{"id":20923,"date":"2007-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007"},"modified":"2017-09-06T02:08:40","modified_gmt":"2017-09-05T20:38:40","slug":"p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"P.Mary Jacob – Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
P.Mary Jacob – Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDated : 18\/09\/2007\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN\n\n\nSecond Appeal (MD) No.18 of 1995\n\n\n1.P.Mary Jacob - died\n2.P.Prabakara Singh\n3.Grace Vayolo Rosalin\n4.Ramadas\n5.Muthulakshmi - died\n6.H.Ramathilagam\n\n(6th appellant herein brought on record\nas LR  of the deceased 5th appellant vide\nM.P.No.2 of 2006 dated 18.08.2006)\n\n7.P.J.Francis\n8.P.J.Therasa\n9.P.J.Elizabeth\n10.P.J.Mathew\n11.P.J.Philomena\n12.P.J.Rose Mary\n13.P.J.Joseph\n14.P.J.Antony\n\n(Appellants 7 to 14 herein brought on record\nas LR of the deceased first appellant vide\nM.P.No.1 of 2007 dated 18.09.2007) \t         \t... \tAppellants\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n1.A.N.Valliammai\n2.R.M.Annamalai\n3.A.Valliammai\n4.A.L.Nagalakshmi\t\t   \t    \t   \t...\tRespondents\n\n\n\nPRAYER\n\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and\ndecree dated 25.07.1994 made in A.S.No.28 of 1993 on the file of the Principal\nDistrict Judge, Madurai reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.04.1992 made\nin O.S.No.364 of 1983 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Madurai.\n\n\n!For Appellants   \t...\tMr.S.Sethuraman for the appellants 1,4, \t\t\n\t\t\t\t6 to 14\n\t\t\t\tMr.M.R.Murugesan for the appellants\n\t\t\t\t2 and 3\n\t\t\t\t(No representation)\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n^For Respondents\t...\tMr.M.Rajaraman for R 1 and 2\n\t\t\t\tMr.V.S.Srinivasa Raghavan for R 3 and 4\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe defendants in O.S.No.364 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif,
\nMadurai are the appellants herein. The plaintiffs filed the suit O.S.No.364 of
\n1983 for declaration of title and for consequential injunction in respect of the
\nsuit property  in Survey No.123\/3 measuring one acre 75 cents.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.According to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to
\none Venkatasamy Naidu who had executed Ex.A1 sale deed dated   15.06.1923 in
\nfavour of one Janakiammal who in turn had executed Ex.A2 sale deed dated
\n28.03.1962 in favour of Valliyammai Achi the wife of Ramanathan Chettiar, who
\nhad no issues.  Both valliammai and Ramanathan Chettiar adopted a son by name
\nAlagappan.  Ramanatha Chettiyar was leading  a wayward life.  To protect the
\nsuit property from Ramanathan Chettiar, Valliammai had executed Ex.A23 sale deed
\nin favour of D1 in benami.  No sale consideration passed under Ex.A3 sale deed
\nand no possession was also handed over by Valliammai to D1 under Ex.A3.  The
\noriginal of Ex.A2 sale deed in the name of Valliammai was also with Valliammai
\nand it was not handed over at the time of execution of Ex.A3 sale deed in favour
\nof D1.  On 08.06.1966, D1 had executed a consent letter Ex.A4 undertaking deed
\nof re-transfer in favour of Valliammai in respect of the alleged benami sale
\neffected under Ex.A3.  Thereafter, the first defendant left for Bangalore with
\nhis family.  Under such circumstances, Valliammai could not get a relinquishment
\ndeed from D1 in respect of the suit property.  In lieu of Ex.A4, Valliammai had
\nexecuted Ex.A16 deed of cancellation and Ex.A3 sale deed dated 06.06.1966 in
\nfavour of D1.  On 16.07.1978, Valliammai had executed a Will in favour of her
\nadopted son Alagappan in respect of the suit property.  Patta was also
\ntransferred in the name of Alagappan.  On 08.01.1981, Alagappan had executed
\nEx.A32 Gift deed in favour of the first plaintiff in respect of 55 cents and
\nanother gift deed under Ex.A33 in favour of the second plaintiff in respect of
\n60 cents and on 20.08.1981, the said Alagappan had executed another gift deed
\nunder Ex.A34 in favour of the third plaintiff in respect of 30 cents and on the
\nsame day, the said Alagappan had executed Ex.A35 gift deed in favour of the
\nfourth plaintiff in respect of remaining 30 cents in the suit survey number
\nproperty.  Thereafter, patta has been transferred in the name of the plaintiffs
\n1 to 4 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the respective properties
\nbequeathed under Exs.A32 to 35 respectively. The first defendant had executed a
\nrelinquishment deed in favour of the four plaintiffs on 18.01.1983 after
\nreceiving Rs.30,000\/-.  The plaintiffs have also prescribed title to the plaint
\nschedule property by way of their long continuous uninterrupted possession. The
\nfirst defendant had executed Exs.A47, 48, 49 and 50 (Originals Exs.B9, B10, B11
\nand B12) in favour of the defendants 2 to 5 in respect of the plaint schedule
\nproperty.  Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of title
\nand for permanent injunction.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The first defendant has not filed any written statement.  The defendants
\n2 to 5 have filed a joint written statement contending that the plaintiffs are
\nnot in possession of the suit property.  Ex.A3 sale deed dated 06.06.1966 cannot
\nbe said to be a benami document as per Section 281 (A) of the Income Tax Act.
\nValliammai and Ramanathan Chettiar have not adopted Alagappan as their son.  The
\nallegation that to protect the suit property Valliammai executed Ex.A3 sale deed
\ndated 06.06.1966 in favour of the first defendant in benami is not true.  The
\nfirst defendant had purchased the suit property for valuable consideration.
\nValliammai had also handed over possession of the suit property to the first
\ndefendant after the execution of Ex.A3 sale deed.  ExA3 sale deed is a genuine
\ndocument.  Land tax have been paid for the suit property by Valliammai through
\nthe first defendant.  There was no necessity for the first defendant to execute
\nneither Ex.A4 nor Ex.A16.  There was no relinquishment deed executed on
\n18.01.1983 by the first defendant after receiving Rs.30,000\/-.  The sale deed
\nexecuted by the first defendant in favour of the defendants 2 to 5 under Exs.B9
\nto B12 are genuine documents since the defendants are in possession of the suit
\nproperties there is no need for them to interfere with the peaceful possession
\nof the plaintiffs and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The learned trial Judge had framed 4 issues for trial.  Before the trial
\nCourt, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.64 were marked on the side of
\nthe plaintiffs and D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B54 were marked on
\nthe side of the defendants.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.After going through the oral and documentary evidence adduced before
\nhim, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs are
\nnot entitled to any relief in respect of the suit property and accordingly
\ndismissed the suit without costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the plaintiffs
\npreferred an appeal before the learned First Appellate Judge in A.S.No.28 of
\n1993. After giving due deliberations to the submissions made by the learned
\ncounsel appearing for the appellants as well as the respondents and after
\nscanning the evidence let in before the trial Court, the learned First Appellate
\nJudge has allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the findings of the learned
\ntrial Judge, had decreed the suit as prayed for, which necessitated the
\ndefendants to prefer this second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.The following substantial questions of law are involved in the second
\nappeal for consideration:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“a)Whether the learned District Judge was right in holding Ex.A-3 as sham
\nand nominal when no circumstance had been established for the purpose of such
\ntransaction especially in favour of a total stranger unrelated to the vendor?\n<\/p>\n
\tb) Whether the learned District Judge was right in placing reliance upon
\nExs.A-6 to A-15, A-18, A-19, A-31, A-39, A-40, A-54 to A-56, when the trial
\nCourt had categorically found that they do not bear the seal and signature of
\nthe concerned department and appropriate authority, to prove the plaintiffs and
\ntheir predecessors-in-interest possession of the suit property?\n<\/p>\n
\tc) In the absence of any document to prove possession of the suit property
\nwith the vendor, Valliammai Achi, from the date of Ex.A-3, is the learned
\nDistrict Judge right in placing reliance on documents long after the sale to
\nhold the document sham and nominal?\n<\/p>\n
\td)Is the learned District Judge right in upholding the validity of Ex.A-
\n16, the cancellation deed based on Ex.A-4, when it did not contain the signature
\nof the first defendant?”\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The following additional substantial questions of law was framed on
\n11.04.2007:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“Whether the learned District Judge was right in holding Ex.A.3 as sham
\nand nominal when no circumstance had been established for the purpose of such
\ntransaction especially in favour of a total stranger unrelated to the vendor?”\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Heard Mr.S.Sethuraman the learned counsel appearing for the appellants
\n1, 4, 6 to 14 and Mr.M.Rajaraman the learned counsel appearing for the
\nrespondents 1 and 2 and Mr.T.Srinivasaraghavan the learned counsel appearing for
\nthe respondents 3 and 4 and considered their respective submissions.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Point:-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe only point to be decided in the second appeal is whether under Ex.A3
\nsale deed dated 06.06.1966, the first defendant had acquired any right or title
\nin respect of the suit property to convey the same in favour of the defendants 2
\nto 5 under Exs.B9,B10, B11 and B12 sale deeds respectively.  The learned counsel
\nappearing for the respondents would contend that after execution of Ex.A4 deed
\nof consent wherein Mary Jacob the first defendant had categorically admitted
\nthat no sale consideration passed under Ex.A3 and cannot place reliance for
\ntitle right and possession under Ex.A3 and the other defendants 2 to 5 cannot
\nalso derive any right title or possession in respect of the plaint schedule
\nproperty under Exs.B9 to B12 since the vendor herself has not derived any right
\nor title under Ex.A3. The learned trial Judge has rejected Ex.A4 on the ground
\nthat the first defendant has not signed and Ex.A4 contains only facsimile
\nsignatures of the first defendant and her husband in rubber stamp but on a
\ncareful scrutiny of Ex.A4, would clearly go to show that Ex.A4 contains only the
\nsignatures of the first defendant P.Mary Jacob and her husband.  The learned
\nFirst Appellate Judge has rejected Ex.A3 document on the basis of the admission
\nin Ex.A4 by the first defendant to the effect that no sale consideration passed
\nunder Ex.A3 sale deed.  The said finding in my view does not require any
\ninterference.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relying on  (2003) 3
\nM.L.J. 604 (T.A.MOHIDEEN ABDUL KADIR (died) and another Vs. ABDUL RAHIM (died)
\nand others) would contend that burden of proof in the case of benami transaction
\nsquarely lies upon the person alleging benami and that while determining the
\nbenami nature of the transactions, courts are guided by the guidelines laid down
\nby the Supreme Court in (1994)1 S.C.C. 3.  The relevant observation in the said
\njudgment relevant for this appeal runs as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“The main point for determination is whether the plaintiff has proved that
\nthe suit properties were purchased benami in the name of D1 from out of the
\nincome of M.S.Amir Moideen.  The burden of proof squarely lies upon the
\nplaintiff to prove the benami nature. In determining the benami nature of the
\ntransactions, the Courts are usually guided by the following circumstances:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) The source from which the purchase money came;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) The nature and possession of the property after the purchase;\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour;\n<\/p>\n
(iv) The position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the
\nclaimant and the alleged benamidar;\n<\/p>\n
(v) The custody of the title deeds after the sale; and\n<\/p>\n
\t(vi) The conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property
\nafter the sale. Jaydayal Poddar v. Bibi Barra (1994) 1 SCC 3.”\n<\/p>\n
\t12.It is the case of the plaintiffs that Valliammai had executed Ex.A3 in
\nrespect of the suit property in favour of the first defendant in order to
\nprotect the same from her husband who was leading a wayward life at that point
\nof time.  Ex.A4 executed by the first defendant itself will go to show that
\nthere was no sale consideration passed under Ex.A3.  Under such circumstances,
\nit is clear that there was no sale consideration passed to Valliammai under
\nEx.A3 to bring Ex.A3 as a valid sale deed within the ambit of Section 54 of the
\nTransfer of Property Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t13.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that
\nthe first defendant who is capable of giving evidence in respect of Exs.A3 and
\nA4 has stayed away from entering into the box to prove his defence, which lead
\nto adverse interference against him. Under such circumstances, the presumption
\nunder Section 114 of the Evidence Act is to be drawn against him.  For this
\nproposition, the learned counsel for the respondents would rely on AIR 1990
\nSUPREME COURT 1441 (VIDHYADHAR v. MANKIKRAO).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe exact dictum on this point in the above said ratio is as follows:-
\n\t“Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states
\nhis own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the
\nother side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct
\nas has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and
\nPrivy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gurbaksha Singh v. Gurdial
\nSingh AIR<\/a> 1927 PC 230.  This was followed by the Lahore High court in Kirpa
\nSingh v. Ajaipal Singh, AIR 1930 Lahore 1 and the Bombay High Court in Martand
\nPandharinath Chaudhari v. Radhabai Krishnarao Deshmukh, AIR 1931 Bombay 97.  The
\nMadhya Pradesh High Court in Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore
\nRawat, AIR 1970 Madh Pra 225, also followed the Privy Council decision in Sardar
\nGurbakhsh Singh’s case (AIR 1927 PC 230) (supra).  The Allahabad High Court in
\nArjun Singh v. Virender Nath, AIR 1971 Allahabad 29 held that if a party
\nabstains from entering the witness box, it would give rise to an inference
\nadverse against him.  Similarly, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
\nCourt in Bhagwan Dass v. Bhishan Chand, AIR 1974 Punj and Har 7, drew a
\npresumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act against a party who did not
\nenter into the witness box.”\n<\/p>\n
\t14.The defendants to prove their possession in respect of the suit
\nproperty have produced Exs.B3 and Ex.B13 to B34  land tax receipts.  Ex.B3 is of
\nthe year 1983.  Ex.B3 land tax receipt relates to patta No.110.  D.W.1 in the
\ncross-examination would admit that there is a correction in Ex.B2 patta and
\nprevious name has been scored of and Mary Jacob’s name has been written.  Ex.B3
\nis dated 02.02.1983, all the other kist receipts namely Exs.B13 to 34 are all
\nsubsequent to the filing of the suit.  In Ex.B2 the patta Number is shown as\n<\/p>\n
110.<\/p>\n
\t 15.On the other hand, it is the case of the plaintiffs that Valliammai
\nhad executed Ex.A17 Registered Will dated 16.07.1978 in favour of her adopted
\nson Alagappan.  To prove Ex.A17 Registered Will, one of the attestors P.W.1, the
\nfirst witness to Ex.A17 Registered Will  would depose in his evidence that
\nEx.A17 Registered Will was executed by Valliammai and that at the time of
\nexecuting Ex.A17 Valliammai was in a sound disposing state of mind and that one
\nVairavan is the other witness under Ex.A17 and that in his (P.W.1’s) presence
\nonly, the said Vairavan had signed as a witness in Ex.A17 and that in his
\npresence, Vallimmai, the testator under Ex.A17 had signed in Ex.A17 and in her
\npresence only he (P.W.1) and other witness Vairavan had signed as witnesses in
\nEx.A17 and thereafter, the Sub Registrar had registered Ex.A17 Will which was
\nexecuted in favour of R.M.Alagappan in respect of ‘B’ schedule property and in
\nfavour R.M.Mutthiah in respect of “A” schedule property and in favour of
\nMuthalachi in respect of ‘C’ schedule property to exhibit A17. B schedule to
\nEx.A17 ‘Will’ is the plaint schedule property in R.S.No.123\/2 measuring one acre
\n75 cents.  The said Alagappan, had executed Ex.A32 gift deed in favour of the
\nplaintiffs in respect of 55 cents in the plaint schedule property and executed
\nEx.A32 gift deed in favour of the second plaintiff in respect of 60 cents and
\nhad executed Ex.A34 gift deed dated 20.08.1981 in favour of the third plaintiff
\nin respect of 30 cents and Ex.A35 gift deed dated 20.08.1981
\nin favour of the fourth plaintiff in respect of 30 cents.  Ex.A55 Adangal
\nExtract will go to show, mutation has been effected in the name of the
\nplaintiffs after Exs.A32 to A35 and RTR patta No.1042\/82-83  dated 04.10.1982
\nhas been issued in the name of the plaintiffs. It is seen from Ex.A56 copy of
\nthe settlement register, the defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 are in possession of
\nSurvey No.211\/2B measuring 3 cents.  So, it is clear that the defendants are not
\nin possession of the suit property.  The defendants 2 to 5’s predecessors in
\ntitle is the first defendant.  Neither the defendants 2 to 5 nor the first
\ndefendant was in possession of the suit property after execution of Ex.A3 sale
\ndeed.  Under such circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with the well
\nconsidered judgment of the learned First Appellate Judge in A.S.No.28 of 1993 on
\nthe file of the Principal District Judge, Madurai which is neither infirm nor
\nillegal to warrant any interference from this court.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.In fine, the second appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the
\nlearned First Appellate Judge in A.S.No.28 of 1993 on the file of the Principal
\nDistrict Judge, Madurai. Under such circumstances, there is no order as to cost.\n<\/p>\n
vri<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.The Principal District Judge,
\n   Madurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Additional District Munsif,
\n   Madurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court P.Mary Jacob – Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 18\/09\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN Second Appeal (MD) No.18 of 1995 1.P.Mary Jacob – died 2.P.Prabakara Singh 3.Grace Vayolo Rosalin 4.Ramadas 5.Muthulakshmi – died 6.H.Ramathilagam (6th appellant herein brought […]<\/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-20923","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP.Mary Jacob - Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 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\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Mary Jacob - Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-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=\"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-05T20:38:40+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Mary Jacob – Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-05T20:38:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2720,\"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\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007\",\"name\":\"P.Mary Jacob - Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-05T20:38:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Mary Jacob – Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"P.Mary Jacob - Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 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\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Mary Jacob - Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-05T20:38:40+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Mary Jacob – Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-05T20:38:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007"},"wordCount":2720,"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\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007","name":"P.Mary Jacob - Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-05T20:38:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-mary-jacob-died-vs-a-n-valliammai-on-18-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Mary Jacob – Died vs A.N.Valliammai on 18 September, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20923","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=20923"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20923\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20923"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20923"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20923"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}