{"id":39608,"date":"2010-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010"},"modified":"2016-02-01T10:59:03","modified_gmt":"2016-02-01T05:29:03","slug":"sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By … vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By … vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: V Sirpurkar<\/div>\n
Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, Cyriac Joseph<\/div>\n
                                                1\n\n\n\n\n                                                         \"REPORTABLE\"\n\n                   THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n               CIVIL APPEAL NO.  8864   OF 2010\n         (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 5301 OF 2007)\n\nSri Ramakrishna Mutt \nRep. By Manager                                           ... Appellant\n\n\n\n                                Versus\n\n\n\nM. Maheswaran & Ors.                               ... Respondents\n\n\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.    Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    A   unanimous   verdict   of   the   three   Courts   below <\/p>\n
dismissing   the   suit   filed   by   Sri   Ramakrishna   Mutt <\/p>\n
(appellant herein) is in challenge in this appeal.  <\/p>\n
3.    The   conspectus   of   the   facts   would   be   necessary <\/p>\n
before we approach further.   One Kannabiran Pillai had <\/p>\n
two wives.   The name of his second wife was Kumudammal <\/p>\n
with   whom   he   had   got   married   before   the   advent   of   The <\/p>\n
Hindu   Marriage   Act,   1955.     As   such,   she   was   a <\/p>\n
legitimate wife.  She had no children.  The respondents <\/p>\n
herein   are   the   children,   or   as   the   case   may   be,   the <\/p>\n
                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
legal   heirs   of   the   children   of   the   first   wife   of <\/p>\n
Kannabiran   Pillai.     Kannabiran   died   on   31.12.1956, <\/p>\n
while   Kumudammal   died   on   18.3.1989.     During   his <\/p>\n
lifetime,   Kannabiran   had   executed   settlement   deeds <\/p>\n
being   Exhibits   A-2,   A-3   and   A-4,   wherein,   he   had <\/p>\n
created   a   life   interest   in   favour   of   Kumudammal.     The <\/p>\n
initial   settlement   deed   was   dated   20.10.1938.     He <\/p>\n
created   a   supplementary   deed   on   4.3.1939   and   a <\/p>\n
rectification   deed   dated   23.7.1943.                           Kumudammal <\/p>\n
remained   in   possession   of   the   properties   and   enjoyed <\/p>\n
the   same   during   her   lifetime,   inasmuch   as,   it   was <\/p>\n
Kumudammal   who   used   to   recover   the   rents.     Thus,   she <\/p>\n
was   in   constructive   possession   of   the   property.     In <\/p>\n
those settlement deeds, it was provided that after the <\/p>\n
demise   of   Kumudammal,   the   property   would   go   in   favour <\/p>\n
of the appellant\/plaintiff Sri Ramakrishna Mutt.<\/p>\n
4.     A civil suit, therefore, came to be filed against <\/p>\n
the   respondents   herein   by   the   appellant\/plaintiff   for <\/p>\n
claiming   the   property   and   it   was   pleaded   that   since <\/p>\n
Kumudammal had only the life interest, after her death, <\/p>\n
the         property         would         revert         back         to         the <\/p>\n
appellant\/plaintiff   Sri   Ramakrishna   Mutt   in   terms   of <\/p>\n
the settlement deeds.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
5.    This   claim   was   contested   by   the   defendants <\/p>\n
including   the   tenants   and   the   children   from   the   first <\/p>\n
wife   of   Kannabiran   on   the   ground   that   the   property <\/p>\n
could   not   have   gone   back   as   per   the   settlement   deeds, <\/p>\n
as Kumudammal had become full owner of the property on <\/p>\n
account   of   Section   14(1)   of   The   Hindu   Succession   Act, <\/p>\n
1956.     Issues   were   framed   and   as   has   been   stated <\/p>\n
earlier,   all   the   three   Courts   below   held   that <\/p>\n
Kumudammal   had   become   absolute   owner   of   the   property <\/p>\n
under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act as she <\/p>\n
was in possession of those properties on the date when <\/p>\n
the Hindu Succession Act came on the anvil.   The Hindu <\/p>\n
Succession   Act   came   on   the   anvil   on   17.6.1956.     It   is <\/p>\n
this   unanimous   verdict   which   is   in   challenge   in   the <\/p>\n
present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    Shri A.K. Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel appearing <\/p>\n
on   behalf   of   the   appellant   had   taken   us   through   the <\/p>\n
judgments of the Courts below, as also the record.  The <\/p>\n
mainstay of his contention was that Kumudammal was not <\/p>\n
in possession of the suit property on the date when the <\/p>\n
Hindu   Succession   Act   came   into   force   because   the <\/p>\n
possession was that of Kannabiran Pillai himself, since <\/p>\n
on that date he was alive.   The learned Senior Counsel <\/p>\n
                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
pointed out that the date of his death i.e. 31.12.1956 <\/p>\n
was   subsequent   to   the   date   on   which   the   Hindu <\/p>\n
Succession   Act   came   into   force   and,   therefore,   it <\/p>\n
should   be   presumed   that   it   was   only   Kannabiran   Pillai <\/p>\n
who was in possession of the property on the date when <\/p>\n
the   said   Act   came   into   force.     The   learned   Senior <\/p>\n
Counsel   pointed   out   that   in   order   that   the   possession <\/p>\n
of a Hindu widow to be ripened into the full rights of <\/p>\n
ownership, it is essential that the Hindu widow having <\/p>\n
limited right or life interest should be in possession <\/p>\n
of   the   properties  on   the   date  on   which   the   Hindu <\/p>\n
Succession Act came into force i.e. 17.6.1956.  For his <\/p>\n
contentions, Shri Sanghi relied on the decision of this <\/p>\n
Court   in  Sadhu   Singh   Vs.   Gurdwara   Sahib   Narike   &   Ors.  <\/p>\n
[2006 (8) SCC 75].\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.    Shri V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on <\/p>\n
behalf of the respondents, urged that the law laid down <\/p>\n
in   the   decision   in  Sadhu   Singh   Vs.   Gurdwara   Sahib  <\/p>\n
Narike & Ors. (cited supra) will not apply to the facts <\/p>\n
herein.     The   learned   Senior   Counsel   pointed   out   that <\/p>\n
all   the   three   Courts   below   have   held,   as   a   matter   of <\/p>\n
fact,   that   on   the   day   when   the   Hindu   Succession   Act <\/p>\n
came   into   force,   it   was   Kumudammal   who   was   in <\/p>\n
                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
possession   of   the   property   and   not   Kannabiran   Pillai. <\/p>\n
The learned Senior Counsel further argued that there is <\/p>\n
a   specific   recital   in   the   three   settlement   deeds   and <\/p>\n
more   particularly,   on   the   settlement   deed   dated <\/p>\n
4.3.1939   that   Kumudammal   was   put   in   possession   of   the <\/p>\n
property on the date when the said settlement deed, to <\/p>\n
put in more rightly, the supplementary deed, came into <\/p>\n
existence on 4.3.1939.  He, therefore, pointed out that <\/p>\n
at least from that date, Kumudammal was in constructive <\/p>\n
possession of the properties.   Once Kumudammal is held <\/p>\n
to   be   in   possession   or   constructive   possession   of   the <\/p>\n
property, the law laid in the decision in  V. Tulasamma  <\/p>\n
& Ors. Vs. Sesha Reddy (D) by L.Rs. [1977 (3) SCC 99] <\/p>\n
would   apply.     It   will,   therefore,   be   our   endeavour   to <\/p>\n
see   as   to   whether   Kumudammal   was   in   possession   or <\/p>\n
constructive   possession   of   the   property   on   17.6.1956, <\/p>\n
the   date   on   which   the   Hindu   Succession   Act   came   into <\/p>\n
force.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.    Apart   from   the   fact   that   there   is   a   unanimous <\/p>\n
finding   of   all   the   three   Courts   below   on   this   point, <\/p>\n
the issue would be clinched by the recitals in the said <\/p>\n
settlement deeds.\n<\/p>\n
\n                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
9.     The first such settlement deed is date 20.10.1938. <\/p>\n
Under that deed, the property is described in Schedules <\/p>\n
A and B and the relevant recital are as under:-<\/p>\n
“1.    This   instrument   witnesseth   that   in   consideration <\/p>\n
of   the   premises   above   said,   the   settlor   doth   hereby <\/p>\n
convey   transfer   and   assign   in   favour   of   the   Mission, <\/p>\n
the   properties   described   in   the   Schedules   A   and   B <\/p>\n
hereto subject to the life interest created hereinafter <\/p>\n
below   and   the   Mission   shall   be   entitled   to   enjoy <\/p>\n
subject as aforesaid the properties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.     The settlor shall be entitled during the period of <\/p>\n
his   life   to   enjoy   the   income   from   the   properties   set <\/p>\n
out in Schedules A and B hereto.   The settlor’s second <\/p>\n
wife   Kumudammal   after   the   settlor’s   lifetime   be <\/p>\n
entitled   to   utilize   for   herself   the   income   only   from <\/p>\n
the properties described in Schedule A hereto and shall <\/p>\n
have   no   right   to   the   properties   set   out   in   Schedule   B <\/p>\n
hereto   on   the   death   of   the   settlor.     On   the   death   of <\/p>\n
the   settlor,   the   Mission   shall   take   possession   of   the <\/p>\n
property   set   out   in   Schedule   B   hereto   and   enjoy   the <\/p>\n
same   with   full   powers   of   ownership   after   the   lifetime <\/p>\n
of both the settlor and his second wife aforesaid.  The <\/p>\n
Mission   shall   take   possession   of   the   property   set   out <\/p>\n
in Schedule A hereto and enjoy the same with full right <\/p>\n
of ownership.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.     Settlor hereof declares that a part from the right <\/p>\n
to   enjoy   the   income   for   himself   and   his   second   wife <\/p>\n
aforesaid   the   settlor   shall   have   no   right   whatever   to <\/p>\n
                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
deal   with   the   properties   settled   on   the   Mission <\/p>\n
hereunder as from this date.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      It seems that a supplementary deed was executed by <\/p>\n
Kannabiran   Pillai,   which   is   described   as   Document   No. <\/p>\n
413 of 1939.  This deed was executed on 4.3.1939.  This <\/p>\n
supplementary deed mentions the earlier settlement deed <\/p>\n
dated   20.10.1938   and   the   fact   of   its   registration   in <\/p>\n
respect of the properties in the Schedules thereto.  It <\/p>\n
then goes on to say that:-\n<\/p>\n
“whereas   without   prejudice   to   the   rights   of   the <\/p>\n
Ramakrishna Mission detailed therein, I have decided to <\/p>\n
confer   an  immediate  interest  in  the Schedule  mentioned <\/p>\n
properties   in   favour   of   my   second   wife   Kumudammal   at <\/p>\n
her   request   and   with   a   view   to   domestic   peace   and <\/p>\n
whereas   no   other   provision   has   been   made   for   the <\/p>\n
maintenance   and   convenient   enjoyment   of   my   second   wife <\/p>\n
the   said   Kumudammal,   but   suitable   provisions   have <\/p>\n
already   been   made   for   my   first   wife   and   children   and <\/p>\n
whereas   these   properties   are   all   myself   acquisitions <\/p>\n
and   are   at   my   absolute   disposal.    I   hereby   declare <\/p>\n
create   and   convey   present   interest   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
said   Kumudammal   my   second   wife   that   she   shall <\/p>\n
immediately   possess   and   enjoy   the   Schedule   mentioned <\/p>\n
properties   during   her   lifetime   and   utilize   the   rents <\/p>\n
and   profits   for   her   own   benefit   without   left   on <\/p>\n
hindrance but without any power of alienation and after <\/p>\n
her   lifetime   the   said   properties   shall   pass   to   the <\/p>\n
Ramakrishna   Mission   in   continuance   with   the   settlement <\/p>\n
                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
deed aforesaid.   During my lifetime I shall manage the <\/p>\n
said   properties   for   her   benefit   and   after   my   lifetime <\/p>\n
she   will   be   at   liberty   to   appoint   any   agent   to   manage <\/p>\n
the said properties for her benefit with a view to the <\/p>\n
proper realization of rents and profits and keeping the <\/p>\n
premises in good conditions.” (Emphasis supplied).<\/p>\n
       It   seems   that   on   23.7.1943,   Kannabiran   Pillai <\/p>\n
executed a rectification deed to rectify the settlement <\/p>\n
deed   dated   20.10.1938,   wherein,   the   only   rectification <\/p>\n
effected   was   that   in   place   of   “Ramakrishna   Mission”, <\/p>\n
the   words   “Ramakrishna   Mutt,   Mylapore”   were   inserted. <\/p>\n
This   was   necessitated   as   the   settlor   Kannabiran   Pillai <\/p>\n
was   under   the   impression   earlier   that   there   was   no <\/p>\n
difference   between   Ramakrishna   Mutt   and   Ramakrishna <\/p>\n
Mission;   however,   he   had   realized   that   the   work   of <\/p>\n
Mission   does   not   cover   the   Puja   and   Seva   of   Sri   Rama <\/p>\n
Krishna Paramahansa and the Mission was not a religious <\/p>\n
body,   though   the   workers   of   the   same   are   Sanyasis   of <\/p>\n
the Ramakrishna Mutt.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.    These three deeds are the documents relied upon by <\/p>\n
the   appellant\/plaintiff.             The   appellant\/plaintiff, <\/p>\n
therefore,   cannot   travel   away   from   these   three <\/p>\n
settlement deeds.  The position thus becomes clear that <\/p>\n
Kumudammal   was   given   the   possession   of   this   property <\/p>\n
                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
and   was   also   given   the   right   to   enjoy   the   property   by <\/p>\n
collecting   rents   of   the   same   right   from   4.3.1939   even <\/p>\n
during   the   lifetime   of   her   husband   Kannabiran   Pillai <\/p>\n
who   was  only   managing  the   properties   on   her   behalf. <\/p>\n
Thus,   these   documents   will   clearly   go   to   prove   the <\/p>\n
possession   of   Kumudammal   right   from   4.3.1939   and, <\/p>\n
therefore,   the   subsequent   death   of   her   husband <\/p>\n
Kannabiran   on   31.12.1956   would   be   of   no   consequence. <\/p>\n
In short, Kumudammal was in possession of the property <\/p>\n
in   pursuance   of   her   pre-existing   right   of   maintenance <\/p>\n
on   17.6.1956,   the   date   on   which   the   Hindu   Succession <\/p>\n
Act   came   into   force.     That   would   clearly   clinch   the <\/p>\n
issue in favour of the original defendants, whose case <\/p>\n
is   that   thereby,   Kumudammal’s   right   of   life   interest <\/p>\n
ripened into full ownership.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.    Shri   Sanghi,   learned   Senior   Counsel,   appearing   on <\/p>\n
behalf of the appellant, in his usual persuasive style, <\/p>\n
pointed   out   that   the   law   laid   down   in  V.   Tulasamma   &  <\/p>\n
Ors.   Vs.   Sesha   Reddy   (D)   by   L.Rs.   (cited   supra)  has <\/p>\n
been   further   explained   in  Sadhu   Singh   Vs.   Gurdwara  <\/p>\n
Sahib Narike & Ors. (cited supra), where this Court has <\/p>\n
held to apply the law laid down in  V. Tulasamma & Ors.  <\/p>\n
Vs. Sesha Reddy (D) by L.Rs. (cited supra), it must be <\/p>\n
                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
shown that the concerned widow or the lady, as the case <\/p>\n
may be, should be in possession of the property on the <\/p>\n
date   when   the   Hindu   Succession   Act   came   into   force <\/p>\n
without   going   into   the   controversy   as   to   whether   the <\/p>\n
rule   in  V.   Tulasamma   &   Ors.   Vs.   Sesha   Reddy   (D)   by  <\/p>\n
L.Rs. (cited supra) depends upon such possession on the <\/p>\n
date when the said Act came into force.  It is clear in <\/p>\n
this case that Kumudammal was in such possession of the <\/p>\n
property on the date when the Hindu Succession Act came <\/p>\n
into force.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.    Shri   Sanghi   then   tried   to   urge   that   at   least <\/p>\n
during   the   lifetime   of   Kannabiran   Pillai   upto   to <\/p>\n
31.12.1956,   the   actual   possession   of   Kumudammal   could <\/p>\n
not be presumed and, therefore, we should hold that the <\/p>\n
possession was that of Kannabiran Pillai himself.  Even <\/p>\n
this   contention   is   not   available   to   the   appellant   in <\/p>\n
this   particular   case   as   even   the   constructive <\/p>\n
possession   of   a   female   Hindu   has   been   held   to   be <\/p>\n
sufficient for the application of Section 14(1) of the <\/p>\n
Hindu   Succession   Act,   in   catena   of   decisions. <\/p>\n
Reference may be made to the decision rendered by this <\/p>\n
Court   in  Gummalapura   Taggina   Matada   Kotturuswami   Vs.  <\/p>\n
                                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
Setra   Veeravva   [AIR   1959   SC   577],   where   this   Court <\/p>\n
expressed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
\n“The   opening   words   in   “property   possessed   by   a   female
\nHindu”   obviously   mean   that   to   come   within   the   purview
\nof   the   section   the   property   must   be   in   possession   of
\nthe female concerned at the date of the commencement of
\nthe   Act.   They   clearly   contemplate   the   female’s
\npossession   when   the   Act   came   into   force.              That
\npossession   might   have   been   either   actual   or
\nconstructive   or   in   any   form   recognized   by   law,   but
\nunless   the   female   Hindu,   whose   limited   estate   in   the
\ndisputed   property   is   claimed   to   have   been   transformed
\ninto absolute estate under this particular section, was
\nat   least   in   such   possession,   taking   the   word
\n“possession”   in   its   widest   connotation,   when   the   Act
\ncame   into   force,   the   section   would   not   apply.”
\n(Emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       Similar view was expressed in Dindayal Vs. Rajaram  <\/p>\n
[1970   (1)   SCC   786],   where   the   constructive   possession <\/p>\n
of   a   female   Hindu   was   recognized   for   the   purposes   of <\/p>\n
application   of   Section   14(1)   of   the   Hindu   Succession <\/p>\n
Act.  Therefore, even this contention fails.<\/p>\n
13.    Shri   Sanghi,   learned   Senior   Counsel   then   pointed <\/p>\n
out   that   no   such   contention   was   raised   by   the <\/p>\n
defendants   in   their   Written   Statement.     In   fact,   that <\/p>\n
is   also   not   correct.     From   the   very   beginning,   the <\/p>\n
stand   of   the   defendants   was   that   under   no <\/p>\n
circumstances,   could   the   property   go   back   to <\/p>\n
Ramakrishna Mutt in view of Section 14(1) of the Hindu <\/p>\n
Succession   Act.     This   is   apart   from   the   fact   that   the <\/p>\n
                                     12<\/span><\/p>\n
Courts below and more particularly, the first appellate <\/p>\n
Court   and   the   High   Court   had   gone   on   the   question   of <\/p>\n
applicability   of   Section   14(1)   of   the   Hindu   Succession <\/p>\n
Act   and   held   that   the   Section   applied   to   the   facts   of <\/p>\n
the   case.     In   fact,   the   first   appellate   Court   has   in <\/p>\n
details   discussed   as   to   why   Section   14(2)   will   not <\/p>\n
apply and further the application of rule laid down in <\/p>\n
V. Tulasamma & Ors. Vs. Sesha Reddy (D) by L.Rs. (cited  <\/p>\n
supra).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.    In view of all this, we do not find any merits in <\/p>\n
the   appeal   and   dismiss   the   same   confirming   the   orders <\/p>\n
passed   by   the   Courts   below.     However,   under   the <\/p>\n
circumstances, there shall be no orders as to the costs.<\/p>\n
                                                     ……………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   [V.S. Sirpurkar]<\/p>\n
                                                     ………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                   [Cyriac Joseph]
\nNew Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
October 8, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
\n13<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By … vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010 Author: V Sirpurkar Bench: V.S. Sirpurkar, Cyriac Joseph 1 “REPORTABLE” THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8864 OF 2010 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 5301 OF 2007) Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep. By […]<\/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-39608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By ... vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010 - 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-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By ... vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-01T05:29:03+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=\"12 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-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By … vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-01T05:29:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2320,\"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-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By ... vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-01T05:29:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By … vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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 Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By ... vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010 - 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-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By ... vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-01T05:29:03+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By … vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-01T05:29:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010"},"wordCount":2320,"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-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010","name":"Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By ... vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-01T05:29:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-ramakrishna-mutt-rep-by-vs-m-maheswaran-ors-on-8-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Ramakrishna Mutt Rep.By … vs M.Maheswaran & Ors on 8 October, 2010"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/39608","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=39608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}