{"id":24592,"date":"2005-07-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-07-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005"},"modified":"2016-08-03T23:07:26","modified_gmt":"2016-08-03T17:37:26","slug":"aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005","title":{"rendered":"Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: Dharmadhikari<\/div>\n
Bench: D. M. Dharmadhikari, Tarun Chatterjee<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2592-2593 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nAANAIMUTHU THEVAR (DEAD) BY LRS.\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nALAGAMMAL & ORS. \t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/07\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nD. M. Dharmadhikari & Tarun Chatterjee\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
Dharmadhikari J.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn these two appeals arising out of the impugned common
\njudgment passed by the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal, the
\nneat question involved is one of res judicata.   The trial court in its
\ncommon judgment passed in cross suits jointly tried came to the
\nconclusion that the judgment in former suit OS No. 843\/74 between
\nthe predecessor-in-title of the appellant and the respondents cannot
\noperate as res judicata to bar the present suit claiming title to the suit
\nproperty by the appellant. The High Court by the impugned common
\njudgment in Second Appeal has reversed the judgment of the two
\ncourts below and held that the judgment in former suit OS No.843\/74
\ndecided on 28.2.1976 operates as res judicata under section 11 of the
\nCode of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the suit filed by the appellant
\nhas been  dismissed and the cross suit filed by the respondents has
\nbeen decreed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe facts necessary for deciding the issue of res judicata are as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
\tThe property involved in the two cross suits is house door
\nNo.206 in Harvaipatt township in Madurai, South Taluk.  The house
\nwas allotted by Madurai Mills Cooperative Housing Society to mother of
\nMuthuswami Naidu (the husband of respondent No.1 and father of
\nrespondents 3 to 7).  After the death of mother, the formal document
\nof conveyance by the Housing Society came to be issued in favour of
\nMuthuswami Naidu on 15.3.1975.  Muthuswami Naidu executed a
\nmortgage deed on 3.12.74 for raising a loan of Rupees three thousand
\nfrom one Chhinnaswamy who was co-plaintiff with him in the former
\nsuit OS No. 843 of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
\tMuthuswami Naidu as the mortgagor under mortgage deed
\ndated 3.12.1974 and Chinnaswamy as the mortgagee jointly filed civil
\nsuit as OS No. 843\/74 in the court of District Munsiff, Thirumangalam
\nagainst respondent Alagammal (the wife of Muthuswami respondent
\nNo.1 herein).  The mortgagor and mortgagee filed  suit simplicitor for
\nseeking permanent injunction to restrain the respondent wife of
\nMuthuswami from interfering with the possession of the suit house on
\nthe ground that it was owned and possessed by them.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe aforesaid suit OS  No.843\/74 was resisted by the respondent
\nwife pleading inter alia that when disputes had arisen in the married
\nlife of the parties, a village panchayat was called in the year 1971 in
\nwhich the respondent agreed to relinquish his ownership of the suit
\nhouse in favour of his wife and children for their residence on the
\ncondition that his wife would discharge dues against the house.  In
\nthat suit the wife denied the existence of any alleged mortgage deed
\nand questioned validity of the same.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the pleadings of the parties in the former suit OS No.843\/74,
\nthe following issues were framed:-\n<\/p>\n
1)\tWhether the othi deed (mortgage deed) dated 3.12.1974
\nexecuted in favour of the second plaintiff is true, valid and
\nbinding upon the defendant?\n<\/p>\n
2)\tWhether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of injunction
\nprayed for?\n<\/p>\n
3)\tWhether the defendant was in possession of the suit property?\n<\/p>\n
4)\tWhether the suit is bad for non-joinder of a necessary party?\n<\/p>\n
5)\tWhether the alleged settlement pleaded by the defendant is
\ntrue?\n<\/p>\n
6)\tTo what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the first issue, the trial court held that registered mortgage
\ndeed seemed to be genuine but it was not binding  as mortgagor had
\nfailed to enter the witness box to prove it.  On issue Nos.2 & 3, the
\ntrial court answered them in favour of the respondent wife by
\nrecording a finding that she had proved to be in possession of the suit
\nhouse.   Tax receipts evidencing payment of house tax were relied in
\nproof of her possession.  On thee findings, it was held that relief of
\npermanent injunction to restrain the respondent wife from enjoying
\nthe suit property could not be granted.  On issue no. 4 regarding the
\nalleged settlement reached in village panchayat and relinquishment of
\nownership and right by Muthuswami in the suit house in favour of his
\nwife and children, the trial court recorded a finding that fact of such
\nsettlement in panchayat had been proved.  The finding recorded in the
\nwords of the trial court is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“In as much as the possession of the defendant on the date of the
\nsuit having been established and no evidence having been let in by the
\nplaintiffs to disprove the allegation that the property was settled
\nupon the defendant in a panchayat which was held about 4 years ago.
\nIt has to be held that settlement pleaded by the defendant is true. I
\nanswer this issue in favour of the defendant.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIssue No.4 on non-joinder of children as parties to the suit, was
\nalso decided in favour of the defendant. It was held that in the
\nPanchayat settlement, the husband relinquished the property in favour
\nhis wife and children.  Therefore, children were necessary parties and
\nthe suit was bad for mis-joinder of a necessary party.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe aforesaid judgment with decree of the trial court at
\nThirumangalam in suit OS No.843\/74 was not appealed against by
\nMuthuswami Naidu, the husband or his mortgagee and has attained
\nfinality.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter the judgment and decree against him in the above
\nmentioned suit OS No. 843\/74, Muthuswami Naidu sold the suit house
\nby registered sale-deed at 15.3.1975 in favour of Annaimuthu Thevar
\nthe appellant herein.  On the basis of his purchase, the present
\nappellant instituted civil suit OS No.335\/83 seeking declaration of his
\ntitle and possession from respondent and her children.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent wife jointly with her children filed cross suit
\nregistered OS No.202\/84 seeking permanent injunction against the
\npresent appellant claiming ownership of the suit house under the
\nsettlement of the year 1971 in panchayat and the consequent
\njudgment and decree passed inter se between her and her husband
\nMuthuswami in civil suit OS No.843\/74 decided on 28.2.1976.  The
\ncross suits were jointly tried and decided by common judgments giving
\nrise to two appeals before the first appellate court and two second
\nappeals before the High Court which have all been decided by
\ncommon judgments.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe trial court and the first appellate court by common
\njudgments delivered by them respectively rejected the plea of res
\njudicata raised by the respondent wife and her children on the ground
\nthat in the former suit OS No. 843\/74 the question of title to the suit
\nhouse was neither directly nor substantially involved and decided.  The
\ntrial court and the first appellate court, therefore, decreed the suit of
\nthe present appellant and dismissed the cross suit of the wife and
\nchildren.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court in the two Second Appeals by the impugned
\njudgment, however, took a contrary view and reversed the judgments
\nof the courts below. On examining the counter pleas and the judgment
\nof the trial court in the former suit between the husband and wife, the
\nHigh Court came to the conclusion that the bar of res judicata squarely
\napplied to the subsequent suit filed by the purchaser of the suit
\nproperty from the husband of the respondent wife.  According to the
\nlearned Judge of the High Court in the former suit, the right and title
\nof husband Muthuswami to the suit house was substantially involved
\nwhich was negatived and the right of the wife and children was upheld.
\nThe finding of res judicata recorded by the High Court needs to be
\nreproduced as arguments have been addressed on it by the learned
\ncounsel on either side before us in these appeals :-\n<\/p>\n
“In the earlier judgement right and title of Muthuswami had been
\nnegatived and that of Alagammal and her children were upheld.
\nTherefore it follows that the plaintiff in the present suit claiming
\ntitle through Muthuswami cannot be sustained as by the earlier
\njudicial determination right, title and interest of Alagammal and her
\nchildren had been upheld and that of Muthuswami had been
\nnegatived. The earlier decision namely Ex.B.14 and B.15 definitely
\nconstitutes res judicata. That apart, a finding in the earlier suit that
\nMuthuswami has no title or interest in the suit property and
\nAlagammal and her children are the owners was the decision which
\nhad been directly and substantially necessary for the disposal of the
\nsuit O.S. No. 843 of 1974 and therefore it has to be held that the
\nissue in the earlier suit in which the matter was directly and
\nsubstantially an issue constitutes res judicata.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe High Court placed reliance on the decisions of this Court
\nreported in Sulachana Amma vs. Narain Nair [1994 (2) SCC 14];
\nIshar Singh vs. Sarwan Singh<\/a> [AIR 1965 SC 948]; and Jumma
\nMasjid vs. Kodimaniandra Deviah<\/a> [AIR 1962 SC 847].\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel appearing for the appellant after taking us
\nthrough the issues and findings recorded by the trial court in the
\nformer suit OS No.843\/74 contended that question of title to the suit
\nhouse was neither expressly nor substantially involved in the said suit
\nand therefore the judgment cannot operate as res judicata in the
\nsubsequent suit.  The contention advanced is that the suit was filed on
\nthe basis of a mortgage deed executed on 3.12.1974 by Muthuswami
\nin favour of Chinnaswamy.  In that suit jointly filed, Muthuswami was
\nnot examined to prove the mortgage deed and hence decree of
\npermanent injunction was refused on a finding that the respondent
\nwife and her children were in possession of the suit house on the basis
\nof the alleged settlement in village panchayat which was reached for
\nresolving family dispute between Muthuswami Naidu – the husband
\nand his wife the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the other side, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
\nwife and her children supported the judgment of the High Court by
\ncontending that the former suit was for permanent injunction on the
\nbasis of right claimed by Muthuswami Naidu as owner of suit house
\nwith competence to execute a mortgage deed in favour of
\nChinnaswamy plaintiff No.2 in that suit.  The suit for injunction
\nsubstantially was based on the claim of ownership of the suit house by
\nthe mortgagor and the right to remain in undisturbed possession by
\nthe mortgagee.  It is, therefore, contended that the issue of title was
\ndirectly and substantially in issue in the former suit. Alternatively, it is
\nargued that doctrine of constructive res judicata in accordance with
\nExplanation IV to section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code clearly barred
\nthe subsequent suit filed by the purchaser from Muthuswami.  Reliance
\nis placed on AIR 1966 SC 1061 and 1997 (2) SCC 552.\n<\/p>\n
The main legal question that requires decision is whether the
\njudgment in the former suit directly or constructively operates as res
\njudicata in the subsequent suits which have given rise to these
\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe undisputed facts are that the house in suit was initially
\nallotted to the mother of Muthuswami by Madurai Mills Co-operative
\nHousing Society. After the death of his mother, Muthuswami as son
\ninherited the right in the house. The house was in possession of the
\nfamily of Muthuswami. According to the case of the respondent wife,
\nMuthuswami was a spendthrift and had wayward habits.  As pleaded in
\nthe former suit, differences and family disputes arose between
\nMuthuswami and her. In the year 1971, a village panchayat was held
\nin which Muthuswami agreed to relinquish his right of ownership in the
\nsuit house in favour of his wife and children.  However, pursuant to the
\ndecision of the panchayat and the commitment made by the husband
\nin the course of panchayat proceedings, no formal document of
\nconveyance came to be executed in favour of the wife.\n<\/p>\n
\tInstead of honouring the commitment made in thevillage
\npanchayat, Muthuswami executed the registered deed of mortgage on
\n3.12.1974 in favour of Chinnaswamy. Muthuswami as the mortgagor
\nand Chinnaswamy as the mortgagee  jointly filed  the former suit OS
\nNo. 843 of 1974 against Alagammal wife of Muthuswami, for seeking a
\ndecree of permanent  injunction simplicitor. The foundation of the suit
\nas appears from the judgment, was that Muthuswami as the owner of
\nthe suit house had executed a mortgage with delivery of possession to
\nChinnaswamy. The cause of action for the suit seeking mandatory
\ninjunction was alleged to have arisen as the wife of Muthuswami was
\nasserting her right to the suit house and interfering with their
\npossession. The aforesaid former suit was resisted by Alagammal
\nmainly on the ground that in the village panchayat her husband had
\nrelinquished his right of ownership of the suit house in her favour and
\ntheir children for their residence. She also denied the existence and
\nvalidity of the registered mortgage deed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe issues framed in the former suit have been reproduced
\nabove. No specific issue seems  to have been framed on title or
\nownership of the suit house but the issues raised  on the existence and
\nvalidity of the mortgage deed and the fact or otherwise of the alleged
\nsettlement pleaded by the defendant in the village panchayat
\nsubstantially involved decision on claim of right and ownership of the
\nhouse by the husband. The other issue raised was concerning the
\ndispute as to who was in possession of the suit house.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs is apparent from the judgment in the former suit,
\nMuthuswami, who was claiming to be the owner and the mortgagor,
\ndid not enter the witness box either to prove the execution of the
\nmortgage or to deny the case pleaded by his wife that he had
\nrelinquished his right in the suit house in the settlement reached in the
\nvillage panchayat. The suit jointly filed by Muthuswami as
\nowner\/mortgagor and Chinnaswamy as mortgagee was dismissed on
\nfindings inter alia that mortgage was not proved and that in village
\npanchayat, a settlement had indeed taken place in favour of wife and
\nchildren who were in possession. It was also held that the children
\nwere necessary parties to the suit and their non-joinder was fatal to
\nthe suit. The dismissal of the suit filed by Muthuswami as mortgagor
\nand Chinnaswamy as mortgagee against wife of the former was not
\nappealed against by either of the plaintiffs. The same, therefore,
\nattained finality.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe present cross suits arose when Muthuswami, after obtaining
\na formal conveyance deed of the house from the housing society on
\n15.3.1975, executed a registered  deed of sale of the suit house on
\n28.2.1983 in favour of the present appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe present two appeals arise out of the cross suits – the one
\nfiled by the purchaser on the basis of registered sale deed in his favour
\non 28.2.1983, against the wife of Muthuswami and her children.  The
\nother suit was filed by wife of Muthuswami and her children seeking
\ninjunction against her husband and the present appellant as purchaser
\nfrom him.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn these above undisputed facts, the main argument advanced
\nby the learned counsel for the appellant is that at the time of filing of
\nthe former suit, Muthuswami had neither any transferable title nor any
\nright to execute a mortgage. He became owner of the suit house only
\non 15.3.1975 when a formal deed of conveyance was executed in his
\nfavour by the housing society. It is also submitted that in the former
\nsuit, there was no issue of title or ownership of the suit house directly
\nor substantially involved. The findings and the judgment in the former
\nsuit against Muthuswami and the alleged mortgagee rested on the
\ngrounds of non-proof of mortgage deed, fact of settlement in village
\npanchayat and possession of the house to be with the wife and
\nchildren. Non-joinder of children as parties to the suit was also
\nadditional ground to dismiss the former suit. The present subsequent
\nsuit is founded on the registered sale deed executed on 28.2.1983 by
\nMuthuswami after he had obtained a saleable title under formal deed
\nof conveyance from the Housing Society on 15.3.1975.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the other side, learned counsel appearing for the wife
\nAlagammal and her children supported the judgment on doctrine of res
\njudicata as applied by the High Court to the subsequent suits. He
\ncontends that in the issues framed in the former suits, the question of
\ntitle and ownership of the suit house were substantially involved. In
\nany case, the doctrine of constructive res judicata applies under
\nexplanation IV to section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 11 of the Code which contains the doctrine of res
\njudicata states :-\n<\/p>\n
“11. Res judicata.- No court shall try any suit or issue in which the
\nmatter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and
\nsubstantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or
\nbetween parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating
\nunder the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent
\nsuit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and
\nhas been heard and finally decided by such Court.”\n<\/p>\n
[Emphasis added]<\/p>\n
The main part of section 11 undoubtedly applies. The former suit
\nwas jointly filed by Muthuswami as owner and mortgagor with the
\nmortgagee. The subsequent suit is by the appellant who is purchaser
\nfrom Muthuswami. The present appellant is, therefore, litigating under
\nthe same title which Muthuswami had in the suit house.\n<\/p>\n
The next question that arises is whether the issue of ownership
\nand title in the suit house was directly and substantially in issue in the
\nformer suit or not. In the subsequent suit undoubtedly the foundation
\nof claim is title acquired by the present appellant under registered sale
\ndeed dated 28.2.1983 from Muthuswami.\n<\/p>\n
\tIf we examine the nature of claim and pleadings in the former
\nsuit of Muthuswami as mortgagor and plaintiff No. 2 the mortgagee,
\nthe suit appears to be based on the alleged right of Muthuswami as
\nthe owner to execute the mortgage. The decree of mandatory
\ninjunction in the former suit was sought on the ground that
\nMuthuswami could execute a valid mortgage with possession in favour
\nof the mortgagee and defendant wife had no right or title, whatsoever,
\nto interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. The suit was resisted
\nby the wife Alagammal on the ground that she had been placed in
\npossession of the suit house with her children for their residence on
\nthe alleged settlement reached in the village panchayat in the year
\n1971 in which her husband relinquished his right in the suit house in
\ntheir favour. True it is, that relinquishment of an immovable property
\ncannot be validly made without a written and registered document. It
\nseems from the conduct of  Muthuswami that he had no courage to
\nenter the witness box in the former suit to face the cross-examination
\non behalf of the wife on the existence of alleged settlement in the
\nvillage panchayat and relinquishment by him of his right in the suit
\nhouse. It is apparent that he wanted to wriggle out of that settlement
\nreached in village panchayat.  As a first attempt in that direction he
\nexecuted a mortgage deed to enable the mortgagee to institute a suit
\nagainst his wife to dispossess her and deprive her of the right in the
\nhouse which Muthuswami had earlier agreed to grant to her in the
\nvillage panchayat. Having failed in the joint suit filed by him with his
\nmortgagee, he did not prosecute the litigation any further and
\npreferred no appeal. As a second attempt to deprive his wife and
\nchildren of right in the house, he executed a registered sale deed in
\nthe year 1983 in favour of the present appellant.  The aforementioned
\nsale deed was executed after he had obtained a document of
\nconveyance from the housing society and that he could obtain being
\nan heir his late mother who was the original allottee of the house from
\nthe housing society. The present subsequent suit has been filed by the
\npresent appellant who is purchaser by registered deed dated
\n28.2.1983 obtained from Muthuswami.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe former suit in which decree of permanent injunction was
\nsought was clearly founded on the claim of Muthuswami as the owner
\nof the suit house to execute a mortgage. The issue of title or
\nownership of the suit house was thus directly or substantially involved
\nin the former suit.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe find sufficient force in the alternative contention advanced on
\nbehalf of wife Alagammal and her children that doctrine of constructive
\nres judicata, as contained in explanation IV to section 11 of the Code
\ncertainly, can be invoked against the present appellant, who claims by
\na purchase from  Muthuswami. Explanation IV to section 11 of the
\nCode states :-\n<\/p>\n
“Explanation IV.-Any matter which might and ought to have been
\nmade ground defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed
\nto have been a matter directly and substantially in issue in such suit.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the former suit, respondent Alagammal wife of Muthuswami
\nclearly set up her own right of ownership to the suit house on the basis
\nof settlement and relinquishment of the suit house in her favour by the
\nhusband in the village panchayat. Claim of such ownership and title
\nmight have been found ineffectual in law, as pursuant to such oral
\nrelinquishment in village panchayat, the husband did not execute any
\nformal written and registered document. On the aforesaid plea of wife
\nAlagammal, in the former suit in which she had set up claim of
\nownership of the suit house on the relinquishment of right by her
\nhusband in village panchayat, it was open to her husband Muthuswami
\nand his mortgagee to raise a counter plea that the alleged oral
\nrelinquishment in village panchayat was ineffectual in law and
\nconferred no title on her.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the former suit the wife had claimed to be in possession with
\nher children of the suit house pursuant to the settlement reached with
\nher husband in the village panchayat. In the former suit, in reply to
\nthe plea of the wife, it was open to the plaintiffs to alternatively seek a
\ndecree of possession on the basis of their title to the suit house.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn the date of former suit, true it is that there was no formal
\ndocument of conveyance of the suit house executed by the society in
\nfavour of Muthuswami.  There existed on that date merely a right he
\nhad inherited in the house allotted to her late mother. Between an
\nallottee of the house from the housing society and the person merely
\nin occupation as licencee or member of the family, the allottee has a
\nbetter title. In the former suit, the claim of Muthuswami was as an heir
\nof his late mother who was the allottee of the house and was in
\npossession. As against him, the claim set up by his wife was of an oral
\nrelinquishment by Muthuswami in her favour in village panchayat.
\nBetween these two competing claims of ownership and right of
\npossession of the suit house, the husband certainly had a better right
\nto remain in possession and, if dispossessed, to claim possession. This
\nground of seeking possession and permanent injunction was available
\nto Muthuswami against his wife in support of his joint claim with his
\nmortgagee. The aforesaid plea founded on ownership and mortgage
\nhaving not been raised in the former suit, the doctrine of constructive
\nres judicata under explanation IV to section 11 of the Code is clearly
\nattracted.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe can not prepared to accept the argument advanced on behalf
\nof the above appellant as the successor-in-title of Muthuswami that in
\nthe absence of formal deed of conveyance of the suit house by the
\nhousing society in favour of Muthuswami, the issue of title to the suit
\nhouse could neither be raised nor was raised in the former suit. On the
\nexamination of case pleaded by the parties in the former suit and the
\njudgment rendered therein we find that the plea of ownership to the
\nsuit house was substantially involved for seeking relief of permanent
\ninjunction.   Undoubtedly, such plea of ownership could and ought to
\nhave been raised in the former suit. Therefore, this subsequent suit
\nfiled by the present appellant as purchaser from Muthuswami is barred
\nby constructive res judicata and the High Court was right in holding
\naccordingly. See the following observations of this Court in the case of
\nSulochana Amma v. Narayan Nair,<\/a> (1994) 2 SCC 14 :-\n<\/p>\n
“(It was) contended that the remedy of injunction is an equitable
\nrelief and in equity, the doctrine of res judicata cannot be extended
\nto a decree of a court of limited pecuniary jurisdiction. We find no
\nforce in the contention. It is settled law that in a suit for injunction
\nwhen title is in issue for the purpose of granting injunction, the issue
\ndirectly and substantially arises in that suit between the parties.
\nWhen the same issue is put in issue in a later suit based on title
\nbetween the same parties or their privies in a subsequent suit the
\ndecree in the injunction suit equally operates as res judicata.”\n<\/p>\n
For the reasons aforesaid, these two appeals preferred by the
\nappellant are dismissed and the judgment of the High Court is upheld.\n<\/p>\n
In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs in these
\nappeals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 2005 Author: Dharmadhikari Bench: D. M. Dharmadhikari, Tarun Chatterjee CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2592-2593 of 2000 PETITIONER: AANAIMUTHU THEVAR (DEAD) BY LRS. RESPONDENT: ALAGAMMAL & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/07\/2005 BENCH: D. M. Dharmadhikari & Tarun Chatterjee JUDGMENT: J […]<\/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-24592","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 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\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-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=\"2005-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-03T17:37:26+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-03T17:37:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4160,\"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\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005\",\"name\":\"Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-07-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-03T17:37:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 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:\/\/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":"Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 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\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-03T17:37:26+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 2005","datePublished":"2005-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-03T17:37:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005"},"wordCount":4160,"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\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005","name":"Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-07-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-03T17:37:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aanaimuthu-thevar-dead-by-lrs-vs-alagammal-ors-on-12-july-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aanaimuthu Thevar (Dead) By Lrs vs Alagammal & Ors on 12 July, 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:\/\/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\/24592","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=24592"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24592\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}