{"id":208880,"date":"2007-12-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007"},"modified":"2017-11-06T06:52:56","modified_gmt":"2017-11-06T01:22:56","slug":"k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"K.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty … 1St on 6 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
K.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty … 1St on 6 December, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 06\/12\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\n\nC.M.A.(MD) No.251 of 2006\nand\nS.A.(MD)No.542 of 2006\nand\nCross Objection SR.No.20509 of 2006\n\n\nC.M.A.(MD) No.251 of 2006\n\n\nK.R.Sivasankar\t\t... \tAppellant\n\t\t\t\t\/1st Respondent\/<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t\tPlaintiff<\/p>\n
Vs<\/p>\n
1.K.R.Ramamoorty\t…\t1st Respondent
\n\t\t\t\t\/Appellant\/
\n\t\t\t\t1st Defendant<\/p>\n
2.M.Natarajan\n<\/p>\n
3.K.Murugan\n<\/p>\n
4.S.Gowri     \t\t… \tRespondents 2 – 4
\n\t\t\t\t\/Respondents 2 -4\/
\n\t\t\t\tDefendants 2 – 4<\/p>\n
5.G.Karthikeyan<\/p>\n
6.The State Bank of India,
\n  through its Branch Manager,
\n  Kasimedu Branch, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t… \tRespondents 5 & 6<\/p>\n
(R5 and R6 are impleaded as proposed respondents as per order of this Court
\ndated 29.08.2007 made in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2007.)<\/p>\n
Prayer in C.M.A.No.251 of 2006: Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(v) of Civil
\nProcedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2005 passed by the
\nlearned Principal District Judge, Madurai, in A.S.No.36 of 2005 modifying the
\njudgment and decree dated 13.01.2005 in O.S.No.1078 of 1994 on the file of the I
\nAdditional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.(MD)No.542 of 2006<\/p>\n
K.R.Sivasankar\t\t.. \tAppellant\/
\n\t\t\t\t1st Respondent\/
\n\t\t\t\tPlaintiff
\nVs<\/p>\n
1.K.R.Ramamoorty\t.. \t1st Respondent
\n\t\t\t\tAppellant\/
\n\t\t\t\t1st Defendant<\/p>\n
2.M.Natarajan\n<\/p>\n
3.K.Murugan\n<\/p>\n
4.S.Gowri     \t\t.. \tRespondents 2 – 4\/
\n\t\t\t\tRespondents 2 -4\/
\n\t\t\t\tDefendants 2 – 4<\/p>\n
Prayer in S.A.No.542 of 2006: Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
\nCode, against the judgment and decree dated 05.12.2005 passed by the learned
\nPrincipal District Judge, Madurai, in A.S.No.36 of 2005 modifying the judgment
\nand decree dated 13.01.2005 in O.S.No.1078 of 1994 on the file of the I
\nAdditional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
!For Appellant\t \t…\tMr.M.N.Sankaran<\/p>\n
^For Respondents\t…\tMr.M.S.Balasubramania Iyer
\n\t\t\t\tfor R.1
\n\t\t\t\tMr.M.Vallinayagam
\n\t\t\t\tfor R.2 and R.3
\n\t\t\t\tMr.E.N.Venkatesan for R.4<\/p>\n
:COMMON JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
\tC.M.A.No.251 of 2006 and S.A.No.542 of 2006 are taken up together, as they
\nare inter-linked with each other and emerged out of one and the same judgment
\npassed by the Principal District Judge, Madurai, in A.S.No.36 of 2005, dated
\n05.12.2005.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. Both the Courts below detailed and delineated the relevant facts as
\nfound set out in the pleadings of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. However, for better appreciation in view of the intricate law points
\ntouching upon the facts involved in this case, it is just and necessary to
\nbroadly but briefly, precisely but narratively, set out the facts thus.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The litigation is mainly between the father and the son.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. The suit property and the other properties  originally belonged to one
\nK.S.Venkatakrishna Iyer who died intestate around the year 1952, leaving behind
\nhis three sons namely K.V.Rengachary, K.V.Sarangapani and K.V.Narayanan Iyer,
\nwho got the properties partitioned as per partition deed dated 28.11.1938; a
\nschedule property mentioned therein was alloted to the share of K.V.Rengachary
\nwho had two sons namely the first defendant K.R.Ramamoorthy and K.R.Rajan.
\nAfter the death of Rengachary, the said A Schedule property of the partition
\ndeed dated 28.11.1938, was divided between the first defendant herein and his
\nbrother Rajan and in that, the suit properties were alloted to the share of the
\nfirst defendant, whose only son namely Sivasankar filed O.S.No.1078 of 1994 in
\nthe Court of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.  Initially, the suit
\nwas instituted by the son as against the father only and subsequently, the
\ndefendants 2 to 4, the purchasers of various items of the suit properties from
\nthe first defendant, were impleaded.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The properties described in the Schedule of the plaint indubitably and
\nindisputably are the ancestral properties, over which there is no controversy.
\nThe plaintiff and his father, the first defendant are entitled to equal share in
\nit.  Despite demands made by the plaintiff, the first defendant has not come
\nforward for amicable  partition and hence, the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Per contra, denying and refuting, challenging and impugning the right
\nof the plaintiff to claim partition, the first defendant filed the written
\nstatement setting out the averments inter alia thus:
\n\tThe plaintiff even though happened to be the first defendant’s biological
\nson, he was given in adoption to one Somalinga S.Viswanathan as early as in the
\nyear 1954, when  the plaintiff was only four years old.  As such, the plaintiff
\ncan never be treated as co-parcener having any right in the suit property which
\nare in the exclusive enjoyment and possession of the first defendant.
\nAccordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. The plaintiff filed the reply statement denying the alleged adoption
\nand other allegations in the written statement by setting out the additional
\nfacts as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe plaintiff’s mother and the said Somalinga S.Viswanathan’s wife were
\nsanguine sisters and the plaintiff was brought up by Somalinga S.Viswanathan,
\nbut not as his adopted son.  No ceremony relating to the alleged adoption was
\nperformed; whereas in the recent family arrangement deed dated 19.07.1993, the
\nfirst defendant himself signed it highlighting that the plaintiff happens to be
\nhis son entitled to a share in the suit properties.\n<\/p>\n
\t9. Per contra, the first defendant filed an additional written statement
\nalleging that among the suit properties, a vacant site of 4 1\/4 cents in
\nAvaniapuram in Plot No.6 of S.No.100\/1 was not included.  Somalinga
\nS.Viswanathan was a multi-millionaire at the time of taking the plaintiff in
\nadoption as he had no child of his own.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. He also set out various facts which according to him, would show that
\nthe plaintiff is the adopted son of S.S.Viswanathan.  Initially, the plaintiff
\nimpleaded only his father K.R.Ramamoorthy.  Subsequently, the defendants 2 to 4
\nwere added as they purchased the suit property from the first defendant and
\nacquired interest over those properties and they also filed separately written
\nstatements contending that the plaintiff is only the adopted son of
\nS.S.Viswanathan and he is having no right over the suit properties purchased by
\nthem. The first defendant also contended that the suit was bad for want of
\nadding his two daughters as parties to the proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. During trial, before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself
\nas P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.44 were marked.  The first defendant examined himself
\nas D.W.1 and D.W.2 to D.W.6 were also examined.  Exs.B.1 to B.55 were marked on
\nthe side of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The trial Court ultimately decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff
\nis entitled to half share and accordingly, ordered partition by finding that the
\nplaintiff was not the adopted son of S.S.Viswanathan.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, such judgment and decree of
\nthe trial Court, as many as four appeals were filed; A.S.No.27 of 2005 by  the
\nfourth defendant, Dr.S.Gowri, A.S.No.28 of 2005 by  the second defendant
\nM.Natarajan, A.S.No.30 of 2005 by the third defendant K.Murugan and A.S.No.36 of
\n2005 by the first defendant K.R.Ramamoorthy, respectively.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The plaintiff also filed Cross Appeal in A.S.No.36 of 2005 as against
\nthe rejection of the claim of the plaintiff for mesne profits.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The first appellate Court by its common judgment held that the
\nplaintiff is the adopted son of S.S.Viswanathan; however, the plaintiff is
\nentitled to a share in the suit property;  the said two sisters of the plaintiff
\nshould have been added as parties in view of the recent Central Amendment Act
\nNo.39 of 2005 to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the defendants 2 to 4 are the
\nbona fide purchasers for value and they are entitled to the first defendant’s
\nshare at the time of physical partition during the final decree proceedings.
\nUltimately, the first appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for
\nadding the two sisters of the plaintiff and thereafter to decide on the
\nrespective shares of the co-parceners.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Challenging the common judgments and decrees of the first appellate
\nCourt, S.A.No.542 of 2006 and C.M.A.No.521 of 2006 have been filed by the
\nplaintiff and the first defendant has preferred the Cross Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. The second appeal is focussed as against the finding of the first
\nappellate Court that the plaintiff is the adopted son of the said
\nS.S.Viswanathan and the related facts; whereas the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
\nwas filed as against the order of remand of the first appellate Court for adding
\nthe said two sisters of the plaintiff and proceed further with the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. The gist and kernel of the grounds of appeal as found set out in the
\nsecond appeal as well as in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by the plaintiff
\nwould run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\tOblivious of the evidence both oral and documentary placed before the
\nfirst appellate Court relating to highlighting the falsity of adoption, the
\nfirst appellate Court erroneously held as though the plaintiff is the adopted
\nson of S.S.Viswanathan.  The first appellate Court failed to take into
\nconsideration the family arrangement, Ex.A.23, dated 19.07.1993 and Exs.A.3 to
\nA.14 wherein the first defendant candidly and categorically admitted the status
\nof the plaintiff as one that of his son.  The first appellate Court also has not
\nconsidered the falsity of D.W.3’s evidence.  The first appellate Court also
\nfailed to consider that if really, adoption had taken place as per Sasthric
\nrites by performing the ceremonies, the near relatives namely K.N.Srinivasan,
\nK.R.Rajan and R.G.Kumarendran must be able to speak about it, but they have not
\nbeen examined before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. The first appellate Court simply carried away by the use of the
\ninitials ‘S.V’ before the name of the plaintiff and those facts alone would not
\nconstitute evidence for proving adoption.  Overlooking the fact that the initial
\n‘S.V’ preceded the names of the plaintiff and his sister, because they were
\nbrought up in the house of S.S.Viswanathan at Bangalore and that he got them
\nadmitted in school, the first appellate Court suo motu took into consideration
\nthe recent amendment to the Hindu Succession Act and simply remanded the matter
\nso as to implead the two sisters of the plaintiff as parties to the suit,
\nignoring the fact that the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of 1990 which contemplates
\nthat only the unmarried daughters are entitled to a share and not the married
\ndaughters as the ones referred to in this case.  Admittedly, the said two
\ndaughters of the first defendant got married long prior to the commencement of
\nthe said Amendment Act 1 of 1990 amending the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
\nAccordingly, the appellant\/plaintiff prayed for setting aside the judgment and
\ndecree of the first appellate Court and restoring the decree of the trial Court
\nin ordering partition and for allotment of half share in the suit properties in
\nfavour of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. The following substantial questions of law were framed by my learned
\nPredecessor while admitting S.A.No.542 of 2006:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(a) Whether factum of adoption as pleaded by the first respondent has
\nbeen established?\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) Whether in the partition suit filed by the appellant against the
\nfather (the first respondent), the daughters are necessary parties?\n<\/p>\n
\t(c) Whether the benefits of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 1 of 1990
\nare available to the daughters of the first respondent married before
\n25.03.1989?”\n<\/p>\n
\t21. The question of law framed by this Court in C.M.A.No.251 of 2006 would
\nrun thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“The point to be decided in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as to
\nwhether the judgment of the first appellate Court in remanding the matter to the
\ntrial Court for impleading two sisters of the plaintiff and for determining the
\nshares of the respective co-sharers is tenable?”\n<\/p>\n
\t22. In my opinion, considering the grounds of second appeal and the cross
\nappeal, the substantial questions of law, could be highlighted thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Whether the first appellate Court was justified in reversing the trial
\nCourt’s finding that there was no adoption of the plaintiff by S.S.Viswanathan
\nby re-appreciating the evidence adduced on the defendant’s side and that too in
\nthe absence of three near relatives having been examined before the Court and
\nalso in ignoring the admissions made by the first defendant in various documents
\nthat the plaintiff is his son?\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Whether the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of 1990 is having overriding
\neffect on Central Amendment Act 39 of 2005 in amending the Hindu Succession Act,
\n1956 and whether the Central Amendment Act 39 of 2005 is applicable to pending
\nproceedings in the Court?\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Whether the adoption would deprive the adopted son from claiming any
\nshare in the co-parcenary property of his natural family?\n<\/p>\n
The Points:\n<\/p>\n
\t23. The learned Counsel for the first defendant drawing the attention of
\nthis Court to the original plaint and written statements, would develop his
\nargument to the effect that even in the plaint while it was originally typed,
\nthe plaintiff’s initials were mentioned as ‘S.V’ and thereafter, it was
\ncorrected as ‘K.R’ so as to suit the plaintiff’s contention that he was not the
\nadopted son of S.S.Viswanathan.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. The learned Counsel for the first defendant placing reliance on the
\noriginal memorandum of first appeal, would argue that even in the first appeal
\nfiled by the plaintiff, his initial was first typed as ‘S.V’ and thereafter, it
\nwas corrected.  Whereas the learned Counsel for the plaintiff would correctly
\nand convincingly submit that such typographical errors committed while typing
\nand subsequent correction can never be relied on by the first defendant.  One
\ncannot try to make a mountain out of a mole hill.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. Here, the substantial question of law involved is relating to adoption
\nand the onus of proof obviously is on the person who pleads, namely the first
\ndefendant to prove that there was adoption of the plaintiff by S.S.Viswanathan.
\nBy no stretch of imagination, such typographical errors crept in the memorandum
\nof appeal, could ever be taken as a decisive factors for deciding the question
\nof adoption.  Accordingly, no more elaboration is required in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
\t26. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would contend that the first
\nappellate Court misdirected itself by giving undue importance to the use of
\ninitials ‘S.V’ before the name of the plaintiff.  In fact, according to the
\nplaintiff, such initial emerged while he was a young boy and that too when his
\nfoster-father S.S.Viswanathan who brought him up in Bangalore, got him admitted
\nin school by furnishing such initials and that even the plaintiff’s sister
\nThulasimani was brought up by S.S.Viswanathan who got her admitted by furnishing
\nthe initials ‘S.V’ before her name.  The trial Court at paragraph No.15
\nconsidered this aspect correctly by discussing that the plaintiff’s elder sister
\nThulasimani was also brought up by S.S.Viswanathan along with the plaintiff and
\nher name also is prefixed by the initials ‘S.V’, as in the case of the
\nplaintiff.   It is therefore at once evident that the plaintiff and his elder
\nsister were brought up together by the first defendant’s co-brother
\nS.S.Viswanathan at Bangalore, as he had no natural child of his own.  The fact
\nalso remains that S.S.Viswanathan was a rich man at the relevant point of time.
\nIt appears, the first appellate Court misdirected itself by giving undue
\nimportance to the use of initial ‘S.V’ in the school records.  If really, the
\nplaintiff was the adopted son of S.S.Viswanathan.  Because of that fact alone,
\nbefore the plaintiff’s name the initial ‘S.V’ had been used, then it should not
\nhave been used before the name of Thulasimani, the elder sister of the
\nplaintiff, because of close relationship between the first defendant and the
\nsaid S.S.Viswanathan and that the latter only had brought up Thulasimani as well
\nas the plaintiff, the said S.S.Viswanathan had chosen to furnish the initial
\n‘S.V’ before the name of Thulasimani as well as the plaintiff.  The matter would
\nhave been entirely different if the plaintiff was entrusted to a stranger to be
\nbrought up and if such stranger had caused the first letter of his family name
\nas well as his name as initials of the boy.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would correctly argue that the
\nfirst appellate Court without addressing itself to the pleas as found set out in
\nthe pleadings of the parties, assumed and presumed as though as per the Hindu
\nSuccession Amendment Act 39 of 2005, the daughters of the first defendant are
\nhaving the right over the property and accordingly, remanded the matter to the
\ntrial Court without any basis.  Whereas the learned Counsel for the first
\ndefendant would submit that the defence raised in the written statement that the
\nsuit is bad for non-joinder of the daughters of the first defendant as parties
\nand that the first appellate Court in its judgment remarked that the trial Court
\ndid not frame any issue on that point.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to analyse the legal position
\nrelating to application of Hindu Succession Amendment Act 39 of 2005, to the
\nfacts and circumstances of this case.\n<\/p>\n
\t29. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would correctly and legally
\nsubmit that the recent Central Amendment Act 39 of 2005 is not applicable in
\nview of the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Sheela Devi v. Lal Chand<\/a> reported in (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 581.
\nAn excerpt from it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“21. The Act indisputably would prevail over the old Hindu law.  We may
\nnotice that Parliament, with a view to confer right upon the female heirs, even
\nin relation to the joint family property, enacted the Hindu Succession Act,
\n2005.  Such a provision was enacted as far back in 1987 by the State of Andhra
\nPradesh.  The Succession having opened in 1989, evidently, the provisions of the
\nAmendment Act, 2005 would have no application.  Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of
\nthe Act governs the law relating to succession on the death of a coparcener in
\nthe event the heirs are only male descendants.  But, the proviso appended to
\nsub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act creates an exception.  First son of Babu
\nLal viz., Lal Chand, was, thus, a coparcener.  Section 6 is an exception to the
\ngeneral rules.  It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the respondent-
\nplaintiffs to show that apart from Lal Chand, Sohan Lal will also derive the
\nbenefit thereof.  So far as the second son, Sohan Lal is concerned, no evidence
\nhas been brought on record to show that he was born prior to coming into force
\nof the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.” \t\t\t\t\t(emphasis
\nsupplied.)<\/p>\n
\t30. Following the aforesaid precedent, this Court also held the same view
\nin Jayalakshmi and another v. Govindammal and others reported in 2007 (2) TLT\n<\/p>\n
193.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“15. That apart, it is clear that the evidence of P.W.1 is not certain
\nabout the properties, apart from the fact that the properties which are standing
\nin the name of Vengadapathy Gounder which were purchased by him after the death
\nof his father Murugesa Gounder and sold by him to third parties have also been
\nincluded.  Again the Trial Court has found that Ex.B.8 Will executed by Annammal
\nin favour of Vengadapathy Gounder has been proved in the manner known to law and
\nthere is absolutely no substance in the contention of the plaintiffs and on the
\nother hand, the judgment of the Trial Court is based on sound reasoning and not
\nperverse.  The submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellate based on
\nthe Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 that by virtue of the amendment the
\ndaughter of a corparcenary family is also entitled in her own right in the same
\nmanner as son, has no relevance for the reason that the said central amendment
\nwhich has come into effect from 09.09.2005 which is prospective as it is held by
\nthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheela Devi and others vs. Lal Chand and<\/a> another
\nreported in 2006 (8) SCC 581 and therefore, the amendment is not applicable as
\nfar as the facts and circumstances of the present case.”\n<\/p>\n
\t31. As such, the aforesaid decision of the Honourable Apex Court as well
\nas the decision of this Court would highlight and spotlight that the Amendment
\nAct is having only prospective effect and not retrospective effect.  The
\nHonourable Apex Court in the decision cited supra, has not even recognised Sohan
\nLal, the second son born after the year 1956 as one of the co-sharers, but only
\nrecognised the first son Lal Chand as co-sharer and even though, the death of
\nBabu Ram took place in the year 1959, Sohan Lal was not treated as co-sharer.
\nThe Honourable Apex Court did not treat the daughters of Babu Ram as co-sharers,
\nby holding that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is having only
\nprospective effect and no retrospective effect.  In such view of the matter, the
\ndaughters of the first defendant in this case, cannot be taken as co-sharers and
\nthe first appellate Court committed error in ordering remand of the matter for
\nimpleading the daughters of the first defendant in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. Even the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of 1990 would clearly exclude the
\ndaughters, who got married anterior to 25.03.1989, from claiming share in the
\ncoparcenary properties. Admittedly, both the daughters of the first defendant
\ngot married long before 25.03.1989 and as such, as per both the Tamil Nadu
\nAmendment Act 1 of 1990 as well as the Central Act namely, the Hindu Succession
\n(Amendment) Act, 2005, the daughters cannot be treated as co-sharers.\n<\/p>\n
\t33. Ex.B.1, is the photocopy of the cumulative record issued by the
\nDepartment of Public Instructions which would show that in the school records of
\nthe plaintiff, his name was mentioned as S.V.Sivasankaran, son of
\nS.S.Viswanathan and Saraswathi Ammal.  The trial Court at paragraph No.15,
\nhighlighted that from the evidence, it was clear that even for Thulasimani, the
\nelder sister of the plaintiff, the initials ‘S.V’ were used.  Ex.A.14 is the
\nmarriage invitation of Thulasimani which demonstrates that Thulasimani has been
\ndescribed therein as the foster-daughter of the said S.S.Viswanathan and the
\nplaintiff’s name is found listed in the column ‘persons expecting invitees’ as
\nS.V.Sivasankaran.  The bride herself is cited as S.V.Thulasimani. It is
\ntherefore logically understandable that those two foster children were using the
\ninitials ‘S.V’ before their names and not in their status as adopted children of
\nS.S.Viswanathan.\n<\/p>\n
\t34. Ex.A.31 is one other marriage invitation relating to the marriage of
\nthe plaintiff’s uncle’s son Ramesh and in that, it is found printed as
\n“K.R.Ramamoorthy and son” which signifies the first defendant and the plaintiff.
\nIt is therefore clear that it is not as though the plaintiff was exclusively
\nprojected as the adopted son of S.S.Viswanathan.  Ex.A.15, is the marriage
\ninvitation of the plaintiff which demonstrates that the marriage of the
\nplaintiff was scheduled to be held in the house of the first defendant in
\nMadurai and the name of the first defendant and his wife are found as the
\nauthors of that marriage invitation as they were soliciting the invitees for
\ntheir son’s marriage namely the plaintiff’s marriage scheduled to be held on
\n06.12.1987.  In Ex.A.15, the bridegroom namely the plaintiff is referred to as
\nK.R.Sivasankar.  As such, it is another clinching  piece of evidence which would
\nspeak against the theory of adoption.\n<\/p>\n
\t35. Ex.A.21, is the registered will dated 25.04.1977 executed by
\nSaraswathi Ammal, the wife of S.S.Viswanathan.  An excerpt from it, would run
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Whereas I am the widow of late.Somalinga S.Viswanatha Iyer and could not
\nbear any child till 1950, both my husband and myself decided to take in adoption
\na boy and a girl, with this in view we took care of Miss.Thulasimani and
\nMr.Shiva Shankar children of my younger sister Jamuna and Sri.K.R.Rama Moorthy
\nresiding at No.19-A, Solia Chetty Street, Madurai-1, and brought up them with us
\nas our children, even though we wished to adopt them as our children, as my
\nsister could not get any more children, she did not prepare to give them in
\nadoption to us.  But, she permitted us to bring up them and to keep them with
\nus.  Thus till this date both of them are residing with me as our foster
\nchildren.”\n<\/p>\n
\t36. It is therefore clear that the plaintiff and his elder sister
\nThulasimani were brought up as foster-children of S.S.Viswanathan and Saraswathi
\nAmmal.  Ex.A.21, is an ante litum motum document which emerged voluntarily and
\nthis is a very important document throwing much light on the status of the
\nplaintiff that he was only the foster son of S.S.Viswanathan and Saraswathi
\nAmmal.  The first appellate Court without properly appreciating the significance
\nof Ex.A.21, simply in paragraph No.26 of its judgment assumed as though it was
\nnot proved as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t37. Oblivious of the correct legal position relating to proving of the
\nWill, the first appellate Court simply discarded Ex.A.21.  It is a trite
\nproposition of law that if the Will is sought to be put in execution by the
\npropounder of the Will, then only Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act has to
\nbe applied.  Ex.A.21, the Will is a registered one and admittedly, emerged long
\nprior to the arisal of the dispute between the plaintiff and the first defendant
\nherein, in such a case, it is having authenticity of its own.  The decision of
\nthe Honourable Apex Court in Pentakota Satyanarayana v. Pentakota Seetharatnam<\/a>
\nreported in (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 67, would posit the aforesaid
\nproposition of law as enunciated  supra.  It is not the case of the defendant
\nthat Ex.A.21 is a forged or fabricated one.  Hence, the first appellate Court’s
\nfinding relating to the admissibility of Ex.A.21 in this case, is perverse.\n<\/p>\n
\t38. It is therefore crystal clear that undoubtedly the plaintiff was not
\nthe adopted son of S.S.Viswanathan.  In fact, Ex.A.22, is the draft prepared by
\nthe first defendant in Tamil and it was sent to Bangalore for preparing Ex.A.21.
\nBut, Ex.A.22 does not bear the signature of the first defendant.  However, de
\nhors Ex.A.22, as indicated supra, the registered Will Ex.A.21 clearly
\ndemonstrates that the plaintiff was only the foster son of S.S.Viswanathan and
\nSaraswathi Ammal.\n<\/p>\n
\t39. Ex.A.23, is the photocopy of the family settlement dated 19th July
\n1993, which was admittedly prepared by the first defendant and signed by him and
\nsent to the plaintiff who was in Bangalore for obtaining his signature and it is
\nalso in evidence that the plaintiff refused to sign Ex.A.23 as the first
\ndefendant was not prepared to give the plaintiff his half share, but only a
\nlimited portion.  The first appellate Court simply discarded Ex.A.23 as though
\nit is only a photocopy having no legal significance.\n<\/p>\n
\t40. In my considered opinion, the first appellate Court was wrong in
\nrejecting Ex.A.23 for the reason that D.W.1 himself during cross-examination
\ncandidly admitted the genuineness of Ex.A.23 as D.W.1 deposed that the plaintiff
\nrefused to sign Ex.A.23, for the reason that half share out of the total
\nproperties was not allotted to him under Ex.A.23.  When the litigative battle is
\nbetween the father and son relating to the legal status touching upon their
\nrelationship with each other and there is admission by the first defendant
\nhimself that it was the first defendant who prepared Ex.A.23 and sent it to his
\nson and his son refused to sign it, there is no harm in relying upon such a
\ndocument for the purpose of understanding that the plaintiff was referred to
\ntherein as his son by the first defendant himself.\n<\/p>\n
\t41. Furthermore, de hors Ex.A.23, the admission of the first defendant
\nduring cross-examination would demonstrate that he during the year 1993, shortly
\nbefore the filing of the suit admitted candidly that  the plaintiff is entitled
\nto a share in the suit properties.  As such, the first appellate Court once
\nagain had gone wrong in not applying the correct proposition of law.\n<\/p>\n
\t42. The learned Counsel for the first defendant would develop his argument
\nto the effect that under Ex.A.23, what the first defendant intended to give, was
\nonly out of generosity and not in recognition that the plaintiff happened to be
\nhis son.  In support of his argument, he cited the decision of the Honourable
\nApex Court in D.S.Lakshmaiah & another v. L.Balasubramanyam & another reported
\nin 2004-3-L.W.49.  An excerpt from it, would run thus:
\n\t“19.  … From the mere fact that other members of the family were allowed
\nto use the property jointly with himself, or that the income of the separate
\nproperty was utilised out of generosity to support persons whom the holder was
\nnot bound to support, or from the failure to maintain separate accounts,
\nabandonment cannot be inferred, for, an act of generosity or kindness will not
\nordinarily be regarded as an admission of a legal obligation.”\n<\/p>\n
\t43. In the aforesaid case, the facts are to the effect that one of the co-
\nsharers allowed his self-acquired property to be utilised by other co-sharers
\nout of generosity and in that context, the Honourable Apex Court held that such
\na mere act of generosity would not be taken as evidence to prove that the
\nproperty concerned is a joint property of all and that it has been cited out of
\ncontext as in this case, there is no question of generosity arises, when the
\ndocuments referred to supra, are clearly highlighting that the plaintiff is the
\nson of the first defendant and the plea of generosity as put forth on the first
\ndefendant’s side, is nothing, but an attempt to wriggle out of his own admission
\nunder Ex.A.23, during cross-examination.  But, the first appellate Court without
\nproperly appreciating the evidentiary value of Ex.A.23 and the answer given by
\nthe defendant during cross-examination simply arrived at the conclusion that
\nthere was adoption.\n<\/p>\n
\t44. Ex.A.34, is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 24.03.1983 which
\nwould demonstrate that the plaintiff as vendor under the deed was described as
\nthe foster son of S.S.Viswanathan and son of K.R.Ramamoorthy, the first
\ndefendant herein.  The fact remains that during the year 1983, an immovable
\nproperty was purchased by the plaintiff as per Ex.A.34, which was marked during
\nthe cross-examination of D.W.1 on his admission.  In fact, D.W.1, during cross-
\nexamination candidly admitted that the recitals in Ex.A.34 were dictated by the
\nfirst defendant only.\n<\/p>\n
\t45. As such, it is crystal clear that during the year 1983, long prior to
\nthe dispute arose between the plaintiff and the first defendant, Ex.A.34, the
\nregistered document emerged and in that, the plaintiff has been described as the
\nfoster son of S.S.Viswanathan and the son of the first defendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t46. The first appellate Court is having no plausible reason at all for
\nskipping over or ignoring Ex.A.34.  As such, the first appellate Court’s
\nfinding, to say the least, is perverse.\n<\/p>\n
\t47. Ex.A.25 is the power deed prepared by the first defendant in Madurai
\nand sent to the plaintiff in Bangalore requesting the latter to execute the
\npower deed as contained in Ex.A.24, the draft so as to enable the first
\ndefendant to act on behalf of the plaintiff also so as to sell some of the
\nproperties.\n<\/p>\n
\t48. Ex.A.24, the covering letter coupled with Ex.A.25 would further
\nstrengthen the case of the plaintiff that he is the son of the first defendant
\nhaving right as co-sharer in the coparcenary properties namely the suit
\nproperties and absolutely, there is no rhyme or reason on the part of the first
\ndefendant in contending that after the alleged adoption, there was severance of
\nstatus that the plaintiff had lost his right in the coparcenary properties and
\nthat he became part of the family of S.S.Viswanathan.\n<\/p>\n
\t49. Ex.A.34, is the certified copy of the registered power deed relating
\nto some Trust property of Kuppa family wherein the plaintiff and his minor
\nchildren are treated as members of Kuppa family.  As such, this is another
\nclinching piece of evidence which the first appellate Court miserably failed to
\nconsider.\n<\/p>\n
\t50. Ex.A.38 has been marked during the cross-examination of D.W.1 on his
\nadmission and it is the letter dated 14.02.1993 written by the wife of the first
\ndefendant to the plaintiff requesting him to sign the aforesaid draft settlement
\ndeed, Ex.A.23.  This document was also not considered by the first appellate
\nCourt for no good reason.\n<\/p>\n
\t51. In the wake of this clinching documents including registered documents
\nand the admissions of the first defendant himself, the first appellate Court
\nsimply ignoring all these facts mainly relied on the use of initial ‘S.V’ before
\nthe name of the plaintiff at one point of time, while the plaintiff was a young
\nschool going boy and the fact remains that it was S.S.Viswanathan who furnished
\nthose initials for being specified in the school records.  As against the
\nclinching evidence adduced by the plaintiff demonstrating that the plaintiff is
\nthe son of the first defendant and that he was only the foster son of the
\ndeceased S.S.Viswanathan and his wife, the first appellate Court relied on
\ncertain insignificant and unimportant evidence as though he was the adopted son
\nof S.S.Viswanathan.  Ex.A.43, is the photocopy of the receipt issued by
\nThirumoogur Temple marked during the cross-examination of D.W.1  which would
\ndemonstrate that religious marriage of the plaintiff took place at the said
\ntemple.  In Ex.A.43, the plaintiff himself signed the receipt and in that the
\nname of the plaintiff is mentioned as R.Sivasanakaran which indicates that he is
\nthe son of the first defendant.  In view of such clinching admissions on the
\npart of the first defendant, there could be no second thought over the fact that
\nthe plaintiff is the son of the first defendant and not the adopted son of
\nS.S.Viswanathan.\n<\/p>\n
\t52. The first appellate Court at paragraph No.32 observed that even D.W.2,
\nthe third wife of S.S.Viswanathan during the cross-examination admitted that
\nwhen she asked S.S.Viswanathan about the plaintiff who was present in the house,
\nthe said S.S.Viswanathan told her that the plaintiff was his foster son.  The
\nfirst appellate Court without any rhyme or reason did not rely upon her answer
\nduring the cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
\t53. The name of the plaintiff is found specified as S.V.Sivasankar in the
\nfollowing documents as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“(i) Ex.B.2 – Photocopy of the Driving licence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Ex.B.3 – Photocopy of the Statement of Income Tax Assessment of year
\n1994-95.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Ex.B.4 – Photocopy of the Family Ration Card.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) Ex.B.5 – Photocopy of the Voters list.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) Ex.B.6 – Affidavit of the plaintiff relating to driving licence.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) Ex.B.7 – Photocopy of the R.C.Book.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) Ex.B.9 – Copy of the statement of the plaintiff in H.R.C.No.198 of
\n1994.\n<\/p>\n
\t(viii) Ex.B.10 – Copy of the amended petition in H.R.C.No.198 of 1994.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ix) Ex.B.11 – Advocate’s Notice.\n<\/p>\n
 \t(x) Ex.B.14 – Copy of the Form No.2A\n<\/p>\n
\t(xi) Ex.B.31 – Copy of the Settlement Deed executed by the plaintiff in
\nfavour of his wife.”\n<\/p>\n
Even in Ex.B.31, settlement deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of his
\nwife, he referred to himself as foster son of S.S.Viswanathan and natural son of
\nK.R.Ramamoorthy, even though he put the initials ‘S.V’ before his name.\n<\/p>\n
\t54. Simply because, after the death of the tenant, the deceased
\nS.S.Viswanathan, his landlord impleaded the plaintiff as the son of the deceased
\ntenant, there is no presumption that the plaintiff is the adopted son of the
\ndeceased S.S.Viswanathan.  In Rent Control Proceedings, anyone who resided along
\nwith the deceased tenant could be impleaded and it is a trite proposition
\nwarranting no more elaboration.  One cannot expect the landlord of the deceased
\ntenant to know about the details as to whether the person who resided with him
\nwas his adopted son or natural son.  Hence, reliance cannot be placed on such
\nstand of the landlord in the Rent Control Proceedings.  For that matter, the
\nplaintiff’s role in participating in such Rent Control Proceedings in no way
\nwould enure support to the first defendant’s plea.\n<\/p>\n
\t55. However, in the wake of the weighty and clinching documents filed on
\nthe side of the plaintiff as discussed supra, the documents on the side of the
\nfirst defendant are insignificant ones which could not prove adoption.\n<\/p>\n
\t56. Advancing argument on the law relating to adoption as it was obtaining
\nanterior to coming to the vogue of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the learned
\nCounsel for the plaintiff would submit that as per the then existed law anterior
\nto the  codified law, only son of a biological\/natural father cannot be given in
\nadoption; whereas in this case, the plaintiff happened to be only son of his
\nbiological father namely the first defendant and as such, he could not have been
\nvalidly given in adoption allegedly in favour of S.S.Viswanathan, the first
\ndefendant’s co-brother.  He would also convincingly argue that the theory
\nbelatedly put forth by the first defendant during the pendency of the suit, as
\nthough a second son was born and alive at the time of giving in adoption the
\nplaintiff and that the second son died only after the plaintiff having been
\ngiven in adoption, the plaintiff, was disbelieved by both the Courts below and
\nas such, on that ground itself, the theory of adoption is untenable.\n<\/p>\n
\t57. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would correctly and convincingly
\nargue, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Meenakshi Ammal v.
\nVelusamy reported in (2002) 3 M.L.J 305 and would develop his argument that the
\nplaintiff happened to be only son of the first defendant and as per the Hindu
\nLaw, he could not have been given in adoption.  Certain excerpts from it, would
\nrun thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“18. N.R.Raghavachariar’s Hindu Law, 8th edition, paragraph 137 deals with
\nadoption of an only son:\n<\/p>\n
\t“An adoption of an only son is not null and void under the Hindu Law and
\nthe text of Vasishta prohibiting it is only directory and not mandatory.” …\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The law of adoption is now governed wholly by the Hindu Adoptions and
\nMaintenance Act, 1956.  The adoption in the present case is one that is alleged
\nto have been made on a date that is prior to that and therefore, only the
\nearlier Hindu Law covers it.  N.R.Raghavachariar’s Hindu Law states that the
\nwhile Sankskrit Law of Adoption is evolved from two texts and a metaphor.  The
\ntexts are those of Manu and Vasishta and the metaphor is that of Saunaka. Manu
\nsays:\n<\/p>\n
\t“He whom his father or mother gives to another as his son, provided that
\nthe donee has no issue, if the boy be of the same class, and affectionately
\ndisposed, is considered as a son given, the gift being confirmed by pouring
\nwater.” (Manu, ix, S.168).  Vasishta’s text is “A son formed of sexual fluids
\nand of blood, proceeds from his father and mother as an effect from its cause.
\nBoth parents have power to sell, or to desert him.  But let no man given, or
\naccept, an only son, since he must remain to raise up a progeny for the
\nobsequies of ancestors.”\n<\/p>\n
\tUnder the Hindu Law, it is also essential for the validity of an adoption
\nthat the child should be given to the adopter by the father or if dead, by the
\nmother.  No other person has the right nor can the same be delegated to any
\nother.  The effect of adoption is a complete severance of the child adopted from
\nthe natural family in which he was born and complete substitution into the
\nadopter’s family as if he were born in it.  It is as if he is new born in the
\nfamily of his adoptive father.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. There is no documentary evidence of adoption.  There is no
\nphotographic evidence of adoption.  No one knows about the date, month or year
\nof adoption.  There is discrepancy regarding the place at which the adoption
\ntook place.  In those circumstances, it is difficult to believe that an only
\nchild was given in adoption.”\n<\/p>\n
\t58. This Court in the aforesaid decision would clearly highlight the point
\nthat  before the commencement of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the
\nold Hindu Law was applicable and as per such Hindu Law, a father having only one
\nson cannot give him in adoption and that too in the absence of any clinching
\nevidence, the adoption of only son of the biological father cannot be upheld as
\ntrue.  Here, in this case, as per the first defendant, the alleged adoption took
\nplace during January 1954 and at that time, the old Hindu Law was in vogue and
\nhence his only son, the plaintiff could not have been legally given in adoption
\nat all and that too in the wake of murky evidence adduced on the side of the
\nfirst defendant.  To get over this obstacle, the  first defendant went to the
\nextent of dishing out an untenable plea after nine years of the filing of the
\npresent suit, in his additional written statement as though just a few months
\nbefore  allegedly giving in adoption the plaintiff, one other son was born to
\nthe first defendant and such second son died a few months after giving in
\nadoption the plaintiff.  Absolutely, there is no iota or shred of evidence to
\nprove such a plea and it is trite proposition of law that witnesses might lie,
\nbut the circumstances would not lie.  Had really the first defendant gave birth
\nto one other son and that one another son died, then he would have set out those
\nfacts in the written statement itself, but after nine years of the filing of the
\nsuit by the plaintiff, by way of additional written statement, such a plea was
\nput forth purely to get over the said legal obstacle.  Hence, it is clear that
\nas per the then existed Hindu Law during the year 1954, there could not have
\nbeen no valid adoption of the plaintiff by S.S.Viswanathan.  The unassailable
\nfact remains that even though the suit was filed in the year 1994 and the
\nwritten statement had been already filed by the first defendant, yet in the
\nadditional written statement filed on 16.12.2003 so to say, nine years after the
\nfiling of the suit, a new theory had been put forth by the first defendant as
\nthough he gave birth to a second son even before allegedly giving in adoption
\nhis first son, the plaintiff in favour of S.S.Viswanathan and that the second
\nchild died during the year 1954.  As such, blatantly and explicitly, it is
\nclear, in the absence of any iota or shred of evidence, that the first
\ndefendant’s theory of he having had a second son is turned out to be an utter
\nfalsehood.\n<\/p>\n
\t59. Furthermore, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff by drawing the
\nattention of this Court to the deposition of D.W.3, Jegatheesa Ayyangar, would
\ndevelop his argument that, D.W.3 uttered out falsehood.  D.W.3, in the chief
\nexamination would state that during the year 1956, the said alleged adoption
\ntook place and that he was accompanying his father to Bangalore in connection
\nwith the performance of the rituals relating to such adoption.  Whereas it is
\nthe case of the plaintiff that the alleged adoption was during January 1954.\n<\/p>\n
\t60. It is also pertinent to note that there were three near relatives who
\nwere very much alive at the time of the trial, but they were not chosen to be
\nexamined to speak about the alleged adoption for the reasons best known to the
\nfirst defendant.  Absolutely, there is no evidence to prove the alleged
\nadoption.\n<\/p>\n
\t61. It is a trite proposition of law that the adoption should be proved by
\nadducing clear evidence.  In this connection, I would like to refer to the
\ndecision of the Honourable Apex Court in Pentakota Satyanarayana v. Pentakota
\nSeetharatnam<\/a> reported in (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 67.  An excerpt from it,
\nwould run thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t“35. We have already referred to the arguments advanced by both sides on
\nadoption.  Our attention was drawn to the findings recorded by the trial Court
\nand by the High Court on this aspect and the relevant portion of the oral and
\ndocumentary evidence was also relied on by both sides.  The evidence relied upon
\nis that of PWs 1, 3 and 6, DW 2 and DW 3.  Their evidence, in our opinion, falls
\nshort of the required proof in law.  The respondents, in our view, have a heavy
\nonus to discharge, the burden lies on them to prove the factum of adoption.
\nKrishna Bhagavan, the respondent  herein seeks to exclude the natural line of
\nsuccession to the property by alleging adoption.  The instant case is a classic
\nexample where the alleged adoptive father himself filed a written statement
\ndenying adoption.  This apart, the following circumstances negate the
\ngenuineness of the adoption.  This Court in the case of Rahasa Pandiani v.
\nGokulananda Panda<\/a> [(1987) 2 SCC 338] held as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“An adoption would divert the normal and natural course of succession.
\nTherefore the Court has to be extremely alert and vigilant to practices out of
\ntheir lust for property.  If there are any suspicious circumstances, just as the
\npropounder of the Will is obliged to dispel the cloud of suspicion, the burden
\nis on one who claims to have been adopted to dispel the same beyond reasonable
\ndoubt.  In the case of an adoption which is claimed on the basis of oral
\nevidence and is not supported by a registered document or any other evidence of
\na clinching nature, if there exist suspicious circumstances, the same must be
\nexplained to the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court by the party
\ncontending that there was such an adoption.(Para 4)”\n<\/p>\n
\t36. This Court held in Kishori Lal v. Chaltibai<\/a> [1959 Supp (1) SCR 698 :
\nAIR 1959 SC 504]. We can do no better than to quote the relevant passage from
\nthe above judgment which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t“As an adoption results in changing the course of succession, depriving
\nwives and daughters of their rights and transferring properties to comparative
\nstrangers or more remote relations it is necessary that the evidence to support
\nit should be such that it is free from all suspicion of fraud and so consistent
\nand probable as to leave no occasion for doubting its truth.  Failure to produce
\naccounts, in circumstances such as have been proved in the present case, would
\nbe a very suspicious circumstance.  The importance of accounts was emphasised by
\nthe Privy Council in Sootrugun v. Sabitra {(1834) 2 Knapp 287 : 12 ER 489]; in
\nDiwakar Rao v. Chandanlal Rao [ILR (1917) 44 Cal 201 : AIR 1916 PC 81]; in
\nKishori Lal v. Chuni Lal<\/a> [(1908) 36 IA 9 : ILR (1908) 1931 All 116]; in Lal
\nKunwar v. Chiranji Lal [(1909) 37 IA 1 : ILR (1909) 1932 All 104] and in
\nPadmalav Achariya v. Fakira Debya [AIR 1931 PC 84 : 35 CWN 465].\n<\/p>\n
\t62. The aforesaid decision would clearly highlight as on whom the burden
\nlies and how, when the plea of adoption is taken so as to divert the right to
\nthe claim over the property is taken, the Court should be careful in
\nscrutinising the evidence.  Here, the first defendant has taken the plea of
\nadoption purely for the purpose of depriving his only son, the plaintiff, of his
\nshare in the suit properties.\n<\/p>\n
\t63. During arguments, it transpired that the father sold indiscriminately
\nmost of the suit properties so as to deprive the son and his act of selling even
\ncontinued during the Court proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
\t64. The learned Counsel for the first defendant would develop his argument
\nas though owing to lapse of time, the Court cannot expect much more a better
\nevidence than what was adduced before the trial Court.  Any piece of evidence
\ncannot be treated as reliable evidence for recording a finding that there was
\nadoption.  The first defendant’s own admission both at the time of deposing
\nbefore the Court during the cross-examination and also his own commitments in
\nvarious documents as set out supra, would falsify his plea of adoption.  Simply
\nbecause, in some documents, the plaintiff’s initials are ‘S.V’, there is no
\npresumption of adoption.  Furthermore, legally also, there could not have been
\nany adoption in view of the then existed law as discussed supra.  Hence, in this
\nview of the matter, it is clear that the trial Court’s finding that there was no
\nadoption is proper.  But, the first appellate Court’s finding that there is
\nadoption, is totally based on misreading of the evidence as well as
\nmisapplication of law and that alone lead to the first appellate Court’s
\nperverse conclusion.  Accordingly, the point is decided.\n<\/p>\n
\t65. In this view of the matter, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has to be
\nallowed as there is no necessity for remand.\n<\/p>\n
\t66. The cross appeal has been focussed by the first defendant as against
\nthe order of the first appellate Court in giving a finding that Section 12 of
\nthe Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, is applicable.  In view of my finding
\nthat there was no adoption at all, the question of invoking Section 12 of the
\nAct does not arise.  For the purpose of comprehensively deciding this matter, I
\nwould like to refer to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and
\nit has got only prospective effect and not retrospective effect.  Had really
\nthere been any adoption as claimed in the year 1954, so to say, before the
\ncommencement of Hindu Adoption Amendment Act 79 of 1956, there would not have
\nbeen divesting of the plaintiff’s right in the natural family and by virtue of
\nSection 12 of the Act, such divested right could not have got revested on him.\n<\/p>\n
\t67. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff cited the following decisions
\nrelating to vesting and divesting as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Mahableshwar Narayanbhat v. Subramanya Shivram reported in 72 IC 309.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Shyama Charan v. Sricharan reported in A.I.R 1929 Calcutta 337.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Rakhalraj Mondal and another v. Debendra Nath reported in A.I.R (35)
\n1948 Calcutta 356.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) V.K.R.N.S.M.Subramanian v. V.K.R.N.P.S.S.M.Somasundaram Chettiar<\/a>
\nreported in 1937 I M.L.J 60.\n<\/p>\n
In view of my findings supra, the aforesaid decisions are all not germane for
\nadjudicating the cause.\n<\/p>\n
\t68. There are catena of decisions to the effect that by birth itself,
\ncoparceners get vested right to a share, the quantum of which may be uncertain
\ndepending upon the number of coparceners and at the time of partition, the exact
\nshare would get crystallised.  However, adoption would divest the adopted son
\nfrom claiming share.  This is a clear settled proposition of law in view of the
\nearlier decisions.\n<\/p>\n
\t69. However, in this case, since there was no adoption, the question of
\nthe plaintiff getting divested of his right in the coparcenery property which
\nbelongs to the defendant, does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
\t70. The learned Counsel for the first defendant cited the following
\ndecisions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a) Chandan Bilasini v. Aftabuddin Khan<\/a> reported in AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT\n<\/p>\n
591.<\/p>\n
The aforesaid decision is not relating to this case for the reason that in the
\nsaid case, ample evidence was adduced relating to adoption and in view of
\nfactual circumstances, the Honourable Apex Court held that non-examination of
\nother witnesses was not material.  However, in this case, as already cited
\nsupra, there is absolutely no evidence worth the name and that in the wake of
\ncontrary evidence available on the plaintiff’s side that there could not be any
\npartition.\n<\/p>\n
\t(b) V.V.Ramarao v. K.Bhaskararao reported in (1969) 2 M.L.J 105 (SC).
\nThe decision cited supra is not relevant to this case as the evidence on record
\nshows that there is contrary evidence to the plea of adoption and in such a
\ncase, the question of presumption does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
\t(c)Seetharama Chandra Row v. Krishna Row<\/a> reported in 1925 Privy Council\n<\/p>\n
201.
\n\tThe above said decision is on the point relating to presuming the right of
\nthe widow to adopt his son and in the said case, the widow brought up the boy
\nconcerned from his boyhood to manhood and nearly forty years, he was treated as
\nthe adopted son and in that context, the aforesaid decision emerged which is
\nhaving no relevance to this case and it is quite obvious.\n<\/p>\n
\t71. The learned Counsel for the first defendant further cited the
\nfollowing decisions:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Chandra v. Mt.Raj Kunwar reported in A.I.R 1926 Privy Council 91.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii)Tewari Raghuraj v. Subhadra Kunwar reported in AIR 1928 Privy Council\n<\/p>\n
87.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iii) Harihar Pratap v. Bajrang Bahadur reported in A.I.R 1937 Privy
\nCouncil 242.\n<\/p>\n
\t(iv) Neelawa v. Gurshiddappa reported in AIR 1937 Bombay 169.\n<\/p>\n
\t(v) Debi Prasad v. Tribeni Devi<\/a> reported in AIR 1970 SUPREME COURT 1288.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) Y.K.Nalavade v. Ananda G.Chavan reported in AIR 1981 Bombay 109.\n<\/p>\n
\t(vii) Vasant v. Dattu<\/a> reported in AIR 1987 SUPREME COURT 398.\n<\/p>\n
\t(viii) Ashoka Sa v. Bidyadhar Patra reported in AIR 1995 ORISSA 59.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ix) Daniraiji Vrajlalji v. Chandraprabha<\/a> reported in AIR 1975 SUPREME
\nCOURT 784.\n<\/p>\n
\t72. I have carefully gone through the aforesaid decisions and in view of
\nmy discussions supra, these decisions are not germane for adjudicating the
\nsecond appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t73. As such, ultimately, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff
\nis having equal right in the suit properties which are the coparcenary
\nproperties of the plaintiff and the first defendant.  The purchasers of the
\nproperty from the first defendant can only step into the shoes of the first
\ndefendant’s right and seek their equities during the final decree proceedings
\nand the same will have to be processed as per law by the lower Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t74. In the result, S.A.No.542 of 2006 and C.M.A.No.251 of 2006 filed by
\nthe plaintiff are allowed and the Cross Objection filed by the first defendant
\nis disposed of.  Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the
\nprofits which accrued from the suit properties from the date of suit till the
\ndate of delivery of possession after dividing the suit properties by metes and
\nbounds and in that connection, the first defendant is bound to render accounts
\nand during final decree proceedings, separate enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12
\nC.P.C shall be conducted in that regard.  Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
\nPetitions are closed.  The parties shall bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
rsb<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Principal District Judge, Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court K.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty … 1St on 6 December, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06\/12\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA C.M.A.(MD) No.251 of 2006 and S.A.(MD)No.542 of 2006 and Cross Objection SR.No.20509 of 2006 C.M.A.(MD) No.251 of 2006 K.R.Sivasankar … Appellant \/1st Respondent\/ Plaintiff Vs 1.K.R.Ramamoorty … […]<\/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-208880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nK.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty ... 1St on 6 December, 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\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty ... 1St on 6 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-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=\"2007-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-06T01:22:56+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=\"45 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty … 1St on 6 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T01:22:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":9017,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007\",\"name\":\"K.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty ... 1St on 6 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-06T01:22:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty … 1St on 6 December, 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":"K.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty ... 1St on 6 December, 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\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty ... 1St on 6 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-06T01:22:56+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":"45 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty … 1St on 6 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T01:22:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007"},"wordCount":9017,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007","name":"K.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty ... 1St on 6 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-06T01:22:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-r-sivasankar-vs-k-r-ramamoorty-1st-on-6-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.R.Sivasankar vs K.R.Ramamoorty … 1St on 6 December, 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\/208880","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=208880"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208880\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208880"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}