{"id":260420,"date":"2003-12-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-12-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003"},"modified":"2015-03-13T13:22:07","modified_gmt":"2015-03-13T07:52:07","slug":"arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003","title":{"rendered":"Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 03\/12\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN\n\nSecond Appeal No.5 of 1993\n\n\n1. Arunachalam Pillai\n2. Sundaram Pillai                      ...     Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nSorimuthu Pillai                       ...     Respondent\n\n        Appeal against the judgment and decree dated  24.01.1990  made  in  A.\nS.No.21  of  1987, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenkasi,\nagainst the Judgment and decree dated 29.08.1986, made in O.S.No.520  of  1981\non the file of the District Munsif, Ambasamudram.\n\n!For appellant          :  Mr.T.M.Hariharan\n\n^For Respondents        :  Mr.R.Loganathan\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        This  second  appeal  has  been  filed against the judgment and decree<br \/>\ndated 24.01.1990,  in  A.S.No.21  of  1987,  on  the  file  of  the  Court  of<br \/>\nSubordinate Judge, Tenkasi, reversing the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.520 of<br \/>\n1981 dated 29.08.1986, on the file of the District Munsif, Ambasamudram.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        2.  The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that pathway referred<br \/>\nto  in  the  plaint  as  BEFGC  as  a  common  pathway and consequentially for<br \/>\npermanent injunction not to interfere with the plaintiff&#8217;s use of the pathway.<br \/>\nThe case of the defendants is that it is  not  a  common  pathway  but  it  is<br \/>\nexclusive property  of  the defendants.  On the basis of the evidence adduced,<br \/>\nthe trial Court found that the property referred as  BEFGC  is  not  a  common<br \/>\npathway  and  dismissed the suit On appeal, the first appellate court reversed<br \/>\nthe Judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">        3.  Aggrieved against the Judgment and Decree of the  first  appellate<br \/>\ncourt, this  second  appeal  has  been filed.  The substantial question of law<br \/>\nframed in this second appeal is as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">        &#8220;Whether  the  decree  of  the  lower  appellate  Court   is   legally<br \/>\nsustainable  in the light of the recitals in Ex.A.1 and the admission of P.W.1<br \/>\nthat no right of way is given to him under Ex.A.1 and even the measurements of<br \/>\nthe suit II Schedule property are not given thereunder?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">        4.  The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the<br \/>\nappellate Court had come to the conclusion that it is a common pathway, on the<br \/>\nbasis of the recital in the documents of the defendants to which the plaintiff<br \/>\nwas not  a  party.    Further  the  appellate  Court  relied   only   on   the<br \/>\nCommissioner&#8217;s report and found the pathway as common pathway.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">        5.   The  trial Court has found that the plaintiff claims ownership in<br \/>\nthe second schedule property (the pathway); he is not asking  for  easementary<br \/>\nright over  this  property.    The  trial Court has found that the plaintiff&#8217;s<br \/>\nfather who had purchased the schedule-1 of the suit property by the sale  deed<br \/>\nEx.A.1 dated  29.10.1931  from Sankaravadivammal.  The suit pathway, (the suit<br \/>\nsecond schedule property) is referred to in Ex.B.2 as  ABCD.    The  partition<br \/>\ndeed between  the plaintiff and his brothers and father is Ex.A.3.  In Ex.A.1,<br \/>\nthe second schedule property is not included.   Further  the  second  schedule<br \/>\nproperty  has not been conveyed to anyone in the partition deed Ex.A.3; No one<br \/>\nhas been given the right of pathway over this second schedule  property.    In<br \/>\nEx.A.1,  the second schedule suit property is shown as Western boundary of the<br \/>\nproperty conveyed and it is referred to  as  &#8220;v&#8217;;fs;  tifawh  bghJeil  ghijf;F<br \/>\nfpHf;F&#8221;.   It  is  also  admitted  by  the plaintiff that in Ex.A.1, it is not<br \/>\nstated that the right of pathway is granted over second schedule property.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">        6.  From the admission of the plaintiff, the trial  Court  found  that<br \/>\nover the second schedule property neither the plaintiff nor his father had any<br \/>\ninterest.   In  the  plaint  also, the plaintiff has not stated that he claims<br \/>\nownership in the second schedule property.  But, he claims only the  right  of<br \/>\npathway over the property.  Further the first defendant&#8217;s father had purchased<br \/>\nby  a  sale  deed  dated  01.01.1945,  the  property  in  second schedule from<br \/>\nPondikannu Pillai, S\/o.    Ramalingam  Pillai.    When  the  plaintiff  claims<br \/>\neasementary  right,  he  must admit that it is the property of another person.<br \/>\nWhen he claims ownership on the same property,  he  cannot  claim  easementary<br \/>\nright.   But,  the plaintiff has admitted that his claim is only for ownership<br \/>\nand not for easementary right.  Therefore, the plaintiff must prove ownership.<br \/>\nBut, the documents filed on the side of the plaintiff does not  refer  to  the<br \/>\npathway; it has not been referred even in the partition deed.  The trial Court<br \/>\nfound  that  the  plaintiff failed to prove their case and hence dismissed the<br \/>\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">        7.  The appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on the<br \/>\nground that the dismissal of the suit for the inconsistent plea in the  plaint<br \/>\nis not  sustainable.  It held that the plaintiff sought for relief that he has<br \/>\na right to approach his property through the second schedule property; He  has<br \/>\nnot  asked  for ownership of the entire second schedule property and therefore<br \/>\nonly consideration should be as to whether there is easementary right for  the<br \/>\nplaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">        8.   The  appellate  court  finds  that at the time of purchase of the<br \/>\nproperty through Ex.A.1, the plaintiff had no property  on  the  east  of  the<br \/>\nfirst schedule  property.    He  had to approach from the northern side to the<br \/>\nfirst schedule property only through the second schedule property.  Therefore,<br \/>\nin Ex.A.1, it is stated that they have to reach the  first  schedule  property<br \/>\nthrough the  second schedule property.  For that the appellate Court refers to<br \/>\nthe Commissioner&#8217;s report and the sketch.  The appellate Court has also  found<br \/>\nthat  the  plaintiff  is  not  asking  for  easementary  right over the entire<br \/>\npathway, but only for the purpose of going to  the  first  schedule  property.<br \/>\nTherefore,  the  appellate Court had found that from the east-west road on the<br \/>\nnorthern side, the plaintiff  has  to  proceed  through  the  second  schedule<br \/>\nproperty and reach the first schedule property.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">        9.   This  reasoning  of  the  first  appellate  Court  is not legally<br \/>\nsustainable.  There is  no  evidence  to  arrive  at  this  conclusion.    The<br \/>\nconclusion of  the  first  appellate  Court  is  based  on &#8216;no evidence&#8217;.  The<br \/>\nCommissioner&#8217;s report only shows  the  physical  features;  how  the  property<br \/>\nsituate.   From  that,  the  Court  cannot  come  to  the  conclusion that the<br \/>\nplaintiff used the pathway (the second schedule property) to reach  the  first<br \/>\nschedule property.    It  is nothing but surmises and imagination by the first<br \/>\nappellate Court.  To succeed in the case, the plaintiff must  adduce  evidence<br \/>\nand  prove  his  case that he got a right of pathway over property referred as<br \/>\nBEFGC.  It is a well established principle that the plaintiff must win or fall<br \/>\non his own pleadings and evidence.  But, in this case, there is absolutely  no<br \/>\nevidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove his case either of ownership of the<br \/>\nsecond schedule  property  or  easementary right over the same.  Merely on the<br \/>\nbasis that the plaintiff had no property on the  eastern  side  of  the  1  st<br \/>\nschedule  property on the date when he purchased the same, the first appellate<br \/>\nCourt had come to the conclusion  that  the  plaintiff  had  used  the  second<br \/>\nschedule property  to  reach  his  land.    This  conclusion  is  not  legally<br \/>\nsustainable.  It is for the plaintiff to prove his case  which  the  plaintiff<br \/>\nfailed to do.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">        10.  A perusal of the evidence adduced as extracted by the trial Court<br \/>\nwould  show  that  the plaintiff&#8217;s case is inconsistent; the plaintiff claimed<br \/>\nownership over the second schedule property and not easementary  right.    The<br \/>\ntrial  Court  had  rightly found that the plaintiff has not proved their case.<br \/>\nThe basic document through which the plaintiff claims title  is  Ex.A.1.    In<br \/>\nthat,  the four boundaries of the first schedule property has been referred as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">        &#8220;South of Ramalingam Pillai&#8217;s land, North of Ramalingam Pillai&#8217;s land,<br \/>\nWest of Ramalingam Pillai&#8217;s common wall.  East of their common pathway (v&#8217;;fs;<br \/>\ntifawh bghJeil ghijf;F fpHf;F)&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">        From this, it is  clear  that  the  property  conveyed  under  Ex.A.1,<br \/>\nsituates on  the  east  of  &#8220;vendors  common pathway&#8221;.  It does not convey the<br \/>\nright of access or passage in that pathway.   The  plaintiff  now  claims  the<br \/>\nright of  passage  in that pathway.  For that, it should be proved by evidence<br \/>\nthat the plaintiff prescribed easementary right.  But, the plaintiff admits in<br \/>\nevidence that he claims  only  proprietary  right  in  that  pathway  and  not<br \/>\neasementary right.    Therefore,  the  plaintiff has to fail; since he has not<br \/>\nproved title over the pathway.  The trial Court has rightly concluded that the<br \/>\nplaintiff did not prove his case.  The first  appellate  Court  reversed  that<br \/>\nwell considered  Judgment  based  on irrelevant consideration.  Therefore, the<br \/>\nJudgment of the appellate Court is liable to be set aside and hence set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">        11.  The plaintiff can not be permitted to raise  inconsistent  pleas.<br \/>\nTo  claim  easement,  the defendant must admit the title of the defendant over<br \/>\nthe property.  If the plaintiff claims easementary right that must  be  proved<br \/>\nby sufficient  evidence  by  the plaintiff.  When the plaintiff admits that he<br \/>\nclaimed ownership and not easement and if he  fails  to  prove  ownership,  he<br \/>\ncannot be  allowed  to  prove  easementary  right.  Ownership and easement are<br \/>\nmutually ex exclusive.  Both cannot be pleaded.  Therefore, when the plaintiff<br \/>\nclaimed ownership, he gives up the plea of  easementary  right.    Ultimately,<br \/>\nwhen  the  plaintiff  failed  to prove ownership, he cannot revive the plea of<br \/>\neasement.  In such circumstances,  the  plaintiff  is  not  entitled  for  any<br \/>\nrelief.   The trial Court approached the issue rightly and dismissed the suit.<br \/>\nThe reversal of the suit by the appellate Court is erroneous.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">        12.  In the result, the second appeal is allowed.    The  Trial  Court<br \/>\nJudgment and  decree is restored.  The substantial question of law is answered<br \/>\nin favour of the appellant.  With costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">Index:Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>ksr<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03\/12\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.RAJAN Second Appeal No.5 of 1993 1. Arunachalam Pillai 2. Sundaram Pillai &#8230; Appellants -Vs- Sorimuthu Pillai &#8230; Respondent Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.1990 made in [&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-260420","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>Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003 - 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\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-13T07:52:07+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-13T07:52:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1538,\"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\\\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003\",\"name\":\"Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-12-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-13T07:52:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003 - 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\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-13T07:52:07+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003","datePublished":"2003-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-13T07:52:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003"},"wordCount":1538,"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\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003","name":"Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-12-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-13T07:52:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-pillai-vs-sorimuthu-pillai-on-3-december-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arunachalam Pillai vs Sorimuthu Pillai on 3 December, 2003"}]},{"@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\/260420","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=260420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}