{"id":36505,"date":"1996-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-02-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996"},"modified":"2016-12-01T13:56:40","modified_gmt":"2016-12-01T08:26:40","slug":"sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996","title":{"rendered":"Sri Mahaliamman Temple … vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sri Mahaliamman Temple … vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (3), 127\t 1996 SCALE (2)617<\/div>\n
Author: K Paripoornan<\/div>\n
Bench: Paripoornan, K.S.(J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSRI MAHALIAMMAN TEMPLE &VIGNESWARAR KOIL REPRESENTED BYITS T\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVIJAYAMMAL (DEAD) BY LRS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t01\/03\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nPARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)\nBENCH:\nPARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (3)   127\t  1996 SCALE  (2)617\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nPARIPOORNAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
     The  first\t  defendant  in\t  O.S.\tNo.   344  of  1967,
\nSubordinate Judge’s  court,  Coimbatore,  is  the  appellant
\nherein. The  plaintiff in  the said  suit is the respondent.
\nThe suit  was laid for a declaration of plaintiff’s title to
\nplaint A and B Schedule properties. There are seven items in
\nA Schedule  and two  items in  B  Schedule  properties.\t The
\nlitigation had a chequered career. This suit – OS No. 344\/67\n<\/p>\n
– was  tried along  with two  other suits  – O.S. No. 537 of
\n1967 and  538 of 1968, which are not relevant at this stage.
\nPlaintiff claimed that she is absolutely entitled to A and B
\nSchedule   properties.\t  The\tfirst\t defendant,   Temple
\n(Mahaliamman Temple and Vigneswara Temple represented by its
\nTrustees) claimed that the properties have been dedicated to
\nthe Temple  and the  plaintiff has only a life estate in ‘B’
\nSchedule properties.\n<\/p>\n
2. The short facts to understand the scope of controversy in
\nthe suit are as follows.\n<\/p>\n
     Plaint A and B schedule properties belonged to one C.S.
\nArumugham  Pillai.   He\t had  a\t son  Manickam\tPillai.\t One
\nSadachiammal was the wife of Armugham Pillai. The plaintiff,
\nVijyammal, is  the wife\t of Manickam  Pillai Armugham Pillai
\nexecuted Ext. B-11, Will, dated 29.8.1932 regarding plaint A
\n& B  schedule properties.  The Will, Ext. B-11, is available
\nat pages  140-147 of the printed paper book. Under the Will,
\nhis wife  Sadachiammal\twas  given  a  life  estate  over  A
\nschedule properties and the reminder was bequeathed to first
\ndefendant temple.  The\tdirection  in  Ext.  B-11  was\tthat
\nSadachiammal was  to collect the entire income of A schedule
\nproperties and\tenjoy the  same for  her life time and after
\nher life  the entire  income  shall  be\t spent\tfor  various
\nvazhipadus (offerings)\tlike Annadanam,\t Vilakku, Naivethyam
\nand other charitable purposes of the first defendant Temple.
\nSimilarly B schedule properties were bequeathed to plaintiff
\n(daughter-in-law) for  her life\t and in\t the absence  of any
\nchild to  her the  said properties  shall vest\tin the first
\ndefendant  Temple  for\tthe  various  offerings\t (charities)
\nmentioned hereinabove  in the  Will. Manickam Pillai, son of
\nthe testator,  pre-deceased him.  He died  in 1934. Armugham
\nPillai died in 1946. His wife Sadachiammal died on 13.6.1957
\nafter Hindu  Succession Act.  Armugham Pillai’s daughter-in-
\nlaw  Vijayammal,   the\tplaintiff,  filed  the\tsuit  for  a
\ndeclaration  of\t  her  title  to  plaint  A  &\tB,  schedule
\nproperties. According  to her,\tthe properties dealt with in
\nExt. B-11  Will by  Armugham Pillai dated 29.8.1932 were the
\njoint  family\tproperties  and\t  so  Armugham\t Pillai\t was
\nincompetent to\texecute the  Will. Armugham  Pillai, being a
\ncoparcener in the family, was incompetent to execute Ext. B-
\n11, and\t dedicate the properties to the temple by Will dated
\n29.8.1932, when\t Manickam Pillai, his son, was alive. It was
\nfurther\t contended   that  the\t life  estate\tgranted\t  to
\nSadachiammal (A\t schedule properties)  and the\tlife  estate
\ngranted to  the plaintiff  (B schedule\tproperties) were  so
\ngiven,\tin   lieu  of  their  right  to\t maintenance.  Since
\nSadachiammal died  after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her
\nlife estate enlarged into an absolute estate and on death of
\nSadachiammal on\t 13.6.1957, the\t plaintiff became absolutely
\nentitled to plaint A and B schedule properties.\n<\/p>\n
3.   The first\tdefendant in  the suit pleaded that Armugham
\nPillai was  the sole  surviving coparcener  when he  died in
\n1946. Ext,  B-11 became\t operative only\t then; and  as\tsole
\nsurviving coparcener  he was  entitled to  execute the Will,
\neven  if  the  properties  dealt  with,\t were  joint  family
\nproperties. According  to the first defendant the properties
\nmentioned in  Ext. B-11 were the self acquired properties of
\nArmugham Pillai,  in which  case he  was fully\tcompetent to
\nexecute the document, Ext. B-11 as he did. Defendant pleaded
\nthat there is dedication of A & B schedule properties to the
\nTemple in  Ext. B-11 and not a mere charge as pleaded by the
\nplaintiff. Since Sadachiammal was given only a life interest
\nin A  schedule properties,  on her  death on  13.6.1957, the
\nproperties vested in the Temple and plaintiff is incompetent
\nto lay\tclaim to  A schedule  properties. Defendent  further
\ncontended that\teven with  regard to  B schedule properties,
\nplaintiff was  given only  a life estate under Ext. B-11 and
\nafter her  life, properties will vest in the first defendant
\nTemple, for the charities mentioned in Ext. B-11.\n<\/p>\n
4.   At the  outset, we\t should state,\twe are not concerned
\nwith the  connected suits  OS No.  537 of 1967 and OS 538 of
\n1968 which were tried along with the present suit OS No. 344
\nof 1967. Nor are we concerned with the claims put forward by
\ncertain other  persons on  the basis  of  alleged  Wills  of
\nArmugham Pillai\t dated 20.5.1946  and 29.8.1932\t which\twere
\nfound to  be fabricated. The trial court found that Armugham
\nPillai and his son Manickam Pillai were living as members of
\njoint family;  they were  jointly doing\t business; that\t the
\nsuit properties\t belonged to  the said\tjoint family and are
\nnot the\t self-acquired properties  of  Armugham\t Pillai,  In
\ncoming to  the aforesaid  conclusion, the trial court relied
\non  voluminous\t oral  and   documentary  evidence  and,  in
\nparticular, Ext.  B-10, decree, dated 26.10.1938 (OS No. 191
\nof  1937)  whereby  the\t plaintiff  obtained  a\t decree\t for
\nmaintenance  against   Armugham\t Pillai\t  charged   on\t the
\nproperties. On\tthe above  premises, and holding that at the
\ntime when  Armugham Pillai  wrote Ext. B-11 dated 29.8.1932,
\nhe was\tnot the\t sole surviving\t coparcener, the trial court
\nfound that Armugham Pillai was not competent to bequeath the
\nsuit properties\t by Will.  The trial  court, however, opined
\nthat in Ext. B-11 the suit properties have been dedicated to
\nthe first  defendant Temple  and it  was not  a mere  charge
\ncreated over  the suit\tproperties for\tthe purpose  of\t the
\ncharities mentioned  in Ext.  B-11. Since  it was  held that
\nArmugham Pillai was incompetent to execute Ext. B-11, it was
\nalso held  that the first defendant obtained no right in the
\nsuit properties.\n<\/p>\n
5.   In the  appeal filed  by the first defendant before the
\nHigh Court  of Madras,\tAS 12 of 1977, the High Court made a
\nslightly different  approach  and  did\tnot  adjudicate\t the
\nquestion as  to whether the properties dealt with in Ext. B-
\n11  were  the  joint  family  properties  or  self  acquired
\nproperties of  Armugham Pillai.\t According to the High Court
\nthe life  estate given\tto Sadachiammal\t (wife\tof  Armugham
\nPillai) enlarged  into an absolute estate in view of Section
\n14 of  Hindu Succession Act, as she had a pre-existing right
\nto maintenance.\t Similarly, it\twas held that the B schedule
\nproperties were\t bequeathed to\tthe plaintiff  for life,  in
\nview of\t her pre-existing  right of maintenance as evidenced
\nby Ext.\t B-10 maintenance  decree  passed  against  Armugham
\nPillai, charged\t on the properties. So the properties, A & B
\nschedule, bequeathed  to Sadachiammal  and plaintiff,  under
\nthe Will,  enlarged into  an absolute  estate, and the first
\ndefendant cannot  lay claim over the said properties. It was
\nheld that  the plaintiff  is entitled  to the declaration of
\nher title over A and B schedule properties. Aggrieved by the
\nsaid judgment,\tin AS  12 of  1977 dated 17.1.1983 the first
\ndefendant has filed the above civil appeal.\n<\/p>\n
6.   We should\tstate that it has come out in the case, that
\nSadachiammal died  leaving a Will dated 8.6.1957. During the
\npendency of  the appeal in this Court the plaintiff died and
\nher legal representatives were impleaded as respondents 1 to
\n16 as per order of this Court dated 12.3.1991. It was on the
\nground that  plaintiff has also bequeathed her properties by
\nWill and so her legal representatives aforesaid were brought
\non record. In this appeal, we are not called upon to
\ndecide the  validity or\t nature of the bequests in the Wills
\nexecuted by  Sadachiammal dated 8.6.1957 or of the plaintiff
\nsaid to\t have been  executed during  the  pendency  of\tthis
\nappeal. The  nature and\t validity  of  the  Wills,  if\tany,
\nexecuted by Sadachiammal and the plaintiff, will take effect
\non their  own terms  and according  to\tlaw.  We  make\tthis
\nposition clear. We are not pronouncing upon the validity and
\nthe extent  and nature of the bequests made in the aforesaid
\ntwo Wills.  We were  also informed  that  the  beneficiaries
\nunder the two Wills are substantially total strangers to the
\nfamily.\n<\/p>\n
7.   We heard Shri A.T.M. Sampath, counsel, who appeared for
\nthe appellants\tand  Mr.  K.  Ram  Kumar,  counsel  for\t the
\nrespondent. The arguments covered a wide range. In brief, it
\nis the\tplea of\t the appellant’s  counsel that\tin Ext. B-11
\nthere was  a dedication\t of  the  properties  to  the  first
\ndefendant  Temple   and\t Sadachiammal\tand  the  plaintiff,
\nobtained only  life estates. Ext. B-11 came into effect only
\non the\tdemise of  Armugham Pillai  in 1946, and on that day
\nsince he was the sole surviving coparcener, the bequest made
\nin Ext.\t B-11 is  valid. It was also contended that the High
\nCourt  was   in\t error\tin  holding  that  Sadachiammal\t and
\nplaintiff were\tgiven  life  estate  in\t A  and\t B  schedule
\nproperties in lieu of their antecedent right of maintenance.
\nthere is  no tangible material to hold so. In this view; the
\ncourt should  have held\t that the  suit for  declaration  of
\ntitle of  A &  B schedule  properties by  the  plaintiff  is
\nunsustainable. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent
\ncontended that\tthe properties\tdealt with  in Ext. B-11 are
\nadmittedly joint  family properties; that the Will Ext. B-11
\nwas executed  on 29.8.1932  when Armugham  was not  the sole
\nsurviving  coparcener;\t that  the  life  estates  given  to
\nSadachiammal  and  the\tplaintiff  over\t A  and\t B  schedule
\nproperties  were  in  lieu  of\ttheir  antecedent  right  of
\nmaintenance; that since Sadachiammal died on 13.6.1957 after
\nthe Hindu  Succession Act,  the life  estate obtained by her
\nover  A\t schedule  properties,\tenlarged  into\tan  absolute
\nestate. Similarly,  Ext. B-10,\tmaintenance decree, obtained
\nby the\tplaintiff in OS 191 of 1937 against Armugham Pillai,
\ncharged on  the plaint\tproperties is proof positive to show
\nthat she  was given  a life estate in lieu of her antecedent
\nright of  maintenance and  the life  estate so\tgiven to the
\nplaintiff regarding  B schedule properties also got enlarged
\ninto an\t absolute estate. So the bequests made regarding A &
\nB schedule properties in favour of the first defendant could
\nnot and\t did not  take place  at all.  The suit filed by the
\nplaintiff was rightly decreed by both the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
8.   The  finding   of\tthe  trial  court  that\t the  plaint
\nproperties were\t dedicated to  the first defendant Temple as
\nper Ext.  B-11 and  it was  not a  case of  creation of mere
\ncharge over the suit properties, was not adjudicated but was
\nleft open by the High Court. The scope and effect of Ext. B-
\n11 document  called for\t discussion of\talternate views. The
\nfurther question  whether the  properties dealt with in Ext.
\nB-11 were  joint family properties or separate properties of
\nthe testator  and whether  Armugham Pillai  was competent to
\ndeal with  the properties  by a\t testamentary instrument was
\nalso a\tmoot question.\tDuring the  course of hearing of the
\nappeal, we  indicated to  counsel that\tin view of the above
\nand the fact that the properties have been given as per Ext.
\nB-11 for a laudable purpose – the charities to ba carried on
\nin the\tTemple – the entire matter requires a second look in
\na broad\t sense. Plaint\tA schedule  contains seven  items of
\nproperties. Some  of them are very valuable prime properties
\nin  Coimbatore\t fetching  substantial\tincome.\t During\t the
\npendency of  the appeal in this Court an order was passed on
\n6.4.1987 requiring  the plaintiff  to deposit  Rs 2,500\/- as
\ncontribution for  the maintenance of the Temple. Considering
\nthe very valuable properties dealt with in Ext. B-11, (A and
\nB schedule)  we suggested to counsel, as to why the plaint A
\n& S  schedule properties  should  not  be  made\t liable\t and
\ncharged to  that extent for the performance of the charities
\nin the\tfirst defendant\t Temple. Counsel,  appearing on both
\nsides, agreed to our suggestion. In all the circumstances of
\nthe case,  we are  of the view that it is only just and fair
\nand for\t doing complete justice in the matter, that a sum of
\nRs. 24,000\/-  per year\tshould be  paid to the 1st defendant
\ntemple for  the performance  of the  charities specified  in
\nExt. B-11  Will and  a charge  created over  plaint  A\t&  B
\nschedule properties  to that  extent. Counsel  appearing for
\nboth the  parties graciously  agreed to\t this suggestion. We
\nhold that  a sum  of Rs.  24,000\/- shall accordingly be paid
\nevery year  to the  first defendant temple, by the person or
\npersons who are entitled to A and B schedule properties, and
\nthe said  properties shall  stand charged to that extent. As
\nwe stated  earlier, we\tare not deciding in this appeal, the
\nvalidity and nature of the interests, that have been created
\nas per the Wills executed by Sadachiammal and the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
9.   The appeal\t is disposed  of as  above. There  shall  be
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sri Mahaliamman Temple … vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (3), 127 1996 SCALE (2)617 Author: K Paripoornan Bench: Paripoornan, K.S.(J) PETITIONER: SRI MAHALIAMMAN TEMPLE &VIGNESWARAR KOIL REPRESENTED BYITS T Vs. RESPONDENT: VIJAYAMMAL (DEAD) BY LRS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/03\/1996 BENCH: PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J) BENCH: […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36505","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Mahaliamman Temple ... vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Mahaliamman Temple ... vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-02-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-01T08:26:40+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Mahaliamman Temple … vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-02-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-01T08:26:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996\"},\"wordCount\":2161,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996\",\"name\":\"Sri Mahaliamman Temple ... vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-02-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-01T08:26:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Mahaliamman Temple … vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri Mahaliamman Temple ... vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Mahaliamman Temple ... vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-02-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-01T08:26:40+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Mahaliamman Temple … vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996","datePublished":"1996-02-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-01T08:26:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996"},"wordCount":2161,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996","name":"Sri Mahaliamman Temple ... vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-02-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-01T08:26:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-mahaliamman-temple-vs-vijayammal-dead-by-lrs-on-1-march-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Mahaliamman Temple … vs Vijayammal (Dead) By Lrs on 1 March, 1996"}]},{"@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\/36505","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=36505"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36505\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36505"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36505"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36505"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}