{"id":48939,"date":"2008-06-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-20T18:36:12","modified_gmt":"2017-11-20T13:06:12","slug":"g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"G.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
G.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED:  23\/06\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\nSECOND APPEAL.No.319 of 2008\n\nG.Selvin\t\t\t\t\t...\tAppellant\/\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPlaintiff\nVs.\n\nUchimalai\t\t\t\t\t...\tRespondent\/\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t2nd defendant\n\n\t\tThis Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.,\nagainst the judgment and decree dated  27.02.2007 passed in Appeal Suit No.54 of\n2005 by the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai, confirming the judgment and decree\ndated 29.10.2004 passed in Original Suit No.28 of 1982 by the I-Additional\nDistrict Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.\n!For appellant  \t...\tMr.R.Subramanian\n^For respondent \t...\tMr.Sree Kumaran Nair\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\t\tChallenge in this second appeal is to the concurrent judgments
\npassed in Original Suit No.28 of 1982 by the First Additional District Munsif
\nCourt, Kuzhithurai and in Appeal Suit No.54 of 2005 by the Subordinate Court,
\nKuzhithurai.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t2.The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit
\nNo.28 of 1982 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court,
\nKuzhithurai, for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession, wherein
\nthe present respondent has been shown as the second defendant.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t3.The epitome of the averments made in the plaint may be stated like
\nthus;\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe suit ‘A’ schedule property is originally belong to one
\nSankaralingom Pilla and he died intestate leaving behind him, his two sons
\nnamely Gopalakrishna Pilla and Vallinayagom Pilla. On 13.01.1975 Gopalakrishna
\nPilla has executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under Document No.158
\nand on the same day, his brother by name Vallinayagom Pilla has executed a sale
\ndeed in favour of the plaintiff under Document No.159. On 09.05.1969,
\nP.Valliyamma Pilla has executed  a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under
\nDocument No.1672. After purchase, mutation has been effected in the name of the
\nplaintiff.  Sankaralingom Pilla has permitted one Madan Pilla son of Paradesia
\nPilla, the father of the first defendant, to put up a shed in the suit ‘A’
\nschedule property and accordingly a shed has been put up in an extent of three
\nquarters cent and after the demise of Madan Pilla, the first defendant has
\nresided in the shed. On 10.12.1981, the defendants have demolished the old shed
\nand abandoned their residence and thus their permissive possession has ceased to
\nexist. On 13.12.1981 the defendants with the assistance of hooligans, have
\nentered into the plaint ‘B’ schedule property and attempted to put up a new
\nbuilding.  On 16.12.1981 the plaintiff has come to know that Kuzhithurai
\nMunicipality has given a fraudulent sanction to put up a new building in favour
\nof the second defendant.  On 17.12.1981 the plaintiff filed a petition before
\nthe Kuzhithurai Municipality to cancel the sanction order. Without perusing
\nrelevant documents and without conducting proper enquiry, the Municipal
\nCommissioner has rejected the petition given by the plaintiff.  On 21.12.1981
\nthe plaintiff has issued a legal notice to the defendants and they issued a
\nreply notice containing false allegations.  The plaintiff is the absolute owner
\nof the suit ‘A’ schedule property.  The suit ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties are
\nthe part and parcel of the suit ‘A’ Schedule property. The defendants are also
\nmaking arrangements to cut and remove tamarind trees which are standing in ‘B’
\nSchedule property.  The defendants have no manner of right, title and interest
\nover the suit ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties. Under the said circumstances, the
\nplaintiff has come forward with the present suit for the reliefs of declaration
\nand recovery of possession in respect of the suit ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t4.The nubble of the averments made in the written statement may be
\nstated like thus;\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe description of properties is not correct.  There is no property
\non ground measuring 17.34 acres  as described in the plaint ‘A’ schedule.  The
\nsuit ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties have not been properly described in the
\nplaint.  The sale deeds mentioned in the plaint are invalid.  The suit
\nproperties are within the jurisdiction of Marthandam Sub Registry.  The ‘B’
\nschedule properties described in the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiff are
\nfictitious  properties.  The executants of the sale deeds have no manner of
\nright, title and interest over Survey No.229\/1A of Kulathoor Village. In order
\nto practice fraud in registration, the said properties have been introduced in
\nthe sale deeds and therefore, all the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiff
\nare void abinitio. The ancestors of the first defendant have enjoyed the plot
\nadmeasuring 0.05 cents and they put up a building. After the demise of the
\nancestors of the first defendant, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment
\nof the same.  The plaintiff is not having title to the suit properties. The
\nalleged predecessors in title of the plaintiff have filed Original Suit No.980
\nof 1109 for the relief of possession, wherein the father of the first defendant
\nhas been shown as sixth defendant and the said suit has been dismissed and the
\ndecision rendered therein operates as resjudicata to the present suit. The
\ndefendants and their predecessors in title have had enjoyed the suit property
\nmore than a statutory period and thereby prescribed title to the same by adverse
\npossession.  There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves dismissal.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t5.On the basis of the rival pleadings raised by either party, the
\ntrial Court has framed necessary issues.  On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 and
\non the side of the defendants, DW1 and on the side of the Court, CW1, have been
\nexamined.  Further on the side of the plaintiff, Exs.A1 to A28 and on the side
\nof the defendants, Exs.B1 to B32 and on the side of the Court, Exs.C1 to C4,
\nhave been filed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t6.The trial Court, after perpending both the oral and documentary
\nevidence, has dismissed the suit without costs. The judgment and decree passed
\nby the trial Court have been challenged in Appeal Suit No.54 of 2005 on the file
\nof the first appellate Court.  The first appellate Court, after reappraising the
\nevidence  available on record, has dismissed the appeal, whereby and whereunder
\nconfirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.  Against the
\nconcurrent judgments, the present second appeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t7.On the side of the appellant, the following substantial questions
\nof law and additional substantial question of law, have been raised for
\nconsideration;\n<\/p>\n
\t“a)Whether in law have not the Courts below failed to see that once the
\ndefendants admit title in respect of part of suit claim, the suit cannot be
\ndismissed in toto, but the Courts should have moulded the relief Order-7 Rule-7
\nC.P.C?\n<\/p>\n
\tb)Have not the Courts below misconstrued the judgment in 2003(1) CTC 539,
\nwhich has resulted in perverse findings?\n<\/p>\n
\tc)Whether in law are not the Courts below wrong in holding that the
\ndefendants have prescribed title by adverse possession in the absence of
\nnecessary pleadings and evidence?\n<\/p>\n
\td)Whether in law have not the Courts below misconstrued the concept of
\nres-judicata when Ex.B4 and Ex.B7 where not decided on merits?”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t8.As agreed by the learned counsel appearing for both sides, this
\nsecond appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t9.The crux of the plaintiff’s case is that the suit ‘B’ & ‘C’
\nschedule properties are the part and parcel of suit ‘A’ Schedule property and
\nthe same is originally belonged to one Sankaralingom Pilla and after his demise,
\nthe plaintiff has purchased the same under three registered sale deeds dated
\n09.05.1969 & 13.01.1975 and by virtue of the said sale deeds, the plaintiff has
\nbecome the absolute owner of the suit ‘A’ schedule property and the defendants
\nhave no manner of right, title and interest over the same and now they
\nunlawfully trespassed into the suit ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties and under the
\nsaid circumstances, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit for the
\nreliefs of declaration and recovery of possession  of the suit ‘B’ & ‘C’
\nschedule properties.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t10.The specific contentions urged on the side of the defendants are
\nthat the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiff for claiming title to the suit
\n‘A’ schedule property, are not legally valid and the same are void and
\ntherefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the
\nplaint and further the predecessors in title of the first defendant, have had
\nenjoyed the suit ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties during their life time and after
\ntheir demise, the defendants are enjoying the same and the alleged predecessors
\nin title of the plaintiff have filed Original Suit No.980 of 1109 for the relief
\nof recovery of possession, wherein the father of the first defendant has been
\nshown as sixth defendant and the said suit has been dismissed after hot contest
\nand therefore, the decision rendered therein is binding upon the plaintiff and
\nalso operates as resjudicata to the present suit and altogether the plaintiff is
\nnot entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11.The trial Court, has framed necessary issues and after
\ncontemplating the evidence available on record, has held that the sale deeds
\nrelied upon by the plaintiff are not legally valid and the same are void.
\nFurther the trial Court has held that the decision rendered in Original Suit
\nNo.980 of 1109 operates as resjudicata to the present suit.  The first appellate
\nCourt, after having thorough discussion has confirmed the judgment and decree
\npassed by the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/plaintiff has
\nmade various attempts so as to supplant the concurrent judgments passed by the
\nCourts below.  The first and foremost limb of argument is that the suit ‘A’
\nschedule property is originally belonged to Sankaralingom Pilla and after his
\ndemise, his two sons have succeeded his estate and they executed sale deeds in
\nfavour of the plaintiff and one P.Valliyamma Pilla has executed another sale
\ndeed in favour of the plaintiff and thus the plaintiff has acquired valid title
\nto the entire ‘A’ schedule property and the trial Court, without considering the
\nsame has erroneously found that the sale deeds which stand in the name of the
\nplaintiff are void and the first appellate Court has also erroneously upheld the
\nfinding given by the trial Court and therefore, the concurrent judgments passed
\nby the Courts below are liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t13.In order to remonstrate the above limb of argument advanced by
\nthe learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/plaintiff, the learned counsel
\nappearing for the respondent\/second defendant has befittingly contended that in
\nthe sale deeds dated 13.01.1975, the properties comprised in Survey No.229\/1A,
\nsituate in Kulathoor Village, have been shown as ‘B’ schedule properties and the
\nsuit ‘A’ schedule property is situate within the jurisdiction of Marthandam Sub
\nRegistry and in order to commit fraud in registration, the properties comprised
\nin Survey No.229\/1A have been schemingly introduced in the said sale deeds and
\nthe vendors of the plaintiff are not the owners of the properties, situate in
\nSurvey No.229\/1A and therefore, the sale deeds which stand in the name of the
\nplaintiff are not legally valid and the same are void and the trial court has
\nelaborately dealt with the above factual as well as legal aspect and ultimately
\nfound that the sale deeds which stand in the name of the plaintiff are void and
\nthe first appellate Court, has also upheld the finding given by the trial Court
\nand since the sale deeds which stand in the name of the plaintiff are void, no
\nvalid title has been passed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit
\n‘A’ schedule property and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the
\nreliefs sought for in the plaint and under the said circumstances, the
\nconcurrent judgments passed by the Courts below are not liable to be interfered
\nwith.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t14.On the basis of the rival submissions made by either counsel, the
\nCourt has to analyse as to whether the sale deeds which stand in the name of the
\nplaintiff are valid or void.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t15.The plaintiff has come forward with the present suit for the
\nreliefs of declaration and recovery of possession. Therefore, the plaintiff
\nshould succeed only on the basis of the pleadings put forth on his side.  The
\nsale deeds dated 13.01.1975, have been marked as Exs.A1 & A3.  It is an admitted
\nfact that the suit ‘A’ schedule property lies within the jurisdiction of
\nMarthandam Sub-Registrar Office. It is also equally an admitted fact that the
\nconcerned Thasildar has issued a certificate and the same has been marked as
\nEx.B14, wherein it has been clearly stated that Survey No.229\/1A is a promboke
\nland and the same situate in Kulathoor Village, which is not within the
\njurisdiction of Marthandam Sub-Registry.  Therefore, it is quite clear that in
\norder to commit fraud in registration, the lands comprised in Survey No.229\/1A
\nhave been schemingly introduced in Exs.A1 & A3.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t16.The learned counsel appearing for the respondent\/second defendant
\nhas befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in
\n2003(1) CTC 539 (M.Manoharadhas  Vs. C.Arumughaperumal Pillai and another)
\nwherein this Court has held at Paragraph-8 that the suit property is situate in
\nKanyakumari District i.e., within the jurisdiction of Sub-Registrar of
\nNagercoil.  The first defendant had executed the sale deed Ex.B1 dated
\n26.06.1985 at Parasalai of Kerala State.  To enable such a sale, the property at
\nS.No.80\/1, Parasalai Village in Neyyartin Karai Taluk, is shown as a security.
\nThe first respondent\/plaintiff has produced Ex.A6 certificate from the Tahsildar
\nstating that the first defendant has no possession or ownership of the property
\nsituate in Survey No.80\/1, which has been shown as security in Ex.B1. If no such
\nproperty is in existence, it follows that  Ex.B1 sale deed cannot be a valid
\nsale.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t17.From the close reading of the decision referred to above, it is
\nmade clear that if any sale deed is executed in respect of a property which
\nsituates in Tamil Nadu, a property which situates in other state and that too
\nnot standing in the name of vendor, should not be included in the sale deed for
\nthe purpose of getting registration in other state and if such property has been
\nincluded and registration has also been made in other state, the entire sale
\ndeed is nothing but void.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t18.At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into Section
\n17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908 and the same reads as follows;
\n\t“The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which
\nthey relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on
\nor after the date on which, Act No.XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act,
\n1866(XX of 1866), or the Registration Act, 1871 (VIII of 1871), or the Indian
\nRegistration Act, 1877(III of 1877), or this Act came or comes into force,
\nnamely:\n<\/p>\n
\t(a)…\t(b)other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate
\nto create, declare assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future,
\nany right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one
\nhundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property;”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t19.From the close reading of the provisions mentioned supra, it is
\nvery clear that if any property is sold and the same should be registered in a
\ndistrict in which it is situate.  In the instant case, as adverted to earlier,
\nthe suit ‘A’ Schedule property situates in Marthandam Sub-Registry, Tamil Nadu.
\nThe properties comprised in Survey No.229\/01 are situate in Kulathoor Village,
\nKerala State and Exs.A1 & A3 have been registered in Kerala State.  As per the
\nprovision of 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, Exs.A1 & A3 should be
\nregistered in the Sub-Registrar Office, Marthandam. In order to avoid
\nregistration charges, the properties comprised in Survey No.229\/1A have been
\nincluded in Exs.A1 & A3 in which the predecessors in title of the plaintiff have
\nhad no semblance of right.  Therefore, it is quite clear that Exs.A1 & A3 are
\nvoid documents.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t20.In view of the foregoing elucidation of both the factual and
\nlegal aspect, it is needless to say that the first limb of argument advanced by
\nthe learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/plaintiff is sans merit.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t21.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/plaintiff has
\nadvanced his second limb of argument to the effect that the present suit has
\nbeen instituted only in respect of the suit ‘B’ & ‘C’ Schedule properties and
\nthe plaintiff is ready to give the same to the defendants, but the trial Court
\nhas unnecessarily framed an issue to the effect as to whether the sale deeds
\nwhich stand in the name of the plaintiff are valid and ultimately held that
\nExs.A1 & A3 are void documents and on the basis of finding given by the trial
\nCourt, the plaintiff has lost his title in respect of entire ‘A’ schedule
\nproperty and therefore, the finding given by the trial Court with regard to
\nExs.A1 & A3 is nothing but superfluous and the same is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t22.The plaintiff has filed the present suit only on the basis of
\nExs.A1, A3 & A5.  The plaintiff has claimed absolute right and title over the
\nsuit ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties. Since the plaintiff has claimed title to the
\nsuit properties by virtue of Exs.A1, A3 & A5, the defendants have clearly stated
\nin the written statement at paragraph 8 that the sale deeds relied upon by the
\nplaintiff are abinitio void.  It is an acknowledged principle of law that a
\nquestion of law need not be raised in the pleading.  As per Order VI Rule 1 & 2
\nof the Code of Civil Procedure, “Pleading” shall mean plaint or written
\nstatement and every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a
\nconcise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his
\nclaim or defence, as the case may be.  Even though question of law need not be
\nraised in the pleading,  in the instant case, in the written statement filed by
\nthe defendants, it has been specifically mentioned that sale deeds relied upon
\nby the plaintiff are abinitio void.  Therefore, the trial Court has framed an
\nissue  to that effect and after discussing all the relevant factors, the trial
\nCourt has come to a conclusion that Exs.A1 & A3 are void documents.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t23.Further the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the
\nappellant\/plaintiff is that the Courts below have concurrently dismissed the
\nsuit mainly on the basis that Exs.A1 & A3 are void documents and even assuming
\nthat the defendants are entitled to get the suit ‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties,
\nthe plaintiff can maintain his title to the remaining portion of the ‘A’
\nschedule property.  It has already been stated in many places that the plaintiff
\nhas based his title to the entire ‘A’ schedule property only on the basis of
\nExs.A1, A3 & A5 and further the present suit is one for declaration and recovery
\nof possession.  Therefore, the title of the plaintiff can be declared only on
\nthe basis of documents on which he based his claim.  Under the said
\ncircumstances, the legal character of Exs.A1 & A3 should be decided by the
\nCourt.  In a suit for declaration without having valid document, the Court
\ncannot grant the relief of declaration and further Exs.A1 & A3 are void
\ndocuments.  Under void sales, no valid title passed in favour of vendee.  Since
\nExs.A1 & A3 are void sales, the plaintiff is not having title to the suit ‘A’,
\n‘B’ & ‘C’ schedule properties.  Therefore, the second limb of argument advanced
\nby the learned counsel appearing for the appellant\/plaintiff is not having
\nsubsisting force.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t24.On the side of the appellant\/plaintiff as many as four
\nsubstantial questions of law have been raised.  The first and foremost
\nsubstantial question of law is as to whether the Courts can mould the relief as
\nper order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  It has already been
\ntaunted in many places that in the instant case, Exs.A1 & A3 are void documents
\nand the same have not conferred valid title in favour of the plaintiff.
\nTherefore, in the instant case, question of moulding the relief does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t25.The second substantial question of law is as to whether the
\nCourts below have misconstrued the dictum rendered in the decision reported in
\n2003(1) CTC 539 (M.Manoharadhas  Vs. C.Arumughaperumal Pillai and another).  In
\nfact, this Court has also relied upon the said decision and the Courts below
\nhave rightly applied the same.  Therefore, the second substantial question of
\nlaw raised on the side of the appellant\/plaintiff is not legally sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t26.The third substantial question of law is as to whether the Courts
\nbelow are right in coming to a conclusion that the defendants have prescribed
\ntitle to the suit property by adverse possession.  In fact, an issue has been
\nframed to that effect by the trial Court, but no effective finding has been
\ngiven with regard to adverse possession.  In the instant case, the plaintiff is
\nnot having title to the entire ‘A’ schedule property by virtue of sale deeds
\nviz., Exs.A1 & A3 which are void documents.  Further as stated earlier, no
\neffective finding has been given by the Courts below with regard to adverse
\npossession and on that ground, the third substantial question of law raised on
\nthe side of the appellant\/plaintiff is also not legally sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t27.The fourth substantial question of law is as to whether the
\nCourts below are right in coming to a conclusion that the present suit is barred
\nby resjudicata. In the written statement filed on the  side of the defendants,
\nit has been specifically mentioned that the predecessors in title of the
\nplaintiff have filed Original Suit No.980 of 1109 and in which the father of the
\nfirst defendant has been shown as sixth defendant and the said suit has been
\ndismissed and the decision rendered therein operates as resjudicata to the
\npresent suit.  The Courts below have concurrently found that the present suit is
\nbarred by resjudicata, in view of the decision rendered in Original Suit No.980
\nof 1109.  The Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff is not
\nhaving title to the suit properties since Ex.A1 & A3 are void documents.  After
\ncoming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not having title to the suit
\nproperties, the plea of resjudicata need not be decided, but the Courts below
\nhave considered the same and the findings given by the Courts below are nothing
\nbut supernumerary and the same will not impinge nor debilitate the concurrent
\njudgments passed by the Courts below.  Therefore, in view of the discussions
\nmade earlier, it is very clear that all the substantial questions of law raised
\non the side of the appellant\/plaintiff are not legally sustainable and no
\nsubstantial question of law arises in the present second appeal and ultimately
\nthe present second appeal deserves dismissal at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t28.In fine, this second appeal deserves dismissal and accordingly is
\ndismissed with costs at the stage of admission.  The judgment and decree passed
\nin Original Suit No.28 of 1982 by the First Additional District Munsif Court,
\nKuzhithurai and upheld in Appeal Suit No.54 of 2005 by the Subordinate Court,
\nKuzhithurai, are confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
gcg<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Subordinate Judge,
\n  Kuzhihurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The I-Additional District Munsif,
\n  Kuzhithurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court G.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23\/06\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM SECOND APPEAL.No.319 of 2008 G.Selvin … Appellant\/ Plaintiff Vs. Uchimalai … Respondent\/ 2nd defendant This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree […]<\/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-48939","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nG.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 2008 - 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\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"G.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-20T13:06:12+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"G.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-20T13:06:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3812,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008\",\"name\":\"G.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-20T13:06:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"G.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"G.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 2008 - 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\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"G.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-20T13:06:12+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"G.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-20T13:06:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008"},"wordCount":3812,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008","name":"G.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-20T13:06:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/g-selvin-vs-uchimalai-on-23-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"G.Selvin vs Uchimalai on 23 June, 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\/48939","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=48939"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48939\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48939"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48939"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48939"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}