{"id":32066,"date":"2011-01-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011"},"modified":"2017-02-21T19:35:15","modified_gmt":"2017-02-21T14:05:15","slug":"lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 03\/01\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\nS.A(MD)NO.954 of 2010\nand\nM.P(MD)No.1 of 2010\t\t\n\n1.  Lakshmi\n\n2.  Elango\n\n3.  Eswari\t\t      ...Appellants\/defendants\n\t\t\nvs\n\n1.  Karuppathal  alias Sadayammal\n\n2.  Nallammal\t\t      ...Respondents\/plaintiffs\n\nPRAYER\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying\nthis Court  to set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.38  of 2009,\ndated       29.07.2010, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Palani, reversing\nthe judgment and decree made in O.S.No.243 of 2007, dated 29.06.2009, on the\nfile of the  District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram.\n\n!For Appellant  ... Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar\n\t\t    for M\/s.Sarvabhauman\n\t            Associates\n^\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe submissions made by Mr.S.Anand Chandrasekar, learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellants were heard. The grounds of appeal, judgments of the courts below and<br \/>\nother papers produced in the form of typed-set of papers were also perused.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.  The defendants in the original suit O.S.No.243 of 2007, on the file of<br \/>\nthe District Munsif Court, Oddanchatram are the appellants herein.  The<br \/>\nrespondents herein filed the said suit as plaintiffs for declaration of their<br \/>\nalleged title in respect of the suit property, for recovery of possession and<br \/>\nfor costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The respondents herein\/plaintiffs contended that their mother Kumarayee<br \/>\nAmmal was the owner of the suit property and on her death, the same devolved<br \/>\nupon them. The further case of the respondents herein\/plaintiffs is that they<br \/>\nentrusted the suit property to Arumugam, late husband of the first appellant;<br \/>\nthat the said Arumugam who was thus put in permissive possession  managed the<br \/>\nsuit property on behalf of the respondents herein\/plaintiffs; that about six<br \/>\nmonths prior to the issuance of pre-suit notice the said Arumugam started<br \/>\nclaiming adverse possession  and chose to issue a reply to the notice issued by<br \/>\nthe respondents\/plaintiffs claiming extinquishment of the title of Kumarayee<br \/>\nAmmal; that he also falsely claimed to have been put in possession of the suit<br \/>\nproperty pursuant to an alleged agreement for sale; that subsequently he died<br \/>\nabout four months prior to the filing of the suit leaving the<br \/>\nappellants\/defendants as his legal heirs and that hence, they were constrained<br \/>\nto file the suit for the above said reliefs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. It is not disputed that the suit property belonged to the mother of the<br \/>\nrespondents. On the other hand, the appellants\/defendants took a stand that the<br \/>\nmother of the respondents executed a sale agreement agreeing to sell the suit<br \/>\nproperty to Arumugam, late husband of the first appellant, for a sum of<br \/>\nRs.25,500\/-; that Ex.B1 was the said agreement executed on 28.09.1992; that at<br \/>\nthe time of entering into the agreement itself, the parent deed under which<br \/>\nKumarayee Ammal had purchased the property in 1983 was also handed over to<br \/>\nArumugam besides putting him in possession of the suit property in part<br \/>\nperformance of the contract; that as such the said Arumugam and after his death,<br \/>\nthe appellants were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property in<br \/>\ntheir own right without any hindrance from any source and that hence, they had<br \/>\nperfected title by adverse possession.  It was also contended by the<br \/>\nappellants\/defendants that since the said Arumugam was put in possession of the<br \/>\nsuit property in part performance of Ex.B2-Agreement, his possession was legally<br \/>\nprotected under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act even against the<br \/>\nlegal heirs of Kumarayee Ammal,namely the respondents herein, and that for that<br \/>\nreasons also, the suit for recovery of possession must fail.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed four issues to the<br \/>\nfollowing effect:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;1.  Whether the claim of title by the plaintiffs can be sustained?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2.  Whether the claim of title by the defendants can be sustained?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.  Whether the relief sought for by the plaintiffs can be granted?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. To what other reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled to?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.  The first plaintiff figured as the sole witness(P.W.1) on the side of<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs and seven documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7.  The second<br \/>\ndefendant figured as D.W.1 and another Arumugam, the attestor of Ex.B2 was<br \/>\nexamined as D.W.2. Four documents were marked  as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 on the side of<br \/>\nthe defendants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.  The learned Trial Judge, after considering the evidence  brought<br \/>\nbefore it, came to the conclusion that the suit property belonged to the<br \/>\nrespondents herein\/plaintiffs; that the claim of title by the<br \/>\nappellants\/defendants could not be sustained and that the respondents\/plaintiffs<br \/>\nwould be entitled to the reliefs of declaration of title and recovery of<br \/>\npossession.  An appeal preferred  against the above said judgment and decree of<br \/>\nthe learned Trial Judge was dismissed by the learned Appellate Judge, namely,<br \/>\nlearned Subordinate Judge, Palani, by judgment dated 27.09.2010.  Upholding the<br \/>\ndecree passed by the trial court and confirming the judgment of the trial court<br \/>\nin all respects, the lower appellate court has dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved<br \/>\nby the same, the present second appeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.  Though for convenience sake, the brief facts  have been narrated<br \/>\nsupra, this Second Appeal can be disposed of on a short point itself. The<br \/>\nrespondents\/plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of their title and for<br \/>\nthe recovery of possession from the appellants\/defendants.  When such a claim is<br \/>\nmade based on alleged title, the suit can be resisted  either by denying the<br \/>\ntitle of the respondents\/plaintiffs or by setting up a right  in the<br \/>\nappellants\/defendants better than that of the plaintiffs.  In this case, it is<br \/>\nan admitted fact that the suit property belonged to the mother of the<br \/>\nrespondents herein\/plaintiffs. The respondents\/plaintiffs contended that the<br \/>\nhusband of the first appellant was put in permissive possession to manage the<br \/>\nsuit property on behalf of the respondents\/plaintiffs and that revoking the said<br \/>\npermission, they sought recovery of possession.  As per the plaint averments,<br \/>\nsince the appellants tried to deny the title of the respondents<br \/>\nherein\/plaintiffs, they had to seek the relief of declaration also.  When the<br \/>\ntitle of the plaintiffs&#8217; mother is admitted and the plaintiffs are admitted to<br \/>\nbe the legal heirs of the original owner, then their plea for declaration can be<br \/>\ndefeated  only if the defendants are able to prove  better title in themselves.<br \/>\nIn this regard, the plea of the appellants\/defendants is that Arumugam, husband<br \/>\nof the first appellant\/first defendant entered into an agreement for the<br \/>\npurchase of the suit property with Kumarayee Ammal, the mother of the<br \/>\nrespondents herein under Ex.B2 and in part performance of the contract under the<br \/>\nsaid agreement he was put in possession of the suit property and that after the<br \/>\ndeath of the said Arumugam, the appellants\/defendants are in possession and<br \/>\nenjoyment of the same.  When the appellants\/defendants trace the title to an<br \/>\nagreement for sale in favour of the husband  of the first appellant, then the<br \/>\nsame tantamounts to admitting their possession under the agreement to be a<br \/>\npermissive one.  Under such circumstances, if they want to establish perfection<br \/>\nof title by adverse possession, they  have to necessarily plead that they<br \/>\nstarted either denying the title of the original owner with whom Arumugam<br \/>\nentered into an agreement for purchasing the property or started asserting<br \/>\nopenly a title in them to the knowledge of that owner which will have the effect<br \/>\nof denial of title of the original owner.  Then only, they can succeed in their<br \/>\nattempt to substantiate their plea of perfection of title by adverse possession.<br \/>\nThe appellants\/defendants have taken a plea that under Ex.B2, the husband of the<br \/>\nfirst appellant got possession of the suit property in part performance of the<br \/>\ncontract in the year 1992.  They have not stated from which date, they started<br \/>\ndenying the title of Kumarayee Ammal or that of the respondents herein after the<br \/>\ndeath of Kumarayee Ammal and from which date they claimed absolute title of the<br \/>\nproperty to the knowledge of Kumarayee Ammal and to the knowledge of the<br \/>\nrespondents herein, after the death of the Kumarayee Ammal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.  The learned counsel for the appellants would state that Arumugam died<br \/>\nin the year 2006 and only thereafter, the respondents chose to file a suit<br \/>\nsuppressing the  fact that their mother had executed a sale agreement in favour<br \/>\nof Arumugam.  The relief of declaration and recovery of possession based on<br \/>\ntitle are not discretionary reliefs which can be denied on the ground of<br \/>\nsuppression of fact.   When suppression of fact is pleaded, the court has to<br \/>\nconsider whether the same will clinch the issue in favour of the other side and<br \/>\nif the said  fact is brought to the notice of the Court.  In this case, assuming<br \/>\nthat there is an agreement and Ex.B2 agreement is true and that possession was<br \/>\nhanded over to Arumugam in part performance of the said contract; that alone<br \/>\nshall not be enough to non-suit the respondents herein\/plaintiffs for the relief<br \/>\nof recovery of possession based on title.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.  The appellants\/defendants, as pointed out supra, by admitting that<br \/>\ntheir possession of the suit property was in part performance of an agreement<br \/>\nfor sale, they have admitted their possession to be  permissive. They have not<br \/>\nmade necessary pleading and  have failed to adduce necessary evidence as to the<br \/>\ndate from which their possession became adverse possession. In fact, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellants,during his arguments, has also admitted his inability<br \/>\nto make any submission on the said aspect.  Therefore, this Court is of the<br \/>\nconsidered view that the plea of perfection of title by adverse possession was<br \/>\nnot properly raised by giving necessary particulars and that such  a plea was<br \/>\nnot substantiated by letting in reliable evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The next ground on which the appellants\/defendants can defeat the<br \/>\nsuit, not in full but in part, is by expousing their right under Section 53-A of<br \/>\nthe Transfer of Property Act.  This Court is of the considered view that for<br \/>\nsustaining a plea of protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property<br \/>\nAct, the person claiming such protection  cannot deny the title of the vendor<br \/>\nunder the agreement and cannot succeed in resisting the plea of the vendor under<br \/>\nthe agreement or their legal heirs for the relief of declaration of title.  The<br \/>\nconsequential relief of recovery of possession can be resisted based on Section<br \/>\n53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.  In Order to get protection under Section<br \/>\n53-A of Transfer of Property Act, one should prove three aspects. They are as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t1)  There is an agreement for sale of immovable property  in his\/her<br \/>\nfavour;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2) He\/she was put in possession in part performance of the agreement for<br \/>\nsale;and<\/p>\n<p>\t3)  He\/she has performed or is ready and willing to perform his\/her part<br \/>\nof the contract under the agreement.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.  A pleading of the above said aspects and proof of the same are sine<br \/>\nqua non for the successful resistance of the plea for recovery of possession.<br \/>\nIn this case, though the first two conditions are pleaded, the third  and most<br \/>\nimportant aspect has been omitted to be pleaded. No evidence has been adduced to<br \/>\nprove the existence of the third condition also.  In fact, across the bar, it is<br \/>\nbrought to the notice of this Court that till date, the appellants\/defendants<br \/>\nhave not chosen to file any suit seeking specific performance of the contract<br \/>\nfor sale under Ex.B2.  The appellants have not pleaded and proved that the<br \/>\nappellants have performed or are ready and willing to perform their obligations<br \/>\nunder Ex.B2-agreement. Hence, they are bound to fail in their attempt to resist<br \/>\nthe suit for the relief of recovery of possession also. Therefore this Court<br \/>\ndoes not find any substance in the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.  For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion<br \/>\nthat the Second Appeal deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage itself.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the Second Appeal is  dismissed. Consequently, connected Civil<br \/>\nMiscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>vsn<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\n   Palani.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The District Munsif,<br \/>\n   Oddanchatram.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03\/01\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR S.A(MD)NO.954 of 2010 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010 1. Lakshmi 2. Elango 3. Eswari &#8230;Appellants\/defendants vs 1. Karuppathal alias Sadayammal 2. Nallammal &#8230;Respondents\/plaintiffs PRAYER Second Appeal filed under [&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-32066","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>Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011 - 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\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-01-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-21T14:05:15+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\\\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-21T14:05:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1915,\"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\\\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-21T14:05:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011 - 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\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-21T14:05:15+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\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-21T14:05:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011"},"wordCount":1915,"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\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011","name":"Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-21T14:05:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lakshmi-vs-karuppathal-alias-sadayammal-on-3-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lakshmi vs Karuppathal Alias Sadayammal on 3 January, 2011"}]},{"@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\/32066","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=32066"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32066\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32066"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32066"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32066"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}