{"id":246021,"date":"2010-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-11-23T23:28:46","modified_gmt":"2016-11-23T17:58:46","slug":"v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 27\/01\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI\n\nA.S.No.372 of 1992\nand\nM.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2009\n\nV.Rajam\t\t\t\t\t...Appellant\t\t\n\nVs.\n\t\t\t\t\t\n1.R.Thirugnanasambandam\n2.R.Thirunavukkarasu\n3.R.Sundaramurthy\n4.V.Rathinavelu(died)\n5.M.R.Vasavambal alias\n  Ammaniammal(died)\n6.R.Vigneshkumari\n7.R.Kanagavalli\n8.R.Saraswathi\n9.P.Valliammal\n10.R.Valliappan\n11.R.Saravanan\n12.R.Karthikeyan\n13.R.Kanagalakshmi\n14.S.Ranganayaki\n(RR6 to 13 are brought on\n record as Lrs of the\n deceased 4th respondent)\n (R14 brought on record as\n  LR of the deceased 5th\n  respondent)\t\t\t\t\t...Respondents\n\nPRAYER\n\nThis appeal filed under Section 96 of The Civil Procedure Code\nagainst the Judgment and Decree dated 28th August 1990, passed in O.S.No.471 of\n1987 on the file of the Court of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge,\nMadurai.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t...  Mr.T.M.Hariharan\n^For Respondents 1 to 3 ...  Mr.R.Subramanian\nFor Respondent No.4\t...  No appearance\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\tThe Plaintiffs are the appellants.  The appeal is preferred against<br \/>\nthe judgment and decree in O.S.No.471 of 1987, passed by the II Additional<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge, Madurai, dated 28.08.1990. The suit was filed for declaration<br \/>\nthat the plaintiff and the 4th defendant are entitled to the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t2.The brief facts of the case is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t The suit property and some other properties originally belonged to<br \/>\none Ammani Ammal, after her death, it devolved upon his son Pitchai Pillai @<br \/>\nRengasamy Pillai who had two wives. Through the  first wife, he had a son<br \/>\nMuthukrishnan and  through the second wife, he had three daughters namely<br \/>\nVasavambal @ Ammani Ammal, Kanagasabai @ Kanagarathinam and Ramalakshmi Ammal.<br \/>\nAfter the death of Pitchai Pillai @ Rengasamy Pillai the property devolved upon<br \/>\nMuthukrishnan. Muthukrishnan died in the year 1920, leaving behind his wife<br \/>\nAngalammal and minor daughters and they were enjoying the property. She executed<br \/>\na release deed  dated 5.8.1921 in favor of the three daughters of Velammal,<br \/>\nnamely, Vasavamabl @ Ammani Ammal, Kanagasabai @ Kanagarathinam and Ramalakshmi<br \/>\nAmmal. The three sisters were in possession and enjoyment of the property.  The<br \/>\nthree sisters entered into a partition in the year 1939 and executed a partition<br \/>\ndeed dated 26.1.1939. Under the deed of partition, Vasavambal @ Amaniammal was<br \/>\nallotted &#8216;A&#8217; Schedule property. Kanagammal @ Kanarathiram was allotted &#8216;B&#8217;<br \/>\nSchedule property and &#8216;C&#8217; schedule property was allotted to Ramalakshmi.  The<br \/>\nsaid Vasavambal @ Ammaniammal is the 5th defendant.  The plaintiff is the<br \/>\ndaughter of Kanagammbal @ Kanagarathiam and the 4th defendant is the son of<br \/>\nKanagammbal @ Kanagarathiam.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t3.The said Ramalakshmi executed a Will in favour of the children of<br \/>\nKanagammal @ Kanarathinam and the daughter of Vasavammbal, bequeathing her<br \/>\nproperty. As per the said Will dated 11.12.1950 the door No.14,15,16 and 17 of<br \/>\nNorth Chithirai Street was bequeathed. The plaintiff and the 4th defendant and<br \/>\nalso the another sister of plaintiff, Saroja, died un-married. Door No.14 was<br \/>\nbequeathed to Renganayagi daughter of the 5th defendant. After the death of the<br \/>\nsaid Saroja the plaintiff and the 4th defendant entered into a partition on<br \/>\n14.08.1957 and door No.15 was allotted to the plaintiff the door No.16 and 17<br \/>\nwas allotted to the 4th defendant. The defendant Kanagasabai @ Kanagarathinam<br \/>\nexecuted a settlement deed dated 01.12.1950 in favour of the 5th defendant in<br \/>\nrelation to the suit property in exchange of the door No.132 of the West Masi<br \/>\nStreet, Madurai. Originally the door No.13 was divided between the 5th defendant<br \/>\nand Kanagasabai @ Kanagarathinam.  Northern portion was given to Kanagasabai @<br \/>\nKanagarathinam and the southern portion was given to 5th defendant.  Therefore,<br \/>\nKanagasabai @ Kanagarathinam settled her share in favour of the 5th defendant.<br \/>\nOn taking door No.132 of West Masi Street, Madurai by a settlement deed, the<br \/>\nplaintiff has filed the suit challenging the settlement deed alleged to have<br \/>\nbeen executed by her mother Kanagasabai @ Kanagarathinam in favour of the 5th<br \/>\ndefendant ,who in turn had sold the entire property to one Subulakshmi Ammal and<br \/>\nher husband from whom the defendant Nos.1,2 and 3, and their father Ramakrishnan<br \/>\nPillai purchased the property. Therefore, the suit is filed by the plaintiff<br \/>\nseeking for a declaration of title to the northern portion of door No.13 of<br \/>\nNorth Chithirai Street, which is the suit property as allotted to her mother<br \/>\nKanagasabai @ Kanagarathinam.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t4.The suit was resisted by all the defendants.  The defendants 1,2<br \/>\nand 3 filed a separate written statement and 4th defendant filed a separate<br \/>\nwritten statement and 5th defendant filed a separate written statement, the sum<br \/>\nand substance of the defence is that three sisters namely Kanagasabai @<br \/>\nKanagarathinam, Vasavambal (5th defendant), Ramalakshmi partitioned the property<br \/>\nsettled on them by Angalammal in the year 1921 and Kanagasabai @ Kanagarathinam<br \/>\nhad settled the present suit property in favour of 5th defendant, who in turn<br \/>\nhad sold the property to the predecessor in title of defendants 1,2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t5.Based on those averments, the trial court found that the suit<br \/>\nproperty was allotted to the mother of the plaintiff who had  executed a<br \/>\nsettlement deed in favour of the 5th defendant under Ex.P.1, dated 1.12.1950.<br \/>\nTherefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t6.Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff has preferred<br \/>\nthe present appeal on various grounds, more particularly on the ground that the<br \/>\ntrial court is wrong in disregarding the earliest document in the year 1921<br \/>\nexecuted by Angalammal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7.The point for consideration arise in the present appeal is whether<br \/>\nthe plaintiff has any right or title in the suit property which was allotted to<br \/>\nher mother in a partition deed and subsequently transferred to the 5th defendant<br \/>\nby a settlement deed dated 1.12.1950.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t8.The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the release deed<br \/>\ndated 5.8.1921 marked as Ex.A1, executed by Angalammal in favour of the three<br \/>\nsisters, and also the partition deed executed between the three sisters dated<br \/>\n26.1.1939 marked as Ex.A2 and submitted that the said Angalammal, wife of<br \/>\nMuthukrishnan, succeeded only to the limited right of the husband&#8217;s property and<br \/>\nwas not competent to create a absolute right under Ex.A1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t9.The learned counsel for the appellant further submited that  Ex.A1<br \/>\nis only a release deed and not a family settlement.The learned counsel also<br \/>\nsubmitted that, under Ex.A2, which is equal Ex.B-10,  what was partitioned<br \/>\nbetween the sisters was only the life interest of Angalammal and therefore the<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s mother Kanagasabai @ Kanagarathinam had no right to transfer the<br \/>\nsuit property in favour of 5th defendant under Ex.B1 dated 1.12.1950. The<br \/>\nlearned counsel also pointed out that the execution of the settlement deed under<br \/>\nEx.B-10 is not proved and there is no necessity for the plaintiff&#8217;s mother to<br \/>\nexecute such settlement deed in favour of 5th defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t10.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit<br \/>\nproperty belonged to the plaintiff&#8217;s mother and on her death, the plaintiff and<br \/>\nher brother, the 4th defendant are entitled to the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1,2<br \/>\nand 3 would submit that, Ex.A1 is not a release deed but a family settlement and<br \/>\nthe same had been upheld by the High Court in  S.A.No.135 of 1962 under Ex.P.9.<br \/>\nThe learned counsel pointed out that in pursuant to the right conferred under<br \/>\nEx.A1, the three sisters have partitioned the property under Ex.P.10 and were in<br \/>\npossession and enjoyment of their respective shares.  The learned counsel<br \/>\nfurther pointed out that the present plaintiff was given certain properties by<br \/>\none of the sister Ramalakshmi under Ex.B2 dated 11.12.1950 and the plaintiff had<br \/>\nfiled a suit in O.S.No.362 of 1959 and claimed the property.When the matter went<br \/>\nto the High Court in S.A.No.135 of 1962, this Court  upheld the validity of<br \/>\nExs.A1 and A2. stating that Angalammal has given only a limited right and she<br \/>\nhas settled the property in favour of three sisters. The learned counsel also<br \/>\npointed out that under the partition deed, dated 26.01.1939, the sisters had<br \/>\nacquired absolute right over their allotted share and the suit property was<br \/>\nsettled in favour of the 5th defendant under Ex.B-1 in exchange of a property<br \/>\nunder Ex.B-14, dated 1.12.1950.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12.Heard the rival contentions and perused all the documents. The<br \/>\nrelationship between the parties are admitted and as stated earlier the<br \/>\ndevolution of the suit property and other properties from Ammani Ammal to next<br \/>\ngeneration is also admitted. In the partition suit it was pleaded and proved<br \/>\nthat after the death of Ammani Ammal the property devolved upon on her son<br \/>\nPitchai Pillai @ Rengasamy Pillai, who had two wives. After the death of Pitchai<br \/>\nPillai @ Rengasamy Pillai the property devolved upon his son Muthukrishnan and<br \/>\nfirst wife and on his death, his wife one Angalammal who was in possession and<br \/>\nenjoyment. She executed Ex.A1 dated 5.8.1921 document which is only a release<br \/>\ndeed and not a  settlement deed, in favour of Pitchai Pillai @ Rengasamy<br \/>\nPillai&#8217;s daughters through his second wife who are Vasavambal @ Ammani Ammal,<br \/>\nKanagasabai @ Kanagarathinam and Ramalakshmi Ammal.  The plaintiff is the<br \/>\ndaughter of Kangasabai @ Kanagarathinam, the fifth defendant is another<br \/>\ndaughter(Now died L.Rs on record), fourth defendant is the son of Kangasabai @<br \/>\nKanagarathinam (who also died L.Rs on record).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t13.It is also admitted that the  three sisters entered into<br \/>\npartition under Ex.A2, dated 26.1.1939. One of the sister Ramalakshmi Ammal<br \/>\nexecuted a Will dated 11.12.1950 under Ex.B2 bequeathing her property in favour<br \/>\nof the children of her two sisters. The plaintiff is one of the beneficiary<br \/>\nunder the Will.  A suit was also filed under Ex.B7 in O.S.No.362 of 1959 which<br \/>\nended up in S.A.No.135\/1962. Exs.A1 and A2 were upheld and the right of the<br \/>\nplaintiff against her mother and brothers were confirmed. In fact, the suit was<br \/>\nfiled only questioning the settlement deed dated 1.12.1950 under Ex.B1, executed<br \/>\nby Kangasabai @ Kanagarathinam who is the mother of the plaintiff in favour of<br \/>\nthe fifth defendant.  The grievance of the plaintiff seems to be against this<br \/>\nsettlement deed, but unnecessarily the validity of Exs.A1 and A2 were questioned<br \/>\nin the suit. The validity of Exs.A1 and A2 were already decided and the<br \/>\nplaintiff is estopped from challenging them.\n<\/p>\n<p>     \t14.Therefore, the point for consideration is whether Ex.B1 settlement deed<br \/>\ndated 1.12.1950 is valid and acted upon.\n<\/p>\n<p>    \t\t15.All the defendants in their written statements and in their<br \/>\nevidence would state that Kangasabai @ Kanagarathinam, the mother of the<br \/>\nplaintiff executed a  settlement deed, Ex.B1 on 1.12.1950 transferring the<br \/>\nnorthern portion given under the partition deed.  It is also pleaded and proved<br \/>\nthat the fifth defendant had executed a settlement deed under Ex.B-14 on the<br \/>\nsame day transferring the property under Door No.132 of West Masi Street in<br \/>\nfavour of Kangasabai @ Kanagarathinam.  The evidence would show that these two<br \/>\ndocuments were properly executed, acted upon and the executants of the both<br \/>\ndocuments have absolute right to effect such transfer and therefore the<br \/>\nplaintiff cannot challenge these two documents and she cannot claim  a right in<br \/>\nthe suit property.  It is also pertinent to note, under the partition, accepted<br \/>\nbetween the three sisters, the door No.13 of North Chithirai Street was divided<br \/>\ninto two portion and the Southern Portion was given to the 5th defendant and the<br \/>\nnorthern portion was allotted to the plaintiff&#8217;s mother Kangasabai @<br \/>\nKanagarathinam. It is natural that one of the sisters had transferred her<br \/>\nallotted northern share to the other sharer to be enjoyed wholly and in exchange<br \/>\nhad received another property.  Therefore the settlement deed is for a valid<br \/>\nconsideration and the parties have acted upon and the plaintiff cannot have any<br \/>\nright in the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t16.The point is decided accordingly. The trial court has rightly<br \/>\ndismissed the suit. In that event, I am not  inclined to interfere with the<br \/>\njudgment and decree of the trial court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t17.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,<br \/>\nconnected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>am<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The II Additional Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nMadurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27\/01\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI A.S.No.372 of 1992 and M.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2009 V.Rajam &#8230;Appellant Vs. 1.R.Thirugnanasambandam 2.R.Thirunavukkarasu 3.R.Sundaramurthy 4.V.Rathinavelu(died) 5.M.R.Vasavambal alias Ammaniammal(died) 6.R.Vigneshkumari 7.R.Kanagavalli 8.R.Saraswathi 9.P.Valliammal 10.R.Valliappan 11.R.Saravanan 12.R.Karthikeyan 13.R.Kanagalakshmi 14.S.Ranganayaki (RR6 [&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-246021","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>V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010 - 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\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-23T17:58:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-23T17:58:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1832,\"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\\\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010\",\"name\":\"V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-23T17:58:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010 - 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\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-23T17:58:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-23T17:58:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010"},"wordCount":1832,"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\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010","name":"V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-23T17:58:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/v-rajam-vs-r-thirugnanasambandam-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"V.Rajam vs R.Thirugnanasambandam on 27 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/246021","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=246021"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246021\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246021"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246021"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246021"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}