the file of the Court of<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif, Devakottai have preferred this second appeal after<br \/>\nunsuccessfully pursuing the appeal A.S.No.66 of 1994 on the file of the lower<br \/>\nappellate court (Sub-court, Devakottai) against the judgment of the trial court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. V.R.Rethinam, the first respondent herein had filed the above said<br \/>\noriginal suit against the appellants 1 and 2 and respondents 2 to 4 in the<br \/>\nsecond appeal arraying them as defendants 1 to 5.  The said suit had been filed<br \/>\nfor a declaration that the suit properties absolutely belonged to him (first<br \/>\nrespondent herein\/plaintiff) and his brother, the 4th respondent\/5th defendant<br \/>\nand for a consequential injunction against the appellants 1 and 2 herein and<br \/>\nrespondents 2 and 3 herein (defendants 1 to 4 in the suit) not to interfere with<br \/>\ntheir peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.  However,<br \/>\nsubsequently based on a further plea that the defendants 1 to 4 (appellants and<br \/>\nrespondents 2 and 3 herein) forcibly took possession of the suit properties<br \/>\nduring the pendency of the suit, a prayer for recovery of possession was<br \/>\nincorporated as an alternate relief by amending the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The following are the contentions based on which the first respondent \/<br \/>\nplaintiff had sought for the above said reliefs:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe suit properties were ancestral properties of the first<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff and his brother the 4th respondent\/5th defendant. Join<br \/>\npatta had been issued in their names and the first respondent\/plaintiff was<br \/>\npaying kist on his own behalf and on behalf of his brother the 4th<br \/>\nrespondent\/5th defendant.   They were the absolute owners of the suit properties<br \/>\nand were in actual and physical possession of the same as on the date of suit.<br \/>\nThe appellants and respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 1 to 4) did not have any<br \/>\ntitle or right in respect of the suit properties, but they were making attempts<br \/>\nto trespass into the same and were threatening to put up a barbed wire fence<br \/>\naround the suit properties.  Hence the first respondent\/plaintiff had to rush to<br \/>\nthe court for the relief of declaration and injunction.  However, during the<br \/>\npendency of the suit the appellants and the respondents 2 and 3 (defendants 1 to\n<\/p>\n<p>4) proved to be successful in their attempt to trespass into the suit properties<br \/>\nand take possession.  Hence the plaint was amended and the prayer for recovery<br \/>\nof possession was incorporated as an alternate relief for relief of permanent<br \/>\ninjunction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The 4th defendant (3rd respondent herein) filed a written statement and<br \/>\nthe same was adopted by the defendants 1 to 3 (appellants and respondent No.2).<br \/>\nIn the said written statement they had denied the plaint allegations regarding<br \/>\nthe claim of title to the suit properties made by the first respondent \/<br \/>\nplaintiff for himself and on behalf of his brother the 4th respondent\/5th<br \/>\ndefendant.  The allegations that the appellants and respondents 2 and 3<br \/>\n(defendants 1 to 4) made an attempt to trespass into the suit land and that they<br \/>\nalso proclaimed to put up barbed wire fence around the suit properties were also<br \/>\ndenied.  It was their further contention that, at no point of time the first<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The<br \/>\nfollowing are the other contentions made in the above said written statement:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe suit properties having an extent of    3-3\/4 kurukkam comprised in<br \/>\nPaimash No.6\/39P originally belonged to three persons namely, 1) Kanaga Nadar<br \/>\nS\/o Perianna Nadar, 2) Ramasamy Nadar @ Vellaya Nadar S\/o Perichi Nadar and 3)<br \/>\nAlagan Nadar, son of the above said  Ramasamy Nadar @ Vellaya Nadar.  The said<br \/>\npersons sold the suit properties under a registered sale deed dated 17.01.1918<br \/>\nto one Chidambaram Chettiar S\/o Murugappa Chettiar.  The said Chidambaram<br \/>\nChettiar sold the southern half of the suit properties to one Shanmugam Chettiar<br \/>\non 24.11.1954 and retained the northern half for himself.  After Kallal Village<br \/>\nwas taken over by the Government under Act 26 of 1948, patta for the said land<br \/>\nwas granted in the name of Shanmugam Chettiar who had purchased only the<br \/>\nsouthern half of the suit properties from Chidambaram Chettiar. Survey No.256\/3<br \/>\nassigned to the suit properties.  Even after the issue of patta for the entire<br \/>\nproperty comprised in Survey No.256\/3, the northern half continued to be in the<br \/>\npossession and enjoyment of Chidambaram Chettiar till his death.  There after<br \/>\nthe same came to be  possessed and enjoyed by his two sons 1) Valliappa Chettiar<br \/>\nand 2) Subbiah Chettiar.  Valliappa Chettiar died leaving behind him a son by<br \/>\nname Subbiah Chettiar.  The 2nd appellant\/4th defendant entered into an<br \/>\nagreement for sale with Subbiah Chettiar S\/o.Chidambaram Chettiar and Subbiah<br \/>\nChettiar S\/o.Valliappa Chettiar on 03.02.1992.  By virtue of the above said<br \/>\nagreement, the second appellant\/4th defendant got possession of 1 Acre 16 .<br \/>\ncents being the northern half of the suit properties and continued to be in<br \/>\npossession and enjoyment of the same.  Meanwhile, the first respondent\/<br \/>\nplaintiff and the 4th respondent\/5th defendant approached the son and grandson<br \/>\nof Chidambaram Chettiar to sell Survey No.256\/3 to them.  As the said attempt<br \/>\nproved ineffective, the first respondent\/plaintiff with the connivance of his<br \/>\nbrother filed the suit vexatiously.  The 2nd respondent\/first defendant filed an<br \/>\nadditional written statement contending that the suit properties belonged to him<br \/>\nand his family members by virtue of purchase made from the original owners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The learned District Munsif framed necessary issues and conducted trial<br \/>\nin which three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and thirty three<br \/>\ndocuments were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A33 on the side of the plaintiffs.  Three<br \/>\nwitnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and eight documents were marked as<br \/>\nEx.B1 to Ex.B8 on the side of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. At the conclusion of trial, the learned District Munsif considered the<br \/>\nevidence, both oral and documentary, and came to the conclusion that the<br \/>\nplaintiff and the 5th defendant had title to the suit properties and that the<br \/>\ndefendants had trespassed into the same.  Based on the said findings, the<br \/>\nlearned District Munsif decreed the suit declaring the title of the plaintiff<br \/>\nand the 5th defendant in respect of the suit properties and granting the relief<br \/>\nof recovery of possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. As against the said judgment and decree of the trial court dated<br \/>\n09.08.1994, the present appellants\/ defendants 2 and 4 preferred an appeal<br \/>\nA.S.No.66\/1994 on the file of the Sub-Court, Devakottai.  Similarly,<br \/>\nR.Meenakshisundaram Chettiar (2nd respondent herein\/first defendant) filed an<br \/>\nappeal A.S.No.67\/1994 on the file of the Sub-court.  In the appellate court, 32<br \/>\ndocuments were produced as additional documentary evidence on the side of the<br \/>\ndefendants and they were marked as Ex.B9 to B40.  Both the appeals were heard<br \/>\ntogether and the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai by a common judgment<br \/>\ndated 26.07.1996, confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and<br \/>\ndismissed both the appeals with cost.  As against the dismissal of the appeal<br \/>\n(A.S.No.67\/1994) preferred by the 2nd respondent herein\/first defendant, he has<br \/>\nnot chosen to file any second appeal.  As against the dismissal of the appeal<br \/>\n(A.S.No.66\/1994) preferred by the appellants herein\/2nd and 4th defendants, they<br \/>\nhave preferred the present second appeal on the file of this court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. This court heard the submissions made by Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellants and by Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondents.  The materials on record were also perused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. The suit filed by the first respondent herein\/ plaintiff against the<br \/>\nappellants and respondents 2 to 4 (defendants 1 to 5) was decreed by the trial<br \/>\ncourt.  The said suit was filed initially for a declaration of title of the<br \/>\nfirst and fourth respondents herein (plaintiff and fifth defendant) in respect<br \/>\nof the suit properties and for a consequential perpetual injunction not to<br \/>\ndisturb their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.  The relief of<br \/>\nperpetual injunction was sought for on the strength of their contention that<br \/>\nthey were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and that the<br \/>\nappellants and respondents 2 and 3 \/ defendants 1 to 4 were trying to interfere<br \/>\nwith their possession and were proclaiming to take forcible possession and<br \/>\nenclose the suit properties with barbed wire fence.  Subsequently, contending<br \/>\nthat the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 \/ defendants 1 to 4 succeeded in<br \/>\ntheir attempt to trespass into the suit properties, the plaint was amended<br \/>\nseeking the relief of recovery of possession as an alternate relief for the<br \/>\nrelief of perpetual injunction originally sought for in the plaint.  The suit<br \/>\nwas decreed against the defendants 1 to 4 therein who are the present appellants<br \/>\nand respondents 2 and 3 in the second appeal in respect of the reliefs of<br \/>\ndeclaration and recovery of possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The first respondent herein\/plaintiff, in order to protect his<br \/>\ninterest as well as the interest of his brother-the fourth respondent\/fifth<br \/>\ndefendant as joint owners of the suit properties, had filed the suit.  According<br \/>\nto the plaint averments, the suit properties are their ancestral properties and<br \/>\npatta was issued jointly in their names when the Government took over the<br \/>\nvillage under the Act 26 of 1948.  On the other hand, the appellants and<br \/>\nrespondents 2 and 3 \/ the contesting defendants (defendants 1 to 4) claimed that<br \/>\nthe suit properties were purchased by one Chidambaram Chettiar, son of Murugappa<br \/>\nChettiar under a sale deed dated 17.01.1918, a certified copy of which was<br \/>\nmarked as Ex.B5; that the said Chidambaram Chettiar sold the southern half of<br \/>\nthe suit properties to one Shanmugam Chettiar under a sale deed dated<br \/>\n24.11.1954, a certified copy of which has been marked as Ex.B2 and the northern<br \/>\nhalf was retained for himself and that the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 \/<br \/>\ndefendants 1 to 4 got the suit properties under sale deeds and sale agreement<br \/>\nfrom the legal heirs of the above said Shanmugam Chettiar and Chidambaram<br \/>\nChettiar.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the courts below,<br \/>\nespecially the first appellate court, committed an error in decreeing the suit<br \/>\nfor the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession  despite the<br \/>\nproduction of a number of documents by the appellants and respondents 2 and<br \/>\n3\/defendants 1 to 4 in support of their contention. The learned counsel also<br \/>\nsubmitted that the oral evidence adduced as well as documents produced on the<br \/>\nside of the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 \/ defendants 1 to 4 should have<br \/>\nbeen held sufficient to prove that the suit properties were purchased by<br \/>\nChidambaram Chettiar in the year 1918; that thereafter Shanmugam Chettiar<br \/>\npurchased the southern half of the suit properties from the said Chidambaram<br \/>\nChettiar and the appellants and the respondents 2 and 3 \/ defendants 1 to 4<br \/>\nbecame entitled to the suit properties by virtue of a sale deed obtained from<br \/>\nthe legal representatives of Shanmugam Chettiar in respect of the southern half<br \/>\nof the suit properties and an agreement for sale obtained from the legal heirs<br \/>\nof Chidambaram Chettiar in respect of northern half of the suit properties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff argued that none of the documents submitted on behalf of<br \/>\nthe appellants and respondents 2 and 3\/defendants 1 to 4 were relating to the<br \/>\nsuit properties; that all the documents produced by them in support of their<br \/>\nclaim of title related to another property comprised in Survey No.256\/3 whereas<br \/>\nthe suit properties are comprised in Survey No.256\/2C; that the courts below<br \/>\nhave rightly held that those documents did not relate to the suit survey<br \/>\nnumbers; that all the witness examined on the side of the appellants and<br \/>\nrespondents 2 to 4 (contesting defendants) were not able to give the correct<br \/>\nboundaries of the suit properties and that the admission made by the witnesses<br \/>\nexamined on their side regarding their ignorance of some of the boundaries<br \/>\nitself would be enough to show that the conclusion arrived at by the courts<br \/>\nbelow in this regard were unassailable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. This court gave its consideration to the above said submissions made<br \/>\nby the learned counsel appearing on either side.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. The sale deed dated 17.01.1918 under which Chidambaram Chettiar<br \/>\nallegedly purchased the suit properties from Kanaga Nadar and others has been<br \/>\nproduced and marked as Ex.B5.   3-3\/4 kurukkam of land within defined boundaries<br \/>\nwas purchased under Ex.B5 by the Chidambaram Chettiar.  In order to show that<br \/>\nthe properties sold under Ex.B5 was lying on the south of the property belongs<br \/>\nto Karuppa Nambalam and Mahalinga Asari, Ex.B6 has been produced. In none of the<br \/>\nsaid documents, either the Paimash number or Survey number has been provided.<br \/>\nMore particularly Ex.B5 does not contain either the Paimash number or the Survey<br \/>\nnumber.  It is the admitted case of the contesting defendants that out of 3-3\/4<br \/>\nkurukkam of land purchased under Ex.B5, Chidambaram Chettiar sold the common<br \/>\nhalf share (1 7\/8  kurukkam) to Shanmugam Chettiar under Ex.B2.  Ex.B3 is a<br \/>\nletter dated 20.10.1958 titled as partition letter executed by Chidambaram<br \/>\nChettiar in favour of Shanmugam Chettiar under which he agreed to retain the<br \/>\nnorthern half for himself and leave the southern half to the share of Shanmugam<br \/>\nChettiar.  As pointed out supra, none of the above said documents contain either<br \/>\nthe Survey number or Paimash number.  It is the definite case of the first<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff that the suit properties are comprised in Survey Nos.256\/2A<br \/>\nand 256\/2C2 whereas the property purchased under Ex.B5 by Chidambaram Chettiar<br \/>\nwas admittedly comprised in Survey No.256\/3.  It is pertinent to note that the<br \/>\nappellants and Respondents 2 and 3 \/ defendants 1 to 4 did not produce any<br \/>\ndocument to show that any part of the property purchased by Chidambaram Chettiar<br \/>\nunder Ex.B5 comes under Survey No.256\/2.  They also failed to produce any<br \/>\nadangal extract or kist receipts to show payment of kist for the suit properties<br \/>\ncomprised in Survey Nos.256\/2A and 256\/2C2.  All other documents produced on<br \/>\nbahalf of the contesting defendants before the trial court as well as lower<br \/>\nappellate court show that the contesting defendants claim title to Survey<br \/>\nNo.256\/3 and not to Survey Nos.256\/2A and 256\/2C2 namely, the suit properties.<br \/>\nIn fact the patta passbook marked as Ex.B11 and the field map of Survey No.256<br \/>\nmarked as Ex.B13, &#8216;A&#8217; Register extracts marked as Ex.B15 and B16, Survey Land<br \/>\nRegister extract marked as Ex.B17 and the field map pertaining to the Survey<br \/>\nNo.258 marked as Ex.B14 would clearly show that Survey No.256\/2 lies on the<br \/>\nnorth and Survey No.256\/3 lies on the south.  It is abundantly clear that the<br \/>\ncontesting defendants have not made any claim of title in respect of Survey<br \/>\nNo.256\/2.  They contend that they are the owners of Survey No.256\/3.  Perhaps<br \/>\nunder the mistaken identity of the land, the contesting defendants have taken a<br \/>\nplea that the suit properties are the properties purchased under Ex.B5 by their<br \/>\npredecessor in title namely, Chidambaram Chettiar.  The lower appellate court<br \/>\nconsidered the above said aspect and came to a correct conclusion that the<br \/>\ncontesting defendants could claim right in respect of Survey No.256\/3 and not in<br \/>\nrespect of any part of Survey No.256\/2.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. The first respondent\/plaintiff has produced settlement patta passbook<br \/>\nissued in his favour and his brother-the 4th respondent\/5th defendant and marked<br \/>\nit as Ex.A1.  Under Ex.A1, patta has been issued in their favour for Survey<br \/>\nNos.256\/2A and 256\/2C2.  The order of Tahsildar for the issue of patta in their<br \/>\nfavour is Ex.A6.  Several kist receipts showing payment of kist to the suit<br \/>\nproperties have been produced and marked as Ex.A9 to Ex.A15.  Ex.A22 and Ex.A24<br \/>\nare the FMBs pertaining to Survey No.256.  Ex.A25 and Ex.A26 are certified<br \/>\ncopies of &#8216;A&#8217; Registers relating to Survey No.256.  Though the contesting<br \/>\ndefendants did not produce the agreement they had got from the legal heirs of<br \/>\nChidambaram Chettiar, the first respondent\/plaintiff has produced a certified<br \/>\ncopy of the same as Ex.A21.  As pointed out supra, Ex.B12 patta pass-book shows<br \/>\nthat the property purchased by Chidambaram Chettiar under Ex.B5 was assigned<br \/>\nSurvey No.256\/3.  Ex.A21 also shows that the northern half of Survey No.256\/3<br \/>\nwas agreed to be sold to the second appellant\/4th defendant.  The northern<br \/>\nboundary of the said land is also shown to be &#8220;bghpafUg;gd; brl;oahh; fpiuak;<br \/>\nbra;J nUf;Fk; kid nlA;fs;&#8221;.  The said recital of the northern boundary refers to<br \/>\nthe suit properties alone, according to the first respondent\/plaintiff.  The<br \/>\nlower appellate court, after considering the above documents plus Ex.B16 &#8216;A&#8217;<br \/>\nRegister extract and B17 Survey Settlement register, has come to a correct<br \/>\nconclusion that the properties purchased by Chidambaram Chettiar under Ex.B5 was<br \/>\nassigned Survey No.256\/3.  It is obvious from various sale deeds produced on the<br \/>\nside of the contesting defendants that the property comprised in Survey No.256\/3<br \/>\nwas laid out as house sites and the house sites were sold to several persons.<br \/>\nThis aspect was clearly considered by the lower appellate court.  After properly<br \/>\nconsidering the above said documentary evidence as well as oral evidence adduced<br \/>\nbefore the courts below, the trial court and the lower appellate court have<br \/>\nrendered a concurrent finding of fact to the effect that the suit properties<br \/>\ncomprised in Survey No.256\/2A and Survey No.256\/2C2 and the property purchased<br \/>\nby Chidambaram Chettiar under Ex.B5 are not the one and the same; that the<br \/>\ncontesting defendants could claim title only in respect of the properties<br \/>\npurchased by Chidambaram Chettiar under Ex.B5 which is comprised in Survey<br \/>\nNo.256\/3 and that neither Chidambaram Chettiar nor anybody claiming through him<br \/>\ncould claim title to the properties comprised in Survey No.256\/2A and in Survey<br \/>\nNo.256\/2C2.  The courts below have also rendered a clear and correct finding<br \/>\nthat the first respondent\/plaintiff had proved the suit properties comprised in<br \/>\nSurvey Nos.256\/2A and 256\/2C2 were the ancestral properties of the first<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff and his brother-the 4th respondent\/5th defendant.  There is<br \/>\nno scope, whatsoever, to interfere with the said finding of fact recorded by the<br \/>\ncourts below and the same, at no stretch of imagination, could be termed a<br \/>\nperverse finding.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. A second appeal to the High Court, as per Section 100 of Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure, shall lie only on a substantial question of law.  In the instant case<br \/>\nappellants have not proved that this second appeal involves a substantial<br \/>\nquestion of law.  Second appeals cannot be admitted even on mere questions of<br \/>\nlaw if they are not substantial questions of law.  A question of fact may assume<br \/>\nthe character of a substantial question of law when such a finding of fact shall<br \/>\nbe perverse.  In the case on hand, there is nothing to show that the courts<br \/>\nbelow, (especially the lower appellate court) have misinterpreted any document<br \/>\nor omitted to consider any piece of evidence.  The findings of the courts below<br \/>\ncannot be said to be based on legally inadmissible evidence.  It can&#8217;t be said<br \/>\nthat no reasonable person would have arrived at such a conclusion based on the<br \/>\nevidence available on record.  In short, the finding of facts recorded by the<br \/>\ncourts below cannot be termed perverse.  No substantial question of law is<br \/>\nproved to have involved in the second appeal.  Hence this court comes to the<br \/>\nconclusion that there is no merit in the second appeal and the same deserves to<br \/>\nbe dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. For all the reasons stated above, the second appeal is dismissed.  Any<br \/>\nhow there shall be no order as to cost. Consequently connected miscellaneous<br \/>\npetition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>asr<\/p>\n<p>To :\n<\/p>\n<p>1) The Subordinate Judge, Devakottai<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court )V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25\/04\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR S.A.(MD).No.1770 of 1996 and C.M.P.17642 of 1996 1)V.Subbiah 2)S.P.Sethu Ambalam &#8230; Appellants Vs. 1)V.R.Rethinam 2)N.V.Somasundaram 3)R.Meenakshisundaram Chettiar 4)Kannappa Valliappa &#8230; Respondents Second appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the [&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-202641","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 v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>)V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008 - 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\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\")V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-18T15:24:20+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\")V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-18T15:24:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3288,\"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\\\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008\",\"name\":\")V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-18T15:24:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\")V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":")V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008 - 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\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":")V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-18T15:24:20+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":")V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-18T15:24:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008"},"wordCount":3288,"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\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008","name":")V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-18T15:24:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-subbiah-vs-v-r-rethinam-on-25-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":")V.Subbiah vs )V.R.Rethinam on 25 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/202641","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=202641"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/202641\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=202641"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=202641"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=202641"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}