{"id":215546,"date":"2009-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009"},"modified":"2017-09-03T09:28:32","modified_gmt":"2017-09-03T03:58:32","slug":"padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009","title":{"rendered":"Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 20\/11\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN\n\nCRP(PD)No.679 of 2008\n&amp;\nCRP(PD)No.680\/2008\nMP.No.1\/2008\n\nPadma Vadivel Murugan\t\t\tPetitioner in both CRPs\n\nVs\n\n1.Gomathi Kathiresan\n2.L.Muthiah\n3.Prema Sankaran\n4.L.Baskaran\n5.Dr.L.Subramanian\n6.L.Chandrasekaran\n7.Subathra\n8.Vasuki Alwar\n9.Minor Lakshmanan Karthik\t\tRespondents in CRP.679\/08\n\n1.Gomathi Kathiresan\n2.L.Muthiah\n3.Prema Sankaran\n4.L.Baskaran\n5.Dr.L.Subramanian\n6.L.Chandrasekaran\n7.D.Subathra\n8.Vasuki Alwar\n9.Minor Lakshmanan Karthik\t\t\t\n10.B.Lakshmanan\n11.S.Lakshmanan\t\t\t\tRespondents in CRP.680\/08\n\nPrayer\n\nThese Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the  fair and\ndecreetal order dated 23.7.2007 passed in IA.Nos.13 and 46\/2007 in OS.No.3\/2002\nby the learned  Additional District Court (FTC-I) Tuticorin.\n\n!For Petitioner\t...\tMr.M.Vallinayagam\n^For Respondent\t...\tMr.K.Govindarajan-R5\n\t\t\tMr.K.Srinivasan-R4\n\t\t\tRR1to3 &amp; RR6to9-No Appearance\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p> \t\t These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the  order dated<br \/>\n23.7.2007 passed in IA.Nos.13 and 46\/2007 in OS.No.3\/2002 by the learned<br \/>\nAdditional District Court (FTC-I) Tuticorin.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2. The brief facts, which are essential for the disposal of these<br \/>\nCivil Revision Petitions, are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\ta. The 1st Respondent is the sister and the Respondents 2 to 5 are<br \/>\nthe brothers of the Petitioner\/3rd Defendant.  The 1st Respondent\/Plaintiff  has<br \/>\nfiled the above said suit for partition and separate possession of the<br \/>\nproperties, left by her deceased father Lakshman Pillai.  The other Respondents<br \/>\nare her close relatives.  Pending the trial, the Petitioner has filed an<br \/>\napplication in IA.No.46\/2006 to implead one B.Lakshmanan, son of L.Baskaran, the<br \/>\n5th Defendant and S.Lakshmanan, son of L.Subramanian, the son of the 4th<br \/>\nDefendant as the proposed Defendants in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tb.  According to the Petitioner, the suit item (10) of the A-<br \/>\nSchedule property in the plaint belongs to her father S.M.Lakshman Pillai and<br \/>\nthat property had been purchased by her father from his own funds and for his<br \/>\nown benefit.  But, the 5th Defendant claims that northern 1\/2 portion of that<br \/>\nproperty belongs to his son Balaji @ Lakshmanan, the proposed 11th Defendant on<br \/>\nthe basis of a registered sale deed dated 6.9.1988 having purchased the same out<br \/>\nof the amounts gifted by his paternal and maternal grand father and he is in<br \/>\npossession and enjoyment of the said property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tb. Likewise, the Petitioner claims that the property  bearing<br \/>\nS.No.474\/2 and other properties in the name of B.Lakshmanan, son of L.Baskaran<br \/>\nthe 4th Defendant herein are the self acquired property of her father Lakshman<br \/>\nPillai.  She has stated that her father had purchased properties in his name and<br \/>\nin the name of his sons and grand sons and all properties were in his possession<br \/>\ntill his life time and those properties are also liable to be partitioned.<br \/>\nTherefore, the Petitioner sought to implead the proposed Respondents 10 and 11<br \/>\nas the Defendants in order to enable the court to effectively and completely<br \/>\nadjudicate upon all the properties in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tc.  The 4th Defendant resisted the said application on the ground<br \/>\nthat it is the absolute and individual property of his son having purchased the<br \/>\nsame as early as on 30.7.1983 out of the funds supplied by his maternal grand<br \/>\nfather namely Arumuga Pillai and also from birthday gifts.<br \/>\n\t\td.  The 5th Defendant and the proposed 11th Defendant contended that<br \/>\nthe northern half of item (10) of the A-Schedule property absolutely belonged to<br \/>\nthe proposed 11th Defendant, having purchased the same by a registered sale deed<br \/>\ndated 5.9.1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tc.  The Petitioner also filed another application in IA.No.132007 to<br \/>\ninclude certain properties detailed in the petition  as items 19, 20, 21 and 22<br \/>\nas subject matter of the suit for partition.  The 4th Defendant resisted the<br \/>\nsaid application on the ground that the item (1) i.e. Door No.7 does not exist<br \/>\nat all and the property at Door No.73 is the absolute and individual property of<br \/>\nthe 4th Defendant.  Likewise, he claimed absolute ownership to the other three<br \/>\nitems of the properties, also having been purchased the same as early as on<br \/>\n30.7.1983 and as his son Lakshmanan had established his title in OS.No.43\/1999<br \/>\non the file of the District Munsif, Tuticorin, which was confirmed in<br \/>\nA.No.74\/2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\td.  The Trial Court dismissed the said application in IA.No.13\/2007<br \/>\nand consequently  refused to implead the son of the 4th Defendant as a party to<br \/>\nthe suit,  however, allowed the petition in IA.NO.46\/2006 in part, thus<br \/>\nimpleading the son of the 5th Defendant as party Respondent\/10th Defendant, who<br \/>\nclaimed exclusive ownership to the northern portion of the item (10) of the A-<br \/>\nSchedule property.  As against the said orders, these Civil Revision Petitions<br \/>\nhave been filed by the 3rd Defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3. Mr.M.Vallinayagam, the learned counsel for the Petitioner<br \/>\nassailed the impugned orders of the court below on the ground that the court<br \/>\nbelow had disallowed the inclusion of properties on the sole reason that the<br \/>\nPetitioner had not produced any documents or materials to prove that those<br \/>\nproperties were purchased by Lakshmanan Pillai.  The learned counsel would<br \/>\ncontend that while considering as to whether an application for amendment should<br \/>\nor should not be allowed, the court should not go into the correctness or<br \/>\nfalsity of the case in the amendment and should not record a finding on the<br \/>\nmerits of the case.  Whereas the court below having given such a finding, the<br \/>\nsame is against the settled law and the order passed by the court below is not<br \/>\nsustainable in law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.  The learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the<br \/>\ndecision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajesh Kumar<br \/>\nAggarwal and others Vs. K.K.Modi and others [AIR-2006-SC-1647], wherein the<br \/>\nHonourable Supreme Court has held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;While considering whether an application for amendment should or should not be<br \/>\nallowed, the court should not go into the correctness of falsity of the case in<br \/>\nthe amendment.  Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the<br \/>\namendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of<br \/>\namendment are not to be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for<br \/>\namendment.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. On the other hand, Mr.K.Govindarajan, the learned counsel  for<br \/>\nthe 5th Respondent would submit that a party cannot seek to amend the pleadings<br \/>\nof the opponent and in the instant case, the Plaintiff being the dominus litus,<br \/>\nshe cannot be compelled to include some more items of the property, against<br \/>\nwhich she did not claim any share.  The learned counsel relied on the decision<br \/>\nof this court rendered in the case of Ramasamy and another Vs. P.Marappan and<br \/>\nothers [2005-3-MLJ-663-Mad].\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.  The learned counsel for the Respondents 4 and 5 also submitted<br \/>\nthat the application, filed by the Petitioner belatedly without giving any<br \/>\nexplanation whatsoever for not having mentioned the same initially, should not<br \/>\nbe entertained at this stage and relied on the decision of the  Allahabad High<br \/>\nCourt rendered in the case of Bhu Deo Vs. District Judge, Etah and others [Air-<br \/>\n2007-Allahabad-29] in support of the said proposition of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.  It is no doubt true, that a court cannot compel the Plaintiff to<br \/>\namend the plaint at the instance of the Defendant in a partition suit by<br \/>\nincluding or excluding some properties and also impleadment of parties.  But, at<br \/>\nthe same time, it is only the Plaintiff who can complain of such compulsion and<br \/>\nit is not open to the other Defendants to complain that the court has no<br \/>\njurisdiction to compel the Plaintiff to do so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.  In the instant case, admittedly the 1st Respondent\/Plaintiff has<br \/>\nnot filed any counter or objection to the said applications before the court<br \/>\nbelow nor raised any objections in these Civil Revision Petitions.  The suit is<br \/>\none for partition and it is the case of the Petitioner that some more properties<br \/>\nwhich stand in the name of the sons of the 4th and 5th Defendants herein were<br \/>\npurchased by her father late Lakshman Pillai and the Plaintiff has failed to<br \/>\ninclude those properties and seeks to include those properties for adjudication.<br \/>\nSimply because there is a delay, the Petitioner cannot be denied a just relief<br \/>\non the ground that it is not in conformity with the rules of procedure.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.  Order 6 rule 17 of CPC does not interdict an amendment which<br \/>\nadds new reliefs unless it causes injustice to the other party.  The proposed<br \/>\namendment does not constitute an addition of a new cause of action, but it<br \/>\namounts to no more than adding to the facts already on the record.  The<br \/>\namendment sought for in this suit for partition is not in any way alter or<br \/>\naffect the original suit filed by the Plaintiff or introduce any new case, but<br \/>\nseeks to include certain other properties which stand in the name of the<br \/>\nproposed Defendant.  In other words, it can  only be said that it is an<br \/>\nexpansion of pleas already placed on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.  It is to be borne in mind the various pronouncements of the<br \/>\nHonourable Supreme Court that the general rule in the matter of allowing<br \/>\namendment is that all amendments are to be allowed which do not purport to set<br \/>\nup a new case and which would not work injustice to the  other side are<br \/>\nnecessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy<br \/>\nbetween the parties.  One of the purposes and objects of allowing amendments of<br \/>\nthe plaint in the case of this nature is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.  That apart, in an application for an amendment of a plaint, the<br \/>\ncourt has no power to consider the merits of the proposed amendment.  Order 6<br \/>\nRule 17 of CPC confers a wide discretion upon the courts to allow the amendment<br \/>\nof pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, if it goes to help the court in<br \/>\ndeciding the issue between the<\/p>\n<p> parties in a just and fair manner.  It is also well settled law that however<br \/>\nlate the proposed amendment, the same can be allowed, if it causes no injustice<br \/>\nto the other side.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12.  In the instant case, the court below had allowed the amendment<br \/>\nin part and is not justified in refusing the other part merely on the ground<br \/>\nthat there is no proof to support the claim of the Petitioner that they are the<br \/>\nself-acquired properties of her father.  As already discussed above and in view<br \/>\nof the law laid by the Honourable Supreme Court that the court should not go<br \/>\ninto the correctness of falsity of the case in the amendment,  the impugned<br \/>\norders passed by the court below are unsustainable in law and they are liable to<br \/>\nbe set aside and accordingly, they are set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. No<br \/>\ncosts.  Consequently, the connected MP is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Srcm<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>The  Additional District Court (FTC-I) Tuticorin<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20\/11\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN CRP(PD)No.679 of 2008 &amp; CRP(PD)No.680\/2008 MP.No.1\/2008 Padma Vadivel Murugan Petitioner in both CRPs Vs 1.Gomathi Kathiresan 2.L.Muthiah 3.Prema Sankaran 4.L.Baskaran 5.Dr.L.Subramanian 6.L.Chandrasekaran 7.Subathra 8.Vasuki Alwar 9.Minor [&hellip;]<\/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-215546","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-03T03:58:32+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-03T03:58:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1675,\"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\\\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009\",\"name\":\"Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-03T03:58:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-03T03:58:32+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009","datePublished":"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-03T03:58:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009"},"wordCount":1675,"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\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009","name":"Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-03T03:58:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/padma-vadivel-murugan-vs-gomathi-kathiresan-on-20-november-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Padma Vadivel Murugan vs Gomathi Kathiresan on 20 November, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215546","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=215546"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/215546\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=215546"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=215546"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=215546"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}