{"id":23947,"date":"2003-03-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003"},"modified":"2016-10-05T13:00:34","modified_gmt":"2016-10-05T07:30:34","slug":"subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 28\/03\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SHANMUGAM\n\nC.R.P.PD.NO.488 OF 2003\nAND\nCMP.NO.3213 OF 2003\n\nSubbammal                                   ...Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nParamasivam Asari                             ..Respondent\n\n\n                The Revision is filed under Section 115 of the Code  of  Civil\nProcedure  against  the  fair  and  decretal  order  of the learned Additional\nDistrict  Munsif,  Ambasamudram  dated  2.12.2002  in  I.A.No.301\/2002  in  O.\nS.No.457\/1995.\n\n!For Petitioner:  Mr.P.M.Hariharan\n\n^For Respondent :  ---\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n<p>                        Petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit.    O.S.NO.457<br \/>\nof  1995  is  filed  by  him  for  declaration  and  for  permanent injunction<br \/>\nrestraining the second defendant from interfering with his possession  of  the<br \/>\nsuit properties.\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.    At   the  stage  of  trial,  after  the  examination  of<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s side was completed, the defendant wanted to examine himself.   The<br \/>\ndefendant  chose to file an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC(inserted by<br \/>\nAct  22  of  2002  with  effect  from  1.7.2002),by  virtue  of   which,   the<br \/>\nexamination-in-chief of a witness shall be on affidavit .\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.The petitioner objecting to the said course filed a petition<br \/>\nunder Order XVIII Rule 5 CPC to delete the proof affidavit and to  direct  the<br \/>\nchief examination  of  the  defendant  to  be  taken  in  the Court.  The said<br \/>\napplication was dismissed by the learned District  Munsif,  Ambasamudram.    .<br \/>\nThe present Revision is filed against the said order.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.According  to  the  learned  counsel for the petitioner, the<br \/>\namended provision under  Order  XVIII  Rule  4  CPC  is  a  general  provision<br \/>\nproviding for  the examination-in- chief of the witness on affidavit.  It must<br \/>\ngive way to the special provision viz.  Order XVIII Rule 5 CPC providing  that<br \/>\nevidence  of  each  witness should be taken down in the presence and under the<br \/>\npersonal direction of the Judge .  Therefore according to him,the order of the<br \/>\nlearned Judge is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.  By adopting the affidavit procedure, he would not be  able<br \/>\nto  find  out the demeanour of the witness and for these reasons, he seeks for<br \/>\nsetting aside the order and for a direction  directing  the  defendant  to  be<br \/>\nexamined in the Open Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.I   have   heard  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the<br \/>\npetitioner at length and considered the matter carefully.\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.The unamended provision of Rule  4  of  Order  XVIII  is  as<br \/>\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;R.4 Witnesses to be examined in open court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The  evidence  of the witnesses in attendance shall be taken orally in<br \/>\nthe  open  court  in  the  presence  and  under  the  personal  direction  and<br \/>\nsuperintendence of the judge.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC is now substituted and has been made for the purpose of<br \/>\nshortening the period of litigation.  One of the mode adopted for that purpose<br \/>\nis  to dispense with the examination-in-chief and in the place of examination,<br \/>\nan affidavit is required to be filed, a copy of which shall be  given  to  the<br \/>\nopposite party.   The provision further says that in any case, where documents<br \/>\nare filed and the parties rely upon the documents, proof and admissibility  of<br \/>\nsuch documents  shall  be  subject  to the orders of the Court.  The provision<br \/>\nalso enables cross examination by the Commissioner appointed by it.  The  said<br \/>\nprovision  has been introduced in substitution of the then available provision<br \/>\ndealing with the taking of evidence.  An  exception  to  examination  in  open<br \/>\ncourt is provided.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.Order  XVIII Rule 5 speaks as to how evidence shall be taken<br \/>\nin appealable cases.  As per this rule, the evidence of each witness shall  be<br \/>\ntaken  in  appealable  cases in the language of the court in writing, by or in<br \/>\nthe presence and under the  personal  direction  and  superintendence  of  the<br \/>\nJudge.  Rule  5  was substituted by the Amendment Act 1 04 of 1976.  Under the<br \/>\nold rule, the evidence could be taken down in the language of the court by the<br \/>\njudge or in the presence and under the personal direction and  superintendence<br \/>\nof the judge.  It was further provided that the evidence was to be recorded in<br \/>\nthe  form  of  narrative  and  after  completion,  was  to be read over in the<br \/>\npresence of the judge and the witness and was  to  be  signed  by  the  judge.<br \/>\nUnder  the  amended provision, it can also be taken down from the dictation of<br \/>\nthe judge directly on a typewriter and there is no provision for reading  over<br \/>\nthe evidence and for signing by the judge.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.Insofar  as the amended Rule 4 is concerned, it is seen that<br \/>\nafter considering the feasibility of dispensing with  the  chief  examination,<br \/>\nthe  Parliament  thought  it  fit to substitute the provision for recording of<br \/>\nevidence by affidavit in so far as the examination in chief is concerned.  The<br \/>\ntrial court normally takes evidence and the procedure as to how evidence is to<br \/>\nbe taken is stated in Rule 5.  Therefore, the counsel is not right  in  saying<br \/>\nthat  Order  XVIII  Rule  4  is a general provision and the existing provision<br \/>\nunder Order XVIII Rule 5 is a special provision.\n<\/p>\n<p>                10.One of  the  terms  of  reference  to  the  First  National<br \/>\nJudicial  Pay  Commission required the examination of the work method and work<br \/>\nenvironment in courts to promote efficiency in judicial administration.    The<br \/>\nCommission  engaged  the  services  of  the  Indian  Institute  of Management,<br \/>\nBangalore.  The said Institute, after  an  in-depth  study,  had  submitted  a<br \/>\nreport,  the  summary  of which formed part of the First national Judicial Pay<br \/>\nCommission Report.  The IIMB, after referring to the C.P.C.    Amendment  Bill<br \/>\n1997,  was of the view that the provision was a useful means of fighting delay<br \/>\nin disposal of cases.  One of the recommendations was as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Time taken to record oral evidence of witnesses must  be  reduced  by<br \/>\nfiling  affidavits  of examination-in-chief and filing the statements recorded<br \/>\nbefore  a  Commissioner,  if  need  be,  in  cases  of  crossexamination   and<br \/>\nre-examination.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                11.The  Statement  of Objects and Reasons of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure (Amendment) Act,  2002  (Act  22  of  2002)  says  that  the  C.P.C.<br \/>\nAmendment Act, 1999 was enacted by the Parliament with a view to cutting short<br \/>\nthe delay  on  various  levels.    After  its  enactment,  a  large  number of<br \/>\nrepresentations were received, both for and against its enforcement.  The  Law<br \/>\nCommission  of  India,  in its 163rd Report, also dealt with the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure (Amendment) Bill, 1997 which was enacted  later  on  as  the  C.P.C.<br \/>\nAmendment Act,  1999.  Before action could be initiated for enforcement of the<br \/>\nsaid Act, the Bar Council of India and certain local Bar  Associations,  asked<br \/>\nthe  Government to re-look into some of the provisions which cause hardship to<br \/>\nlitigants.  Accordingly, the C.P.C.  Amendment Act, 1999 and  other  proposals<br \/>\nto  reduce  delays  in  disposal  of  civil  cases  were  discussed with legal<br \/>\nluminaries.  The Government has further  considered  the  matter  in  all  its<br \/>\naspects  after  consulting  the  Bar  Council of India and other concerned and<br \/>\nbased on the outcome of the deliberation, it had now proposed to further amend<br \/>\nthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 consistent with the demands of fair play and<br \/>\njustice.  The proposed Amendment, inter alia, seeks to provide that :\n<\/p>\n<p>        (h) The  examination-in-chief  of  a  witness  shall  be  recorded  on<br \/>\naffidavit.   The cross-examination and re-examination of a witness in the High<br \/>\nCourts having original  jurisdiction  shall  be  recorded  ordinarily  by  the<br \/>\nCommissioner  and in courts subordinate to the High Court, such evidence shall<br \/>\nbe recorded either by the court or by the Commissioner appointed by it.    The<br \/>\nCommissioner  shall  also  have the power to record the demeanour of a witness<br \/>\nand any objection made in regard to such matter shall be decided by the  court<br \/>\nat the time of arguments of the case.  &#8230;..&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 12 of the Amendment of Order XVIII is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;4.     Recording   of   evidence   &#8211;   (1)   In   every   case,   the<br \/>\nexamination-inchief of a witness shall be  on  affidavit  and  copies  thereof<br \/>\nshall  be  supplied  to  the  opposite  party  by  the party who calls him for<br \/>\nevidence :\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided that where documents are filed and the parties rely upon  the<br \/>\ndocuments, the proof and admissibility of such documents which are filed along<br \/>\nwith affidavit shall be subject to the orders of the court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                12.The  Supreme  Court,  in  a  recent  judgment, approved the<br \/>\ntaking of evidence by Video-Conferencing.  In the report of &#8220;The Hindu&#8221;  dated<br \/>\n3  rd  April  2003,  it  is  stated  that  the  Supreme  Court  has  held that<br \/>\nvideo-conferencing satisfied the object of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure that evidence be recorded in the  presence  of  the  accused.    The<br \/>\nSupreme  Court  set  aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court which quashed<br \/>\nthe trial court&#8217;s order allowing videoconferencing of evidence of a Doctor  in<br \/>\nthe United States.  Their Lordships have observed :\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;Normally,  a  Commission  would  involve recording of evidence at the<br \/>\nplace where the witness is.  However, advancement in  science  and  technology<br \/>\nhas  now made it possible to record such evidence by way of video-conferencing<br \/>\nin the town\/city where the court is.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>From the above, it could be seen that wherever it is possible to  shorten  the<br \/>\ndelay  in  proceedings,  expert  bodies  like  the  Pay Commission and the Law<br \/>\nCommission have approved such procedure.  The Parliament, after consulting all<br \/>\nconcerned, has made the law which, in my view, is the least that could be done<br \/>\nin this regard insofar as the chief-examination is concerned.  The  petitioner<br \/>\nand  the  counsel  should try to give effect to it and give a helping hand for<br \/>\nthe expeditious  disposal  of  litigation  instead  of  trying  to  stall  the<br \/>\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>                13.Apart from the above, the said position has been considered<br \/>\nby  the  Hon&#8217;ble  Supreme  Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association Vs.Union of<br \/>\nIndia ((2003)  1  Supreme  Court  Cases  49)  wherein  their  Lordships  after<br \/>\nconsidering  the  objection  in reference to this provision have laid down the<br \/>\nfollowing principle:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8221; When summons are issued, the  Court  can  give  an  option  to  the  witness<br \/>\nsummoned  either  to  file an affidavit by way of examination-inchief or to be<br \/>\npresent in Court for his examination&#8221;.  In appropriate cases,  the  Court  can<br \/>\ndirect   the   summoned   witness   to   file   an   affidavit   by   way   of<br \/>\nexamination-in-chief.In other words,with regard to the summoned witnesses  the<br \/>\nprinciple incorporated  in  Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC can be waived.  Whether the<br \/>\nwitness shall be directed to file an affidavit or to be required to be present<br \/>\nin Court for recording of his evidence is a matter to be decided by the  Court<br \/>\nin its discretion having regard to the facts of each case.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Here, it  is  not  a case of summoned witnesses.  Even in the case of summoned<br \/>\nwitnesses, the court has a discretion to decide having regard to the facts  of<br \/>\nthe case.\n<\/p>\n<p>                14.Therefore, the question raised by the learned counsel is no<br \/>\nlonger  res  integra,  since  the  Supreme Court has already laid down the law<br \/>\nupholding the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC giving  discretion  to  the<br \/>\nCourt in reference to this matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>                15.It  is  an  accepted  principle of interpretation that when<br \/>\nthere is a general enactment as well as special enactment in  respect  of  the<br \/>\nsame  head  in  a  statute,  the  particular  enactment over-rides the general<br \/>\nenactment.  The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that  the<br \/>\namended  provision  is a general enactment and that Order XVIII, Rule 5 of the<br \/>\nCode of Civil Procedure is a special enactment cannot be the  correct  way  of<br \/>\nunderstanding.  The question of general versus special generally arises in the<br \/>\ncase of  interpretation  of  two  statutory provisions.  Here, it is a case of<br \/>\nprovisions of the same statute placed side by side and both the provisions can<br \/>\nfunction in their own parallel channels.  If the words of the  provisions  are<br \/>\nclear,  they  must  be  followed and more so, they must be given effect to the<br \/>\nintendment of the enactment.\n<\/p>\n<p>                16.In this case, it is seen  that  the  defendant  has  to  be<br \/>\nexamined  himself  and  that he has already filed a proof of affidavit for his<br \/>\nchief examination.  The petitioner\/plaintiff has to cross examine him.  It  is<br \/>\nneedless  to  state  that  the  petitioner  has no role in so far as the chief<br \/>\nexamination is concerned and what he is going to say in the chief  examination<br \/>\nhas  already  been  stated  in  the  form of affidavit and a copy of which has<br \/>\nalready been given to the petitioner herein and the petitioner shall have full<br \/>\nopportunity of cross-examining him in the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>                17.Therefore  the  apprehension of the petitioner that he will<br \/>\nnot be able to find out the demeanour of the witness cannot be accepted.   The<br \/>\nlearned  Judge  has considered the point raised and dismissed the application.<br \/>\nI do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order.  Hence the Revision<br \/>\nfails and the same is dismissed.  No costs.  Consequently, CMP.No.3213 of 2003<br \/>\nis also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>VJY\/ab<\/p>\n<p>Index :  Yes<br \/>\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The District Munsif<br \/>\nAmbasamudram.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28\/03\/2003 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.SHANMUGAM C.R.P.PD.NO.488 OF 2003 AND CMP.NO.3213 OF 2003 Subbammal &#8230;Petitioner -Vs- Paramasivam Asari ..Respondent The Revision is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the fair [&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-23947","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003 - 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\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-05T07:30:34+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\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-05T07:30:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":2027,\"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\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-05T07:30:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003 - 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\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-05T07:30:34+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\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-05T07:30:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003"},"wordCount":2027,"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\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003","name":"Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-05T07:30:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbammal-vs-paramasivam-asari-on-28-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subbammal vs Paramasivam Asari on 28 March, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23947","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=23947"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23947\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23947"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23947"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23947"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}