{"id":230690,"date":"2007-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007"},"modified":"2015-05-21T08:09:13","modified_gmt":"2015-05-21T02:39:13","slug":"d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"D.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
D.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                     Dated : 24.04.2007\n\n                            Coram\n\n         The Honourable Mrs.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN\n\n                     S.A. No.2006 of 2003\n                             and\n                    CMP. No.18309 of 2003\n\n\n\nD.Arumuga Nadar\t\t\t\t\t...Appellant\n\n\n       Vs\n\n                              \n1. K.Muthulakshmi\n2. P.Kandaswamy                     \t\t...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n      Second  Appeal  against  the judgment  decree  of  the\nlearned  4th  Additional Judge, City  Civil  Court,  Chennai\ndated 17.7.2003 made in A.S.No. 134\/01 reversing that of the\nlearned  16th  Assistant  City Civil  Judge,  Chennai  dated\n21.3.2000 made in O.S.No.6778\/93.\n\n\n\n   For Appellant   : Mr.B.Subramanian\n\n   For  Respondent : Mr.S.Jayaram,  Senior counsel for Mr.Y.K.Rajagopal.\n                              \n\n                          JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The following substantial questions of law were framed<\/p>\n
at the time of admission:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         (i)  Whether  the  Lower Appellate  Court
\n         was  right  in holding that the  rule  of
\n         estoppel  embodied in Section 41  of  the
\n         Transfer  of Property Act will not  apply
\n         to the present case?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (ii)  Whether  the Lower Appellate  Court
\n         was  right in holding that the principles
\n         of   caveat  emptor  will  preclude   the
\n         appellant  from seeking protection  under
\n         Section  41  of the Transfer of  Property
\n         Act?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (iii)  Whether the Lower Appellate  Court
\n         was  right in holding that the  claim  of
\n         the  appellant, that he became  a  lessee
\n         under  the  second respondent  only  will
\n         prevent   him  from  claiming  that   the
\n         conduct  of  the  first  respondent  will
\n         prevent her from suing for possession?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (iv)  Whether  the Lower Appellate  Court
\n         was  right in holding that the precedents
\n         cited by the appellant will not apply  to
\n         a case of a lease?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2. The appellant who is the defendant resists the suit<\/p>\n
for recovery of possession on the ground that the husband of<\/p>\n
the  respondent had leased the property to him  and  allowed<\/p>\n
him  to construct the superstructure and the respondent  had<\/p>\n
acquiesced with the same.  The respondent’s case that  there<\/p>\n
was no acquiescence has been accepted by the lower Court.<\/p>\n
      3. The respondent owns the suit property by virtue  of<\/p>\n
the  settlement deed document No.3994\/1974 dated  30-09-1974<\/p>\n
by  which  her sister had settled the property on her.   She<\/p>\n
has  been  the Matron in the Air-force and has  been  posted<\/p>\n
away from Madras for several years.  Taking advantage of her<\/p>\n
absence  the second respondent, her husband had  leased  out<\/p>\n
the  property without authority to the appellant.  Since the<\/p>\n
first   respondent  has  not  permitted  such   lease,   the<\/p>\n
appellant’s presence is that of a trespasser.  The appellant<\/p>\n
had  also  obtained electricity connection  illegally.   The<\/p>\n
first  respondent  had  issued notice  to  the  Commissioner<\/p>\n
Corporation  and  other officials that there  should  be  no<\/p>\n
mutation  of  records in favour of the  appellant.   To  her<\/p>\n
letter written to the Electricity Board she received a reply<\/p>\n
that  there has been a decision in O.S.No.684 of  1988  that<\/p>\n
the  appellant is the lawful tenant in respect of  the  suit<\/p>\n
property.   It is only thereafter that the first  respondent<\/p>\n
came  to  know about some arrangement between the  appellant<\/p>\n
and  the  second respondent.  The first respondent  came  to<\/p>\n
understand  from the records in that suit that a decree  for<\/p>\n
injunction has been passed against the second respondent her<\/p>\n
husband.   The  alleged document of lease was not  produced.<\/p>\n
Any   arrangement  between  the  appellant  and  the  second<\/p>\n
respondent will not bind the first respondent and therefore,<\/p>\n
the   suit  was  filed  for  declaration  and  recovery   of<\/p>\n
possession.  After issuing a notice on 08-04-1992 to which a<\/p>\n
reply  was given b the appellant on 24-05-1992.  The  second<\/p>\n
respondent  remained ex-parte.  The appellant  resisted  the<\/p>\n
suit mainly denying the title of the first respondent in the<\/p>\n
suit  property.   According  to  the  appellant  he  had  no<\/p>\n
knowledge   of  the  alleged  settlement  dated  13-09-1974.<\/p>\n
According  to the appellant, the first respondent had  never<\/p>\n
enjoyed the suit property and had no right to the same.  The<\/p>\n
second  respondent had denied that the first respondent  was<\/p>\n
employed in the Air-Force and that taking advantage  of  her<\/p>\n
absence the second respondent had leased out the property to<\/p>\n
the  appellant.  The first respondent is fully aware of  the<\/p>\n
construction  of the superstructure by the  appellant.   The<\/p>\n
appellant is not a trespasser but a lawful tenant.  When the<\/p>\n
second  respondent admitted to throw out the appellant,   he<\/p>\n
filed  O.S.No.624  of 1978 and a decree for  injunction  was<\/p>\n
granted  in his favour.  Against that, the second respondent<\/p>\n
filed  O.S.No.370  of  1991,  which  was  dismissed.   After<\/p>\n
realising  that it was not possible the appellant\/the  first<\/p>\n
respondent  by  abusing the process of  law  had  filed  the<\/p>\n
present suit.  All the other allegations in the plaint  were<\/p>\n
denied.  The Trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the<\/p>\n
appellant  is  a  tenant  and the first  respondent  is  not<\/p>\n
entitled   to  recover  possession.   The  aggrieved   first<\/p>\n
respondent  filed  the  appeal.  In the  appeal,  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent’s title to the suit property was declared and the<\/p>\n
suit  was decreed as prayed for and now the second defendant<\/p>\n
in  the  suit  who claims to be the tenant under  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent’s husband has filed this appeal.<\/p>\n
     4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that<\/p>\n
this  is  a  case  where the conduct of  the  parties  would<\/p>\n
clearly  establish  that  the first respondent  herein  knew<\/p>\n
fully  well that her husband had leased out the property  to<\/p>\n
the appellant herein. In fact, that has even been pleaded in<\/p>\n
the  plaint.  Thereafter, the respondents attempted to throw<\/p>\n
the  appellant out. A suit was filed, followed by an  appeal<\/p>\n
and   both   in  the  suit  and  appeal,  the  husband\/first<\/p>\n
respondent lost. The finding is that the super structure  on<\/p>\n
the  property was put up only by the appellant. After having<\/p>\n
failed, the second respondent had chosen to file a suit  for<\/p>\n
declaration of title and recovery of possession.<\/p>\n
      5.  The learned counsel for the appellant would submit<\/p>\n
that in 1988, the respondent had given a complaint objecting<\/p>\n
to  the  construction put up by the appellant and  for  five<\/p>\n
years,  there was silence and only thereafter, the suit  was<\/p>\n
filed.  The respondent was waiting in the wings to  see  the<\/p>\n
outcome  of the suit filed by the husband and only when  she<\/p>\n
knew  that  the suit met with failure, she filed  her  suit.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel submitted that it is hardly believable  that<\/p>\n
the   first  respondent  would  not  have  known  about  the<\/p>\n
proceedings initiated by the husband when it has been proved<\/p>\n
by  documentary and oral evidence that the husband  and  the<\/p>\n
wife live together in the suit property. The learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that the finding of the lower court with regard to<\/p>\n
Section  41  of  the Transfer of Property  Act  was  totally<\/p>\n
erroneous.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      6.  The learned counsel also submitted that the  court<\/p>\n
ought  to  have seen the effect of the judgment obtained  by<\/p>\n
the  appellant  against the husband of the  respondent.  The<\/p>\n
learned counsel relied on the following decisions<\/p>\n
      (a)  In 1993 (4) SCC 349 (GURU AMARJIT SINGH v. RATTAN<\/p>\n
CHAND),<\/a>   wherein   the  Supreme  Court   dealt   with   the<\/p>\n
circumstances  in  which  Section  111  (g)(1)  Transfer  of<\/p>\n
Property Act would apply;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (b)  In  AIR 1965 MADRAS 318 (ACC LTD v. RAMAKRISHNA),<\/p>\n
where  the  Division  Bench  of  this  Court,  applying  the<\/p>\n
doctrine  of  equitable estoppel, held  that  the  owner  is<\/p>\n
estopped  from recovering possession because of his  conduct<\/p>\n
and  is not entitled to damages for the portion occupied  by<\/p>\n
trespasser.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (c) In  AIR 1981 MADRAS 220 (R.S.MUTHUSWAMI GOUNDER v.<\/p>\n
A.ANNAMALAI),<\/a> it was held that the plaintiff could have come<\/p>\n
to  know in time about the defendant putting up construction<\/p>\n
on the suit land, had he cared to find out and the principle<\/p>\n
of  acquiescence would applied and plaintiff  was  therefore<\/p>\n
entitled only to a decree for compensation.<\/p>\n
       (d)    In  AIR  1977  MADRAS  342  (S.PALANIVELU   v.<\/p>\n
K.VERADAMMAL),<\/a> it was held that there was construction by  a<\/p>\n
trespasser  and  acquiescence by owner while the  trespasser<\/p>\n
built  on  the  trespassed land and it was held  that  owner<\/p>\n
shall  be  compensated  for  the  value  of  the  trespassed<\/p>\n
portion.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (e)   In  1957  (II)  MLJ  603,  (KUTTAPPA  NAIR   v.\n<\/p>\n
KUTTISANKARAN  NAIR), it has been held  that  the  equitable<\/p>\n
doctrine  of estoppel embodied in Section 41 of the Transfer<\/p>\n
of Property Act would apply.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     (f) In AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 553 (SYED ABDUL KHADER v.<\/p>\n
RAMI REDDY),<\/a> it was held that Section 41 of the Transfer  of<\/p>\n
Property  Act provides that where with the consent,  express<\/p>\n
or  implied, of the person interested in immovable property,<\/p>\n
a  person  is  the  ostensible owner of  such  property  and<\/p>\n
transfers the same for consideration, the transfer shall not<\/p>\n
be  voidable  on  the  ground that the  transferor  was  not<\/p>\n
authorised to make it.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (g)   In  AIR  1999 MAD 435 (S.GOVINDARASU  UDAYAR  v.<\/p>\n
PATTU),<\/a>  admissibility of judgments  not  inter  partes  was<\/p>\n
considered.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      7.  The  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the<\/p>\n
respondent  would  submit  that in  the  case  on  hand,  no<\/p>\n
interference is warranted in the second appeal. The  learned<\/p>\n
counsel submitted that even assuming without admitting  that<\/p>\n
the  appellant  did not know that the second respondent  was<\/p>\n
the  real  owner  of  the property, as soon  as  the  notice<\/p>\n
Ex.A30,  which  is dated 28.4.92 was issued,  the  appellant<\/p>\n
ought to have known who was the real owner and since it  was<\/p>\n
a  case of total denial, it is not open to him now to invoke<\/p>\n
Section  41 of the Transfer of Property Act or say that  the<\/p>\n
husband  had,  with the consent and authority of  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent, implied or express, inducted the appellant as  a<\/p>\n
lessee  in  the  suit property. The learned  senior  counsel<\/p>\n
submitted  that  the  respondent had proved  her  title  and<\/p>\n
therefore, she is entitled for possession.<\/p>\n
      8.  The  trial court dismissed the suit and aggrieved,<\/p>\n
the  first  respondent filed an appeal  and  succeeded.  The<\/p>\n
prayer is for declaration of title. The learned counsel  for<\/p>\n
the  respondents  relied on Ex.A1, which is  the  settlement<\/p>\n
deed  dated 30.9.74. The first respondent has given evidence<\/p>\n
as  P.W.1.  She has stated that her sister had  settled  the<\/p>\n
property  on  her as per Ex.A1. According to  her,  she  had<\/p>\n
served at various places in the Army from 27.2.63 to 24.5.94<\/p>\n
and  she had marked Ex.A13 to show the places where she  had<\/p>\n
served. The appellant entered possession on 18.1.88. She had<\/p>\n
given a complaint and she had also given a complaint to  the<\/p>\n
Commanding Officer, Ex.A3. There was no licence for  running<\/p>\n
a firewood shop and again, in the letters to the Electricity<\/p>\n
Board  under  Ex.A8 to A11, it was pleaded that  electricity<\/p>\n
connection should not be given. According to her, as she had<\/p>\n
been  serving  in various places, she could not  immediately<\/p>\n
file a suit for recovery of possession. On consideration  of<\/p>\n
oral  and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court came  to<\/p>\n
the  conclusion that the suit property belonged to the first<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      9.  The  next question is whether she is  entitled  to<\/p>\n
recovery  of  possession.  The  learned  counsel   for   the<\/p>\n
appellant  relied  on  the  various  judgments  wherein  the<\/p>\n
principle of acquiescance was applied to deny the relief  of<\/p>\n
possession  and compensation was awarded. But in this  case,<\/p>\n
the  appellant  himself has stated that the  respondent  was<\/p>\n
nowhere  in the picture and had never seen her.  In  Ex.A31,<\/p>\n
which  is  the reply to Ex.A30, the following the  sentences<\/p>\n
from Ex.A31 are relied :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                “…. In the first instance he wish
\n          to  bring to your notice that at no  time
\n          he  became a tenant under your client. He
\n          has  not  at  all seen a lady  with  name
\n          Muthulakshmi alleged to be the  owner  of
\n          the  land  wherein my client has  put  up
\n          superstructure   at    his    own    cost<\/p>\n
          ……………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                While  that is so my client is  not
\n          able   to  understand  who  is  the  said
\n          Muthulakshmi for whom you have issued the
\n          notice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          As  already stated, my client has nothing
\n          to   do  with  your  client.  Hence,  the
\n          question  of  vacating and  handing  over
\n          vacant  possession  of  your  client  nor
\n          payment  of Rs.750\/- per month  does  not
\n          arise. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So  according to him, he had never seen the defendant.   The<\/p>\n
appellant D.W.1 in his evidence stated as follows :<\/p>\n
\t\tVERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED<\/p>\n
      10. Except for one sentence where he had stated, @thjp<\/p>\n
gyjlit  thlif tNypj;jpUf;fpwhh;@, the case of the  appellant<\/p>\n
herein  is  one  of  total denial of the first  respondent’s<\/p>\n
right.   The   learned  counsel  for  the  appellant   would<\/p>\n
vehemently argue that this is not a case where there can  be<\/p>\n
a  forfeiture  of  the lease by denial of  title  since  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff  had  filed  a  suit  alleging  that  he   was   a<\/p>\n
trespasser.  The  documentary and  oral  evidence  extracted<\/p>\n
above  would go against the appellant not in the context  of<\/p>\n
forfeiture of lease, but because this clearly goes  to  show<\/p>\n
that  the  appellant cannot invoke the principle of  implied<\/p>\n
authority. It is now his case that the real owner, viz., the<\/p>\n
first  respondent had consented to her husband  leasing  out<\/p>\n
the  property to the appellant. Then he would first have  to<\/p>\n
admit  that it is the first respondent who is the  owner  of<\/p>\n
the  property, if he has to succeed on the ground  that  the<\/p>\n
first  respondent being a real owner had acquiseced  to  his<\/p>\n
construction of the superstructure.  Then he will  not  only<\/p>\n
have  to admit that the first respondent is the real  owner,<\/p>\n
but  also that she had seen the superstructure come  up  and<\/p>\n
had  not lifted her little finger.  Whereas this is  a  case<\/p>\n
where   he  claims  he  has  never  seen  the  lady,  namely<\/p>\n
Muthulakshmi  and she has never been in Madras.   The  first<\/p>\n
respondent’s  stand  is she has all along  objected  to  the<\/p>\n
appellant’s continuance in possession.  While that is so, it<\/p>\n
is  clear  that  even  if  he had  pleaded  that  the  first<\/p>\n
respondent  had  acquiesced, he  has  not  proved  the  same<\/p>\n
because his oral evidence goes against that stand. Though in<\/p>\n
the   written  statement  he  has  stated  that  the   first<\/p>\n
respondent is fully aware that the land has been leased  out<\/p>\n
to  this  defendant,  in para 10, he  had  stated  that  the<\/p>\n
plaintiff  is  not  entitled  to  get  possession  from  the<\/p>\n
defendant as she has nothing to do with the suit property.<\/p>\n
      11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit<\/p>\n
that  para  10  should be construed to  mean  that  she  has<\/p>\n
nothing  to  do  with  his character as  a  tenant.   It  is<\/p>\n
difficult  to place this construction on the pleading.  When<\/p>\n
it  is a case that she is not entitled to get possession, it<\/p>\n
only  means  that  he denies that she is the  owner  of  the<\/p>\n
property  and  therefore  not entitled  to  get  possession.<\/p>\n
Though there were pleadings in the written statement and  in<\/p>\n
the  additional written statement that she was aware of  the<\/p>\n
construction, in the face of his oral evidence that she  was<\/p>\n
not the owner and had never seen her, this would destroy his<\/p>\n
case of acquiescence and implied consent.<\/p>\n
      12.   In  P. John Chandy and Co. (P) Ltd. v.  John  P.<\/p>\n
Thomas,<\/a>(2002)  5 SCC 90 , at page 97 as regards  acquiesence<\/p>\n
it   is  held  that,  “inaction  in  every  case  does   not<\/p>\n
necessarily  lead  to  an inference of  implied  consent  or<\/p>\n
acquiescence. …. To establish implied consent there has to<\/p>\n
be  something more than mere inaction or lack of  initiative<\/p>\n
on the part of the landlord.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     13. In Canara Bank v. Canara Sales Corpn.,<\/a> (1987) 2 SCC<\/p>\n
666 , at page 677 the Supreme Court held,<\/p>\n
      “In  order  to sustain a plea of acquiescence,  it  is<\/p>\n
necessary to prove that the party against whom the said plea<\/p>\n
is  raised,  had remained silent about the matter  regarding<\/p>\n
which the plea of acquiescence is raised, even after knowing<\/p>\n
the truth of the matter.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      14.   In  Suraj  Rattan Thirani v.  Azamabad  Tea  Co.<\/p>\n
Ltd.,<\/a>(1964) 6 SCR 192, it is held, “In order that Section 41<\/p>\n
of  the  Transfer  of Property Act could be  attracted,  the<\/p>\n
respondents  should  prove that Ismail  was  the  ostensible<\/p>\n
owner of the property with the consent of his co-sharers and<\/p>\n
besides  that they took reasonable care to ascertain whether<\/p>\n
Ismail had the power to make a transfer.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     15.  In Gurbaksh Singh v. Nikka Singh,1963 Supp<\/a> (1) SCR<\/p>\n
55,  the  Supreme Court held, “The general rule  is  that  a<\/p>\n
person  cannot  confer  a better title  than  he  has.  This<\/p>\n
section is an exception to that rule. Being an exception the<\/p>\n
onus  certainly  is  on  the transferee  to  show  that  the<\/p>\n
transferor was the ostensible owner of the property and that<\/p>\n
he  had, after taking reasonable care to ascertain that  the<\/p>\n
transferor  had power to make the transfer,  acted  in  good<\/p>\n
faith.  In  this  case  the facts  are  tell-tale  and  they<\/p>\n
establish  beyond doubt that the appellant had the knowledge<\/p>\n
that  the title of his transferor was in dispute and he  had<\/p>\n
taken a risk in purchasing the same.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      16.  Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act  reads<\/p>\n
thus:  “Where, with the consent, express or implied, of  the<\/p>\n
persons interested in immoveable property, a person  is  the<\/p>\n
ostensible owner of such property and transfers the same for<\/p>\n
consideration,  the transfer shall not be  voidable  on  the<\/p>\n
ground  that the transferor was not authorised to  make  it:<\/p>\n
provided  that the transferee, after taking reasonable  care<\/p>\n
to  ascertain  that  the transferor had power  to  make  the<\/p>\n
transfer, has acted in good faith.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      17.  In the above circumstances, the judgment obtained<\/p>\n
by  the  husband is also of not of any use to the appellant.<\/p>\n
Whatever the husband might have done, the appellant was  not<\/p>\n
able to prove that it was done with the implied authority or<\/p>\n
consent  of the first respondent.  The first respondent  has<\/p>\n
established  the title and it is not correct to  state  that<\/p>\n
the  lower  appellate court had on a wrong  appreciation  of<\/p>\n
Section  41,  had come to its conclusion. A reading  of  the<\/p>\n
judgment  of the Appellate Court shows that it had  rejected<\/p>\n
the  plea of the appellant that the lease was created by the<\/p>\n
husband of the first respondent with her consent.<\/p>\n
      18.  In  these circumstances, none of the  substantial<\/p>\n
questions of law arise for consideration. Hence, the  second<\/p>\n
appeal is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      19.  The  learned counsel for the appellant prays  for<\/p>\n
time  to  handover possession of the property. The appellant<\/p>\n
shall  file an undertaking to the effect that he  will  hand<\/p>\n
over  possession on or before October 23, 2007, i.e., within<\/p>\n
a  period of six months from this date and that he will  not<\/p>\n
create any further encumbrance or a third party interest  in<\/p>\n
the suit property.  This undertaking shall be filed into the<\/p>\n
court  on the reopening day, i.e. on 4.6.2007, after serving<\/p>\n
a  copy  thereof to the first respondent. On such filing  of<\/p>\n
the  undertaking, the first respondent shall not be entitled<\/p>\n
to  execute  the  decree till the expiry of the  above  said<\/p>\n
period  and  if no such undertaking is filed, the respondent<\/p>\n
will be entitled to act as per law.\n<\/p>\n
bg<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. \tThe 4th Additional Judge
\n\tCity Civil Court
\n\tChennai<\/p>\n
2. \tThe 16th Assistant City Civil Judge
\n\tChennai<\/p>\n
[PRV\/10424]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court D.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 24.04.2007 Coram The Honourable Mrs.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN S.A. No.2006 of 2003 and CMP. No.18309 of 2003 D.Arumuga Nadar …Appellant Vs 1. K.Muthulakshmi 2. P.Kandaswamy …Respondents Second Appeal against the judgment decree of the learned […]<\/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-230690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nD.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 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\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"D.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-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=\"2007-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-21T02:39:13+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\\\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"D.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-21T02:39:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2996,\"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\\\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007\",\"name\":\"D.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-21T02:39:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"D.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"D.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 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\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"D.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-21T02:39:13+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\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"D.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-21T02:39:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007"},"wordCount":2996,"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\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007","name":"D.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-21T02:39:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/d-arumuga-nadar-vs-k-muthulakshmi-on-24-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"D.Arumuga Nadar vs K.Muthulakshmi on 24 April, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230690","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=230690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/230690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=230690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=230690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=230690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}