{"id":34650,"date":"2008-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-19T10:41:40","modified_gmt":"2017-11-19T05:11:40","slug":"ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 25\/01\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nS.A.No.821 of 2000\n\n\nGanapathy Thevar   \t\t... Appellant\/Appellant\/\n\t\t\t\t\t      Plaintiff\n\nVs\n\n\nShanmuga Thevar\t\t...Respondent\/Respondent\/\n\t\t\t\t         \tDefendant\n\n\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the  Code of Civil Procedure,\nagainst the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1999 passed in A.S.No.8 of 1999  by\nthe learned Sub Judge, Pattukkottai, in confirming the judgment and decree dated\n30.07.1999 passed in O.S.No.8 of 1989 by the learned District Munsif,\nPattukkottai.\n\n!For Appellant  \t... Mr.C.M.Arumugam\n\n^For Respondent \t... No representation\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis second appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated<br \/>\n29.11.1999 passed in A.S.No.8 of 1999  by the learned Sub Judge, Pattukkottai,<br \/>\nin confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1999 passed in O.S.No.8 of<br \/>\n1989 by the learned District Munsif, Pattukkottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The parties, for convenience sake, are referred to hereunder according<br \/>\nto their litigative status before the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Broadly, but briefly, succinctly but narratively, the case of the<br \/>\nplaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint and the relevant records could be<br \/>\nportrayed thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe defendant in consideration of having received a sum of Rs.3,600\/-<br \/>\n(Rupees Three Thousand and Six Hundred only), on 01.10.1985 executed the suit<br \/>\npromissory note, Ex.A.1, undertaking to repay the same with 12% interest per<br \/>\nannum.  However, the defendant committed default which necessitated the<br \/>\nplaintiff to file the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The quintessence of the case of the defendant is that even though he<br \/>\nsigned the suit promissory note format and also specified the amount at the top<br \/>\nof it, he did not fill up the body of the promissory note.  He would also<br \/>\ncontend that he received a sum of Rs.3,600\/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Six<br \/>\nHundred only), from the plaintiff only under an unauthorised chit transaction<br \/>\nand he also discharged it.  The plaitniff had chosen to file this suit<br \/>\nvexatiously.  Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The trial Court framed the relevant issues.  During trial, P.W.1 and<br \/>\nP.W.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.3 were marked on the side of the plaintiff.<br \/>\nD.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked on the side of the<br \/>\ndefendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Being aggrieved by, the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the<br \/>\nplaintiff preferred appeal in A.S.No.8 of 1999, before the Sub Court,<br \/>\nPattukkottai, which Court also dismissed the appeal, accepting the plea of the<br \/>\ndefendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Being dissatisfied with, the judgments and decrees of both the Courts<br \/>\nbelow, the plaintiff preferred this appeal on the following main grounds among<br \/>\nothers:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBoth the Courts below erred in not taking into consideration the<br \/>\npresumption as contemplated under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,<br \/>\nand also the admissions made by the defendant as set out supra.  Both the Courts<br \/>\nbelow erred in comparing the self-serving document namely the diary of the<br \/>\ndefendant with the versions found in the body of the promissory note and arrived<br \/>\nat the wrong conclusion that the versions found written in the body of the<br \/>\npromissory note differs from the writings in the diary of the defendant.<br \/>\nAccordingly, he prayed for setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the<br \/>\nCourts below and for decreeing the original suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. At the time of admitting this second appeal, my learned Predecessor<br \/>\nframed the following substantial question of law:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit when there is a<br \/>\nstatutory presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act especially<br \/>\nwhen the defendant has  admitted the signature in the promissory note.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.  Despite printing the<br \/>\nname of the respondent, he has not chosen to appear.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would submit that even though<br \/>\nthe defendant admitted candidly that he signed the suit promissory note in<br \/>\naddition to having specified the amount at the top of the suit promissory note,<br \/>\nyet both the Courts below without invoking the presumption as contemplated under<br \/>\nSection 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, rejected the claim of the<br \/>\nplaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The judgments of both the Courts below, to say the least, are far from<br \/>\nsatisfactory.  Here, is a case wherein the defendant would candidly admit the<br \/>\nreceipt of a sum of Rs.3,600\/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Six Hundred only) from<br \/>\nthe plaintiff and also his signature in the suit promissory note format, in<br \/>\naddition to having admitted that he had filled up the amount column in his hand<br \/>\nwriting.  In such a case, I am of the considered opinion that Section 20 as well<br \/>\nas Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, would come into operation.<br \/>\nThis is not a case where the plaintiff obtained signature of the defendant in a<br \/>\nblank stamped paper.  The suit promissory note is in the printed format.  As<br \/>\nsuch, admittedly, the defendant himself filled up the amount column at the top<br \/>\nof the suit promissory note and signed beneath the already printed versions<br \/>\ntherein and that itself would amount to promissory note.  Top it all, a<br \/>\npromissory note need not be in a particular form only, what are all required<br \/>\nunder the Negotiable Instruments Act, is found set out under Sections 20 and 118<br \/>\nof the Negotiable Instruments Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. The plaintiff clearly and categorically deposed that the defendant<br \/>\nexecuted the suit promissory note only on receipt of Rs.3,600\/- (Rupees Three<br \/>\nThousand and Six Hundred only) and not relating to any chit transaction.  The<br \/>\ndefendant would come forward with a case as though there was an illegal chit<br \/>\ntransaction and to support his plea, he also examined D.W.3, who would blindly<br \/>\nsupport the case of the defendant, by deposing to the effect that he was one<br \/>\namong the subscribers along with the defendant and participated in the chit; he<br \/>\nlost his Katchayat book which contained periodical endorsements made by the<br \/>\nplaintiff relating to the chit transaction.  If that be so, D.W.1 should have<br \/>\nbeen in possession of the said Katchayat book, but he has not produced any such<br \/>\nKatchayat book.  As such, the plea of chit transaction and his alleged repayment<br \/>\ndo constitute barely the ipsi dixit of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. It is a trite proposition of law that in all cases, the burden of<br \/>\nproof would be initially on the plaintiff and on his discharging the burden, it<br \/>\nwould get shifted to the other side.  Here, in this case, as has been already<br \/>\ndiscussed supra, the plaintiff by his own deposition and by virtue of the<br \/>\nadmission of the defendant that he put his signature in the promissory note and<br \/>\nthat the amount was specified by him at the top of the promissory note in his<br \/>\nown hand writing, shifted the burden to the defendant who merely relied on<br \/>\nEx.B.2, the diary to prove that his hand writing found in his diary do not tally<br \/>\nwith the versions as found in the filled up promissory note.  The Court cannot<br \/>\nassume the role of an expert in comparing the disputed handwriting with that of<br \/>\nthe admitted ones.  No doubt, the Court as per Section 73 of the Evidence Act,<br \/>\nin certain circumstances could exercise its power with caution.  In such an<br \/>\nevent, it is the bounden duty of the Court to specify clearly as to what are all<br \/>\nthe salient features based on which the finding is arrived at.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. It is common knowledge that the science of analysing the questioned<br \/>\ndocuments contemplates certain principles and theories.  Here, both the Courts<br \/>\nbelow were not objective in analysing the impugned handwriting.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. No carth blanche is given to any Court to simply compare the disputed<br \/>\nhandwriting with that of the admitted hand writings and arrive at a subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction about the similarities or dissimilarities.  There should have been<br \/>\nreasons set out for arriving at such conclusion, but here, both the Courts below<br \/>\nhave not resorted to such a procedure.  The subjective satisfaction of both the<br \/>\nCourts below cannot be taken in favour of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would convincingly argue that in<br \/>\nthe written statement, even though the defendant has not set out that he was<br \/>\nsuffered from Parkinson&#8217;s disease, nevertheless during trial, he would plead as<br \/>\nthough he was suffering from such disease and that he was not at all in a<br \/>\nposition to write without shivering.  All these facts warrant expert analysis of<br \/>\nthe disputed hand writing.  But, here both the Courts below simply arrived at<br \/>\ntheir subjective satisfaction that the impugned hand writing is not that of the<br \/>\nhand writing of the defendant and that too by wrongly comparing it with the hand<br \/>\nwritings in the diary of the defendant himself.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff also correctly argued that the<br \/>\nsaid diary is a self-serving document.  At least, an ante litum motum document<br \/>\nshould have been summoned by the trial Court at the instance of the defendant,<br \/>\nfrom some authority who might be in possession of any record or document of the<br \/>\ndefendant containing his handwriting.  But, in this case, no such steps have<br \/>\nbeen taken.  As such, viewing the matter in any angle, it is crystal clear that<br \/>\nthe judgments of both the Courts below cannot be sustained.  Section 20 of the<br \/>\nNegotiable Instruments Act, would clearly demonstrate that once, the promissee<br \/>\nsigns the promissory note format, it becomes inchoate document and thereupon,<br \/>\nthe promisee may fill it up and file a suit.  Section 118 of the Act would also<br \/>\ncome into operation in this case as the defendant clearly admitted that he<br \/>\nreceived a sum of Rs.3,600\/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Six Hundred only) and in<br \/>\nconsideration of it, he specified the amount at the top of Ex.A.1 and signed<br \/>\nbeneath the printed version.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. The indubitable fact is that the defendant in response to the<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s pre-suit notice, did not give any reply and in order to camouflage<br \/>\nand conceal his own default, he would dish out a plea as though there was some<br \/>\npanchayat and in that panchayat, the plaintiff agreed to withdraw his pre-suit<br \/>\nnotice and that thereupon, only the defendant did not give any reply.  D.W.2<br \/>\nwould support the plea of the defendant in a questionable manner expecting the<br \/>\nCourt to assume and presume very many imponderables.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. I am at a loss to understand as to how the defendant would be<br \/>\njustified in simply deposing that he did not give reply due to some alleged<br \/>\ncompromise at a dubious panchayat and that too when in fact, no panchayat<br \/>\nminutes could be produced on the side of the defendant.  Whereas the plaintiff<br \/>\nissued pre-suit notice in written form; if at all, any panchayat had been<br \/>\nconducted, then there should have been some minutes recorded in this connection<br \/>\nor at least in that pre suit notice itself, the defendant should have taken<br \/>\nsteps to get an endorsement from the plaintiff to that effect.  These are all<br \/>\nrelevant facts which have not been considered by the Courts below and simply<br \/>\naccepted the case of the defendant in an unjustifiable manner.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21. In the wake of the clinching available evidence, the trial Court<br \/>\nshould have decreed the suit and the first appellate Court should not have<br \/>\nconfirmed the dismissal judgment of the trial Court.  Accordingly, the judgments<br \/>\nand decrees of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22. In the result, the second appeal is allowed, setting aside the<br \/>\njudgments and decrees of both the Courts below and the original suit is decreed<br \/>\nas under.  The defendant shall pay a sum of Rs.3,600\/- (Rupees Three Thousand<br \/>\nand Six Hundred only) to the plaintiff with 12% interest from the date of the<br \/>\nexecution of the promissory note till the date of filing of the suit and with 6%<br \/>\ninterest from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation with<br \/>\ncosts throughout.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Sub Judge, Pattukkottai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The District Munsif, Pattukkottai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 25\/01\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A.No.821 of 2000 Ganapathy Thevar &#8230; Appellant\/Appellant\/ Plaintiff Vs Shanmuga Thevar &#8230;Respondent\/Respondent\/ Defendant Prayer Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against [&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-34650","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>Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 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\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-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=\"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-19T05:11:40+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\\\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-19T05:11:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1900,\"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\\\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008\",\"name\":\"Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-19T05:11:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 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":"Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 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\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-19T05:11:40+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\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-19T05:11:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008"},"wordCount":1900,"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\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008","name":"Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-19T05:11:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ganapathy-thevar-vs-shanmuga-thevar-on-25-january-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ganapathy Thevar vs Shanmuga Thevar on 25 January, 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\/34650","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=34650"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/34650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=34650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=34650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=34650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}