{"id":255472,"date":"2002-02-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-02-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002"},"modified":"2017-07-04T15:48:33","modified_gmt":"2017-07-04T10:18:33","slug":"sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002","title":{"rendered":"Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 2002<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS          \n DATED: 6.02.2002  \n CORAM:  \n  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH          \n SECOND APPEAL No. 1820 of 1989     \n\n Sabariaradimai                                         .. Appellant\n\n        Vs..\n\n Maria Retnam                                                   .. Respondent \n\n!               For Appellant   ..  Mr. K.V.Subramanian \n^               For Respondent  ..  Mr. T.R.Rajaraman        \n\n     The second appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree,\ndt. 28.2.1989,  made in A.S.No. 101\/1984,  by the Sub-Judge, \nPadmanabhapuram.   \n:                               J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">                The substantial questions of  law  raised<br \/>\nin the second  appeal  are:   &#8220;1.  Whether the decree and<br \/>\njudgment of the Court below  are  to  be  set  aside  for<br \/>\nnon-consideration of document produced on the side of the<br \/>\nappellant viz.,  Ex.B.19  etc.   and non-consideration of<br \/>\nthe Commissioner&#8217;s evidence and report, and  plan  marked<br \/>\nin   the   present   suit   and   for  relying  upon  the<br \/>\nCommissioner&#8217;s report rendered in a different suit  which<br \/>\ndo  not have a binding effect on the defendant-appellant?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">2.  When there is a boundary dispute, whether the  Courts<br \/>\nbelow  are right in decreeing the suit on the question of<br \/>\ntitle by adverse possession between two adjacent  owners?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">3.   Whether  the  judgment  of  the  appellate  Court is<br \/>\nvitiated as it failed  to  do  its  duty  of  final  fact<br \/>\nfinding authority after considering the evidence produced<br \/>\nand hence it is perverse?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">                2.   The first defendant in O.S.No.513 of<br \/>\n1980 on  the  file  of  the  Principal  District  Munsif,<br \/>\nPadmanabhapuram,  is  the appellant in the second appeal.<br \/>\nThe  first  respondent  herein   filed   the   suit   for<br \/>\ndeclaration  of his title, possession and for injunction.<br \/>\nHer case was as follows:                She was the owner<br \/>\nof 11 \u00bd cents  in  R.S.No.476\/23,  corresponding  to  old<br \/>\nS.No.6466 at  Lakshmipuram Village.  She got it under the<br \/>\ntitle deed, dt.3.4.1121 M.E.   executed  by  her  father.<br \/>\nThe  property  was surrounded by well defined old kasalas<br \/>\nmore than 70 years of age.  The property had been in  her<br \/>\npossession and   enjoyment.    The  defendants  were  the<br \/>\nadjacent owners of S.No.476\/17 which was on  the  western<br \/>\nside of the plaint schedule property.  They had no manner<br \/>\nof right or possession over the plaint schedule property.<br \/>\nThe  plaint  schedule  property was more than 4&#8242; lower in<br \/>\nlevel than the  property  of  the  defendants.    As  the<br \/>\ndefendants  attempted to encroach upon the suit property,<br \/>\nand put up a new boundary,  the  suit  was  necessitated.<br \/>\nThe  disputed  property had been in the possession of the<br \/>\nplaintiff and  her  ancestors  for  a  long  time.    Her<br \/>\npossession  was  of right, open and hostile to all others<br \/>\nand   so   even    if    the    defendants    or    their<br \/>\npredecessors-ininterest had any right in the remote past,<br \/>\nit  had  been  long  lost  by  adverse  possession of the<br \/>\nplaintiff from 3.4.1121 M.E.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">                3.  The first defendant  alone  contested<br \/>\nthe suit.   The  other defendants remained ex parte.  The<br \/>\nplaintiff was not entitled to 11 \u00bd cents in Old S.No.6466<br \/>\ncorresponding to R.S.Nos.476\/17 and  476\/23.    The  gift<br \/>\ndeed, dt.3.4.1121 M.E.  for 14 cents was obviously wrong.<br \/>\nThere  were  no  such separating boundaries as alleged in<br \/>\nthe plaint.  The plaintiff did not rely  upon  any  other<br \/>\nsource of  title to the suit property.  Patta was wrongly<br \/>\nissued in resurvey for  the  whole  of  R.S.No.476\/23  by<br \/>\naltering the  original settlement.  The great grandfather<br \/>\nof the plaintiff and the first defendant was in enjoyment<br \/>\nof the property long prior to the last  settlement.    He<br \/>\nsold   a   portion  of  the  suit  property  to  his  son<br \/>\nVydhianathan, the grand father of the plaintiff,  on  8.2<br \/>\n.1068 M.E.    describing  the  portion  conveyed  as  the<br \/>\neastern half of the middle one third of the southern half<br \/>\nof Lekkom 134.  The Lekkom was wrongly stated.    On  the<br \/>\nsame date the said Devasahayam sold the remaining western<br \/>\nhalf to  Meyyal  and  his  brothers.   After the death of<br \/>\nVydhianathan, his right was inherited  by  his  only  son<br \/>\nManuvel,   who  gave  a  gift  of  his  property  to  the<br \/>\nplaintiff.  The gift deed in favour of the plaintiff  was<br \/>\nvalid  and  effective  only in respect of the eastern one<br \/>\nhalf of old S.No.6466.    The  first  defendant  and  his<br \/>\nbrother  Pathrose  filed  a  suit  O.S.No.139 of 1976 for<br \/>\npartition of the  western  one  half  against  the  other<br \/>\nsharers,  and  others  who  were defendants 2 to 9 in the<br \/>\npresent suit.    The  suit  was  decreed  and  after  the<br \/>\npreliminary  decree,  the  first  defendant purchased the<br \/>\nremaining shares from  the  sharers.    Thus,  the  first<br \/>\ndefendant became entitled to the whole of western half of<br \/>\nS.No.6466,  which  now consisted of R.S.No.476\/17 and the<br \/>\nsuit property.  Defendants 8 and 9 had no  right  to  any<br \/>\nportion of  the  S.No.6466.    The  suit  was  barred  by<br \/>\nlimitation.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">                4.  The trial Court framed  three  issues<br \/>\nand one additional  issue:  &#8220;1.  Whether the plaintiff is<br \/>\nentitled to a declaration  of  title  and  possession  as<br \/>\nprayed for?   2.   Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a<br \/>\npermanent injunction prayed for?  3.  Reliefs and costs?&#8221;<br \/>\nAdditional issue:  &#8220;Whether the plaintiff  has  perfected<br \/>\ntitle by adverse possession?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">                5.   The learned District Munsif, decided<br \/>\nthe additional issue first and held  that  the  plaintiff<br \/>\nhad prescribed for title by adverse possession.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">                6.   On  issue No.1, the learned District<br \/>\nMunsif held that the plaintiff could claim title only for<br \/>\nhalf of 21 cents as per Ex.A.1 which followed Exs.B.1 and<br \/>\nB.2.  However, on the  finding  that  the  plaintiff  had<br \/>\nestablished  title  by  adverse  possession  and  in  the<br \/>\nresurvey the plaint  property  having  been  included  in<br \/>\nR.S.No.476\/1923  and the patta also having been issued to<br \/>\nthe plaintiff, it held that the plaintiff was entitled to<br \/>\ndeclaration and  possession  in  respect  of  the  plaint<br \/>\nproperty   and   therefore   entitled   to   a  permanent<br \/>\ninjunction.   Consequently,  by  judgment   and   decree,<br \/>\ndt.17.8.1984  the  trial  Court granted the prayer of the<br \/>\nplaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">                7.  The first defendant filed  appeal  in<br \/>\nA.S.No.101\/1984.     The   learned   Subordinate   Judge,<br \/>\nPadmanabhapuram, by judgment and  decree,  dt.28.2  .1999  <\/p>\n<p>dismissed  the  appeal  and confirmed the decision of the<br \/>\ntrial Court.  It is, as against this, the present  second<br \/>\nappeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">                8.  The substantial questions of law have<br \/>\nalready been set out.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">                9.   The only point for consideration, in<br \/>\nmy view, is whether  the  plaintiff  has  proved  adverse<br \/>\npossession as   claimed  by  her.    For  coming  to  the<br \/>\nconclusion that the plaintiff had prescribed for title by<br \/>\nadverse possession, the trial Court as well as the  lower<br \/>\nappellate  Court have relied on certain alleged admission<br \/>\non the side of the first defendant in the prior suit, the<br \/>\ncommissioner&#8217;s report and plan therein, and the  evidence<br \/>\nof the  same Commissioner in the present suit as P.  W.2.<br \/>\nIn  support  of  her  case  of  adverse  possession,  the<br \/>\nplaintiff has  not produced any document whatsoever.  She<br \/>\nrelies on the prior report and plan and the  evidence  of<br \/>\nthe Advocate Commissioner, and also the grant of patta in<br \/>\nthe resettlement proceedings.  Ex.A.4 is the true copy of<br \/>\nthe  proceedings  of  the  Assistant  Settlement Officer,<br \/>\nEnquiry II, Padmanabhapuram, and it is  dated  30.9.1974.<br \/>\nThe suit  is  of the year 1980.  To show that he had been<br \/>\nin possession of the property  for  over  12  years,  the<br \/>\nplaintiff  should  have  produced some material, prior to<br \/>\n1974.  There is nothing on record  on  the  side  of  the<br \/>\nplaintiff to  show  her possession prior to 1974.  I will<br \/>\ncome  to  the  prior  suit  plan  and   report   of   the<br \/>\nCommissioner  as  also  the  evidence of the commissioner<br \/>\npresently.  In the meantime, let us have a  look  at  the<br \/>\ndocuments produced on the side of the first defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">                10.   Exs.B.2  to  B.15  are the land tax<br \/>\nreceipts covering the  period  1  2.9.1956  to  2.8.1975.<br \/>\nThey  clearly  show that the first defendant had paid the<br \/>\nland tax for 10 \u00bd cents, which is exactly what is claimed<br \/>\nby him as his property.  As against these  documents,  as<br \/>\nalready noted, no scrap of paper has been produced by the<br \/>\nplaintiff to  show  her  possession  prior  to 1974.  The<br \/>\ntrial Court as well as the appellate Court have relied on<br \/>\nEx.A.8 which is the certified copy of the  Commissioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nreport and  plan  in  O.S.No.139\/1976.    In dealing with<br \/>\nEx.A.8, the courts below have made much of the  existence<br \/>\nof fences  in the properties.  In the report filed in the<br \/>\nprior suit, the age of the fence is not given.  Only when<br \/>\nthe Commissioner was examined  in  the  present  suit  as<br \/>\nP.W.2  on 30.7.1984, he had given the age of the fence as<br \/>\n15 years.  The prior suit was in  the  year  1976.    The<br \/>\npresent suit is 1980.  The deposition of the Commissioner<br \/>\nto the effect that the fence in the property was 15 years<br \/>\nold,  has  to  be  taken  only  with  a certain amount of<br \/>\nreservation.   That  cannot  by  itself  show  that   the<br \/>\nplaintiff was  in  possession  of  the suit property.  In<br \/>\nthis  connection,  both  the  Courts  have  not  properly<br \/>\nadverted  to  the  vital  admission  by  the  plaintiff&#8217;s<br \/>\nhusband in the  prior  suit  which  has  been  marked  as<br \/>\nEx.B.16  in  the  present suit, saying that the plaintiff<br \/>\nwas in possession of only her half share out of the total<br \/>\nextent of 21  cents.    This  vital  admission  had  been<br \/>\nexplained  away  by  the  trial  Court  stating  that any<br \/>\nevidence by the plaintiff&#8217;s husband would not  bind  her.<br \/>\nThis,   in   my   view,   is  not  the  correct  approach<br \/>\nparticularly when some right  by  adverse  possession  is<br \/>\nsought to  be  conferred  on  a  party.    On  this vital<br \/>\nadmission  by  the  plaintiff&#8217;s  husband  regarding   the<br \/>\npossession of the property, we can safely assume that the<br \/>\nplaintiff  was  in  possession  only of an extent of 10 \u00bd<br \/>\ncents and not 11 \u00bd cents as claimed by her.   As  regards<br \/>\nthe  nature  of  right  and  necessity  to plead right by<br \/>\nadverse  possession  it  is  well  settled  that  it   is<br \/>\nexception  to  the  law  of  acquisition of title through<br \/>\nlawful means and has to be  pleaded  with  certainty  and<br \/>\nproved to the hilt, and in my considered view, it has not<br \/>\nbeen done  by  the  plaintiff  in  the present suit.  The<br \/>\nfinding by the Courts  below  on  adverse  possession  is<br \/>\nvitiated  by  application  of  wrong  tests  and based on<br \/>\nsurmises  and   assumptions   not   at   all   justified.<br \/>\n[BUDHWANTI &amp;  ANOTHER  VS..  GULAB CHAND PRASAD (AIR 1987<br \/>\nSC 1484 = 19 87 (2) SCC 153].  The two Courts have made a<br \/>\npatent mistake and I  am  well  within  my  powers  under<br \/>\nSection 100 CPC in reappreciating the evidence and coming<br \/>\nto my  own  independent  conclusion.  [see MADAN LAL VS..<br \/>\nGOPI [AIR 1980 SC 1754].\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">                11.  The title has been found by both the<br \/>\nCourts in favour of the first defendant\/appellant.    The<br \/>\nCourts below  have misapplied the legal principles.  They<br \/>\nalso erred in placing reliance on patta proceedings which<br \/>\nwould not prove the title of the  plaintiff  and  in  any<br \/>\nevent  so  far  as the present resurvey is concerned, the<br \/>\ndemarcation in resurvey cannot be put against  the  first<br \/>\ndefendant, when there is dispute regarding boundary.  The<br \/>\nposition  is  well  settled  by  the decision of the Full<br \/>\nBench of this Court in SIVAPRASAD VS..  NARASIMHAMURTHI [<br \/>\nAIR 1940 MADRAS 187].  The Madras  Survey  and  Bounaries<br \/>\nAct,   does  not  empower  the  Survey  officer,  or  the<br \/>\nappellate authority to decide who was in law entitled  to<br \/>\nthe property  under survey.  There is no provision in the<br \/>\nAct which can be read as operating in such  circumstances<br \/>\nto  prevent A, when B had been registered as the owner of<br \/>\na  holding,  from  instituting  a  suit  in  a  Court  of<br \/>\ncompetent jurisdiction to establish his title as the true<br \/>\nowner.                                             K.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">SAMPATH, J.             12.  This is a case of concurrent<br \/>\nmistake  by two Courts with regard to adverse possession.<br \/>\nConsequently, I hold that the appellant  is  entitled  to<br \/>\nsucceed.   All  the  substantial  questions  of  law  are<br \/>\nanswered in favour of the appellant.   The  judgment  and<br \/>\nthe decree, dt.17.8.1 984 of the learned District Munsif,<br \/>\nPadmanabhapuram,  in  O.S.No.513\/19  80  as  confirmed in<br \/>\nA.S.No.101\/84   by   the   learned   Subordinate   Judge,<br \/>\nPadmanbhapuram, on  28.2.1989  are  set  aside.  The Suit<br \/>\nO.S.No.513\/1980 will stand dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">6.2.2002 Index:Yes\/No pb <\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">1.  The  Subordinate  Judge   Padmanabhapuram.      (with<br \/>\nrecords)<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">2.  The District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">3.  The Record Keeper, VR Section.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">S.A.  No.1820\/89 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 6.02.2002 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH SECOND APPEAL No. 1820 of 1989 Sabariaradimai .. Appellant Vs.. Maria Retnam .. Respondent ! For Appellant .. Mr. K.V.Subramanian ^ For Respondent .. Mr. T.R.Rajaraman The [&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-255472","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 2002 - 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\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-04T10:18:33+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\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-04T10:18:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1905,\"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\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002\",\"name\":\"Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-02-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-04T10:18:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 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:\/\/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":"Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 2002 - 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\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-04T10:18:33+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\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 2002","datePublished":"2002-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-04T10:18:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002"},"wordCount":1905,"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\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002","name":"Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-02-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-04T10:18:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sabariaradimai-vs-maria-retnam-on-6-february-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sabariaradimai vs Maria Retnam on 6 February, 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:\/\/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\/255472","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=255472"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255472\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255472"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255472"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255472"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}