{"id":204073,"date":"2009-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009"},"modified":"2016-06-14T12:30:00","modified_gmt":"2016-06-14T07:00:00","slug":"v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"V.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
V.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:30\/06\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA\n\nS.A(MD)No.1066 of 2006\nand\nS.A(MD)No.102 of 2007\nand\nM.P(MD)No.1 of 2006\n\nS.A.No.1066 of 2006\n\nV.Ayyanar\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\/Defendant\n\nvs.\n\n1.  Rajendran\n\n2.  Muthuselvam\n\n3.  Mrs. Jeya\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\/plaintiffs<\/pre>\n
S.A.No.102 of 2007<\/p>\n
1.  Rajendran<\/p>\n
2.  Muthuselvam<\/p>\n
3.  Mrs. Jeya\t\t\t\t\t..Appellants\/Plaintiffs<\/p>\n
vs.\n<\/p>\n
V.Ayyanar\t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondent\/Defendant\n\nPRAYER IN S.A.NO.1066 OF 2006\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code\n<\/pre>\n
of Civil Procedure, against against the decree and judgement made in A.S.No.27
\nof 2005, dated 28.6.2006 on the file of the District Judge,Srivilliputhur,
\nVirudhunagar District by partly allowing and confirming the decree and judgement
\nmade in O.S.No.6 of 2003, dated 21.02.2005, on the file of the Subordinate
\nCourt, Aruppukkottai.\n<\/p>\n
PRAYER IN S.A.NO.102 OF 2007<\/p>\n
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code
\nof Civil Procedure, against against the decree and judgement made in A.S.No.27
\nof 2005,dated 28.6.2006 on the file of the District Judge,Srivilliputhur,
\nVirudhunagar District by modifying and confirming the decree and judgement made
\nin O.S.No.6 of 2003, dated 21.02.2005, on the file of the Subordinate Court,
\nAruppukkottai.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant in S.A.No.1066\/06   …Mr.K.Chelladurai
\nand defendant in S.A.No.102\/2007<\/p>\n
^For Respondents in S.A.No.1066\/06 …Mr.S.Parthasarathy
\nand appellants in S.A.No.102\/07<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGEMENT<\/p>\n
\t\tThe averments of the plaint is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe plaintiffs are brothers and sister.  The defendant is the father
\nof the plaintiffs.  Suit properties are as a joint family properties.  So far,
\nno partition has been effected.  The properties were in joint possession and
\nenjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendant.  The income from the joint family
\nproperties has been divided by the plaintiffs and defendant.  The Government
\nkist have been paid jointly by the plaintiffs and defendant.  The defendant is
\nthe Kartha of the family.  The suit properties are standing in his name and kist
\nwas also paid in his name, he alone managed the property, but of the income from
\nthese joint family properties the defendant\/Father had purchased some properties
\nin his name i.e. item Nos. 7 to 9.  So it  also joint family properties.  The
\ndefendant is now leading wayward life not disclosed the income from the suit
\nproperties.  The plaintiffs demanded partition through Advocates’ notice, dated
\n29.7.2002.  But the defendant refused to give share to the plaintiffs.  The
\ndefandant gave a reply, dated 09.12.2002.  Since the defendant has refused to
\ngive the share to the plaintiffs in the suit properties, hence,the plaintiffs
\nare  constrained to file a suit for partition of 3\/4 share in the suit property,
\nthey   pray for the  preliminary decree of partition.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The gist and essence of the written statement is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe plaintiffs are defendant’s children.  As a father, the defendant has
\nproperly maintained them as a Kartha of the family.  The defendant is a
\nHeadmaster in Panchayat Union Primary School and he retired from service.  The
\nSuit items 2,3,4 and 6 are the ancestral joint family properties.  The 6th item
\nof the suit properties is a dry land and it is not a wet land. 1 and . acre land
\nis only a punja land.  The nanja land is only to the extent of 90 cents. During
\nthe normal monsoon only, they can cultivate paddy. If there is a failure in the
\nmonsoon, he is not in a position to raise any crops. During the season, the
\nincome from the ancestral property is only Rs.8,000\/- per annum. The paddy
\nharvested from nanja land is not sufficient to maintain the family.  So, they
\npurchased paddy from outside. Since the defendant is a Teacher, he also used his
\nsalary for the benefit of the family.  After met out the family expenses, the
\nremaining portion of the salary has been utilised for his personal expenses and
\nsave the  same and thus he purchased item Nos.1, 5,7 of the suit properties in
\nhis own name and enjoyed the same as his separate property.  So, the plaintiffs
\nare not entitled for the share in item Nos.1,5 and 7.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. It is false to contend that out of income from this ancestral joint
\nfamily properties, item Nos. 1, 5 and 7 are purchased. Item 8 and 9 are not
\njoint family properties  and item No.8 belongs to one Thanam, Item No.1 was
\nbelonged to one Maheswari.  So the plaintiff and defendant have no right over
\nthe property.  They are necessary party to the suit, since they are not
\nimpleaded, the suit is bad in non-joinder of necessary parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are in possession of items 5 and 6.  The defendant
\nis ready to give share to this plaintiffs in item Nos.2,3,4 and 6.  The
\nplaintiffs are entitled share only in the ancestral joint family properties.
\nThis defendant is having two houses at Nedungulam Village and also they own one
\nacre 2 cents in S.No.32\/3B.  So that property was also to be included. The
\ndefendant has no objection to give the share in item Nos. 2,3, 4 and 6 and he
\nprays for the dismissal of the suit in respect of item 1,3,5, 7 and 8.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The learned Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai after considering the
\naverments both in the plaint and written  statement, framed six issues and
\nconsidering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and D.W.1 and Exs.A1 to 6 and Ex.B1,
\ncame to the conclusion that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
\nproperties, item Nos.7, 8 and 9 are not joint family properties and accordingly,
\npreliminary decree of partition of “rd share in item Nos.1 to 6 is passed and
\ndismiss the suit in respect of 7 to 9.  Against that, the plaintiffs preferred
\nan appeal in A.S.No.27 of 2005 and the same is partly allowed granting ” share
\nin item No.7 and modified the decree that the plaintiffs and appellant are
\nentitled to ” share in item No.7 and dismissed the appeal in respect of item
\nNos.8 and 9.  Against the allowing of the appeal, the defendant preferred an
\nappeal in S.A.No.1066 of 2006 in respect of item No.7 and for the dismissal of
\nthe appeal in respect of item Nos. 8 and 9, the plaintiffs preferred this appeal
\nS.A.No.102 of 2007.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. This Court after perusing the entire material records, admitted
\nS.A.No.1066 of 2006, on the following Substantial questions of law:\n<\/p>\n
\t1.  Whether the findings of the first appellate court reversing the
\nfindings of the Trial court by stating that the plaint schedule item No.7 is
\nalso one of the joint family properties though the same has been purchased in
\nthe name of this appellant, is legally correct and sustainable in the absence of
\nany proof as provided under Sections 101 to 104 of the Indian Evidence Act,
\n1872?\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  Whether the decree and judgement of the first appellate court that the
\nrespondents\/plaintiffs are entitled to get 3\/4th share in  Item No.7 of the
\nplaint schedule property also  by treating the same as one of the ancestral
\njoint family properties is legally correct and sustainable when the property has
\nbeen purchased by this appellant\/defendant in his name from and out of his own
\nearnings of salary as a Teacher?\n<\/p>\n
\t7. This Court after perusing the entire material records, admitted
\nS.A.No.102 of 2007, on the following substantial questions of law:\n<\/p>\n
\t1. Are the courts below correct and justified in not granting a decree
\nwith regard to items 8 and 9 when the presumption is that the family is joint
\nand the properties are joint family properties?\n<\/p>\n
\t2.  When the properties are purchased from and out of the joint family
\nincome or funds in the name of the third parties whether it loses the character
\nof joint family property?\n<\/p>\n
\t3.  Are the Courts below ought to have drawn adverse inference as against
\nthe defendant  when the defendant has not come to court with clean hands?\n<\/p>\n
\t8. For the convenient, parties are called as it is in trial Court since
\nboth parties preferred the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition in respect of 9 items of the
\nproperties stating that the suit properties are joint family properties of the
\ndefendant  their father and themselves. Iyyanar\/defendant is having two sons and
\none daughter.  They are the plaintiffs.  The defendant herein raised a plea that
\nitem Nos.1,5 and 7 are his separate properties and item no.8 and 9 are not
\nbelonging to their family. The trial court after considering the oral and
\ndocumentary evidence, a preliminary decree has been passed in respect of item
\nNos. 1 to 6 and suit was dismissed in respect of 7 to 9. Against that,
\nA.S.No.27\/2005 was preferred by the plaintiffs. An  appeal was preferred before
\nthe District Judge, Srivilliputhur and that appeal  has been partly allowed
\nstating that item No.7 of the suit properties is a joint family property. So the
\nPlaintiffs are entitled to 3\/4 share  and dismissed the suit in respect of item
\nNo.8 and 9 is confirmed.  Against the allowing of appeal in respect of item No.7
\nof the suit property, the defendant preferred S.A.No.1066\/2006, the plaintiff
\npreferred an appeal S.A.No.102\/2007 for dismissal of the appeal in respect of
\nsuit properties.\n<\/p>\n
\t10 Admitted facts of the case is that the defendant Iyyanar is the father.
\nChildren are plaintiffs.  He is having two sons and one daughter and each having
\n1\/4 share in the suit property.  Even though the defendant\/father raised a plea
\nthat item Nos.1,5 and 7 are his separate property and item Nos.8 and 9 is not
\nbelonging to the family, the trial court has granted a decree in respect of item
\nNos. 1 to 6 and dismissed the suit in respect of item Nos.7 to 9.  The defendant
\nhas not filed any appeal against item Nos.1 and 5. But the plaintiffs alone
\npreferred an appeal claiming 3\/4th share in item Nos.7 to 9.  The finding of
\ntrial Court that the items 1 and 5 are joint family properties is final.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Now, the present appeal is filed by the defendant stating that item
\nNo.7 is his separate property.  He purchased the item No.7 from one Mayandi
\nunder Ex.B1 on 15.04.1985. Admittedly, it is a vacant site. Now three houses has
\nbeen constructed in the place and two were in occupation of the plaintiffs 1 and
\n2 and one house is in possession and enjoyment of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The main contention raised by the defendant is that item No.7 of suit
\nproperty is his separate property.  Even though the family is having ancestral
\nproperty there is no surplus income from the ancestral nucleus. The 7th item of
\nsuit property purchased out of his personal income since he is a Headmaster by
\nprofession.  Moreover, he has deposed that the income from the family is not
\nsufficient to meet out the family expenses.  In some time, he met out the family
\nexpenses out of his salary.  Besides these, P.W.1 is the first plaintiff P.W.2
\nis the second plaintiff and P.W.3 is the third plaintiff. P.W.1 has deposed that
\neach and every year income from the joint family properties has been divided
\namong themselves. The income from the joint family property is sufficient for
\nthe maintenance of the family.  He himself stated that since he is working as a
\nNoon-Meal Organizer his monthly salary is Rs.1000\/- He is utilizing his salary
\nfor his own purpose.  His brother who is a road worker has also utilized his
\nsalary for his own purpose.  His candid admission that his father has utilised
\nhis salary for his own purpose.  In that evidence, he has stated as follows:
\n\ttUkhdj;ij  me;j me;j tUlk; gphpj;J  mDgtpg;Bghk;. jhthr; brhj;jpy; nUe;J
\ntUk; tUkhdBk vd; FLk;g guhkhpg;g[f;F BghJkhdjhf nUf;Fk;. ehd; rk;ghjpf;Fk;
\n:U.1000\/-$ ehd; jdpf;Foj;jdk; te;j gpwF jdpahf jhd; bryt[ bra;Btd;. mJBghy;
\njhd; vd; jk;gpa[k; mtuth;f;Fs;s tUkhdj;ij jdpj;jdpahf bryt[ bra;thh;fs;. vd;
\njfg;gdhh; Mrphpah; bjhHpy; :Kyk; tUk; tUkhdj;ij mth; brhe;j bryt[f;F
\nitj;Jf;bfhs;thh;.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.  P.W.2 in his evidence has stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\tg{h;tPf brhj;Jf;fspypUe;J tUk; tUkhdj;ij me;je;j Mz;L gphpj;J mDgtpj;J
\ntUtjhf TwpapUg;gJ rhpjhd;. ehDk; me;j brhj;Jf;fspypUe;J tUk; tUkhdj;ij thA’fp
\nmDgtpj;jpUf;fpBwd;.\n<\/p>\n
So the plaintiffs themselves admitted that  the income from the joint family
\nproperties has been divided every year. In the above circumstances, evidently
\nthere is no surplus ancestral nucleus for purchasing 7th item of suit property.
\nMoreover, D.W.1 in his evidence stated that due to monsoon failure he has not
\nget sufficient income from the joint family ancestral properties. At that time
\nhe utilised his salary for maintaining the family. In his chief-examination, he
\nhas stated that he joined as a Teacher in the year 1957 and in the year 1985 his
\nmonthly salary is Rs.4000\/- Out of his personal earning he purchased item No.7
\nof the suit property in the year 1983 and at that time it is only a vacant site.
\nThe learned counsel  for the defendant would rely upon a decision in Gowri Ammal
\nand another .vs. Vaithilingam (deceased) and 10 others reported in 2001 3 CTC
\n577,  which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t” Person who claims that property in such managers or Kartas names is
\njoint family property should establish that joint family property has nucleus
\nand also that surplus funds of such joint family  from nucleus was available
\nduring time of purchase of property”.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. It is also stated in the same decision in paragraph No.18, that:\n<\/p>\n
\t18. In view of the above said settled principles of law as held by the
\nDivision Benches of this Court, if the existence of the joint family nucleus is
\nestablished, the burden would shift on the manager to establish that he
\npurchased the property from out of his self-earnings cannot be accepted. So, the
\nperson who claims that the property in the name of the manager of the joint
\nfamily   is the joint family property, has to establish not only the existence
\nof nucleus of joint family but also the availability of surplus funds of the
\nfamily from the nucleus during the time to purchase of the said property.”\n<\/p>\n
So the burden is upon the person who claim that item No.7 is a joint family
\nproperty. So the plaintiffs have to prove that there is surplus ancestral
\nnucleus for purchase 7th item of property  and as already culled out the portion
\nof evidence would clearly proved that there is no surplus income from joint
\nfamily properties and each and every year  income from the ancestral property
\nhas been divided  between them. In the above circumstances, the burden is upon
\nthe plaintiffs to prove  that there is ancestral surplus nucleus for purchase of
\n7th item of suit property and but they failed to do so.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The learned counsel for the defendant relied upon a decision in
\nP.R.Kannaiyan(died) and others .vs. Ramasamy Mandiri, son of Govinda Mandiri and
\nothers reported in 2005 4 CTC 457 and it reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“If the Kartha  has some separate and independent income burden of proving
\nthat property is joint family property is on person who claims such acquisition
\nstanding in the name of Kartha is joint family property and that there was
\nsufficient surplus from joint family property and out of which property in
\nquestion could have been acquired by Kartha”\n<\/p>\n
while considering the citation as already stated that the plaintiffs failed to
\nprove that there is surplus income from the ancestral nucleus. Per contra, the
\ndefendant had proved that he was a Teacher by profession, at that time  having
\nindependent income and out of that income he has purchased the property i.e.
\nitem No.7 of suit property.  The learned counsel for the defendant also relied
\nupon a decision in D.S.Lakshmi and another .vs. L.Balasubramaniam and another
\nreported in  2003 (10) SCC 310 and urged that burden to prove:
\n\t“There is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on
\naccount of existence of a joint Hindu family.  The one who asserts has to prove
\nthat the property is a joint family property.  If, however, the person so
\nasserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property
\ncould be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and
\nthe onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self acquired property to
\nprove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint
\nfamily nucleus that was available.”\n<\/p>\n
While considering the  decision along with the facts of the present case, here
\nP.W.1 and P.W.2 plaintiffs had candid admission  that each and every year income
\nfrom the ancestral property has been divided between themselves.  In the above
\ncircumstances, there is no surplus ancestral income for purchase of the
\nproperty. The candid admission of P.Ws.1 and 2 that their father\/defendant is a
\nHeadmaster and is a earning member. So, he has separate income for purchasing
\nthe property.  Hence the plaintiffs failed to prove that there is surplus joint
\nfamily nucleus to purchase property since they failed to prove that there is
\nsurplus income from the joint family property, they failed to discharge their
\nburden to prove that item No.7 of suit property is joint family property.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Per contra, the defendant himself proved that he is having separate
\nincome and he purchased the property.  He also relied upon a decision in Fagu
\nMahanta and others .vs. Raghaba Chandra Mahanta and others reported in 1999 AIHC
\n4359, which read thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“As already observed, there is no material on record to show that there
\nwas any surplus from the joint family property.  It is not disputed that the
\nproperty was acquired in the name of Sambhu who had also separate source of
\nincome.  Thus, there cannot be any presumption that the property in village
\npodadiha as described in first lot of Schedule-A\/1 was the joint family property
\neven though Sambhu was the Karta as there is some evidence relating to his
\nseparate source of income. Such property should be treated to be the separate
\nproperty of Sambhu.”\n<\/p>\n
While considering  all the decisions relied upon by the defendant that the
\nperson who assert properties are joint family properties are liable to prove the
\nsame.  Merely because  the property stands in the name of Kartha, no presumption
\nbe that property is a joint family property.  The person who asserts the
\nproperty as a joint family property must prove that property has been purchased
\nout of the surplus income derived from the joint family property. Then only the
\nburden is shifted to the person who claim to be a self-acquired property.  Here,
\nas per evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, their candid admission is each and every
\nyear income from the ancestral properties has been divided  and they are
\nenjoying their share.  There is no surplus income. D.W.1 also deposed  due to
\nthe monsoon failure  if there is no income from the joint family properties, at
\nthat time he maintained the family out of his personal income. So the father
\nhaving separate income from his teacher profession and he purchased the property
\nwas proved by defendant.  So item No.7 is a self-acquired property  of the
\ndefendant.  The plaintiffs have failed to prove that item No.7 is purchased out
\nthe surplus income from the joint family properties.  Per contra, the defendant
\nhas proved that he has purchased item 7 out of his own salary.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The learned counsel for the defendant would rely upon a decision in
\nKothanramappa .vs. Thimmaiah and others reported in 2006 (3) CTC 408 which reads
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t” Property acquired by Manager in his name in course of management of
\njoint family properties would be treated as joint family properties and onus
\nlies on Manager to prove that such properties were purchased by him from and out
\nof his own funds.”\n<\/p>\n
But the above proposition is not relevant because as per decision reported in
\n2003 10 SCC 310 clearly shows that the person  who asserts the property as a
\njoint family property  ought to have proved the same. The burden is upon him
\nand then only he shifted the person claiming as a separate property.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. Even the Division Bench of this Court has held that if the Kartha has
\nseparate and independent income, burden of proof is on the person who claims
\nsuch acquisition standing in the name of Kartha is joint family property and
\nthat there was sufficient surplus income from the joint family property.  So the
\nsingle judge judgment is no relevance.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. As already discussed, the plaintiffs have  miserably failed  to prove
\nthat item No.7 of the suit property is purchased by the Kartha out of  the joint
\nsurplus ancestral nucleus. Per contra, the defendant himself proved that he is a
\nTeacher by profession  and he purchased the property out of his own income. So,
\nI am of the opinion that item No.7 of the suit suit property is a separate
\nproperty of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The plaintiffs herein has filed S.A.No.102 of 2007 for claiming that
\nitem Nos.8 and 9 is his joint family properties and so they are entitled to
\n3\/4th share in the properties. Both the trial court and the first appellate
\ncourt decided that those properties are not belonging to joint family. Moreover,
\nin the written statement in paragraph 5, it was stated that item No.8 stands in
\nthe name of Dhanam an item No.9 stands in the name of Maheswari. Therefore it is
\npleaded that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  Three issues
\nhas been raised before the trial court and the trial court comes to the
\nconclusion that they are necessary parties to the proceeding. But the plaintiffs
\nhave not impleaded them as a party to the proceedings. But they preferred an
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The appeal also dismissed stating that Maheswari and Dhanam were not
\nimpleaded as parties. There is no document to show that the properties are
\nbelonging to these plaintiffs \/defendants.  The relationship with plaintiffs and
\nMaheswari and Dhanam has not been proved and hence the first  appellate court
\nhas dismissed the appeal.  In the above circumstances, there is no document to
\nshow that item Nos.8 and 9 belong to the joint family. The trial court has come
\nto the correct conclusion that the properties stand in the name of Dhanam and
\nMaheswari, they are necessary parties and without them the court cannot decide
\nthat the properties are joint family properties.  The plaintiffs have failed to
\nprove that item Nos.8 and 9 are joint family properties.  Hence they are not
\nentitled to any share in the item Nos.8 and 9 properties and the courts below
\ncome to the correct conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share
\nin  item No.8 and 9 of the suit properties.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. As narrated above, the defendant has proved that item No.7 of suit
\nproperty is separate property purchased by him out of his earning and he treated
\nhis property as separate property.  So the trial Court has correctly held that
\nitem No.7 is separate property of the defendant and dismissed the suit in
\nrespect of item No.7 of suit property.  The first appellate Court has committed
\nan error and come to the conclusion that the item NO.7 of the suit property is
\njoint family property and hence the judgment and decree of the first appellate
\nCourt is hereby set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. Both trial Court and first appellate Court have come to the correct
\nconclusion that item Nos.8 and 9 of suit properties are not belonging to the
\njoint family of plaintiffs and defendants.  Hence, both the Courts dismissed the
\nsuit.  Hence, the judgment and decree of the trial Court and first appellate
\nCourt in respect of item Nos.8 and 9 is confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.1066 of 2006<\/p>\n
\tFor the foregoing reasons, item No.7 of the suit property is  a separate
\nproperty of the defendant. Hence the decree and judgement of the first appellate
\ncourt is set aside.  The decree and judgement of the trial court is restored.
\nHence the Second Appeal is allowed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous
\nPetition is closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.102 of 2007<\/p>\n
\tFor the foregoing reasons, the trial court has come to the conclusion that
\nitem No.8 and 9 are not joint family  properties and hence there is no need to
\ninterfere with the
\ntrial court and first appellate Court judgment and decree. Hence the Second
\nappeal is dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
vsn<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The District Judge,
\n   Srivilliputhur,
\n   Virudhunagar District.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Subordinate Judge,
\n   Aruppukkottai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court V.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:30\/06\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA S.A(MD)No.1066 of 2006 and S.A(MD)No.102 of 2007 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2006 S.A.No.1066 of 2006 V.Ayyanar .. Appellant\/Defendant vs. 1. Rajendran 2. Muthuselvam 3. Mrs. Jeya .. Respondents\/plaintiffs S.A.No.102 of 2007 1. […]<\/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-204073","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nV.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009 - 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\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-14T07:00:00+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=\"20 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-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-14T07:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3965,\"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-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009\",\"name\":\"V.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-14T07:00:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009 - 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\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-14T07:00:00+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-14T07:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009"},"wordCount":3965,"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-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009","name":"V.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-14T07:00:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-ayyanar-vs-rajendran-on-30-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Ayyanar vs Rajendran on 30 June, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/204073","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=204073"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204073\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204073"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204073"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204073"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}