{"id":228054,"date":"2008-06-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008"},"modified":"2014-03-14T07:06:35","modified_gmt":"2014-03-14T01:36:35","slug":"minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 30\/06\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.MURGESEN\n\nS.A.No.518 of 2001\n\n1.Minor Thangaraj\n2.Minor Sivakumar\n(minors rep. by Father and\n next friend Nallusami)\t\t..   Appellants\t\t\t\t\n\nVs.\n\nNatarajan\t\t\t..   Respondent\t\t\t\t\n\nPrayer\n\nSecond Appeal is filed under Section 100 C.P.C., against the\nJudgment and Decree dated 25.08.2000 passed in A.S.No.41 of 1999 on the file of\nthe learned Additional district Judge, Dindigul confirming the Judgment and\nDecree dated 04.01.1999 made in O.S.No.255 of 1997 on the file of the Second\nAdditional District Munsif, Dindigul.\n\n!For Appellant \t... Mr.T.M.Hariharan\n^For Respondent ... Mr.Selvaraj\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tThis second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated<br \/>\n25.08.2000 passed in A.S.No.41 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Judge, Dindigul confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 04.01.1999<br \/>\nmade in O.S.No.255 of 1997 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif,<br \/>\nDindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The case of the Plaintiffs, in brief, is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p> \t\tOriginally the Suit properties and other properties belonged to one<br \/>\nArunachalam pillai who purchased under a sale deed dated 13.09.1929.<br \/>\nArunachalam Pillai is the son of Muthapillai.  One Ramasamy and Kandasamy are<br \/>\nthe brothers of the said Arunachalam Pillai.  Kandasamy&#8217;s sons are one Perumal<br \/>\nand Shanmugam.  The said Arunachalam Pillai sold to the extent of 1 acre 40<br \/>\ncents out of 3 acres, which was purchased by him to one Nallathambi Pillai and<br \/>\nfive others under a sale deed dated 27.04.1940.  On 19.08.1952, Ramasamy Pillai<br \/>\nand Arunachalam Pillai had given their  properties to Krishnan and Arumugam<br \/>\nunder a settlement deed dated 19.08.1952.  The minor plaintiffs had purchased<br \/>\nthe suit property from the said Krishnan, Arumugam and their legal heirs by a<br \/>\nregistered sale dated 27.02.1997 and they were enjoying the suit properties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. While so, on 10.05.1997, when the plaintiffs were repairing their house<br \/>\nsituated in the suit property, the defendant, being a stranger came there and<br \/>\ntried to prevent them to repair the house. The said attempt was prevented by the<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s with the help of their neighbours.  The defendant is restraining the<br \/>\npeaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule<br \/>\nproperties.   Hence, the Suit filed by the plaintiffs praying a decree for<br \/>\ndeclaration and injunction against the respondent\/defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The case of the defendant, in brief, is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe suit is not maintainable.  The suit property does not belong to<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs.  Suit properties belonged to the defendant since purchased the<br \/>\nsame under a registered sale deed dated 21.03.1996 and he is enjoying the same.<br \/>\nThe suit is filed with false allegations to grab the properties from the<br \/>\ndefendant.  The said property was purchased by Nallathambi Pillai and others<br \/>\nfrom Arunachalam Pillai on 27.04.1940 for a sum of Rs.100\/-.  On 18.04.1944,<br \/>\nMuthupillai and others sold the same to Ramasamipillai under a sale deed for a<br \/>\nsum of Rs.500\/-.  On 18.08.1948, Ramasami Pillai sold the same to Arunachalam<br \/>\nPillai for a sum of Rs.500\/-.  Suit properties and other properties belonged to<br \/>\nRamasami, Kandasami and Arunachalam, who are the sons of Muthupillai.  The suit<br \/>\nproperties and some other properties were partitioned under a  partition deed<br \/>\ndated 26.02.1966, in which the suit properties were allotted to one Perumal.<br \/>\nThen, the defendant purchased the suit properties from Perumal under a<br \/>\nregistered sale deed dated 21.03.1996 and he is enjoying the same.  The<br \/>\nplaintiffs have no right or title over the suit properties.  Without having  any<br \/>\nright or title over the suit properties, the plaintiffs cannot seek for<br \/>\npermanent injunction.  There is no cause of action for the Suit.  The Court fees<br \/>\nwas not paid properly.  Hence the Suit is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5. Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to<br \/>\nA-6 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and<br \/>\nExs.B-1 to B-7 were marked on the side of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Considering the evidence available on record, the learned Second<br \/>\nAdditional District Munsif, Dindigul dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Aggrieved over the Judgment of the learned Second Additional District<br \/>\nMunsif, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs before the learned Additional<br \/>\nDistrict Judge, Dindigul in A.S.No.41 of 1999. The learned Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nDindigul   dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the<br \/>\nlearned Second Additional District Munsif. Challenging the Judgments of both the<br \/>\nlearned Second Additional District Munsif and the learned Additional District<br \/>\nJudge, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t 8.At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following<br \/>\nsubstantial questions of law were framed:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t1.When the original title of the appellants&#8217; predecessor is not<br \/>\nseriously disputed and when the respondent has not established the alleged<br \/>\ntreating of the properties as joint property and the alleged oral partition in<br \/>\nwhich the suit property was allotted to his vendor&#8217;s father, the appellants are<br \/>\nnot entitled to decree as prayed for?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.Whether the ready assumption that Ex.B-7 cancellation deed is<br \/>\noperative, is legal and proper?\n<\/p>\n<p>Point:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Originally the Suit property belongs to one Arunachalam Pillai.<br \/>\nArunachalam Pillai is the son of Muthapillai.  One Ramasamy and Kandasamy are<br \/>\nthe brothers of the said Arunachalam Pillai.  Kandasamy&#8217;s sons are one Perumal<br \/>\nand Shanmugam.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Arunachalam Pillai had purchased the suit property measuring 3 acres<br \/>\nout of 6.60 acres situated in S.No.265\/3  in the year 1929 and has been enjoying<br \/>\nthe same under the sale deed dated 13.09.1929. The above sale deed is marked as<br \/>\nEx.A2.  On 27.04.1940, he sold 1.40 acre out of 3 acres in favour of his brother<br \/>\nRamasamy Pillai and five others under Ex.A4, sale deed dated 27.04.1940, by<br \/>\nwhich, Ramasamy Pillai has got 1\/6th share of the suit schedule property.<br \/>\nThereafter, Arunachalam Pillai and Ramasamy Pillai had settled their property to<br \/>\ntheir sons Krishnan and Arumugam under Ex.A3, the settlement deed dated<br \/>\n19.08.1952 respectively.  Ramasamy Pillai and Kandasamy Pillai had given the<br \/>\nproperties to their Sister Valliammai under Ex.A5, Sreedhana deed dated<br \/>\n16.02.1928. Plaintiff&#8217;s vendor sold the property to the plaintiffs on 27.02.1997<br \/>\nunder Ex.A1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.The defendant\/respondent claimed to have purchased the property from<br \/>\none Perumal and Shanmugam, Sons of Kandasamy, the brother of Arunachalam under<br \/>\nEx.B1, sale deed dated 21.03.1996.  They claimed that there is a partition<br \/>\nbetween Perumal and Shanmugam under Ex.B2, partition deed dated 26.02.1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Nalluchamy is the father of the minor plaintiffs.  He was examined as<br \/>\nP.W.1.  He deposed that he had purchased the suit properties in the name of his<br \/>\nminor sons under Ex.A.1.  It was supported  by his vendor P.W.2 and his<br \/>\npossession was spoken by P.W.3.  He deposed as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;vdf;F tptuk; bjhpa MWKfk;, fpU&amp;;zd; jhd; jhth brhj;ij mDgtpj;J<br \/>\nte;jhh;fs;.  jw;BghJ ey;Yr;rhkp fpiuaj;jpw;F thA;fp mDgtpf;fpwhh;.<br \/>\nfhypaplj;jpy; g[HA;fpf; bfhz;L nUf;fpwhh;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo, it is clear from his evidence that the plaintiffs are enjoying the<br \/>\nsuit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.On the other hand, the counsel for respondent submitted that the suit<br \/>\nproperty is a joint family property of the defendant&#8217;s vendors through a<br \/>\npartition deed.  This was disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants.<br \/>\nFirst of all, it is not in dispute that the suit property belong to Arunachalam<br \/>\nPillai and it is not a joint family property.  Ex.A-5 also does not show that<br \/>\nthe suit property is a joint family property.  A perusal of the document Ex.A4<br \/>\nwould show that it is a self-acquired property, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;fpiuar; brhj;J kJiu o jpz;Lf;fy; rg;o jpz;Lf;fy; jhYfh Myf;Fthh;gl;o<br \/>\nfpuhk g[yj;jpy; ehd; Rahh;$pjkha; fpiuak; bgw;Wk; mDgtpj;J tUfpwJkhd mad; rh;Bt<br \/>\n265\/3 eph; V 6 &#8211; br.60 y; bjd;g[uk; uhkrhkp gps;is ghfj;Jf;Fk; Bkw;F, vd;<br \/>\nghfj;Jf;Fk; bjw;F, jA;fspy; 1tJ egh; tPl;Lf;Fk;  fpHf;F, bgUkhs; Bfhtpy;<br \/>\nkiyf;Fk; tlf;F.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The above said document was executed in the year 1940, which is a very long<br \/>\nprior to the Suit.  There cannot be any motive for Arunachalam Pillai to make<br \/>\nfalse statement in the document.  It would show that it is a self acquired<br \/>\nproperty of Arunachalam Pillai.  Valliammai is the Sister of Arunachalam Pillai<br \/>\nand Ramasamy.  Under Exs.A5 and A6, Ramasamy and Kandasamy had settled some<br \/>\nproperties to their sister valliammai as sreedhana in the very same survey<br \/>\nnumber.  Valliammai in turn sold the same to Arunachalam Pillai under a<br \/>\nregistered sale deed, which is marked as Ex.A6.  If it was the joint family<br \/>\nproperties, certainly Kandasamy and Ramasamy could not have settled the<br \/>\nproperties in favour of their sister Valliammai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. Before executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, Ex.B3<br \/>\nlegal notice was sent by the plaintiffs&#8217; vendor to the defendant and his vendors<br \/>\nclaiming right over the property.  The reply notice, which was sent by the<br \/>\ndefendant, is marked as Ex.B4.   In Ex.B.4, it is not stated that the<br \/>\ndefendent&#8217;s vendors have got right under partition and Perumal and Shanmugam<br \/>\nwere allotted properties under the partition deed.   Therefore, it can be<br \/>\nconstrued that the plea of partition between Perumal and Shanmugam is an after-<br \/>\nthought.  For this, there is a strong reason.  On behalf of the defendant,<br \/>\nD.Ws.1 to 3 were examined.  D.W.1 is unable to speak about the partition between<br \/>\nArunachalam Pillai and Ramasamy Pillai.  He deposed in his cross examination<br \/>\nthat he did not know about Kandasamy Pillai, Ramasamy Pillai and Arunachalam<br \/>\nPillai and he also did not know whether there was a partition between them or<br \/>\nnot.  He perused only the patta and kist receipt in favour of the Perumal and<br \/>\npurchased the suit properties.  He is not in a position to show that there was<br \/>\npartition between Ramasamy Pillai, Kandasamy Pillai and Arunachalam Pillai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. D.W.2, who claims to be the vendor of the defendant has admitted in<br \/>\nthe course of his cross examination, that there was a partition effected on the<br \/>\nbasis of kist and they did not divide the property on the basis of the extent or<br \/>\nvalue of the properties.  Though he deposed that there is a patta in favour of<br \/>\nhis father, he did not produce the same before the Court.  So his claim for<br \/>\ntitle over the property and patta were not correct.  Further he said that both<br \/>\nhis father and uncle paid the kist jointly and patta and kist receipts are<br \/>\navailable to that effect.  But, he did not produce the same before the Courts<br \/>\nbelow.  Any person, who is possession, document must produce to the same.  In<br \/>\ncase he failed to produce the document without any just cause adverse inference<br \/>\ncan be drawn against him.  Hence, the evidence of D.W.2 is rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16.D.W.3 is the brother of D.W.2.  He deposed in his evidence that the<br \/>\nsuit properties were enjoyed by his father and grand father.  He admitted that<br \/>\nthere was no patta for them and he did not pay kist.  He unable to say that his<br \/>\nfather had got patta for the suit schedule properties.  These all would go to<br \/>\nshow that D.Ws.1 to 3 are not speaking truth.  Hence, the defendant has no right<br \/>\nover the property and the  alleged partition between perumal and Shanmugam is<br \/>\nnot correct since the defendant has failed to prove that the properties are the<br \/>\njoint family properties of Ramasamy, Kandasamy and Arunachalam Pillai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t17. Considering the evidence available on record it is clear that<br \/>\nthe plaintiff&#8217;s vendor has got right over the property as well as the plaintiffs<br \/>\nhave title and possession over the property.  Both the Courts below have not<br \/>\nconsidered the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and dismissed<br \/>\nthe Suit.  Accordingly, the Substantial questions of law are answered in favour<br \/>\nof the appellants.  Hence, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are<br \/>\nliable to be set aside and accordingly set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed and the judgments and<br \/>\ndecrees of the Courts below are set aside and the Suit is decreed as prayed for.<br \/>\nNo costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>arul<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Second Additional District Munsif,<br \/>\n  Dindigul.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Additional District Judge,<br \/>\n  Dindigul..<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30\/06\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.MURGESEN S.A.No.518 of 2001 1.Minor Thangaraj 2.Minor Sivakumar (minors rep. by Father and next friend Nallusami) .. Appellants Vs. Natarajan .. Respondent Prayer Second Appeal is filed under [&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-228054","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>Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008 - 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\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-14T01:36:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-14T01:36:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1921,\"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\\\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-14T01:36:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008 - 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\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-14T01:36:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-14T01:36:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008"},"wordCount":1921,"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\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008","name":"Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-14T01:36:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/minor-thangaraj-vs-natarajan-on-30-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Minor Thangaraj vs Natarajan on 30 June, 2008"}]},{"@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\/228054","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=228054"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/228054\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=228054"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=228054"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=228054"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}