{"id":251606,"date":"2002-09-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002"},"modified":"2015-06-04T16:56:39","modified_gmt":"2015-06-04T11:26:39","slug":"danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"Danusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Danusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 04\/09\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ\n\nA.S.NO.13 OF 1991\n\n\n1.Danusu\n2.Sait @ Panchanathan\n3.Pargunam\n4.Janakiammal\n5.Sudekshanan                           ..              Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.Chandrakesu\n2.Pandian\n3.Sambandan\n4.Thangamani\n5.Vasugi                                        ..              Respondents\n\n\n        Appeal Suit filed against the judgment and decree of  the  Subordinate\nJudge, Cuddalore dated 27.11.1990 and made in O.S.No.186 of 1889.\n\n!For Appellants :  Mr.K.Kannan\n\n^For Respondents 1 to 3:  Mrs.P.Hema Sampath\nFor Respondents 4 &5 :  Mr.A.Sivaji.\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                The  above  Appeal  Suit  is directed against the judgment and
\ndecree dated 27.11.1990 made in O.S.No.186\/89  by  the  Court  of  Subordinate
\nJudge,  Cuddalore,  thereby,  the trial Court in a suit for partition filed by
\nthe respondents No.1 to 3 herein has concluded that the  suit  properties  are
\njoint  family  properties  available  for  partition  and  granting such other
\nreliefs thus partly allowing the suit passing a preliminary decree.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  Tracing the history of the appeal coming to be preferred it  comes
\nto  be  known  that it is the respondents 1 to 3 herein who filed the suit for
\npartition  and  separate  possession  of  plaintiffs’  30\/63  shares  in   the
\nproperties  and for plaintiffs’ share of the future income from the properties
\nto be determined and for costs.    The  appellants  1  to  3  herein  and  the
\nrespondents are  brothers  and sisters.  The fourth appellant is the mother of
\nthe appellants 1 to 3 and respondents 1 to 5.   The  fifth  appellant  is  the
\nfirst appellant’s son.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   The  plaint  averments are that the suit properties are ancestral
\nproperties; that the appellants 1 to 3 and respondents  1  to  3,  along  with
\ntheir  father  Krishnaswami  Gounder  constituted  a  Hindu  undivided  family
\nenjoying the properties in common; that on 22.7.1988, the father died and  the
\nfirst  appellant,  as  the eldest member of the coparcenary was in management;
\nthat some properties were purchased in his name as he was the eldest son; that
\nin the middle of 1987, the father took ill and he  could  not  speak  or  move
\nabout;  that  on  20.6.1988,  under the pretext of taking him to a doctor, the
\nappellants seem to have fabricated a Will; that the father was  weak  and  was
\nnot  able  to  comprehend anything; that the Will has totally disinherited the
\nrespondents; that the 4th respondent at that time was  a  widow  in  stringent
\ncircumstances  and  the  5th  respondent was a totally blind woman living in a
\nblind school; that the father was affectionate to all his children;  that  the
\nrecital  in  the Will that the daughters were well settled was false; that the
\nfather was not in a sound and disposing state of mind; that he could not  also
\ndispose of the entire property; that the Will is void and that on Krishnaswamy
\nGounder’s death the sons are entitled to a 1\/7th share each plus a 1\/6th share
\neach  in the father’s share, totaling to 30\/63 each; that since the properties
\nare ancestral properties the 4th respondent is  entitled  to  an  equal  share
\nalong with her brothers.  The fifth respondent herein remained ex parte.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   According to the appellants 1 to 4 herein, the family had only 16
\ncents in S.No.191\/5  (now  S.No.13\/8)  described  as  item  8  in  the  plaint
\nschedule;  that  the  father purchased properties with help from the family of
\nhis first wife Janagammal;  that  her  mother  and  two  sisters  stayed  with
\nKrishnaswamy Gounder who purchased properties out of the funds provided by his
\nmother-in-law;  that the purchases were gradual and not out of income from the
\nancestral nucleus; that the first appellant helped him  in  agriculture;  that
\nsuit  items  4,5,6 and 19 were settled on the first respondent by a registered
\ndeed dated 7.10.1987; that the remaining items were disposed of  by  the  Will
\ndated  17.6.1988;  that  there  was nothing unnatural about the Will; that the
\nreason for disinheriting his daughters was  because  the  fifth  respondent  a
\nwidow, had been given properties by her husband and the 4th respondent, though
\nblind  was  employed;  that  the  respondents  1 to 3 herein have to share the
\nrepayment of family debts.  This written  statement  of  D1  to  D4  has  been
\nadopted by 7th defendant.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   The  6th defendant would file a separate written statement to the
\neffect that the suit properties are ancestral and  managed  by  their  father;
\nthat  this defendant is blind and she is entitled to inherit equal share being
\nthe daughter of late Krishnaswamy Gounder, and that this defendant is  willing
\nfor partition if she is given equal share in the suit properties.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   Based  on  the  above  pleadings  the trial Court would frame the
\nfollowing issues namely:\n<\/p>\n
(i)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession of
\n30\/63 shares?\n<\/p>\n
(ii)Whether the Will is true?  If so, whether it is binding on the plaintiffs?\n<\/p>\n
(iii)Whether the suit properties are joint family properties?\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to discharge the family debts?\n<\/p>\n
(v)Whether the suit is bad for joining the unnecessary parties?\n<\/p>\n
(vi)What relief the plaintiffs are entitled to?\n<\/p>\n
                7.  The trial Court  conducted  a  full  trial  in  which  the
\nplaintiffs besides  examining  P.Ws.  1 to 3 for oral evidence would also mark
\nexhibit A1 dated 22.7.1988  an  invitation  card,  for  documentary  evidence.
\nLikewise on  the part of the defendants, besides examining D.Ws.  1 to 7 would
\nmark exhibits B1 to B39 for documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  In consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the
\nlearned Additional Subordinate  Judge,  Cuddalore  would  pass  a  preliminary
\ndecree for partition and separate possession allotting 3\/7 shares in favour of
\nthe  plaintiffs,  further  remarking  that  the other relief for mesne profits
\nwould be decided in a separate proceeding.   Aggrieved,  the  appellants  have
\ncome  forward  to prefer the above Appeal suit on certain grounds as put forth
\nin the memorandum of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on  behalf
\nof  the  appellants  would  submit  that  the  defendants 1 to 4 and 7 are the
\nappellants herein; that the plaintiffs are brothers and they sought for  30\/63
\nshares  from  out of the suit property; that according to them after the death
\nof their father, his share devolved on sons and daughters; that  only  item  8
\nwith 15 cents of land is productive; that the trial Court passed a preliminary
\ndecree  allotting  3\/7  shares  in favour of the plaintiffs, further directing
\nthem to be put  in  separate  possession  of  the  same;  that  all  the  suit
\nproperties  were  purchased  by  their  father after 1946; that their father’s
\nmother-in-law  Rathinammal  was  gifted  certain  properties  by  her  husband
\nMuthusamy  Gounder;  that  for the sale deeds dated 1.8.1945 and 13.8.1945 the
\nmoneys were  realised  by  Rathinammal;  that  all  the  acquisitions  of  the
\nproperties  are by purchase; that as far as joint family nucleus is concerned,
\nthe only contention is that his mother-in-law  presented  with  the  property;
\nthat there is no document to show the same; that there is no plea also to show
\nself  earning;  that  in  the  year  1945 all the parties were young; that the
\nfamily is admittedly a very large family; that one of the daughters  is  blind
\nand  in the blind school; that the first plaintiff’s sons are well settled and
\nmarried; that the onus of proof of the existence of undivided joint family  is
\nheavily on the plaintiffs and it never shifts on the defendants that they have
\nto prove.  At this juncture, the learned counsel would cite a judgment of this
\nCourt delivered  in T.K.KAMALA AND OTHERS vs.  A.R.THULASI RAO reported in 200
\n2(I) MLJ 382 wherein it has been held:\n<\/p>\n
“There can be a presumption that the family continues to be joint,  but  there
\ncannot  be any presumption that the property possessed by the family should be
\na joint family property.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.  Further arguments of the learned counsel  is  that  the  Will  is
\nunacceptable; that the first plaintiff’s sons are well settled and married; in
\nrespect of 1\/7th share the Will is operated; that the mother has been examined
\nas P.W.3  at  1996.    At  this  juncture  the  learned counsel would cite two
\njudgments the first one delivered in K.SENGODAN v.  K.DHARMALINGAM AND  OTHERS<\/a>
\nreported  in  (1995)1 MLJ 336 and the 2nd one delivered in MUNIAPPA NAICKER v.
\nBALAKRISHNA NAICKER<\/a> reported in 19 98-2 L.W.259.\n<\/p>\n
11.  Citing Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C.  the learned counsel would point out  that
\nthe appellate Court has power to pass any decree or make any order which ought
\nto  have been passed or made and to pass such further or other decree or order
\nas the case might require.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  In  reply,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the
\nrespondents  1 to 3 would submit that the said Krishnaswamy had three sons and
\ntwo daughters; that from among the daughters one is blind  and  the  other  is
\nwidow;  that  while  such  being  the conditions of the daughter it is totally
\nunacceptable that the father executed the Will in favour of D1 the eldest son;
\nthat the attestor of the Will is the wife; that approaching from  that  angle,
\nthe  trial  Court  has held that the father executed the Will in favour of the
\nfirst defendant as the eldest son; that what the trial Court says is that  the
\nfather  could  only  bequeath  his 1\/7 share by way of Will and not the entire
\nproperties; that in respect of 1\/7 share the Will operates; that it  has  been
\nexecuted  in a garden at Cuddalore Sub-Registrar’s Office; that Will is not as
\nany other document and it has to be proved strictly.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  From out of the  two  judgments  cited  by  the  learned  counsel
\nappearing  on  behalf  of the appellants, the first one by a Division Bench of
\nthis Court and the second one by  a  learned  single  Judge.    In  the  first
\nDivision Bench Judgment reported in 1995(1) MLJ 336 (supra) it is held:\n<\/p>\n
“It can, however, not be denied that the initial burden is only on the one who
\ncontends  that  the  property  belongs  to an undivided Hindu family, and only
\nwhere the initial burden is discharged by the one who is  setting  up  such  a
\nclaim,  then  the  other  side  who contends to the contrary be called upon to
\nestablish his case.  The law on the subject has never  been  in  doubt.    The
\nappellant has failed to prove the existence of such ancestral nucleus which by
\nitself,  is  not  sufficient  but availability of the ancestral nucleus or its
\nadequacy of the same to  fund  the  later  acquisitions,  are  also  essential
\nrequisites for an answer in favour of his contention.”\n<\/p>\n
        14.  So far as the 2nd judgment is concerned, it is reported in 1998-2
\nLaw Weekly 259 (supra) it is held:\n<\/p>\n
“On  the  basis of the law declared in the various Texts as well as case-laws,
\nthe following propositions emerge:- (1) A  Hindu  Family  is  presumed  to  be
\njoint.  But at the same time, there is no presumption that the joint family is
\npossessed of  family  properties.   (2) The manager, if he is in possession of
\nfamily properties  and  is  in  management  thereof  and  acquires  any  other
\nproperty, the law presumes that it is joint family property.  (3) Even in such
\ncases, presumption will arise only if it is shown that the family property had
\nleft surplus  income  out of which other properties could be acquired.  If the
\nnature and relative value of the property are such that there  is  no  income,
\nany fresh  acquisition  cannot  be  treated  as a family property.  It is well
\nwithin the powers of the members of the family that they can acquire  separate
\nproperties and can have their own avocations in life.”\n<\/p>\n
                15.   On the part of the respondents they would also cite from
\nthe decided cases of this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court.    The  first  one
\nbeing  a  judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in PONNUSWAMY v.
\nMEENAKSHI AMMAL AND OTHERS<\/a> (1989-2 L.W.227), wherein it is held:\n<\/p>\n
“It is to be noted that in cases where it  is  established  or  admitted  that
\nfamily  possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value
\nmay have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have  been
\nacquired  the  presumption  arises  that  it was joint property and the burden
\nshifts to the party alleging selfacquisition to establish  affirmatively  that
\nthe property was acquired without the aid of the joint family.”\n<\/p>\n
        16.   The  second  judgment  is  that  of a single Judge of this Court
\nreported in GOVINDAN CHETTIAR ETC.  v.  AKILANDAM ETC.  &  OTHERS  (1997-3  L.
\nW.673) wherein it is held:\n<\/p>\n
        “Deceased was  aged nearly 90 years at that time.  The Sub Registrar’s
\nOffice is far away from his residence.  Whether the formalities to be complied
\nwith in the Sub-Registrar’s Office  were  made  known  to  the  testator,  and
\nwhether  he  was  aware  that  he  was executing a Will, is not clear, and the
\nevidence of the Sub-Registrar is also lacking  in  this  case.    Whether  the
\nSub-Registrar  really  discharged  his official duty in accordance with law is
\nalso not in evidence.  The Will is also executed on  stamp  papers,  which  is
\nunnecessary.   The  stamp  papers  were also purchased a few days prior to the
\npurported execution.  Why the stamp papers were purchased in the name of first
\ndefendant\/the propounder\/legatee stands unexplained.  It is not  the  case  of
\nthe  first  appellant  that they have no other relations so that they could be
\nattestors.  The attestors are none other than his (first defendant’s) business
\nassociates….  The signature appearing in the Will  also  seems  to  be  very
\nshaky,  and whether the deceased would have affixed his signature while he was
\nin his proper senses itself is doubtful.  Evidence regarding the same  is  not
\nsatisfactory.   The  signature in each and every page appears to be different,
\nand from the way in which they are affixed, an impression is created that they
\nmight not have been put by a person having full mental capacity.”\n<\/p>\n
                17.  The third judgment which is of  the  Full  Bench  of  the
\nHon’ble Apex Court reported in  H.VENKATACHALA IYENGAR v.  B.N.THIMMAJAMMA AND
\nOTHERS<\/a> (1959)SCJ 507) wherein it is held:\n<\/p>\n
        “There  may  however  be  cases  in which execution of the will may be
\nsurrounded by suspicious circumstances.  The alleged signature of the testator
\nmay be shaky and doubtful and evidence in support  of  the  propounder’s  case
\nthat the signature in question is the signature of the testator may not remove
\nthe doubt  created  by  the appearance of the signature:  the condition of the
\ntestator’s mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated:    and  evidence
\nadduced  may  not  succeed  in  removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental
\ncapacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear  to  be
\nunnatural,  improbable  or  unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or,
\nthe will may otherwise indicate that the  said  disposition  may  not  be  the
\nresult of  the  testator’s  free  will  and  mind.   Such case the Court would
\nnaturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be  completely  removed
\nbefore the  document  is  accepted  as  the  last  will  of the testator.  The
\npresence of such suspicious Circumstances naturally tends to make the  initial
\nonus  very  heavy; and unless it is satisfactorily discharged, Courts would be
\nreluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator.  It is  true
\nthat  if  a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or
\ncoercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded,  such  pleas  may
\nhave to be proved by the caveators:  but even without such pleas circumstances
\nmay  raise  a doubt as to whether the testator was acting on his own free will
\nin executing the will, and in such circumstances it would be  a  part  of  the
\ninitial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter.”\n<\/p>\n
                18.   The  fourth  judgment is of the Full Bench of the Madras
\nHigh Court reported in SUBRAMANIAN  v.    SINNAMMAL<\/a>  (A.I.R.1930  MADRAS  801)
\nwherein  it is held that “the plaintiff, dissatisfied with decree, appealing –
\nIn proper case appellate Court can dismiss plaintiff’s  suit  in  toto  though
\nrespondent has not preferred cross-appeal or memorandum of objections.”\n<\/p>\n
                19.   The  last  judgment  cited  on  the  part of the learned
\ncounsel for  the  respondents  is  one  reported  in  KOKSINGH  v.    DENKABAT
\n(A.I.R.1976 (SC) 634)wherein it it held:\n<\/p>\n
        “The  appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any
\norder which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further
\nor other decree or order as the case  may  require,  and  this  power  may  be
\nexercised  by  the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of
\nthe decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents  or
\nparties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or
\nobjection:”\n<\/p>\n
                20.   Assessing  the facts and circumstances of the appeal, in
\nthe light of the position of  law  governing  the  subject  and  the  evidence
\nadduced  before  the  trial Court and the appreciation of the same, it must be
\nmentioned that it is a suit paramountly for decision on two points which  have
\nto  be decided legally and on facts of the case, even though it cannot be said
\nthat the other issues involved in the case are less important, but so  far  as
\nthe  case  in  hand  is  concerned,  once answer is obtained for the following
\npoints 1 and 2, it is very easy to settle the other  points  involved  in  the
\nwhole  of  the  appeal  and  therefore  the  following  points  are framed for
\ndetermination of all the questions that are  involved  in  the  whole  of  the
\nappeal suit:\n<\/p>\n
(1)Whether the suit properties are ancestral or self-acquired in nature so far
\nas  the  father  of  the  plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 and 5 and 6 and the
\nhusband of the 4th defendant viz.late Krishnasamy Gounder is concerned?\n<\/p>\n
(2)Whether the Will dated 17.6.1988 said to have been executed by  Krishnasamy
\nGounder  in  favour  of  defendants  1  to  4 giving life estate to the fourth
\ndefendant, wife of Krishnasamy  Gounder  and  thereafter  conferring  absolute
\nright  to  the  defendants  1  to  3  alone, is true, valid and binding on the
\nplaintiffs and others?’<\/p>\n
(3)Whether the trial Court is right in arriving at  the  decision  as  it  has
\narrived at?\n<\/p>\n
(4)What relief, if any, the appellants are entitled to?\n<\/p>\n
                21.   A  careful  perusal  of  the judgment of the lower Court
\nwould show that the lower Court has not only traced the facts pleaded  on  the
\npart  of  the  plaintiffs and the defendants but also has framed proper issues
\nnumbering six including the above two  main  issues  which  are  essential  to
\ndecide the case of such nature as it is one in hand.\n<\/p>\n
                22.   Looking  into the evidence adduced by parties, so far as
\nthe oral evidence of the plaintiffs is concerned, the third plaintiff  besides
\nexamining  himself  as  P.W.1 would also examine two other witnesses as P.Ws.2
\nand 3, who are from the local area.  P.W.1 would adduce evidence  adhering  to
\nthe pleadings of the plaint that the suit properties are ancestral; that their
\nfather  passed  away  on  22.7.1988  leaving  behind  him  the  plaintiffs and
\ndefendants 1 to 6 as his legal heirs whereas their father was entitled to only
\n1\/7th share from out of all the properties since the plaintiffs, defendants  1
\nto  3 and their father were the co-parceners of the Hindu undivided family all
\nequally becoming entitled to a share in the suit properties; that Ex.B.16 Will
\ndated 17.6.1988 was not voluntarily executed by their father but was  made  up
\nby  the  first  defendant with the help of other defendants and a make believe
\ndocument artificially prepared  when  their  father  Krishnasamy  Gounder  was
\nailing  and  not  having clean disposing state of mind and therefore it is not
\nbinding on them.  Moreover, since the suit  properties  are  ancestral,  their
\nfather  did  not  have  the locus standi to execute the Will regarding all the
\nsuit properties whereas he was entitled to 1\/7th of  the  same  and  therefore
\nwould ultimately  pray  to  pass the decree as prayed for in the suit.  In the
\nsaid process, P.W.1 would also speak about all other parties and as to how the
\nproperties were acquired from the ancestral  nucleus  in  the  name  of  their
\nfather and  the  first defendant.  He would also adduce evidence to the status
\nof defendants 4 to 6.\n<\/p>\n
                23.  So far as the evidence of P.Ws.2  and  3  are  concerned,
\ntheir  evidence  is  short  and  precise to the effect that they know the late
\nKrishnasamy Gounder and that for 3 to 5 months prior to his death, he was  not
\nkeeping  good  health  and  was  not  able  to move around himself without the
\nassistance of others and all the plaintiffs and defendants were living as  one
\nand  the  same  family  contributing to the earning and welfare of the family.
\nThese witnesses by and large would withstand the cross-examination so  far  as
\nthe stand taken by them is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  So far as the documentary evidence adduced on the part of
\nthe  plaintiffs  is  concerned, the sole document marked as Ex.A.1 is the card
\nannouncing the 13th day death ceremony of late Krishnasamy Gounder and nothing
\nelse.\n<\/p>\n
                25.  On the  part  of  the  defendants\/appellants  herein  and
\nothers,  7 witnesses would be examined for oral evidence, the 6th defendant as
\nD.W.1, the  first  defendant  as  D.W.2,  the  4th  defendant  as  D.W.3,  one
\nRanganathan as  D.W.4,  one of the attestors of Ex.B.16 Will viz.  Kalivaradan
\nas D.W.5, the scribe of the Will as D.W.6 and yet another Manavalan who  is  a
\nclerk in the Agricultural Cooperative Society as D.w.7.\n<\/p>\n
                26.   So  far as D.Ws.1 to 3 are concerned, they would confirm
\nEx.B.16 Will to be true and valid and genuinely executed by  late  Krishnasamy
\nGounder  giving  details such as that the Will was executed at their residence
\nby Krishnasamy Gounder; that D.W.6 being the scribe and D.W.5 and yet  another
\nVadivel  as  the  attestors  and they both witnessed the executant signing the
\nsaid Will.  D.W.7 would give the details of one loan obtained  by  Krishnasamy
\nGounder  in the Cooperative Society but the details of other loans obtained by
\nKrishnasamy Gounder in the Cooperative Society he could not readily offer  but
\nwould  say that only after seeing the ledger concerned with those loans, which
\nhe had not brought to the Court, he could speak of the other loans.\n<\/p>\n
                27.  Regarding the documentary evidence, 39 documents would be
\nmarked on the part of the  defendants  as  Exs.B.1  to  B.39,  Ex.B.1  is  the
\nsettlement deed dated 18.4.1910 executed by one Muthusamy Gounder in favour of
\nhis  third wife Rathnammal, Ex.B.2 dated 1.9.1945 is the sale deed executed by
\nKrishnasamy Gounder in favour of one Appasamy Bhaktar, Ex.B.3 is  yet  another
\nsale  deed executed by Krishnasamy Gounder in favour of Chettiar Gounder dated
\n13.8.1945, Ex.B.4 dated 17.11.1945 is  a  sale  deed  executed  in  favour  of
\nKrishnasamy Gounder, Ex.B.5 dated 11.6.1955 is yet another sale deed in favour
\nof   Krishnasamy  Gounder,  Exs.B.6  to  B.11  respectively  dated  12.3.1966,
\n5.8.1968, 25.6.1969, 20.1.1969, 23.1.1970 and 30.1.1973 are  the  sale  deeds;
\nEx.B.12  dated  27.6.1977,  Ex.B.13 dated 6.2.1978 and Ex.B.14 dated 22.7.1987
\nare the sale deeds executed in favour of  the  first  defendant  by  different
\nparties;   Ex.B.15   dated  7.10.1987  is  the  settlement  deed  executed  by
\nKrishnasamy Gounder in favour of the first defendant, Ex.B.16 dated 17.6 .1988
\nis the last Will dated 17.6.1988 executed by Krishnasamy Gounder in favour  of
\ndefendants  1  to  4;  Ex.B.17  dated  17.9.1985  is the certified copy of the
\njudgment delivered in O.S.No.104 of 1983 by  the  Court  of  District  Munsif,
\nCuddalore;  Exs.Bd.17  to  B.23  are  the  entries  effected  in the Cuddalore
\nAssembly and Parliamentary Constituencies Voters List; Exs.B.24  to  B.26  are
\nthe  receipts  issued  in  favour  of the first defendant; Ex.B.27 is a letter
\naddressed to the first defendant by the Cooperative Bank; Ex.B.28 is the reply
\nfrom UCO Bank to the first defendant; Exs.B.29 and B.30 are the  letters  from
\nIndian  Overseas Bank; Ex.B.31 dated 11.1.1985 is a legal notice issued to the
\nfirst defendant; Exs.B.32 to B.34 are the letters from Indian Overseas Bank to
\nthe 7th defendant; Ex.B.35 dated 20.10.1989 is a letter for loan; Ex.B.36 is a
\nbill, Ex.B.37 dated 25.9.1931 is a  settlement  deed  executed  in  favour  of
\nRathnammal  by Muthusamy; Ex.B.38 dated 3.10.1941 is the sale deed executed in
\nfavour of Krishnasamy Gounder and others and Ex.B.39 dated 13.7.1946 is a sale
\ndeed in favour of a third party.\n<\/p>\n
                28.  The lower Court while  analysing  the  third  issue  viz.
\n`whether  the  suit properties are the ancestral properties’ and assessing the
\nevidence adduced by P.W.1 and D.W.1 and the manner  in  which  the  properties
\nhave  been  purchased  in the name of the deceased Krishnasamy Gounder and the
\nfirst defendant wherein regarding those properties purchased in  the  name  of
\nthe first defendant i.e.  Item No.11 in Ex.B.12, Items No.14 and 15 in Ex.B.13
\nand  Item  No.12  in  Ex.B.14,  the  first  defendant,  as D.W.2, would adduce
\nevidence to the effect that the Will properties are with  the  4th  defendant,
\nhis  mother,  who  is  getting  the income from them and the income from other
\nproperties is being collected by him; that for the properties purchased in his
\nfavour, he paid the sale  consideration  by  selling  his  wife’s  jewels  and
\ngetting loan  from  his  father-in-law.    Likewise,  P.W.1  would also adduce
\nevidence to the effect that the properties are under the control of his eldest
\nbrother and he is doing agriculture; that they were all living jointly  before
\ntheir  marriages  and  after  their marriages, they started living separately;
\nthat the entire show of the family was run by the first defendant.  The  lower
\nCourt would find that for 7 or 8 years, the plaintiffs were living separately.
\nThe  lower  Court  would  also  find  from  the  evidence  of P.W.2, the first
\ndefendant, that from  the  year  1982  onwards,  the  plaintiffs  were  living
\nseparately,  the  first  plaintiff  in  Item  No.18  and  the second and third
\nplaintiffs in the properties purchased in the name of the first defendant  and
\ntherefore  easy  conclusions  have been arrived at by the lower Court offering
\nthe reason that if really the first defendant had purchased  those  properties
\nfrom  out of his self-earning or sources, he would not have allowed the second
\nand third plaintiffs to occupy those places for the residential  purposes  and
\ntherefore  would conclude that those properties purchased in the name of first
\ndefendant were joint family properties; that it is also evident  that  for  16
\nyears,  even  during  the  lifetime  of  their father, the first defendant was
\nmanaging  the  entire  family  affairs  and  therefore,  no  doubt  would   be
\nentertained  by  the  lower  Court  to  arrive at the conclusion that the suit
\nproperties were ancestral and not self-acquired either by  father  or  by  the
\nfirst defendant.\n<\/p>\n
                29.   Coming  to  the second issue pertaining to Ex.B.16 Will,
\ndated 17 .6.1988 said to have been executed by Krishnasamy Gounder  in  favour
\nof  the  defendants  1  to  4, since already it had been decided that the suit
\nproperties were joint family properties where Krishnasamy Gounder also  became
\nentitled  to  1\/7th  share  in  all,  he  was  at  liberty to execute the Will
\nregarding his 1\/7th share in the whole of the suit  properties  in  favour  of
\nanyone.   However,  basically  it  has to be decided whether the Will had been
\ngenuinely executed by  late  Krishnasamy  Gounder  or  is  it  a  made  up  or
\nmake-believe  document  prepared  in  an  orchestrated  manner  by  the  first
\ndefendant with the help of the other defendants taking advantage  of  the  age
\nand ailment of Krishnasamy Gounder at the time of execution of Ex.B.16 Will as
\nit is alleged on the part of the other side and it is the vital for decision.\n<\/p>\n
                30.   So  far  as this aspect is concerned, the admitted facts
\nare that though Krishnasamy Gounder was in the nature  of  signing  documents,
\nonly his thumb impression has been affixed and he did not sign Ex.B.16 .  From
\nthe  evidence of D.Ws.5 and 6, it could be ascertained that he was not able to
\nsign because of his old age and therefore  his  thumb  impression  had  to  be
\naffixed.  A person who was so aged and not in a position to physically put his
\nsignature  might not necessarily be mentally alert as a normal human being and
\nmystery shrouds regarding the genuine execution of  the  Will  by  Krishnasamy
\nGounder  in  Ex.B.16 especially in view of the evidence adduced on the part of
\nP.Ws.2 and 3 to the effect that for 3 to 5 months, he  was  not  keeping  good
\nhealth so as to take care of himself and that he died on 22.7.1988 exactly one
\nmonth and 5 days immediately after execution of Ex.B.16 and further in view of
\nthe fact that he was lifted in a taxi (which was not the custom which was only
\nwithout  going  by bus as it had been in the normal circumstances) to sign the
\nWill in the Sub Registrar’s Office on the date of execution of  the  same  and
\nP.Ws.5 and 6 also deposed that it was the first defendant who brought them and
\nthat  they have never earlier either scribed or attested any document executed
\nby Krishnasamy Gounder and therefore it is highly suspicious  whether  at  the
\ntime  of execution of the said Will, the executor Krishnasamy Gounder was in a
\nclear disposing state of mind so as to  validly  execute  the  said  Will  and
\nparamountly it is up to the defendants to discharge in evidence the suspicious
\ncircumstances  that  have crept into the execution of the Will which they have
\nnot satisfactorily done.\n<\/p>\n
                31.  Further there is absolutely no reason assigned either  in
\nEx.B.1  6 Will or in the evidence by P.Ws.1 to 3 as to why and for what reason
\nKrishnasamy Gounder executed the  Will  bequeathing  the  suit  properties  in
\nfavour  of  only the defendants 1 to 4 and none else particularly ejecting the
\nplaintiffs who are also his sons and hence the suspicion grows more  burdening
\nthe  defendants  to  cast  off the same by tendering convincing and gratifying
\nreasons in which they have miserably failed.  The surrounding circumstances of
\nall the events also would not suggest that Krishnasamy Gounder either had  any
\nliking  for  these  defendants  or  hatred  for  the  plaintiffs  or  that the
\nplaintiffs have gained the displeasure of the executor by  indulging  in  such
\nunpleasant things  to  him.    When  all  these  elements  are missing and not
\nanswered in any manner either in  the  pleadings  or  in  evidence,  the  only
\nconclusion  that  could be arrived at by the Court regarding the Ex.B.16 Will,
\npertaining to its coming into being or its contents, that since they  had  not
\nbeen  established  validity, it cannot be held validly executed by Krishnasamy
\nGounder to the expectations of law.  Therefore, even the reasons  assigned  on
\nthe  part  of  the  lower  Court  to arrive at the conclusion that Krishnasamy
\nGounder was capable of executing the Will regarding his  1\/7th  share  in  the
\nfamily  property is unacceptable since the Will has not been proved in a legal
\nmanner, as held by the legal propositions which have been widely brought forth
\nin the judgments cited on the part of the respondents herein, extracted supra.
\nTherefore, it is only prudent to  conclude  that  the  1\/7th  share  that  was
\nbelonging  to  deceased  Krishnasamy  Gounder  was  to  be  divided  among the
\nplaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 equally, which would alone serve the ends  of
\njustice and the same is decided accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
                32.  Since the main issues regarding the character of the suit
\nproperties  and  the  genuineness  and  validity  of  Ex.B.16  Will  have been
\ndetermined in the manner aforementioned thus settling Issues No.2 and 3, which
\nare basic and essential, there is no difficulty in deciding the  other  issues
\nNo.1,4,5 and 6 at all.\n<\/p>\n
                33.   So  far  as  the first issue `whether the plaintiffs are
\nentitled to partition and separate possession of  30\/63  shares  in  the  suit
\nproperties’  is  concerned, consequent to the conclusions arrived at to issues
\nNo.2 and 3, it could only be answered that they are entitled to  their  shares
\nas decided  supra.    It  is  added  that from out of the 1\/7 th share that is
\ndecided that the deceased father Krishnasamy Gounder had been entitled to, all
\nthe plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 shall equally be  entitled  to  a  share,
\nneedless  to  mention  that defendants 5 and 6 are also each entitled to 1\/9th
\nshare from out of the 1\/7th share of Krishnasamy Gounder.  It is  relevant  to
\nadd  that even though one house site had been purchased in the name of the 7th
\ndefendant, son of the first defendant, since it is also treated as a  property
\nbelonging  to  the  undivided  Hindu  joint  family consisting of the deceased
\nfather, plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3 and  from  out  of  the  father’s
\n1\/7th  share,  the other defendants 4 to 6 also become entitled to 1\/9th share
\nin it along with  the  plaintiffs  and  defendants  1  to  3,  the  properties
\npurchased  in the name of the 7th defendant should also be decided in the same
\nmanner as it has been decided herein.    Needless  to  mention  that  the  7th<\/p>\n
defendant,  since  being only a name lender and the purchase in his name since
\nbeing sham and nominal and for the benefit of the joint family, he  would  not
\nbecome entitled to any share in all the suit properties individually.\n<\/p>\n
                34.   Regarding issue No.4 pertaining to the loans also, since
\nalready the shares of parties have been  decided  while  answering  the  first
\nissue,  in  accordance with the shares declared to be belonging to each one of
\nthe plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6, they are liable to clear the loans.\n<\/p>\n
                35.  Coming to issue No.5, it is well  decided  by  the  lower
\nCourt  itself  that  the  suit  would  not  become  affected by non-joinder of
\nnecessary parties and the same is decided accordingly.  The  reasons  assigned
\nby the lower Court since being valid, they are accepted by this Court also.\n<\/p>\n
                36.   The sixth and the last issue `whether the plaintiffs are
\nentitled to any other relief’ is concerned, it could be decided that they  are
\nentitled to only those reliefs which have already been answered while deciding
\nIssue  No.1  and for all other legal benefits that they are entitled to in law
\nand nothing else.\n<\/p>\n
        In result,<\/p>\n
(i)the above appeal suit fails and the same is dismissed;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)the findings of the Court below holding that Ex.B.16  Will  is  valid  and
\nbinding, are set aside<\/p>\n
(iii)It  is  declared  that the plaintiffs, defendants 1 to 3 and the deceased
\nKrishnasamy Gounder are each entitled to  an  equal  share  in  all  the  suit
\nproperties  including  the  properties  purchased  in  the  name  of  the  7th
\ndefendant;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 are each  entitled  to  a  1\/9th
\nshare in the 1\/7th share of the properties allotted to Krishnasamy Gounder.\n<\/p>\n
(v)The  preliminary  decree  of  the  Court  below  is  modified to the extent
\nindicated supra.\n<\/p>\n
                However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall  be  no
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes
\ngr\/Rao<\/p>\n
To
\nThe Subordinate Judge,
\nCuddalore.\n<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Danusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04\/09\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ A.S.NO.13 OF 1991 1.Danusu 2.Sait @ Panchanathan 3.Pargunam 4.Janakiammal 5.Sudekshanan .. Appellants -Vs- 1.Chandrakesu 2.Pandian 3.Sambandan 4.Thangamani 5.Vasugi .. Respondents Appeal Suit filed against the judgment and decree of the […]<\/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-251606","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDanusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002 - 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\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Danusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-04T11:26:39+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Danusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-04T11:26:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":5688,\"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\\\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002\",\"name\":\"Danusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-04T11:26:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Danusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Danusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002 - 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\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Danusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-04T11:26:39+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Danusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-04T11:26:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002"},"wordCount":5688,"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\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002","name":"Danusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-04T11:26:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/danusu-vs-chandrakesu-on-4-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Danusu vs Chandrakesu on 4 September, 2002"}]},{"@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\/251606","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=251606"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251606\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251606"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251606"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251606"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}