{"id":208559,"date":"2009-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009"},"modified":"2017-07-10T16:47:35","modified_gmt":"2017-07-10T11:17:35","slug":"lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Lakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Lakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                                                                       REPORTABLE\n\n                 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                   CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2243 OF 2009\n                 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5026 of 2007)\n\n\nLakshmi & Anr.                                           ... Appellants\n\n                                  Versus\n\nChinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors.                                   ...\nRespondents\n\n\n\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
S.B. Sinha, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    `Procedural Mechanics’ involving interpretation of Order XIII Rule<\/p>\n
10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter called and referred to<\/p>\n
for the sake of brevity as the `Code’) falls for consideration in this appeal<\/p>\n
which arises out of a judgment and order dated 5.1.2007 passed by a learned
\n                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP No.559 of<\/p>\n
2005.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.      Parties hereto are co-sharers.   Allegedly, a deed of partition was<\/p>\n
entered into by and between them on or about 28.11.2002. Questioning the<\/p>\n
genuineness of the said deed of partition, a suit for cancellation thereof was<\/p>\n
filed by the appellant therein.     Indisputably, in relation thereto, a First<\/p>\n
Information Report was also lodged. During investigation, the Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer recovered the purported original deed of partition from the custody<\/p>\n
of the respondent. It was sent for examination to the Forensic Science<\/p>\n
Laboratory, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.      Appellant filed an application in the said suit marked as IA No.1 of<\/p>\n
2005 calling for the report of the forensic expert from the Court of Judicial<\/p>\n
Magistrate, Sathyamangalam as regards the purported signatures of the<\/p>\n
petitioner. The said application was allowed by the learned Trial Judge. In<\/p>\n
the meantime, allegedly a second report with regard to the of thumb<\/p>\n
impression of the petitioner on 15.2.2005 was also received from the<\/p>\n
Forensic Science Laboratory. He filed a similar application under Order<\/p>\n
XIII Rule 10 of the Code before the learned Trial Judge. By an order dated<\/p>\n
8.3.2005, the Trial Court rejected the said application, stating :
\n                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
“But the petition does not contain the details such
\nas serial number and the date of the documents
\nwhich are requested to be sent for. The petition
\ndoes not mention that the documents are the
\nrecords of Crime No.699\/2003 or the related
\nrecords. It has not been stated in both the petition
\nand the counter statement that the investigation is
\nover. Only the crime number has been mentioned
\nin the petition. Since it has not been stated on
\nbehalf of the petitioner that the investigation is
\nover and that the final report has been filed in this
\nregard, and that it is not possible for the court to
\nask from time to time the documents which are in
\ntheir possession as a result of investigation and
\nthat the provisions of Order XIII Rule 10 of CPC
\ndo not empower the civil court to direct the
\nproduction of document which are in the custody
\nof police and that it has not been stated whether
\nsuch document have been filed and kept on the file
\nof the court of judicial Magistrate and that the
\nissue whether the partition deed is false or true to
\nbe established by examining witnesses and it is the
\nresponsibility of the plaintiff in this regard and
\nafter that the examination of witnesses of both
\nplaintiff and defendant are not over and that
\nkeeping in mind the objections raised by the
\nrespondents\/defendants that the petitioners\/
\nplaintiffs    are    in    collusion      with    the
\nSathyamangalam Police and that it is not possible
\nto send for the documents with the police when the
\ninvestigation is not over and that the plaintiff
\ncould establish the falsity of the partition deed by
\nother witnesses and other documents and for the
\nsaid reasons the petition is not acceptable and
\nhaving decided so.”\n<\/p>\n
                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
5.          An application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed<\/p>\n
thereagainst has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.          Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
appellant, would submit<\/p>\n
(1)         The learned Trial Court and consequently the High Court committed<\/p>\n
            an error in observing that the details of the criminal case as also the<\/p>\n
            court wherein it had been pending was not disclosed by the appellant.<\/p>\n
(2)         Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code having wide application and having<\/p>\n
            been enacted to further the ends of justice and avoidance of<\/p>\n
            multiplicity of proceedings, the same should have invoked.<\/p>\n
(3)         The genuineness and authenticity of the partition deed dated<\/p>\n
            28.11.2002 being in issue in the suit, the appellants were entitled to<\/p>\n
            call for the report of the expert to prove their case.<\/p>\n
7.          Mr. V. Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
respondent, on the other hand, would submit:<\/p>\n
      (i)      By directing the criminal court to transfer the evidence collected<\/p>\n
               by the investigating officer the proceeding before the criminal
\n                                        5<\/span><\/p>\n
              court shall remain stayed, the impugned order should not be<\/p>\n
              interfered.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii)     Appellant should have obtained the certified copy of the report<\/p>\n
              and filed it before the civil court, which having not been done, the<\/p>\n
              impugned judgment cannot be faulted with.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii)    Appellant having not been able to establish that the report in<\/p>\n
              question was necessary for proving their case, this Court should<\/p>\n
              not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the<\/p>\n
              Constitution of India.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
8.          Order XIII of the Code provides for production, impounding and<\/p>\n
return of documents. Rule 1 of the said Order mandates production of<\/p>\n
original documents by the parties at or before the settlement of issues. Rule<\/p>\n
9 of the Order XIII provides for return of admitted documents. Rule 10<\/p>\n
empowers the Court to send papers from its own records or from other<\/p>\n
courts. It reads as under :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                 “10. Court may send for papers from its own
\n                 records or from other Courts.–(1) The Court
\n                 may of its own motion, and may in its discretion
\n                 upon the application of any of the parties to a suit,
\n                 send for, either from its own records or from any
\n                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
           other Court, the record of any other suit or
\n           proceeding, and inspect the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           (2) Every application made under this rule shall
\n           (unless the Court otherwise directs) be supported
\n           by an affidavit showing how the record is material
\n           to the suit in which the application is made, and
\n           that the applicant cannot without unreasonable
\n           delay or expense obtain a duly authenticated copy
\n           of the record or of such portion thereof as the
\n           applicant requires, or that the production of the
\n           original is necessary for the purposes of justice.
\n           (3) Nothing contained in this rule shall be deemed
\n           to enable the Court to use in evidence any
\n           document which under the law of evidence would
\n           be inadmissible in the suit.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.   Appellants in their application disclosed the following facts :<\/p>\n
1)   That a First Information Report was lodged on 1.11.2003 against the<\/p>\n
     defendants. The same was registered as Crime No.699\/03.<\/p>\n
2)   The original partition deed dated 28.11.2002 was sent to the Director,<\/p>\n
     Forensic Science Department along with appellant’s admitted<\/p>\n
     signatures by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam at the<\/p>\n
     request of the Investigating Officer.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3)   Plaintiffs have come to learn that a report of the expert was also filed<\/p>\n
     therein in regard to the thumb impression of the appellants.
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
10.   In that view of the matter by the appellants, the learned Trial Judge,<\/p>\n
in our opinion, committed a manifest error in holding that requisite<\/p>\n
particulars have not been furnished.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.   Furthermore, the learned Trial Judge himself had allowed a similar<\/p>\n
application so far as the opinion of the handwriting expert was concerned.<\/p>\n
It is, therefore, difficult to comprehend as to on what basis a similar prayer<\/p>\n
made by the appellant in regard to the opinion of the finger print expert<\/p>\n
could be held to be not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.   If bringing on record a document is essential for proving the case by a<\/p>\n
party, ordinarily the same should not be refused; the Court’s duty being to<\/p>\n
find out the truth. The procedural mechanics necessary to arrive at a just<\/p>\n
decision must be encouraged. We are not unmindful of the fact that the<\/p>\n
court in the said process would not encourage any fishing enquiry. It would<\/p>\n
also not assist a party in procuring a document which he should have<\/p>\n
himself filed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.   There cannot furthermore be any doubt that by calling for such<\/p>\n
documents, the Court shall not bring about a situation whereby a criminal<\/p>\n
proceeding would remain stayed as it is a well settled principle of law that
\n                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
where a Civil proceeding as also a Criminal proceeding is pending, the latter<\/p>\n
shall get primacy.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       In Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dessi & Ors.<\/a> [AIR 1955 SC<\/p>\n
566], it is stated :\n<\/p>\n
               “The learned counsel for the contesting respondent
\n               suggested that it had not been found by the lower
\n               appellate court as a fact upon the evidence
\n               adduced in this case, that Girish was the nearest
\n               agnate of the testator or that Charu had murdered
\n               his adoptive father, though these matters had been
\n               assumed as facts. The courts below have referred
\n               to good and reliable evidence in support of the
\n               finding that Girish was the nearest reversioner to
\n               the estate of the testator. If the will is a valid and
\n               genuine will, there is intestacy in respect of the
\n               interest created in favour of Charu if he was the
\n               murderer of the testator. On this question the
\n               courts below have assumed on the basis of the
\n               judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
\n               High Court in the sessions trial that Charu was the
\n               murderer. Though that judgment is relevant only
\n               to show that there was such a trial resulting in the
\n               conviction and sentence of Charu to transportation
\n               for life, it is not evidence of the fact that Charu
\n               was the murderer. That question has to be decided
\n               on evidence.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       In Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi<\/a> [(2004) 1 SCC 438], this<\/p>\n
Court held :\n<\/p>\n
                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
             “(3) A decision by a criminal court does not bind
\n             the civil court while a decision by the civil court
\n             binds the criminal court. An order passed by the
\n             Executive Magistrate in proceedings under
\n             Sections 145\/146 of the Code is an order by a
\n             criminal court and that too based on a summary
\n             enquiry. The order is entitled to respect and wait
\n             before the competent court at the interlocutory
\n             stage. At the stage of final adjudication of rights,
\n             which would be on the evidence adduced before
\n             the court, the order of the Magistrate is only one
\n             out of several pieces of evidence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
14.   In a Civil Suit, a document has to be proved. The report of an expert<\/p>\n
is also required to be brought on record in terms of the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Indian Evidence Act. Having regard to the provisions contained in Order<\/p>\n
XIII, Rule 8 of the Code, the Civil Court would furthermore be entitled to<\/p>\n
substitute the original document by a certified copy. We, therefore, fail to<\/p>\n
appreciate as to why the said original document could not be called for.<\/p>\n
      We may notice that a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in<\/p>\n
Union of India & Anr. v. The State & Anr. [1961 XLII ITR 753] held that a<\/p>\n
document may also be called for from the authorities under the Income Tax<\/p>\n
Act, stating :\n<\/p>\n
             “Further, it may be pointed out that Order XIII,
\n             rule 10(I) of the Civil Procedure Code does not
\n             refer to a judicial proceeding. It refers to a suit or
\n                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
             proceeding. Even if the proceeding in connection
\n             with the issue of a search warrant under the
\n             Foreign Exchange Regulation Act be considered a
\n             non-judicial proceeding on the part of the
\n             Magistrate, such a non-judicial proceeding would
\n             still be within the scope of Order XIII, rule 10(1)
\n             of the Civil Procedure Code. In the circumstances,
\n             we cannot accept the contention of Mr. Dutta that
\n             as there was no proceeding before the Chief
\n             Presidency Magistrate the requisition no
\n             proceeding before the Chief Presidency Magistrate
\n             the requisition under Order XIII, rule 10 of the
\n             Civil Procedure Code made by the Income-tax
\n             Officer would not be a valid requisition.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors.<\/a> [(2005) 4 SCC 480], this Court has<\/p>\n
categorically held :\n<\/p>\n
             “All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of
\n             justice. The language employed by the draftsman
\n             of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but
\n             the fact remains that the object of prescribing
\n             procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an
\n             adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be
\n             denied the opportunity of participating in the
\n             process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled
\n             by express and specific language of the statute, the
\n             provisions of CPC or any other procedural
\n             enactment ought not to be construed in a manner
\n             which would leave the court helpless to meet
\n             extraordinary situations in the ends of justice.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In Uday Shankar Triyar v. Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr.<\/a> [(2006)<\/p>\n
1 SCC 75], it was observed :\n<\/p>\n
                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
             “17. Non-compliance with any procedural
\n             requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum
\n             of appeal or application or petition for relief
\n             should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection,
\n             unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates.
\n             Procedural defects and irregularities which are
\n             curable should not be allowed to defeat
\n             substantive rights or to cause injustice. Procedure,
\n             a hand-maiden to justice, should never be made a
\n             tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any
\n             oppressive or punitive use. The well recognized
\n             exceptions to this principle are :\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             i)      where the Statute prescribing the procedure,
\n                     also prescribes specifically the consequence
\n                     of non-compliance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             ii)     where the procedural defect is not rectified
\n                     even after it is pointed out and due
\n                     opportunity is given for rectifying it;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             iii)    where the non-compliance or violation is
\n                     proved to be deliberate or mischievous;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             iv)     where the rectification of defect would
\n                     affect the case on merits or will affect the
\n                     jurisdiction of the court.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             v)      in case of Memorandum of Appeal, there is
\n                     complete absence of authority and the
\n                     appeal is presented without the knowledge,
\n                     consent and authority of the appellant.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
15.   In view of the aforementioned pronouncements, we are of the opinion<\/p>\n
that the learned Trial Judge should have acceded to the prayer of the<\/p>\n
appellants herein.\n<\/p>\n
                                   12<\/span><\/p>\n
16.   The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained. It is set<\/p>\n
aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.<\/p>\n
                                           ……………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                    [S.B. Sinha]<\/p>\n
                                            ……………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                 [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
April 8, 2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Lakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 2009 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam Sharma REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2243 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.5026 of 2007) Lakshmi & Anr. … Appellants Versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208559","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nLakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 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\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-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=\"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-10T11:17:35+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-10T11:17:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2287,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Lakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-10T11:17:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Lakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 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\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-10T11:17:35+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-10T11:17:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009"},"wordCount":2287,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009","name":"Lakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-10T11:17:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-anr-vs-chinnammal-rayyammal-ors-on-8-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lakshmi & Anr vs Chinnammal @ Rayyammal & Ors on 8 April, 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:\/\/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\/208559","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=208559"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208559\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208559"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208559"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208559"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}