{"id":243205,"date":"2005-04-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-04-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005"},"modified":"2019-03-13T23:21:51","modified_gmt":"2019-03-13T17:51:51","slug":"kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005","title":{"rendered":"Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: A Mathur<\/div>\n
Bench: Ashok Bhan, A.K. Mathur<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  6994 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nKokilambal & Ors.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nN.Raman\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/04\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nASHOK  BHAN & A.K. MATHUR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
A.K. MATHUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThis appeal is directed against an order passed by
\nlearned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras  in Second Appeal
\nNo.1866 of 1986 on November 19,1998 whereby learned Single
\nJudge affirmed the judgment and order of the First  Appellate Court
\nand dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant herein.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tBrief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. The
\nplaintiff- respondent  instituted Original Suit No.8182 of 1980 before
\nthe XVIth Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai praying for seven
\nreliefs. The main reliefs prayed for in the suit  read as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t” (i)\tDeclaring that the plaintiff is entitled to
\nthe properties in plaint A & B Schedule
\nabsolutely after the life time of the lst  defendant;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tFor a declaration that the deeds of revocation
\ndated 27.3.1979 registered as document
\nNos.431 and 432 of 1979 in the office of the
\nSub-Registrar, Madras in respect of properties
\ndescribed in Schedule A and B hereunder are
\nvoid in law and not valid and binding on the
\nplaintiff;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tFor a declaration that the deeds of settlement
\ndated 30.3.1979 executed by the lst defendant
\nin favour of defendants 2 and 3 in respect of
\nplaint A and B schedule properties are void in
\nlaw and are not valid and binding on the plaintiff;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tFor a declaration that the deed of mortgage
\ndated 29.9.1979 executed by defendants 1 to 3
\nin favour of 4th defendant in respect of the plaint
\nA and B Schedule properties are not valid and
\nbinding on the plaintiff;\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tDirecting the defendant to render true and
\ncorrect account of the rental income from the
\nproperties described in the Schedule A and B
\nand to pay over the half share payable to the
\nplaintiff;”\n<\/p>\n
According to the plaintiff in the suit,   schedule properties A & B
\nbelonged to one Late Manicka Mudaliyar, the husband of the first
\ndefendant. That the said Manicka Mudaliyar died in or about 1963
\nleaving behind Kokilambal,  the first defendant as his sole legal heir.
\nSince the deceased Manicka Mudaliyar  had no issue, he showered
\nhis love and affection  to his elder sister’s son Varadan and had a
\nmind to adopt him  but before he could do so, he expired. Keeping in
\nview the wishes of her deceased husband, Kokilambal got all the last
\nrites  performed  through Varadan. Kokilambal, the wife of deceased
\nManicka Mudaliyar made settlement on June 12, 1963 of A schedule
\nproperty in favour of Varadan while reserving her right  and interest
\ntherein. Similarly, she also made a settlement on June  27, 1964 in
\nrespect of B schedule property and executed a deed of settlement in
\nfavour of Varadan. By virtue of these two settlement deeds, settler
\nKokilambal stipulated  certain terms and conditions (reference shall
\nbe made hereinafter). Varadan who was a bachelor executed a will
\non May 22, 1978 in respect of his other properties  other than those
\nproperties which were received by him from Kokilambal by way of
\nsettlement in favour of his brother( Plaintiff) . But Varadan died as a
\nbachelor on February 1, 1979. On March 27, 1979 the settlor,
\nKokilambal revoked  both the settlement deeds  in favour of Varadan
\nand she executed a fresh settlement deed in favour of one Babu @
\nPilani and Shantha @ Shanthi, the wife of Babu.  Shanti was the
\ndaughter of Kokilambal’s brother.  Thereafter, Varadan’s brother,
\nN.Raman filed a suit  to declare that he is entitled to the suit
\nproperties after the death of Varadan and sought a declaration that
\nthe revocation of settlement  deed made by Kokilambal on March 27,
\n1979 be declared as null and void and likewise the fresh deed of
\nsettlement executed by Kokilambal on March 30,1979 in favour of
\nDefendant Nos.2 & 3  i.e. Babu and Shanthi be declared void in law.
\nThe suit was dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff preferred an
\nappeal before the first appellate court which decreed the same.
\nAgainst that an appeal was preferred by the appellant and the same
\nwas also dismissed by the impugned judgment of the High Court in
\nsecond appeal on November 19,1998. Aggrieved against this order
\ndated November 19,1998, special leave petition was filed and on
\ngrant of special leave this appeal has come up for disposal before us.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe basic question which calls for consideration is what is the
\neffect of the earlier two settlements made by settlor Kokilambal in
\nfavour of deceased Varadan; and whether by virtue of that settlement
\ndeceased Varadan became the absolute owner and after his death
\nwhether  Kokilambal reserved her right to revoke the settlement or
\nnot ? In order to appreciate the contents of the settlement of the suit
\nschedule properties i.e. A & B it would be necessary to reproduce
\nthe recitals in the settlement deeds (A-1 & A-2)  which read as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t” Since we did not beget issues, even during
\nmy husband’s life time he brought up Varadan,
\nthe younger son of his elder sister viz.,
\nKuppammal, as his own son. He ( my husband)
\nsuddenly  passed away. Even during his life time
\nhe has decided to take Varadan as an adopted
\nson. I have also decided to act according to his
\nwishes and hence, I performed the last rites of
\nmy deceased husband through Varadan. Due to
\nthe love and affection that I have towards
\nVaradan, I intend to make an arrangement for
\nhim, and hence I executed and delivered this
\nDeed of Settlement.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis income derived from out of the under-\n<\/p>\n
mentioned Schedule property viz., Door No.43,
\nKakkaran Basin Road, shall be enjoyed by
\nmyself and Varadan, till my life time. After my
\ndemise, the house, more fully described in the
\nschedule, shall be enjoyed by Varadan
\nabsolutely.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom now on, the aforesaid Varadan himself,
\nshall collect the rental income of the aforesaid
\nhouse and pay the corporation and land tax,
\nrepairs etc., and the reminder rental amount
\nshall be enjoyed by me and Varadan in moiety.
\nHereafter, I have no right to alienate the
\nproperty. But, both of us have right to alienate
\nthe same jointly.”\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras came to the
\nfinding after review of various decisions of this Court as well as the
\nsaid High Court, that by instruments of settlement i.e. A-1 & A-2, a
\nvested right was created in favour of deceased, Varadan and since
\nvesting has taken place in favour of Varadan, the settlor cannot
\nsubsequently revoke that settlement and execute a fresh settlement
\nin respect of the suit schedule property in favour of Babu & Shantha.
\nLearned Single Judge affirmed the finding of the trial court that the
\norder of revocation of the settlement was  bad and likewise the
\nexecution of a fresh settlement in favour of the appellant Nos.2 & 3
\nwas also consequently bad.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellant has submitted that both the
\ncourts below have not correctly approached the matter because the
\nsettlement deed does not create a vested right in favour of Varadan
\nso long as Kokilambal was alive and as per the terms of the
\nsettlement the vesting of the suit schedule property i.e. A & B   would
\nonly arise after the death of Kokilambal. Therefore, there is total mis-
\nreading on the part of both the courts of the contents of the
\nsettlement deeds. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent
\nsubmitted that by virtue of the aforesaid settlement, a vested right
\nwas created in favour of the deceased settlor, Varadan and therefore,
\nby way of succession the suit property should come to his brother
\nplaintiff and the settlor Kokilambal cannot revoke the settlement
\ndeeds and issue a fresh settlement in favour of appellant Nos.2 & 3.\n<\/p>\n
\tSettlement is one of the recognized modes of transfer of
\nmoveable and immovable properties under Hindu law. The Courts
\nhave accepted such mode as legal and valid mode of transfer of
\nproperties. Courts have emphasized  that in order to find out the
\ncorrect intent of the settlor the settlement deed  has to be read as a
\nwhole and draw their inference of its content. Therefore, it has
\nalways been emphasized that the terms of the settlement should be
\nclosely examined and the intention of the settlor should be given
\neffect to.  Sometimes there is absolute vesting and sometimes there
\nis contingent vesting as contemplated in Sections 19 and 21 of the
\nTransfer of Property Act, 1882.  In order to ascertain the true intention
\nof the settlor one has to closely scrutinize  the settlement deed,
\nwhether  the intention of the settlor was to divest the property in his
\nlife time or to  divest the property contingently on the happening of
\ncertain event. In this connection, reference may be made to a
\ndecision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kanta Roy vs. Santi Debi<\/a>
\nreported in [1957] SCR 77.  Their Lordships observed that the
\ndetermination of the question as to whether an interest created is
\nvested or contingent has to be guided generally by the principles
\nrecognized under Sections 19 and 21 of the Transfer of Property Act,
\n1882 and Sections 119 and 120 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
\nTheir Lordships quoted a passage  from Jarman on Wills ( 8th Ed. ,
\nVol II at page 1390 which states as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t” So, where a testator clearly expressed his
\nintention that the benefits given by his will
\nshould not vest till his debts were paid, *** the
\nintention was carried into execution, and the
\nvesting as well as payment was held to be
\npostponed.”\n<\/p>\n
Their Lordships in the case of Rajesh Kanta Roy (Supra)  have
\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t” Apart from any seemingly technical
\nrules which may be gathered from English
\ndecisions and text-books on this subject, there
\ncan be no doubt that the question  is really one
\nof intention to be gathered from a
\ncomprehensive view of all the terms of a
\ndocument.”\n<\/p>\n
Their Lordships have clearly observed that in order to decide the
\nissue one has to closely go through the terms of settlement and the
\nintention of the settlor.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn this connection, our attention was invited to a decision  of this
\nCourt in the case of Usha Subarao vs. B.N.Vishveswaraiah & Ors.
\nreported in (1996) 5 SCC 201 wherein it was observed  as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t” An interest is said to be a vested
\ninterest when there is immediate right of present
\nenjoyment or a present right for future
\nenjoyment. An interest is said to be contingent if
\nthe right of enjoyment is made dependent upon
\nsome event or condition which may or may not
\nhappen. On the happening of the event or
\ncondition a contingent interest becomes a
\nvested interest.”\n<\/p>\n
Their Lordships also relied upon an observation made in Halsbury’s
\nLaws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 50, paras 591, 592  which read as
\nunder :\n<\/p>\n
\t” Although the question whether the interest
\ncreated is a vested or a contingent interest is
\ndependent upon the intention to be gathered
\nfrom a comprehensive view of all the terms of
\nthe document creating the interest, the court
\nwhile construing the document has to approach
\nthe task of construction in such cases with a
\nbias in favour of vested interest unless the
\nintention to the contrary is definite and clear. As
\nregards Wills the rule is that ” where  there is a
\ndoubt as to the time of vesting, the presumption
\nis in favour of the early vesting of the gift and,
\naccordingly, it vests at the testator’s death or at
\nthe earliest moment after that date which is
\npossible in the context.”\n<\/p>\n
Their Lordships also relied upon Halsbury’s Laws of England, 4th
\nEdn., Vol.50, Para 589 at page 395 which reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t” It is necessary to construe the Will to find out
\nthe intention of the testator. With regard to
\nconstruction of Wills the law is well settled that
\nintention has to be ascertained from the words
\nused keeping in view the surrounding
\ncircumstances, the position of the testator, his
\nfamily relationship and that the Will must be read
\nas a whole”\n<\/p>\n
Our attention was also invited to a decision of this Court in the case
\nof Namburi Basava Subrahmanyam vs. Alapati Hymavathi & Ors.<\/a>
\nreported in (1996) 9 SCC 388. In this case also the question was
\nwhether the document is a will or settlement. Their Lordships held
\nthat the nomenclature of the document is not conclusive one. It was
\nobserved as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t” The nomenclature of the document is not
\nconclusive. The recitals in the document as a
\nwhole and the intention of the executant and
\nacknowledgment thereof by the parties are
\nconclusive. The Court has to find whether the
\ndocument confers any interest in the property in
\npraesenti so as to take effect intra vivos  and
\nwhether an irrevocable interest thereby, is
\ncreated in favour of the recipient under the
\ndocument, or whether the executant intended to
\ntransfer the interest in the property only on the
\ndemise of the settlor. Those could be gathered
\nfrom the recitals in the document as  a whole.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe document in this case described as
\n‘settlement deed’ was to take effect on the date
\non which it was executed. The settlor created
\nrights thereunder intended to take effect from
\nthat date, the extent of the lands mentioned in
\nthe Schedule with the boundaries mentioned
\nthere under. A combined reading of the recitals
\nin the document and also the Schedule would
\nclearly indicate that on the date when the
\ndocument was executed she had created right,
\ntitle and interest in the property in favour of her
\nsecond  daughter but only on her demise she
\nwas to acquire absolute right to enjoyment,
\nalienation etc.  In other words, she had created
\nin herself a life interest in the property in
\npraesenti and vested the remainder in favour of
\nher second daughter. It is settled law that the
\nexecutant while divesting  herself of the title to
\nthe property could create a life estate for her
\nenjoyment and the property would devolve on
\nthe settlee with absolute rights on the settlor’s
\ndemise. Thus the document in question could be
\nconstrued rightly as  a settlement deed but not a
\ns a Will. The settlor, having divested herself of
\nthe right and title there under, had, thereafter, no
\nright to bequeath the same property in favour of
\nher first daughter. ”\n<\/p>\n
In this background, we have to examine the settlement deeds created
\nby Kokilambal in favour of  the deceased Varadan.  The recitals of the
\nsettlement deeds  i.e. A-1 and A-2  as reproduced   above, clearly
\nsays that since Kokilambal had no son and her husband Konicka
\nMudaliyar during his life time has bestowed  his love and affection on
\nVaradan, the son of his elder sister, and therefore, out of love and
\naffection, she has settled that the income derived from the properties
\ni.e. Door No.43, Kakkaran Basin Road, shall be enjoyed by herself
\nand Varadan, till her life time and after her demise, it shall be enjoyed
\nby Varadan absolutely. She further authorised  him to collect the
\nrental income of the aforesaid house and pay the corporation  and
\nland tax, repairs  etc. and the remainder rental amount shall be
\nenjoyed by herself and Varadan in moiety. The appellant No.1 further
\nsettled that she would not alienate the property but both of them
\nreserve the right to alienate the property jointly.  Therefore, this
\nsettlement in no uncertain terms lays down that the properties in
\nquestion will vest absolutely after the death of the appellant No.1 and
\nduring their life time, both will enjoy the usufructs  but Varadan would
\ncollect the rental income of the aforesaid property. It is further
\nmentioned that both will have the right to alienate the property in
\nquestion jointly.  These conditions are very clear , Varadan would
\nhave acquired the absolute right over the property after the death of
\nKokilambal. Even during their life time if the property was to be
\nalienated then the same would be alienated by them jointly meaning
\nthereby that the appellant No.1 continued to hold the property during
\nher life time and both of them were permitted to enjoy the usufructs of
\nthat property.  These settlement deeds in our opinion, clearly make
\nout that Varadan was not made absolute owner of the property during
\nthe life time of the settlor, Kokilambal.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the respondent has tried to interpret this
\ndocument that since the appellant No.1 had already divested her right
\nto alienate the property that should be enough to show that the entire
\nproperty stood vested in favour of Varadan. Learned counsel for the
\nrespondent tried to seek support from a decision in the case of
\nTurlapaty Rajeswara Rao & Anr. vs. Kamarajugadda Rangamma &
\nOrs. reported in  [1949] 1 MLJ 480 ( Vol.96)  In that case also it was
\nobserved that the wife got the life estate in the properties and  the
\nnephews got the vested interest in the same although they are
\npostponed till her death. In this case also it was held that the
\nfundamental rule of construction of a will is that the intention of the
\ntestator should be gathered from a reading of the will as a whole.
\nLearned counsel for the respondent also invited our attention to a
\ndecision in the case of  P.Ram Mohan vs. Lalitha Raghuraman & Ors.
\nreported in AIR 1976 Madras 333. In that case, on the facts Their
\nLordships came to the conclusion that where a settlor by a deed of
\nsettlement created a life interest in favour of himself, his wife, his
\nfoster son, it was held that the two sons of the settlor acquired a
\nvested interest in the property on the date of execution of the deed.
\nTherefore, this depended   on the construction of the settlement
\ndeed. But in the present case,  we have quoted above the recitals in
\nthe settlement deeds i.e. A-1 and A-2 and  have also interpreted the
\nsame that the settlor Kokilambal had not completely divested her right
\nin favour of the deceased Varadan but it was a contingent one that it
\nwould vest after her death. Therefore, the intention of the settlor was
\nvery clear that the settlement was to come into effect after the death
\nof settlor, Kokilambal.\n<\/p>\n
\tThere is an additional factor for coming to this conclusion.
\nVardan who was a bachelor and had  certain property inherited from
\nhis real parents, he executed a will  in favour of his brother, the
\nplaintiff.  But he did not include this property, that shows that at the
\nrelevant time it was also clear that the property  which would come to
\nhim by way of settlement had not  come to be vested in him and
\ntherefore, that property was not included in his will when he made the
\nsame with regard to the property which was received by him from his
\nfather or from his ancestors. Therefore, from this we have no
\nhesitation in our mind to hold that  the view taken by the leaned
\nSingle Judge of the High Court of Madras as well as by  the first
\nappellate Court was not correct and it was totally misreading of the
\ndeed of settlement.\n<\/p>\n
\tSince Kokilambal survived after Vardan, she revoked the
\nsettlement deeds and issued a fresh settlement in favour of Appellant
\nNos.2 & 3. On account of the death of Varadan Kokilambal who was
\nthe settlor remained the sole owner of the suit property because
\nsettlement deed had come to an end on account  of the death of
\nsettlee, Varadan. Therefore, she had  the right to execute fresh deed
\nof settlement in favour of appellant Nos.2 & 3. Thus, we do not find
\nthat subsequent settlement made by the appellant No.1  in favour of
\nAppellant Nos.2 & 3 suffers from any illegality.\n<\/p>\n
\tHence, as a result of our above discussion, we allow this
\nappeal and set aside the impugned order dated November 19, 1998
\npassed by  learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras in
\nSecond Appeal No.1866 of 1986 as well as the order of the first
\nappellate court whereby the order of the trial court dismissing the suit
\nwas reversed. There would be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005 Author: A Mathur Bench: Ashok Bhan, A.K. Mathur CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6994 of 1999 PETITIONER: Kokilambal & Ors. RESPONDENT: N.Raman DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/04\/2005 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & A.K. MATHUR JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T A.K. MATHUR, […]<\/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-243205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005 - 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\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-13T17:51:51+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-13T17:51:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005\"},\"wordCount\":3325,\"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\\\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005\",\"name\":\"Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-04-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-13T17:51:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005 - 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\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-13T17:51:51+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005","datePublished":"2005-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-13T17:51:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005"},"wordCount":3325,"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\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005","name":"Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-04-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-13T17:51:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kokilambal-ors-vs-n-raman-on-21-april-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005"}]},{"@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\/243205","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=243205"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243205\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}