{"id":20275,"date":"2007-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007"},"modified":"2018-03-25T07:29:31","modified_gmt":"2018-03-25T01:59:31","slug":"alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Alamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Alamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n                              \n                      Dated:29.01.2007\n                              \n                            Coram\n                              \n    The Honourable Mr.Justice A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN\n                              \n                Second Appeal No.440 OF 1997\n                              \n\nAlamelu Ammal                                ..Appellant\n\n                              vs.\n\nRamanujam                                    ..Respondent\n\n\n\n      This  second appeal is filed against the judgment  and\n\ndecree dated 28.6.1996 made in A.S.No.47 of 1994 on the file\n\nof  Sub  Court, Tindivanam reversing the Judgment and decree\n\ndated  13.1.1992 made in O.S.No.245 of 1990 on the  file  of\n\nthe Court of District Munsif, Gingee.\n\n\n          For Appellant  :   Mr.R.G.Annamalai\n \n          For Respondent :   Ms.N.Mala\n\n\n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and<\/p>\n
decree  in  A.S.No.47  of 1994 on the  file  of  Sub  Court,<\/p>\n
Tindivanam.  The plaintiff who  won before the trial  Court,<\/p>\n
but  lost her case before the first appellate Court, is  the<\/p>\n
appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      2.    The short facts of the case of the plaintiff  in<\/p>\n
the  plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal<\/p>\n
are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
On  11.1.1986  the plaintiff had executed a promissory  note<\/p>\n
for a consideration of Rs.2,500\/- agreed to pay 12% interest<\/p>\n
per annum.  The defendant has not repaid the amount in spite<\/p>\n
of  several demands and finally issued a lawyer’s notice  on<\/p>\n
21.8.1989.  Since  the  defendant is an  agriculturist,  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff  restricts his interest at  the  rate  of  9%  per<\/p>\n
annum. Hence the suit.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     3. The defendant in his written statement would contend<\/p>\n
that  the  suit promissory note was not executed by him  and<\/p>\n
no consideration passed and that the suit promissory note is<\/p>\n
a  forged  one. He had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,200\/-  in  the<\/p>\n
year  1986  from one Ramachandra Maistha but the  promissory<\/p>\n
note  was  executed for Rs.2,500\/- including  the  interest.<\/p>\n
Even  one month before the expiry of the limitation  period,<\/p>\n
the  said debt was discharged by the defendant and when  the<\/p>\n
defendant  asked for the return of the promissory note,  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff  had promised to search the same and returned  the<\/p>\n
same  as early as possible. Afterwards, the plaintiff,  with<\/p>\n
the  help  of the signature found in the earlier  promissory<\/p>\n
note,   has forged the suit promissory note. Hence the  suit<\/p>\n
is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.  On the above pleadings, the trial Court had framed<\/p>\n
five  issues   for  trial.  On the side  of  the  plaintiff,<\/p>\n
Plaintiff  has  examined herself as P.W.1 and also  examined<\/p>\n
the  scribe of the promissory note as P.W.2 and also  marked<\/p>\n
Ex  A1  promissory  note.   On the side  of  the  defendant,<\/p>\n
Defendant  has  examined himself as D.W.1 and also  examined<\/p>\n
another  witness  D.W.2  and marked Ex  B1  dated  21.8.1989<\/p>\n
notice  issued  by the plaintiff through her lawyer  to  the<\/p>\n
defendant and Ex B2 dated 24.1.1990 reply notice sent by the<\/p>\n
defendant to the plaintiff’s counsel.<\/p>\n
      5.  After  going  through  the  oral  and  documentary<\/p>\n
evidence,  the learned trial Judge has come to a  conclusion<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for and<\/p>\n
accordingly  decreed  the  suit  with  costs,   and  with  a<\/p>\n
direction  to the defendant to repay the debt amount  within<\/p>\n
three  months.  Aggrieved by the Judgement  of  the  learned<\/p>\n
trial  Judge,  the  plaintiff has   preferred  A.S.No.47  of<\/p>\n
1994  before the Sub Court, Tindivanam who has reversed  the<\/p>\n
findings of the learned trial Judge on the ground that there<\/p>\n
is  a  discrepancy  seen in the admitted  signature  of  the<\/p>\n
defendant  with  that of the signature  found  in  the  suit<\/p>\n
promissory note Ex A1 and that the plaintiff has  failed  to<\/p>\n
examine one of the witnesses to the suit promissory note and<\/p>\n
that Ex B1 notice , the date of the suit promissory note has<\/p>\n
been  mentioned  wrongly.   Since  the  plaintiff  is    not<\/p>\n
satisfied  with the reasoning given in the Judgment  of  the<\/p>\n
first appellate Court, she has preferred this second appeal.<\/p>\n
      6.  The  substantial question of law involved in  this<\/p>\n
appeal is<\/p>\n
         ”  1.  Whether the lower Appellate Court<\/p>\n
         is  correct in law in its findings as to<\/p>\n
         Ex  A1  as  against  the  provisions  of<\/p>\n
         Section 88 of the Negotiable Instruments<\/p>\n
         Act, 1881?\n<\/p>\n
         Courts below are right in upholding  the<\/p>\n
         oral partition pleaded by the defendant?<\/p>\n
         2.   Whether  it  is  not  the  duty  and<\/p>\n
         burden  of  the  respondent\/defendant  to<\/p>\n
         prove  that Ex A1 is not a valid document<\/p>\n
         as  per  Sections  102  and  103  of  the<\/p>\n
         Indian Evidence Act?\n<\/p>\n
         3.  Whether the lower appellate Court  is<\/p>\n
         correct  in  law in reversing  the  valid<\/p>\n
         findings of the trial Court?\n<\/p>\n
     7. The Points:\n<\/p>\n
Section  88  of  the  Negotiable Instruments  Act  reads  as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
         “Acceptor    or   indorser   bound    not<\/p>\n
         withstanding   previous  alteration:   An<\/p>\n
         acceptor  or  indorser  of  a  negotiable<\/p>\n
         instrument is bound by his acceptance  or<\/p>\n
         indorsement notwithstanding any  previous<\/p>\n
         alterations of the instrument.”\n<\/p>\n
The  defence taken by the defendant in his written statement<\/p>\n
is  that  Ex A1 promissory note is a forged one and that  he<\/p>\n
had  executed  an earlier promissory note in favour  of  the<\/p>\n
husband  of the plaintiff viz., Ramachandran and  that  even<\/p>\n
that promissory note was executed for double the amount over<\/p>\n
and  above, he had received from the plaintiff and  that  he<\/p>\n
has   already  discharged  the  said  promissory  note,  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has failed to return the said promissory note, but<\/p>\n
forging  the signature of the defendant in the earlier  suit<\/p>\n
promissory  note  in  Ex  A1  the   same  was  brought  into<\/p>\n
existence for the purpose of the case.  The  first appellate<\/p>\n
Court  has  compared the admitted signature of the defendant<\/p>\n
in  the  vakalat,  deposition  with  that  of  the  disputed<\/p>\n
signature  in  Ex  A1 promissory note  and  has  come  to  a<\/p>\n
conclusion that both the signatures do not tally   and  that<\/p>\n
Ex  A1  is a forged one. But when the defendant has taken  a<\/p>\n
definite  plea  in his written statement that  Ex  A1  is  a<\/p>\n
forged one, the burden shifts on the defendant to prove  the<\/p>\n
same.  But the defendant has not taken any steps to send the<\/p>\n
promissory  note Ex A1 to get an expert opinion with  regard<\/p>\n
to  the  genuineness or otherwise of the same.  Even   under<\/p>\n
section  73  of  the  Indian  Evidence  Act,  the  Court  is<\/p>\n
competent  to compare  the disputed signature with  that  of<\/p>\n
the admitted signature. If we compare the signature found in<\/p>\n
Ex  A1  with that of the admitted signature of the defendant<\/p>\n
in  the vakalat filed by the defendant before this Court and<\/p>\n
that  of  the admitted signature contained in his deposition<\/p>\n
and  in  the written statement will clearly go to show  that<\/p>\n
the  signatures contain in the vakalat in the deposition and<\/p>\n
in  Ex A1 are belonged to one and the same person. Viz., the<\/p>\n
defendant. Particularly the characteristic of letters “G”  ”<\/p>\n
u”  “D”  “k; ” exactly tally with the said letters found  in<\/p>\n
the  signature  in  Ex  A1 promissory note.  So  under  such<\/p>\n
circumstances,  the  defendant  cannot  take  shelter  under<\/p>\n
Section  88  of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Yet  another<\/p>\n
reason  in the first appellate Court’s Judgment is that  the<\/p>\n
failure of the plaintiff to examine an attestor to Ex A1  as<\/p>\n
a  witness  to  prove the case, cannot also  be  sustainable<\/p>\n
because  the promissory note is not a “Will” to be  attested<\/p>\n
by  at least two witnesses and not to be proved by examining<\/p>\n
at  least  one  of  the attesting witnesses as  contemplated<\/p>\n
under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.<\/p>\n
      8.  The  plaintiff has examined herself  as P.W.1  and<\/p>\n
also examined another witness P.W.2 who is the scribe in  Ex<\/p>\n
A1.  P.W.2 has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in respect<\/p>\n
of the execution of the promissory note and also for passing<\/p>\n
of  consideration.  The other point under  which  the  first<\/p>\n
appellate Court rejected the claim of the plaintiff   is  in<\/p>\n
Ex  B1  notice,  the date of the promissory  note  has  been<\/p>\n
wrongly  mentioned as 11.9.1989.  But the actual date  found<\/p>\n
in  Ex  A1  is 11.9.1989.  The date mentioned in  Ex  B1  is<\/p>\n
clearly  an  error apparent on record because  even  on  the<\/p>\n
right  hand  side column in  Ex B1, the date of  notice  has<\/p>\n
been  mentioned as 21.8.1989. For a promissory note said  to<\/p>\n
have  been executed on 11.9.1989,it is impossible to send  a<\/p>\n
notice  on 21.8.1989. So it will clearly go to show that  it<\/p>\n
is an error apparent on record. So under such circumstances,<\/p>\n
this  Court  is compelled to interfere with the findings  of<\/p>\n
the  first appellate Court in A.S.No.47 of 1994. The  points<\/p>\n
are answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     9.  In the result, the appeal is allowed and the decree<\/p>\n
and  Judgment in A.S.No.47 of 1994 on the file of the  Court<\/p>\n
of Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam is hereby set aside and the<\/p>\n
Judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.245 of 1990 is restored. <\/p>\n
The suit is decreed  as  prayed  for  with costs through out.  <\/p>\n
Time  for  payment within two months from the date of receipt <\/p>\n
of a copy of this order.\n<\/p>\n
sg<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Sub Court,
\nTindivanam<\/p>\n
2. The  District Munsif,
\nGingee<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Alamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated:29.01.2007 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN Second Appeal No.440 OF 1997 Alamelu Ammal ..Appellant vs. Ramanujam ..Respondent This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.6.1996 made in A.S.No.47 of 1994 on […]<\/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-20275","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAlamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007 - 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\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Alamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-25T01:59:31+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Alamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-25T01:59:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1367,\"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\\\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Alamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-25T01:59:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Alamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Alamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007 - 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\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Alamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-25T01:59:31+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Alamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-25T01:59:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007"},"wordCount":1367,"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\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007","name":"Alamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-25T01:59:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/alamelu-ammal-vs-ramanujam-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Alamelu Ammal vs Ramanujam on 29 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/20275","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=20275"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20275\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20275"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20275"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20275"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}