{"id":243808,"date":"2009-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009"},"modified":"2014-12-31T11:50:26","modified_gmt":"2014-12-31T06:20:26","slug":"arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 19\/01\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN\n\nS.A.(MD)NO.6 of 2009\n&amp; M.P(MD)NO.1 of 2009\n\nArul\t\t\t\t\t\t..Appellant\n\nvs\n\nVetha Muthu\t\t\t\t\t..Respondent\n\nPRAYER\n\nSecond Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the civil Procedure Code to\nset aside the judgement and decree dated 24-04-2008 made in A.S.No.14 of 2007,\non the file of Sub-Court, Sivagangai, confirming the judgment and decree dated\n01-12-2006 made in O.S.No.60 of 2006 on the file of District Munsif Court,\nSivagangai.\n\n!For Appellant\t...Mr.V.Sitharanjandas\t\t\t \t\n^For Defendant\t...Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe Defendant in O.S.No.60 of 2006 is the appellant before this Court.<br \/>\nO.S.No.60 of 2006 has been filed by the respondent\/plaintiff for declaration and<br \/>\ninjunction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.60 of 2006  is that the plaintiff<br \/>\nand the defendant are brothers.  The suit property is in a Grama Natham.<br \/>\nOriginally, the suit property belonged to the father of the plaintiff and the<br \/>\ndefendant, namely Sepasthiyan. The said Sebasthiyan executed a settlement deed<br \/>\ndated 18-03-1993 settling the suit property and other properties in favour of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff and since then, the plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property<br \/>\nalong with other properties.   Thus the  plaintiff alone is in possession.<br \/>\nFurther,  the plaintiff has been keeping the suit property as a vacant land for<br \/>\nkeeping his cattles and also using it as Kalam.  The plaintif&#8217;s  father    died<br \/>\non 18-07-1994.  After his death, he has allowed the defendant to take one<br \/>\nproperty and the defendant has also been enjoing the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is also using his<br \/>\nland by encroaching upon the West of the suit property which is a lane.  When<br \/>\nthe said encroachment was objected to by the plaintiff, the defendant turned a<br \/>\ndeaf ear.  That apart, the defendant threatended that he would put up a<br \/>\nconstruction in the encroachment.  Hence, the above suit for the aforesaid<br \/>\nrelief.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The said suit was resisted by the defendant\/appellant herein.  While<br \/>\ndenying the averments made in the plaint, the defendant submitted through his<br \/>\nwritten statement that the suit property was not settled by their father to the<br \/>\nplaintiff.  He has also referred to earlier proceedings in O.S.No.330 of 1978<br \/>\nbetween their father and one Francis filed before the District Munsif Court,<br \/>\nSivaganga and later on an appeal was filed before the Sub-Court in A.S.No.40 of<br \/>\n1981 and before this Court in S.A.No.1952 of 1990 and in those proceedings, the<br \/>\nplaintiff is not a party, but only  the defendant and his brother Jesuraj,  were<br \/>\nalone the parties.  So, according to the defendant, his father did not settle<br \/>\nthe property in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff by himself occupied<br \/>\nthe property and  enjoing the same without any right.  Further more, it was his<br \/>\ncase that the suit property was an ancestrol property and their father had no<br \/>\nright to settle the same in favour of the plaintiff alone and it was his further<br \/>\ncase that the settlement deed was not given effect to.  He has also denied about<br \/>\nthe existing lane in common between the properties.  According to the defendant,<br \/>\nthe plaintiff is living one kilometer from the South of the suit property.  The<br \/>\nplaintiff has been in un-lawful occupation and enjoyment of the suit property.<br \/>\nHe is attempting to occupy the property which has been under the control and<br \/>\nenjoyment of the defendant since 1985.  Therefore, he has also become the owner<br \/>\nof the same by adverse possession.  Furthermore, the suit was barred by<br \/>\nlimitation also.  It is his further case, that the suit boundaries extent were<br \/>\nnot given correctly.  He has also referred to earlier proceedings between<br \/>\nhimself and another brother Jesuraj in O.S.No.149 of 2001, wherein it has been<br \/>\ndeclared that  the  suit  property belongs to the defendant on 27-01-2003.<br \/>\nDespite that and suppressing the earlier proceedings, the plaintiff filed the<br \/>\nabove suit and therefore, he prayed  for dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.On the above said pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1)Whether the gift deed is true and valid in law?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction as<br \/>\nprayed for?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3)What other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The trial Court after finding that the settlement deed dated 18-03-1993<br \/>\nwas validly executed and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property<br \/>\ndecreed the suit as prayed for.  Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed<br \/>\nA.S.No.14 of 2007. The lower appellate Court after re-valuating the evidence<br \/>\nconcurred with the findings of the trial Court that the settlement deed was<br \/>\nvalidly executed and the plaintiff is in possession of the property.  Hence, the<br \/>\nappeal was dismissed.  Aggrieved by the concurrent judgements of both the Courts<br \/>\nbelow, the defendant in the suit filed the above appeal under Section 100 CPC<br \/>\nwith the following substantial questions of law:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1)When there is a dispute with regard to identity of property impugned,<br \/>\nthe Court can reject the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner<br \/>\nmerely by stating that the same cannot be done to gather evidence?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2)Are not the courts below bound to take note of the clear admissions in<br \/>\ncross-examination and non consideration of the same is perverse.?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3)Are not the courts below erred in disposing the suit without<br \/>\nascertaining as to how the manipulations, over writings and corrections in a<br \/>\nparticular deed are in existence and especially the boundary differs in the<br \/>\nplaint?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4)Is not the party to remove surrounding circumstances to prove the<br \/>\nvalidity of the settlement deed especially when there are disputes about the<br \/>\nexistence of the same?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5)Whether the Courts can come to the conclusion that in Christian law, the<br \/>\nquestion of ancestral property or self earned property does not arise when the<br \/>\nsame is encumbered?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and also<br \/>\nthe leanred counsel appearing for the respondent. I have also gone through the<br \/>\ndocuments in support of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below<br \/>\nhave wrongly held that the settlement deed was proved which was not referred to<br \/>\nany other earlier proceedings.  He further pointed out that when there is no<br \/>\ndispute regarding the identity of the property, the lower   appellate Court<br \/>\nwrongly dismissed the I.A.293\/07, filed by the appellant herein for appointment<br \/>\nof Advocate Commissioner.  Hence, he prayed for setting aside the judgments of<br \/>\nboth the Courts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent drew the attention of<br \/>\nthis Court to the specific findings of  both the Courts below to show that the<br \/>\nsettlement deed dated 18-03-1993 was validly executed and no evidence was<br \/>\nadduced on the side of the defendent to disprove the valid execution of the<br \/>\nsettlement deed.  Further, the documents marked on the side of the defendant<br \/>\ni.e., B1 to B7 were not of recent origin namely, kist receipts and the same was<br \/>\nnot substantiated.  Therefore, the learned  counsel for the respondent\/plaintiff<br \/>\nwould submit that the factual findings rendered by both Courts below cannot be<br \/>\ninterfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.I have considered the rival submission carefully.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.The case of the plaintiff is that his father settled the suit schedule<br \/>\nproperty along with other properties in his favour by settlement deed dated 18-<br \/>\n03-1993.  But the defendant, who is his brother, encroached upon the lane and<br \/>\nwhen objected to by him, the defendant threatened that he would put up a<br \/>\nconstruction in the suit schedule property, which is a vacant land.  The<br \/>\ndefendant denied the execution of the settlement deed  and claimed ownership of<br \/>\nthe suit schedule property.  Before the trial Court, the settlement deed was<br \/>\nmarked as Ex.A1.  One of the attesting witnesses was also examined (as PW.2) on<br \/>\nthe side of the plaintiff to prove the execution of the settlement deed.  On the<br \/>\nbasis of the evidence adduced, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the<br \/>\nsettlement deed is true and valid in law.  The trial Court has also adverted to<br \/>\nthe fact that the defendant himself(DW.1) in his deposition admitted that the<br \/>\nplaintiff is in enjoyment of the other lands shown in the settlement deed.<br \/>\nFurther it was not established before the trial Court by the defendant as to how<br \/>\nhe is having the title and how he came into possession of the property.  The<br \/>\ndocuments filed by the defendant to prove his case were found to be not related<br \/>\nto the suit property.  After finding, that there is no dispute with regard to<br \/>\nidentity of the property as contended by the defendant, the trial Court decreed<br \/>\nthe suit as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.The lower appellate Court while re-evaluating the evidence held that<br \/>\nthe settlement deed was proved by the plaintiff and the defendant could not let<br \/>\nin legally acceptable evidence to discredit the settlement deed.   Before the<br \/>\nlower appellate Court, the defendant filed I.A. No.293\/07 for appointment of an<br \/>\nAdvocate Commissioner for the purpose of deciding the boundary dispute.  The<br \/>\nlower appellate Court after finding the evidence of DW.1 in his cross-<br \/>\nexamination, accepted the findings of the trial Court that there is no dispute<br \/>\nwith regard to identity of the suit property.  Hence, it dismissed<br \/>\nI.A.No.293\/07.  Thus the lower appellate Court found that the plaintiff<br \/>\nestablished his case and accordingly dismissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.A perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court confirming the<br \/>\njudgment of the trial Court  would show that proper issues were framed on the<br \/>\nbasis of the pleadings and the evidence and findings were given for the framed<br \/>\nissues, which cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.Therfore I do not find any question of law  much less the substantial<br \/>\nquestions of law arising for consideration in the second appeal.  Eventhough,  a<br \/>\nnumber of substantial questions of law are raised in the memorandum, in my view,<br \/>\nthey are not really substantial questions of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.Hence, I do not find any merits in the second appal and the same is<br \/>\ndismissed. No costs.  Consequently connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>gsr<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The District Munsif,<br \/>\n  Sivagangai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Suordinate Judge,<br \/>\n  Sivagangai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19\/01\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN S.A.(MD)NO.6 of 2009 &amp; M.P(MD)NO.1 of 2009 Arul ..Appellant vs Vetha Muthu ..Respondent PRAYER Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the civil Procedure Code to set [&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-243808","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009 - 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\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-31T06:20:26+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-31T06:20:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1613,\"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\\\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-31T06:20:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009 - 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\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-31T06:20:26+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-31T06:20:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009"},"wordCount":1613,"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\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009","name":"Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-31T06:20:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arul-vs-vetha-muthu-on-19-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arul vs Vetha Muthu on 19 January, 2009"}]},{"@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\/243808","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=243808"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243808\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243808"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243808"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243808"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}