{"id":262259,"date":"2008-04-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-07T16:42:43","modified_gmt":"2015-06-07T11:12:43","slug":"g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"G.Subramanian ..1St &#8230; vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">G.Subramanian ..1St &#8230; vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED :23\/04\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\nS.A.(MD)No.1694 of 2003\nand\nC.M.P.(MD)No.15497 of 2003\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006\n\nG.Subramanian      \t..1st Defendant\/1st Respondent\/Appellant\n\nVs.\n\n1.Jahyalakshmi\n2.Padmavathi,\n3.Pattammal\n4.Dayanidhi\n5.Suseela\n6.GR.Raj Naidu \t     \t..Plaintiffs,Defendants 2&amp;3\/\n                          Appellants,Respondents 1&amp;2\/\n \t\t\t  Respondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code,\nagainst the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.104\/2002 on the file of the Court\nof Addl.District Judge\/Fast Track Court-1, Thanjavur dated 25.03.2003 in\nreversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.105\/2001 on the file of the\nCourt of District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru dated 24.06.2002.\n\n!For Appellant    ... Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan\t\n^For Respondents  ... Mr.K.Kumaravel\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tThe Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in<br \/>\nA.S.No.104\/2002 on the file of the Court of Addl.District Judge\/Fast Track<br \/>\nCourt-1, Thanjavur dated 25.03.2003 in reversing the judgment and decree made in<br \/>\nO.S.No.105\/2001 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Thiruvaiyaru dated<br \/>\n24.06.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\t2. The suit has been filed for partition and separate possession of<br \/>\nrespondents&#8217; 1\/6th share of each in the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\t3.The trial Court, namely, the District Munsif Court, Tiruvaiyaru,<br \/>\ndismissed the Suit in O.S.No.105 of 2001, while the First Appellate Court,<br \/>\nnamely, the Additional District Judge\/Fast Track Court-1, Thanjavur, entertained<br \/>\nthe case of the these respondents and set aside the preliminary decree for<br \/>\npartition as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\t4.The first defendant aggrieved by the said judgment, has carried the<br \/>\nmatter before this Court in Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\t5.The allegations found in the plaint briefly are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\t The suit property is called as Arayapuram Thattimal Padugai, which is<br \/>\ninam Punja lands.  With regard to properties comprised in the said area,<br \/>\nproceedings were pending before the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court between the owners and<br \/>\nthe cultivating tenants and the orders has been passed directing issuance of<br \/>\npatta in favour of the persons, who are enjoying the property.  The plaintiffs&#8217;<br \/>\nfather Govindasamy was also one of the person in enjoyment.  He died intestate<br \/>\nleaving plaintiffs and defendant as his heirs.  Hence, the plaintiffs each<br \/>\nentitled for 1\/6th share in the suit property.  The first defendant has been<br \/>\ndenying to give due share to these plaintiffs in spite of their demand.  The<br \/>\nplaintiffs issued suit notice to the defendant demanding partition. But no reply<br \/>\nwas sent.  Hence, the suit for partition.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\t6. The averments contained in the written statement of the first defendant<br \/>\nsuccinctly are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">\tIt is an admitted fact that the father of both the parties by name,<br \/>\nGovindasamy, had been in possession and enjoyment of the property and the<br \/>\nproceedings were going on before the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court.  But after the life<br \/>\ntime of Govindasamy, these defendants are in absolute enjoyment of the property<br \/>\nby paying land revenue, etc.,  The said Govindasamy had executed a &#8216;Will&#8217; on<br \/>\n30.03.1998 as regards the suit property in favour of these defendants.  The suit<br \/>\nis not maintainable, since declaration has not been sought for.  Hence, the suit<br \/>\nhas to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\t7.The allegation contained in the reply statement filed by the plaintiffs<br \/>\nare as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">\tIt is incorrect to state that on 30.03.1998, the father of the parties<br \/>\nGovindasamy had executed a &#8216;Will&#8217; in favour of the first defendant.  He had no<br \/>\nright at all to bequeath the property as per the &#8216;Will&#8217; and hence, the suit has<br \/>\nto be decreed as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">\t8. At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law<br \/>\nhave been formulated by this Court:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">\t&#8220;1.When the plaintiffs case that the Honourable Supreme court has directed<br \/>\nthe State of Tmil Nadu to issue patta for the suit property to their father in<br \/>\nits judgment Ex.A-1, reported in 1999(2) L.W 617 &#8211; 1999(4) SCC 663 is incorrect,<br \/>\nwhether the lower appellate court is right in holding that the plaintiffs are<br \/>\nentitled to a share in the suit property?\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">\t2. When the plaintiffs failed to prove that their father had titled to the<br \/>\nsuit property by issuance of patta by the Government under T.N.Act 27\/1963 or<br \/>\nunder any other enactment, whether the plaintiffs can maintain a suit for<br \/>\npartition?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">\t9.Pending the hearing of appeal, the appellant filed an application in<br \/>\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006, seeking to receive the &#8216;Will&#8221; dated 30.03.1998 as<br \/>\nadditional document on his side.  In the affidavit, the following contentions<br \/>\nare available:-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">\tThe sisters of the appellant are well placed in their life and they were<br \/>\nnot desirous of taking any share in the suit property.  However, suddenly they<br \/>\nfiled the suit.  They openly stated that even after the decree of lower Court,<br \/>\nthey would not claim any right or interest in the property.  Hence, he did not<br \/>\nfile the &#8216;Will&#8217; before the Court to support his contention.  The &#8216;Will&#8221; is true,<br \/>\nvalid and binding.  Inspite of his due diligence and care, he could not file the<br \/>\n&#8216;Will&#8217; before the Courts below because of the conduct of the respondents.  If<br \/>\nthe petition was not allowed, he will be irreparably and seriously prejudiced.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">\t10. In the counter affidavit for the application to receive the additional<br \/>\ndocument, it is alleged that it is not true to state that Govindasamy executed<br \/>\nthe &#8216;Will&#8217; dated 30.03.1998. There is no proper reason assigned in the affidavit<br \/>\nfor non-production of the &#8216;Will&#8217; before the Courts below.  It is also false to<br \/>\ncontend that these respondents have represented before the appellant that  after<br \/>\nthe appellate Court decree, they would not claim any right or interest in the<br \/>\nsuit property.  The reasons assigned in the affidavit do not fulfil the<br \/>\nrequirements of the law. On the pleadings of the appellant in the written<br \/>\nstatement before the Court below, the finding was rendered.  Hence, the<br \/>\nadditional document could not be received before this Court.  Hence, the<br \/>\npetition has to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">\t11.First of all, this Court has to decide whether the document sought to<br \/>\nbe received as additional evidence, can be received as additional evidence in<br \/>\nthe Second Appeal stage.  No doubt, if the party is prevented from reasonable<br \/>\ncause and if the document could not be produced before the lower Courts in spite<br \/>\nof his exercise of due diligence before the lower courts, the party may be<br \/>\njustified in placing the request before the Appellate Court to receive the<br \/>\nadditional evidence and if the party, who seeks to receive any document as<br \/>\nadditional evidence before the Appellate Court does not satisfy the requirements<br \/>\nof the Provisions under Order 41 Rule 27,  he has to be non-suited for the<br \/>\nrelief prayed for.  Order 41 Rules 27 would reads as follows:-<br \/>\n\t&#8220;27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.-(1) The parties<br \/>\nto an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral<br \/>\nor documentary, in the Appellate Court.  But if &#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">\t(a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to<br \/>\nadmit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or<br \/>\n\t(aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that<br \/>\nnotwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his<br \/>\nknowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him<br \/>\nat the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">\t(b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any<br \/>\nwitness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other<br \/>\nsubstantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be<br \/>\nproduced, or witness to be examined.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">\t(2) Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate<br \/>\nCourt, the Court shall record the reason for its admission.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">\t12.In the first place, in the written statement, the appellant has pleaded<br \/>\nthat there is a &#8216;Will&#8217; in his favour executed by his father on 30.03.1998, with<br \/>\nrespect to the suit property.  The attention of the Courts below were drawn to<br \/>\nthis pleading and sufficient findings have been rendered.  Even though, the<br \/>\nappellant was not able to produce the document before the trial Court, there was<br \/>\nno obstacle for him to file the same before the lower Appellate Court.  In the<br \/>\naffidavit, it is stated that after the decree passed by the lower appellate<br \/>\nCourt, his sisters informed him that they would not claim any right over the<br \/>\nproperty.  This is not the best reason for his failure to produce the document<br \/>\nbefore the Courts below.  The affidavit should have contained the reason for the<br \/>\ninability of the appellants to produce the documents before the trial Court or<br \/>\nthe first appellate Court.  It cannot be stated that notwithstanding the<br \/>\nexercise of due diligence, the evidence could not be produced before the Courts<br \/>\nbelow. The &#8216;Will&#8217; dated 30.03.1998 is an unregistered &#8216;Will&#8217;.  The learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondent Mr.K.Kumaravel, would assail the same by contending<br \/>\nthat while the case was before the Courts below, the appellant could not find<br \/>\nout any individual to support his claim by deposing in favour of the &#8216;Will&#8217; and<br \/>\nhence, he has made fervent attempt before this Court for receipt of additional<br \/>\nevidence in this case.  The said contention is accepted.  The reason found in<br \/>\nthe affidavit for non-production of the document on the part of the appellant<br \/>\nbefore the lower Court is not at all convincing and satisfactory.  Hence, the<br \/>\npetition has to suffer dismissal and the additional document could not be<br \/>\nreceived in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">\t13.Coming to the merits of the case, it is an admitted fact that the suit<br \/>\nproperty is Inam Punja lands and so many persons have been in possession and<br \/>\nenjoyment of the property either as cultivating tenant or in the capacity in<br \/>\nother category. It is also stated that the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court has directed<br \/>\nissuance of  patta, to the persons in possession of the property.  It is also<br \/>\nadmitted that the deceased Govindasamy was in possession and enjoyment of the<br \/>\nproperty cultivating the same.  Both the parties are siblings, who are none<br \/>\nother than the daughters and sons of the said Govindasamy.  The trial Court has<br \/>\nrendered a finding that since the Government has not passed any notification,<br \/>\nthe Civil Court cannot grant a decree for partition.  The lower Appellate Court<br \/>\nhas observed after hearing the contentions of the both parties that in the<br \/>\nabsence of production of such notification, it is clear that Govindasamy was in<br \/>\nexclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his date of death,<br \/>\nand after his death, the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled to the suit property as<br \/>\nlegal heirs of the deceased Govindasamy.  In the view of this Court, the above<br \/>\nsaid observation is quite appropriate. It is a simple logic that when the father<br \/>\nof the parties had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, after<br \/>\nhis death, in the absence of claim of anybody else with respect to the right of<br \/>\nthe property, including the Government, his heirs may be considered for<br \/>\npartition.  There is nothing illegal in the decision of the lower appellate<br \/>\nCourt.  It has rightly passed the preliminary decree.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">\t14.In the circumstances above mentioned, it has been stated that the<br \/>\nrespondents are entitled for the partition as per their contention.  The appeal<br \/>\nis devoid of merits which has to face dismissal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">\t15. In fine, the Second Appeal is dismissed.  Consequently, the connected<br \/>\nmiscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">Mpk<br \/>\nTo<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_25\">1.The Addl.District Judge\/<br \/>\n  Fast Track Court-1,<br \/>\n  Thanjavur.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_26\">2.The District Munsif,<br \/>\n  Thiruvaiyaru<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court G.Subramanian ..1St &#8230; vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :23\/04\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU S.A.(MD)No.1694 of 2003 and C.M.P.(MD)No.15497 of 2003 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006 G.Subramanian ..1st Defendant\/1st Respondent\/Appellant Vs. 1.Jahyalakshmi 2.Padmavathi, 3.Pattammal 4.Dayanidhi 5.Suseela 6.GR.Raj Naidu ..Plaintiffs,Defendants 2&amp;3\/ Appellants,Respondents 1&amp;2\/ Respondents [&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-262259","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>G.Subramanian ..1St ... vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008 - 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\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.Subramanian ..1St ... vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-07T11:12:43+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\\\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.Subramanian ..1St &#8230; vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-07T11:12:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1786,\"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\\\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008\",\"name\":\"G.Subramanian ..1St ... vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-07T11:12:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.Subramanian ..1St &#8230; vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"G.Subramanian ..1St ... vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008 - 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\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.Subramanian ..1St ... vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-07T11:12:43+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\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.Subramanian ..1St &#8230; vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-07T11:12:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008"},"wordCount":1786,"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\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008","name":"G.Subramanian ..1St ... vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-07T11:12:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-subramanian-1st-vs-jahyalakshmi-on-23-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.Subramanian ..1St &#8230; vs Jahyalakshmi on 23 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/262259","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=262259"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/262259\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=262259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=262259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=262259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}