{"id":236934,"date":"1965-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965"},"modified":"2015-07-15T10:48:45","modified_gmt":"2015-07-15T05:18:45","slug":"karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965","title":{"rendered":"Karpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Karpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1752, \t\t 1965 SCR (3) 335<\/div>\n
Author: R Bachawat<\/div>\n
Bench: Bachawat, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKARPAGATHACHI AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNAGARATHINATHACHI\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n10\/03\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nSHAH, J.C.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR 1752\t\t  1965 SCR  (3) 335\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1974 SC 175\t (11)\n R\t    1977 SC 394\t (5,6)\n\n\nACT:\n    Hindu Law--Partition  between  co-widows--Whether  right\nof   survivorship  can\tbe  relinquished--If  repugnant\t  to\nTransfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) s. 6(a)--Onus.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Two co-widows divided their husband's property and\teach\nentered into separate possession of her share. on the  death\nof  one\t of  the widows her  daughter  the  respondent\ttook\npossession   of\t her  mother's\tshare.\tThe  appellant\t the\nsurviving  widow  filed\t a   suit  against  the\t  respondent\nclaiming  possession of that share. The Trial Court  decreed\nthe  suit, which on appeal was set aside by the High  Court.\nIn appeal by certificate:\n    HELD: (i) Under the Hindu Law the widows were  competent\nto  partition  the properties and  allot  separate  portions\neach,  and incidental to such allotment each could agree  to\nrelinquish her right of survivorship in the portion allotted\nto  the other. Such an arrangement was not repugnant  to  s.\n6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. [337 C-D].\nCase law referred to.\n    (ii) Mere partition of the estate between the two widows\ndoes  not destroy the right of survivorship of each  to\t the\nproperties allotted to the other. The party who asserts that\nthere  was  an\tarrangement by which the  widows  agreed  to\nrelinquish  the\t right of survivorship must  establish\tthis\narrangement  b.v  clear\t and  cogent evidence. [338 B].\n    The\t respondent,  in  the instant case,  had  failed  to\ndischarge this onus. [338 B-C].\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil\t Appeal No. 998\t  of
\n1963.\n<\/p>\n
    Appeal from the judgment and  decree  dated\t January 12,
\n1962  of  the Madras High Court in Appeal Suit\tNo.  292  of
\n1958.\n<\/p>\n
    A.V. Viswanatha Sastri,  V.S. Ramaswami  lyengar and  R.
\nThiagarajan, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
    S.V.  Gupte, Solicitor General, and R.  Ganapathy  lyer,
\nfor the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    Bachawat J.\t One Sivasubramania Pillai died in the\tyear
\n1924   leaving\thim  surviving\this  mother.   two   widows,
\nThialaiachi    and    Karpagathachi,   and    a\t   daughter,
\nNagarathinathachi  (respondent herein) born of\tThialaiachi.
\nThe   two   widows   inherited\tthe   properties   left\t  by
\nSivasubramania.\t in July 1927, they divided the bulk of\t the
\nproperties  and\t each entered into separate  possession\t and
\nenjoyment  of the properties allotted to her. The  partition
\nis evidenced by two partition lists called partition  deeds,
\nExs A–I and B–45 dated July 14. 1927 and signed by both of
\nthem. Under this partition, two veils of land were set apart
\nfor the maintenance
\n336<\/span>
\nof Sivasubramania’s mother, to be enjoyed’ by her during her
\nlifetime,  and on her death, to be taken and enjoyed by\t the
\ntwo  widows  in\t separate  portions  as\t mentioned  in\t the
\npartition  lists. On August 26. 1954, Thialaiachi died,\t and
\nupon  her  death,   the respondent took\t possession  of\t the
\nproperties  allotted to Thialaiachi under the  partition  of
\nJuly,  1927. On December 8,  1954, Karpagathachi  instituted
\nagainst\t the respondent the suit, out of which\tthis  appeal
\narises,\t claiming  possession of the  suit  properties.\t The
\nrespondent  resisted  the  suit\t claiming  that\t under\t the
\npartition  each widow gave up her right of  survivorship  in
\nrespect\t of  the  properties  allotted\tto  the\t other,\t and
\nconsequently on the death of Thialaiachi, the respondent  as
\nher daughter was entitled to take her share as her heir\t and
\nto  enjoy the same during the life of Karpagathachi. By\t his
\njudgment  dated\t August 18, 1958, the District\tJudge,\tEast
\nThanjavur,  rejected’ the defendant’s contention,  and\theld
\nthat the division between the two widows was for convenience
\nof  enjoyment only, and decreed the suit in respect  of\t the
\nproperties held by Thialaiachi under the partition of  July,
\n1927.\tOn  appeal, the Madras High Court  by  its  judgment
\ndated  January, 12, 1962 held that under the partition\teach
\nwidow  gave up her life interest in the properties  allotted
\nto  the\t other\tand   consequently  Karpagathachi  was\t not
\nentitled to recover possession of the properties allotted to
\nThialaiachi, set aside the decree of the District Judge, and
\ndismissed the suit. Karpagathachi and several other  persons
\nimpleaded as party respondents in the appeal before the High
\nCourt  now  appeal under a certificate granted by  the\tHigh
\nCourt to this court under Art. 133 of the Constitution.
\n    Mr.\t Viswanatha  Sastry  appearing\ton  behalf  of\t the
\nappellants  contends that: (1) the right of survivorship  of
\neach widow in respect of her husband’s estate is the  chance
\nof  the\t surviving widow to take the entire  estate  of\t her
\nhusband on the death of the  cowidow, and in view of  s.6(a)
\nof  the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the widows were\t not
\ncompetent  to  enter  into an  arrangement  transferring  or
\nrelinquishing their right of survivorship; (2) the partition
\nlists,\tExs. A–I and B—45 not being registered,  are\t not
\nadmissible in evidence; (3) the partition between the widows
\nwas  for convenience of enjoyment only, and  the  respondent
\nhas failed to establish that each co-widow gave up her right
\nof survivorship in respect of the properties allotted to the
\nother. The learned’ Solicitor-General appearing on behalf of
\nthe respondent disputed these contention.\n<\/p>\n
       We  are of opinion that the first contention  of\t Mr.
\nViswanatha Sastry should be rejected. Under the Hindu law as
\nit  stood  in 1924. two widows\tinheriting  their  husband’s
\nproperties  took together one estate as joint  tenants\twith
\nrights of survivorship and equal beneficial enjoyment.\tThey
\nwere entitled to enforce a partition of those properties  so
\nthat  each  could separately possess and enjoy\tthe  portion
\nallotted  to her, see Bhugwan Deen Doobey v. Myna  Baee\t (1)
\n[1867] 11 M .I. A. 487
\n337<\/span>
\nGauri  Nath  Kakaji v. Gaya Kuar(1). Neither of\t them  could
\nwithout\t the  consent  of  the\tother  enforce\tan  absolute
\npartition  of  the  estate so as to  destroy  the  right  of
\nsurvivorship, see Commissioner of Income-tax v. Smt.  Indira
\nBalakrishna<\/a>(2)\tBut by mutual consent they could enter\tinto
\nany  arrangement  regarding their respective rights  in\t the
\nproperties during the continuance of the widow’s estate, and
\ncould  absolutely divide the properties, so as\tto  preclude
\nthe  right of survivorship of each to the portion   allotted
\nto  the other. See Ramakkal v. Ramasami Naickan(3),  Sudalai
\nAmmal\tv.   Gomathi  Ammal<\/a>(4).\t Likewise,   two   daughters
\nsucceeding  ,to their father’s estate as joint tenants\twith
\nrights\t of  survivorship   could  enter  into\t a   similar
\narrangement.   See  Kailash Chandra  Chuckerbutty  v.  Kashi
\nChandra\t Chuckerbutty(5)   Subbammal v. Lakshmana lyer\t(6),
\nAmmani Ammal v. Periasami Udayan(7). Such an arrangement was
\nnot  repugnant\tto s.6(a) of the Transfer of  Property\tAct,
\n1882. The interest of each widow in the properties inherited
\nby  her\t was property, and this property together  with\t the
\nincidental   right   of\t survivorship  could   be   lawfully
\ntransferred.  Section 6(a) of the Transfer of  Property\t Act
\nprohibits  the transfer of the bare chance of the  surviving
\nwidow  taking  the  entire estate as the next  heir  of\t her
\nhusband\t on  the  death of the co-widow,  but  it  does\t not
\nprohibit  the transfer by the widow of her present  interest
\nin  the\t properties  inherited\tby  her\t together  with\t the
\nincidental right of survivorship. The widows were  competent
\nto  partition the properties and allot separate portions  to
\neach, and incidental to such an allotment, each could  agree
\nto  relinquish\ther  right of survivorship  in\tthe  portion
\nallotted   to  the  other.  The\t first\tcontention  of\t Mr.
\nViswanatha Sastry must be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
    The second contention of Mr. Viswanatha Sastry must also
\nbe rejected. A partition may be effected orally. By an\toral
\npartition, the two widows could adjust their diverse  rights
\nin the entire estate, and as part of this arrangement,\teach
\ncould  orally agree to relinquish her right of\tsurvivorship
\nto  the portion allotted to the other. In the  trial  Court,
\nthe  suit  was tried on the footing that the  partition\t was
\noral, and that the two partition lists were merely pieces of
\nevidence of the oral partition, and no objection was  raised
\nwith regard to their admissibility in evidence. In the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tthe appellants raised the contention for  the  first
\ntime  that  the\t two partition lists  were  required  to  be
\nregistered.  The point could not be decided without  further
\ninvestigation\tinto   questions  of  fact,   and   in\t the
\ncircumstances,\tthe High Court rightly ruled that  this\t new
\ncontention  could  not\tbe  raised for\tthe  first  time  in
\nappeal. We
\n  (1) [1928] L.R. 55 I.A. 299. [1960] 3 S. C.R. 513, 517.
\n  (2) [1899] I.L.R. 22 Mad. 522.\n<\/p>\n
  (3) [1912] 23 M.L.J. 355.\n<\/p>\n
  (4) [1897] I.L.R. 24 Cal. 339.\n<\/p>\n
  (5) [1914] 26 M.L,J. 479. [1923] 45 M.L.J. 1.\n<\/p>\n
338<\/span><\/p>\n
think  that the appellants ought not to be allowed to  raise
\nthis new contention.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tthink  that the third contention of  Mr.  Viswanatha
\nSastry\tis sound’ and should be accepted. Mere partition  of
\nthe estate between the two widows does not destroy the right
\nof  survivorship of each to the properties allotted  to\t the
\nother.\tThe party who asserts that there was an\t arrangement
\nby  which  the\twidows agreed to  relinquish  the  right  of
\nsurvivorship  must establish this arrangement by  clear\t and
\ncogent evidence. The respondent has failed to discharge this
\nonus.  It is common case that the partition is evidenced  by
\nExs. A–1 and B…45. Exhibit B–45 is the list showing\t the
\nproperties allotted to Thialaiachi. The relevant portion  of
\nEx. B….45 reads:–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “In\taccordance  with  the\tchit   cast,
\n\t      Theiyalai Achi. wife of Sivasubramania Pillai,
\n\t      residing\tat Karuppur, shall take\t the  nanja,
\n\t      punja,   house   and   ground,\tcattle-shed,
\n\t      cattle,  pathway for men, cattle and cart\t and
\n\t      shed   where  dried  dung\t cakes\tare   stored
\n\t      mentioned\t in  the  list\tand  shall  pay\t the
\n\t      Government  kist for the aforesaid  properties
\n\t      from the current fasli 1337 and enjoy them.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 Exhibit   A–1\t  showing  the\t properties    allotted\t  to
\nKarpagathachi contains similar words. Now the two lists show
\nthat  each  widow  is to “take\tand  enjoy”  the  properties
\nallotted to her. The corresponding Tamil words are “adainthu
\nanuhavithu.”  These  words  do not either  expressly  or  by
\nnecessary  intendment  exclude the right of survivorship  of
\nthe   other  widow.  The  Tamil\t words\t “Sarva\t  Swantantra
\nBadyamayum”  and  “Santhathi pravesamayum” and\tother  words
\nindicating  relinquishment of the right of survivorship\t are
\nconspicuous  by\t their absence. The words used\tin  the\t two
\npartition lists are wholly insufficient to show that the two
\nwidows\trelinquished their right of survivorship  inter\t se.
\nThe fact that two separate partition lists were drawn up and
\neach was signed by the two widows does not carry the  matter
\nany further. The two partition lists show that the two velis
\nof   land  kept\t separately  for  the  maintenance  of\t the
\nmother-in-taw were to be divided by metes and bounds on\t her
\ndeath between the two widows. The division of the two  velis
\non  the death of the mother-in-law was agreed upon to  avoid
\nfuture\tdisputes. The fact that Thialaiachi had\t a  daughter
\nand  was older than Karpagathachi by 20 years does not\tshow
\nthat  Karpagathachi  mush  have\t agreed\t that  Thialaiachi’s
\ndaughter should enjoy the properties allotted to Thialaiachi
\nafter her death. After the partition, the pattas in  respect
\nof all the lands continued to be in the joint names of\tboth
\nthe widows.  If there was an absolute partition between\t the
\ntwo  widows. it is not explained why there was\tno  separate
\nmutation  in the name of each widow in respect of the  lands
\nallotted to her.\n<\/p>\n
    The deeds executed by Thialaiachi. Exs. B–3, B-4. B- 6.
\nB—7  and B–8 to B—43 recite the partition, but they  do
\nnot  use  words\t indicating  that  there  was  an   absolute
\npartition.  The sale
\n339<\/span>
\ndeeds, Exs. A–3, A–4, and A–6 executed by both the widows
\nare in respect of undivided properties and throw no light on
\nthe  question at issue. The evidence on the record does\t not
\nshow clearly whether the sale deed’, Ex. B–44, executed  by
\nboth the widows relates to undivided properties, or  whether
\nit   relates  to  properties  as  separately   allotted\t  to
\nThialaiachi.  From time to time, Thialaiachi executed  three
\nwills, Exs. B–I, B–2 and  A–5 giving to the legatees\t and
\nparticularly  the respondent certain  properties  absolutely
\nwith  full powers of alienation. The first two\twills,\tExs.
\nB–I  and B–2, refer separately to  Thialaiachi’s  separate
\nproperties  and\t to  the  properties  obtained\tby  her\t  on
\npartition.  The\t recitals in the two wills do  not  indicate
\nthat  Thialaiachi  obtained  her  husband’s  properties\t  on
\npartition  with absolute rights. The third will,  Ex.  A–5,
\ndoes  not purport to dispose of specifically the  properties
\nobtained  by  her  on partition.  Karpagathachi\t  knew\tthat
\nThialaiachi   had  executed the wills, but it is  not  shown
\nthat  she  knew of the contents of the wills. By  Ex.  A–2,
\nboth Thialaiachi and Karpagathachi made a free gift of\tsome
\nof the properties allotted to Thialaiachi. D.W. 1 is  unable
\nto  explain  why Thialaiachi joined in this  deed.  By\tsale
\ndeed,  Ex.  B–5, Thialaiachi sold absolutely  some  of\t the
\nproperties  allotted  to  her  and  a  notice,\tEx.   A–22,
\nregarding the proposed transfer of the patta in the name  of
\nthe vendee was served upon Karpagathachi. It is not clear if
\nthe patta was actualy transferred in the name of the vendee.
\nThe explanation of Karpagathachi that she protested  against
\nthe  transfer and ultimately received’ one half of the\tsale
\nprice has not been believed. But assuming that Karpagathachi
\ndid  not  object to the transfer, this\tsingle\tcircumstance
\ndoes not establish that at the time of the partition, he had
\nagreed to give up her right of survivorship in respect of he
\nproperties allotted to Thialaiachi.\n<\/p>\n
    Karpagathachi (P.W. 1) denied that there was an absolute
\npartition.   She  was  not  shaken   in\t  cross-examination.
\nNataraja   Pillai P.W. 2) said that there was no  talk\tthat
\neach should take the properties absolutely and it was agreed
\nthat  each  would enjoy separately. We find nothing  in\t the
\nevidence  of  P.W.  2 to show that  the\t widows\t agreed\t  to
\npartition  the\tproperties  absolutely\tso as to destroy the
\nright of survivorship.Manickam Pillai (D.W. 1) said that  at
\nthe  time of the partition, Thialaiachi said that she had  a
\ndaughter and if what was allotted for her share was given to
\nher  absolutely\t she  would  agree  to\tthe  partition\t and
\nKarpagathachi  also  wanted  to have  absolute\trights.\t The
\nDistrict  Judge\t rightly rejected evidence of  D.W.  1.\t The
\npartition lists were drawn up after consulting lawyers. D.W.
\n1  is  unable  to  explain  why\t words\tindicating  absolute
\npartition  were not used in the partition lists. D.W. 1\t had
\nbeen\t in management of the properties of the\t respondent,
\nyet  he falsely denied this fact. He had  intimate  dealings
\nwith  Thialaiachi  and\tthe  respondent.  On  a\t  meticulous
\nexamination  of\t the  oral  and\t documentary  evidence,\t the
\nlearned\t District Judge rejected the respondent’s case\tthat
\nthe widows had orally agreed to relinquish their 3 SCI—9
\n340<\/span>
\nright  of  survivorship.  We  think  that  this\t finding  is
\ncorrect,  and the High Court was in error in reversing\tthis
\nfinding.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  result, the appeal is allowed, the\t decree\t and
\njudgment passed by the High Court are set aside and those of
\nthe  trial  Judge restored’. In all  the  circumstances,  we
\ndirect\tthat the parties  will pay and bear their own  costs
\nthroughout, in this Court and also in the Courts below.
\nAppeal allowed
\n341<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Karpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1752, 1965 SCR (3) 335 Author: R Bachawat Bench: Bachawat, R.S. PETITIONER: KARPAGATHACHI AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: NAGARATHINATHACHI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/03\/1965 BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. BENCH: BACHAWAT, R.S. SUBBARAO, K. SHAH, J.C. CITATION: 1965 AIR 1752 1965 SCR […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-236934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKarpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965 - 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\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Karpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965\" \/>\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=\"1965-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-15T05:18:45+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Karpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T05:18:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965\"},\"wordCount\":2241,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965\",\"name\":\"Karpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-15T05:18:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Karpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965\"}]},{\"@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":"Karpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965 - 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\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Karpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-15T05:18:45+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Karpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965","datePublished":"1965-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T05:18:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965"},"wordCount":2241,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965","name":"Karpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-15T05:18:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/karpagathachi-and-ors-vs-nagarathinathachi-on-10-march-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Karpagathachi And Ors vs Nagarathinathachi on 10 March, 1965"}]},{"@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\/236934","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=236934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/236934\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=236934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=236934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=236934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}