{"id":5138,"date":"2010-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-15T12:22:58","modified_gmt":"2018-04-15T06:52:58","slug":"paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 October, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 29\/10\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM\n\nSA(MD)No.690 of 2008\n&amp;\nSA(MD)No.976 of 2008\nand\nMP(MD)No.1 of 2008\n\nSA(MD)No.690\/2008:\n\n1.Paulsamy Nadar\n2.A.Ganesan Nadar\n3.Vairava Nadar\n4.Karuthapandian  \t.. Appellants\/Defendants 1 to 4\n\nVs.\n\n1.Udaya Kumar Lingan\n  rep.through the Power Agent\n  Sathiaseelan          .. Respondent\/plaintiff<\/pre>\n<p>2.The Panchayat Chairman<br \/>\n  Rayagiri Town Panchayat<br \/>\n  Rayagiri.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Tirunelveli District\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Executive Officer<br \/>\n  Rayagiri Town Panchayat<br \/>\n  Rayagiri, Tirunelveli District.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\t\t    \t.. Respondents\/Defendants 6 &amp; 7\n\n4.Rajamani         \t.. Respondent\/5th Defendant\n\n\nSA(MD)No.976\/2008:\t\n\n1.The Panchayat Chairman\n  Rayagiri Town Panchayat\n  Rayagiri\n  Tirunelveli District\n2.The Executive Officer\n  Rayagiri Town Panchayat\n  Rayagiri\n  Tirunelveli District\n\t\t     \t.. Appellants\/Defendants 6 &amp; 7\n\nvs.\n\n1.Udaya Kumar Lingan\n  rep.by his power agent\n      Sathiaseelan      .. Respondent\/plaintiff\n  (Amended as per order\n      dated 29\/10\/2010)\n2.Paulsamy Nadar\n3.A.Ganesan Nadar\n4.Vairava Nadar\n5.Karuthapandian\n                \t.. Respondents\/Defendants 1 to 4\n6.Rajamani        \t.. Respondent\/5th Defendant\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tSecond Appeals filed under section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and<br \/>\ndecree dated 11.02.2008 passed in Appeal Suit No.9 of 2006 by the Sub Court,<br \/>\nSankarankoil reversing the Judgment and decree dated 29.09.2005 passed in<br \/>\nOriginal Suit No.37 of 2002 by the District Munsif &#8211; cum &#8211; Judicial Magistrate<br \/>\nCourt, Sankarankoil.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n!For Appellants ...  M\/s.S.Siva Thilakar\n^For R - 1      ...  Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan\nFor RR - 2 &amp; 3  ...  Mr.S.Pon Senthilkumaran\n\t\t     (SA.No.690\/2008)\nFor Appellants  ...  M\/s.S.Pon Senthilkumaran\nFor R - 1       ...  M\/s.K.Vinayagan (caveator)\nFor RR - 2 to 6 ...  No appearance\n\t\t     (SA.No.976\/2008)\n\n:COMMON JUDGMENT\n\t\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe Judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No.9 of 2006 by the Sub<br \/>\nCourt, Sankarankoil are being challenged in the present second appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The first respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit<br \/>\nNo.37 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif &#8211; cum &#8211; Judicial Magistrate<br \/>\nCourt, Sankarankoil for the reliefs of declaration, permanent injunction,<br \/>\nmandatory injunction and also for recovery of possession of the suit second<br \/>\nschedule, wherein the appellants in Second Appeal No.690 of 2008 have been shown<br \/>\nas defendants 1 to 4 and the appellants in Second Appeal No.976 of 2008 have<br \/>\nbeen shown as defendants 6 and 7.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. It is averred in the plaint that the suit properties are originally<br \/>\nbelonged to one  Thanapathi Ammal and she purchased the same under two<br \/>\nregistered sale deeds dated 06.12.1978. The plaintiff has purchased the suit<br \/>\nfirst schedule under a registered sale deed dated 20.09.2001. The suit second<br \/>\nschedule forms part of the suit first schedule and the same has been shown as<br \/>\n&#8216;ghdf&#8217; in the plaint plan. Since the predecessor in title of the plaintiff has<br \/>\nserved in some other place, the first defendant and defendants 6 and 7 have<br \/>\ntrespassed into the suit second schedule and formed a pathway. No land<br \/>\nacquisition proceedings have been taken. During December 2001, the plaintiff has<br \/>\nattempted to put up compound wall and at that time the defendants 1 to 5 have<br \/>\nrestrained the plaintiff from proceeding with the construction of compound wall.<br \/>\nThe defendants are not having any manner of right, title and interest over the<br \/>\nsuit second schedule. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been<br \/>\ninstituted for the reliefs sought for in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. In the written statement filed by the defendants 2 and 4 it is averred<br \/>\nthat it is false to contend that the plaintiff has purchased the suit properties<br \/>\nunder a registered sale deed dated 20.09.2001. It is also equally false to<br \/>\ncontend that during December 2001 the plaintiff has attempted to put up compound<br \/>\nwall in the suit second schedule. In Rayagiri Village one Hindu Nadar<br \/>\nUravinmurai is in existence and from the said Uravinmurai, a school by name<br \/>\nCi.Pa.Sivanthi Athithanar Girls High school has been running and the same is<br \/>\nsituate in Survey No.1029 and further, Higher secondary School is also situate<br \/>\nnear the school mentioned supra. In Survey No.1026\/1 to 9 a road has been formed<br \/>\nto a width of 16 feet. The vendor of the plaintiff has gifted a portion in the<br \/>\nsuit properties to a width of 16 feet from north to south for the purpose of<br \/>\nforming road and accordingly a road has been formed in the suit properties and<br \/>\nsubsequently in the year 1996 the same has been handed over to the sixth<br \/>\ndefendant. The present suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and<br \/>\nthere is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to the dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. In the written statement filed on the side of the sixth defendant it is<br \/>\naverred that in the year 1996 the plaintiff has orally gifted the suit second<br \/>\nschedule to the sixth respondent and the same has been accepted by the sixth<br \/>\nrespondent and also taken delivery of possession. As per the resolution dated<br \/>\n29.08.1997 a tender has been called for and one Ayyanr has become a successful<br \/>\nbidder and he has been permitted to form road. Since the plaintiff himself has<br \/>\ngiven the suit second schedule orally to the sixth defendant, the plaintiff is<br \/>\nnot entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the plaint. There is no merit in<br \/>\nthe suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. On the basis of the divergent pleadings raised on either side, the<br \/>\ntrial Court has framed necessary issues and after evaluating the evidence<br \/>\navailable on record has dismissed the suit. Against the Judgment and decree<br \/>\npassed by the trial Court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred Appeal Suit<br \/>\nNo.9 of 2006 on the file of the first appellate Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The first appellate Court after hearing both sides and upon<br \/>\nreappraising the evidence available on record has allowed Appeal Suit No.9 of<br \/>\n2006 and consequently decreed the suit as prayed for. Against the Judgment and<br \/>\ndecree passed by the first appellate Court, the defendants 1 to 4 as appellants<br \/>\nhave preferred Second Appeal No.690 of 2008 and the defendants 6 and 7 have<br \/>\npreferred Second Appeal No.976 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In Second Appeal No.690 of 2008, the following substantial questions of<br \/>\nlaw have been raised for consideration on the side of the appellants\/defendants<br \/>\n1 to 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law in holding that<br \/>\nthe 1st respondent is entitled to the 2nd schedule suit property, when the suit<br \/>\nis as framed against the respondents 1 to 4 in their individual capacity is<br \/>\nsustainable in law?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law in not adverting<br \/>\nto vital legal aspect that the suit is not sustainable in law in view of Order 1<br \/>\nRule 9 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, when the persons<br \/>\nconcerned over the suit 2nd schedule pathway property is the Hindu Nadar<br \/>\nUravinmurai which is running the Ci.Pa.Sivanthi Adithanar Girls Higher Secondary<br \/>\nschool for which the pathway is being used has not been arrayed as necessary<br \/>\nparty in the suit?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law in not holding<br \/>\nthat the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of<br \/>\nnecessary parties as required under Order 1 Rule 9 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the<br \/>\nCivil Procedure Code?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law does not deserve<br \/>\nadverse inference against the 1st respondent, since the original plaintiff did<br \/>\nnot enter into witness box to put forth their case?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. In Second Appeal No.976 of 2008, the following substantial questions of<br \/>\nlaw have been raised for consideration on the side of the appellants\/defendants<br \/>\n6 and 7.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(i) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law in holding that<br \/>\nthe 1st respondent is entitled to the 2nd schedule suit property, when the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent as plaintiff has failed to issue mandatory notice to the appellant<br \/>\npanchayat as required by section 231 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law in not holding<br \/>\nthat the vendor of 1st respondent is estopped by her own conduct when she had<br \/>\nwaived her right over the 2nd schedule property for several years and allowed<br \/>\nthe appellate panchayat to lay the pucca metal road and having kept quite for<br \/>\nseveral years has deposed that she has not given oral gift to the Uravin Murai<br \/>\nSchool?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) Whether the appellate Court is correct in law in not holding that<br \/>\nthe suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary<br \/>\nparties as required under Order 1 Rule 9 and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil<br \/>\nProcedure Code?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law in not drawing<br \/>\nadverse inference against the 1st respondent since the original plaintiff did<br \/>\nnot enter into witness box to put forth his case?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. As agreed by the learned counsels appearing for both sides, the<br \/>\npresent second appeals are disposed of on merits at the stage of admission.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The crux of the case of the plaintiff is that his predecessor in title<br \/>\nby name Thanapathi Ammal has purchased the suit properties under two registered<br \/>\nsale deeds dated 06.12.1978 and thereafter she sold the same in favour of the<br \/>\nplaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 20.09.2001. The suit second<br \/>\nschedule  forms part of the suit first schedule and the same has been shown as<br \/>\n&#8216;ghdf&#8217; in the plaint plan and the defendants have trespassed into the suit<br \/>\nsecond schedule and formed a road by way of denying the title of the plaintiff.<br \/>\nUnder the said circumstances the present suit has been instituted for the<br \/>\nreliefs  sought for in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants 2 and 4<br \/>\nit is averred that the predecessor in title of the plaintiff viz., Thanapathi<br \/>\nAmmal has orally gifted 16 feet north south in the suit properties for the<br \/>\npurpose of forming road so as to reach Girls High School as well as Higher<br \/>\nSecondary School and subsequently a road has been formed and thereafter orally<br \/>\nhanded over the same to the sixth defendant in the year 1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In the written statement filed on the side of the sixth defendant it<br \/>\nis averred that in the year 1996 the plaintiff himself has orally gifted the<br \/>\nsuit second schedule for the purpose of laying road and subsequently a road has<br \/>\nbeen formed and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the reliefs<br \/>\nsought for in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. As stated earlier, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. But the<br \/>\nfirst appellate Court has decreed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.  The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Second Appeal<br \/>\nNo.690 of 2008 has strenuously contended that in the year 1996 the predecessor<br \/>\nin title of the plaintiff viz., Thanapathi Ammal has orally gifted an extent of<br \/>\n16 feet from north to south for the purpose of laying road and subsequently a<br \/>\nroad has been formed and thereafter in the year 1996, the same has been handed<br \/>\nover to the sixth defendant and the plaintiff has attempted to put up<br \/>\nconstruction in the suit first schedule, wherein he has clearly admitted that<br \/>\nthe suit second schedule has been set apart for the purpose of laying road and<br \/>\nfurther the defendants 2 and 4 are not having independent right over the suit<br \/>\nsecond schedule and since the school authorities have not been impleaded in the<br \/>\npresent suit, the same is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and the trial<br \/>\nCourt after considering the available evidence on record has rightly dismissed<br \/>\nthe  suit. But the first appellate Court has erroneously decreed the same and<br \/>\ntherefore, the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court are<br \/>\nliable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Second Appeal<br \/>\nNo.976 of 2008 has also equally contended that in the year 1996 the plaintiff<br \/>\nhimself has orally gifted the suit second schedule to the sixth defendant for<br \/>\nthe purpose of forming road and subsequently a tender has been called for and<br \/>\nthereafter a road has been formed and therefore, the plaintiff is not having<br \/>\ntitle to the suit properties and he is not entitled to get the reliefs sought<br \/>\nfor in the plaint and further, even without giving prior notice the present suit<br \/>\nhas been instituted against the sixth defendant and therefore as per section 231<br \/>\nof the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 the present suit is not legally<br \/>\nmaintainable and the first appellate Court has failed to look into the same and<br \/>\ntherefore, the Judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court are<br \/>\nliable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. In order to controvert the arguments advanced by the learned counsels<br \/>\nappearing for the appellants, the learned counsel appearing for the first<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff has also equally contended that neither the plaintiff nor<br \/>\nhis predecessor in title has orally gifted any portion of the suit properties<br \/>\nand therefore,   the alleged oral gift trotted out on the side of the defendants<br \/>\n2, 4 and 6 is not true and further as per section 123 of the Transfer of<br \/>\nProperty Act, 1882 alleged oral gift is not legally permissible and the trial<br \/>\nCourt without considering the correct factual as well as legal premise has<br \/>\nerroneously dismissed the suit. But the first appellate Court after evaluating<br \/>\nall the evidence available on record has rightly decreed the suit and further<br \/>\nthe provision of section 231 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 is not at<br \/>\nall applicable to the present suit and altogether the present second appeals<br \/>\ndeserve to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. On the basis of the divergent submissions made by either counsels, the<br \/>\nCourt has to analyse the following factual as well as legal aspects:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) whether the plaintiff or his predecessor in title has orally gifted<br \/>\nany portion of the suit properties for the purpose of  forming road?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) whether the alleged oral gift is legally permissible?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(c) Whether the present suit is not legally maintainable in view of<br \/>\nsection 231 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. The present suit has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration,<br \/>\npermanent and mandatory injunctions and also for recovery of possession in<br \/>\nrespect of the suit second schedule which has been described as &#8216;ghdf&#8217; in the<br \/>\nplaint plan. The predecessor in title of the plaintiff viz., Thanapathi Ammal<br \/>\nhas purchased both the items of suit properties under two registered sale deeds<br \/>\ndated 06.12.1978 and the same have been marked as Exs.A1 and A2. The plaintiff<br \/>\nhas purchased both items of suit properties under a registered sale deed dated<br \/>\n20.09.2001 and the same has been marked as Ex.A3. Therefore, by virtue of Ex.A3,<br \/>\nthe plaintiff is having absolute right, title and interest over the suit first<br \/>\nas well as second schedule properties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. In the written statement filed on the side of the defendants 2 and 4<br \/>\nit has been specifically averred that the predecessor in title of the plaintiff<br \/>\nviz., Thanapathi Ammal has orally gifted an extent of 16 feet width from north<br \/>\nto south for the purpose of forming road so as to reach the schools mentioned in<br \/>\nthe written statement filed by them. But on the other hand on the side of the<br \/>\nsixth defendant it has been specifically averred that during the year 1996 the<br \/>\nplaintiff himself has orally gifted the suit second schedule for the purpose of<br \/>\nforming road.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21. As adverted to earlier, the plaintiff has purchased the suit<br \/>\nproperties only under Ex.A3 on 20.09.2001. Therefore, the oral gift alleged to<br \/>\nhave been given by the plaintiff in the year 1996 is totally false. Under the<br \/>\nsaid circumstances the oral gift trotted out in the written statement filed on<br \/>\nthe side of the sixth defendant cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22. Now the Court has to look into the oral gift alleged to have been<br \/>\ngiven by the predecessor in title of the plaintiff in favour of the school<br \/>\nauthorities mentioned in the written statement filed on the side of the<br \/>\ndefendants 2 and 4.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t23. At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into section 123 of<br \/>\nthe Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the same reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTransfer how effected.- For the purpose of making a gift of immovable<br \/>\nproperty, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or<br \/>\non behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t24. Even a cursory look of the said provision would clearly show that a<br \/>\ngift of an immovable property should be effected only by way of registered<br \/>\ninstrument and the same should be signed by donor or on behalf of the donor and<br \/>\nalso attested by at least two witnesses. In view of the provision of section 123<br \/>\nof the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, oral gift alleged to have been given by<br \/>\nthe predecessor in title of the plaintiff in favour of the school authorities<br \/>\nmentioned in the written statement filed by the defendants 2 and 4 is not<br \/>\nlegally valid.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t25. Now the Court has to look into as to whether the present suit is not<br \/>\nlegally maintainable in view of section 231 of the Tamil Nadu Pancyayats Act,<br \/>\n1994 and the same reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tNotice of action against village panchayat, etc.-(1) Subject to the<br \/>\nprovisions of section 232, no suit or other legal proceeding shall be brought<br \/>\nagainst any village panchayat or its president or executive authority or any<br \/>\npanchayat union council or its chairman or the commissioner or the district<br \/>\npanchayat or its chairman or the [secretary] or any member, officer or servant<br \/>\nthereof or against any person acting under the direction of such village<br \/>\npanchayat, president, panchayat union council or its chairman, district<br \/>\npanchayat or its chairman, executive authority, commissioner [secretary] member,<br \/>\nofficer or servant, in respect of any act done or purporting to be done under<br \/>\nthis Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of<br \/>\nthis Act or any rule, by-law, regulation or order made under it until the<br \/>\nexpiration of two months next after notice in writing, stating the cause of<br \/>\naction, the nature of the relief sought, the amount of compensation claimed and<br \/>\nthe name and place of residence of the intended plaintiff has been left at the<br \/>\noffice of the village panchayat or panchayat union council and if the proceeding<br \/>\nis intended to be brought against any such president, executive authority,<br \/>\nchairman, commissioner, chairman or district panchayat, [secretary] member,<br \/>\nofficer, servant or person, also delivered to him or left at his place of<br \/>\nresidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(2) Every such proceeding shall, unless it is a proceeding for the<br \/>\nrecovery of immovable property or for a declaration or title thereto, be<br \/>\ncommenced within six months after the date on which the cause of action arose or<br \/>\nin case of a continuing injury or damage, during such continuance or within six<br \/>\nmonths after the ceasing thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(3) If any village panchayat, panchayat union council, or district<br \/>\npanchayat or person to whom notice is given under sub-section (1) tenders amount<br \/>\nto the plaintiff before the proceeding is commenced and if the plaintiff does<br \/>\nnot in such proceeding recover more than the amount so tendered, he shall not<br \/>\nrecover any costs incurred by him after such tender and the plaintiff shall also<br \/>\npay all costs incurred by the defendant after such tender.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t26. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Second Appeal<br \/>\nNo.976 of 2008 has advanced his argument mainly on the basis of the provision of<br \/>\nthe said section. In sub-section 1 of the said section, it is mentioned that if<br \/>\nany proceeding is taken under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 against any<br \/>\nauthority mentioned in the said Act, two months notice is required. But in sub-<br \/>\nsection 2, an exception has been given with regard to suit instituted for<br \/>\nrecovery of immovable property or for declaration of title.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t27. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent\/plaintiff has<br \/>\nbefittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the Full Bench decision reported<br \/>\nin 1970 II MLJ 572 (Panchayat Union Council, Tirupattur and another V.<br \/>\nC.Tirupathy), wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that &#8220;the<br \/>\nmaterial part of the section is that no suit or other legal proceeding shall be<br \/>\nbrought against any Panchayat in respect of any act done or purporting to be<br \/>\ndone under this Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the<br \/>\nexecution of this Act or any rule, by law, regulation or order made under it<br \/>\nuntil the expiration of two months next after notice in writing stating the<br \/>\ncause of action, the nature of the relief sought, the amount of compensation<br \/>\nclaimed, ect. Sub-section (2) provides that every proceeding shall, unless it is<br \/>\na proceeding for the recovery of immovable property or for a declaration of<br \/>\ntitle thereto, be commenced within six months after the date on which the cause<br \/>\nof action arose or in case of a continuing injury or damage, during such<br \/>\ncontinuance or within six months after the ceasing thereof. Further the Full<br \/>\nBench has observed that Section 231 is not applicable to a suit instituted for<br \/>\nrecovery of immovable property or to a suit instituted for getting declaration<br \/>\nof title.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t28. The present suit has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration,<br \/>\npermanent and mandatory injunctions and also for recovery of possession.<br \/>\nTherefore, it is easily discernible that the exception given under sub-section 2<br \/>\nof section 231 of the said Act is squarely applicable to the present suit and<br \/>\nthe present suit is legally maintainable and the provision of the said section<br \/>\nis not a bar to the present suit. Therefore, the entire argument advanced on the<br \/>\nside of the appellants in Second Appeal No.976 of 2008 is sans merit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t29. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Second Appeal<br \/>\nNo.690 of 2008 has also advanced a feeble argument to the effect that the<br \/>\nplaintiff himself while getting permission for putting up construction in the<br \/>\nsuit first schedule property has candidly admitted that the suit second schedule<br \/>\nproperty has been set apart for the purpose of forming road and therefore, the<br \/>\nplaintiff cannot turn around to say that it is his property and the trial Court<br \/>\nafter considering all the evidence available on record has rightly observed the<br \/>\nsame. But the first appellate Court has failed to look into the contention of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff and therefore, the Judgment and decree passed by the first<br \/>\nappellate Court are totally erroneous and the same are liable to be interfered<br \/>\nwith.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t30. The predecessor in title of the plaintiff viz., Thanapathi Ammal has<br \/>\npurchased the suit properties under Exs.A1 and A2. The plaintiff has purchased<br \/>\nthe suit properties under Ex.A3. Therefore, by virtue of Ex.A3, the plaintiff is<br \/>\nhaving unfettered right, title and interest over the suit properties. Even<br \/>\nassuming without conceding that at the time of getting permission for putting up<br \/>\nconstruction in the suit first schedule property, the plaintiff has conceded<br \/>\nthat the suit second schedule has been set apart for the purpose of forming<br \/>\nroad, that does not create any embargo upon the plaintiff from claiming title to<br \/>\nthe suit second schedule, since oral gift alleged to have been given by him or<br \/>\nalleged to have been given by his predecessor in title is legally not<br \/>\npermissible. Therefore, the residual argument made by the learned counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the appellant in Second Appeal No.690 of 2008 also goes out<br \/>\nwithout merit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t31. As stated in many places, the present suit has been instituted for the<br \/>\nreliefs of declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions and also for<br \/>\nrecovery of possession in respect of the suit second schedule which has been<br \/>\ndescribed as &#8216;ghdf&#8217; in the plaint plan. By virtue of Exs.A1 to A3, the plaintiff<br \/>\nis having absolute right, title and interest over the suit second schedule<br \/>\nproperty. Since the plaintiff is having absolute right, title and interest over<br \/>\nthe suit second schedule property and since the oral gift introduced by the<br \/>\ndefendants 2 and 4 as well as the sixth defendant is not legally permissible, it<br \/>\nis needless to say that the plaintiff is entitled to get the reliefs sought for<br \/>\nin the plaint.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t32. The trial Court without considering the legal effect of Exs.A1 to A3<br \/>\nand also without considering that the alleged oral gift is not legally<br \/>\npermissible, has erroneously dismissed the suit. But the first appellate Court<br \/>\nafter perpending the available evidence on record properly has rightly decreed<br \/>\nthe suit. In view of the foregoing enunciation of both the factual and legal<br \/>\naspects, this Court has not found any error nor infirmity in the Judgment and<br \/>\ndecree passed by the first appellate Court and further the substantial questions<br \/>\nof law raised on the side of the appellants in both the second appeals are not<br \/>\nat all relevant for the purpose of deciding the factual as well as legal aspects<br \/>\ninvolved in the present case. Therefore, viewing from any angle, these second<br \/>\nappeals deserve to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t33. In fine, these second appeals deserve dismissal and accordingly are<br \/>\ndismissed without cost at the stage of admission. Connected Miscellaneous<br \/>\npetition is also dismissed. The  Judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No.9<br \/>\nof 2006 by the Sub Court, Sankarankoil are confirmed.\n<\/p>\n<p>mj<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Sub Court, Sankarankoil<\/p>\n<p>2.The  District Munsif &#8211; cum &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p> Judicial Magistrate Court,<br \/>\n Sankarankoil<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 October, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29\/10\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM SA(MD)No.690 of 2008 &amp; SA(MD)No.976 of 2008 and MP(MD)No.1 of 2008 SA(MD)No.690\/2008: 1.Paulsamy Nadar 2.A.Ganesan Nadar 3.Vairava Nadar 4.Karuthapandian .. Appellants\/Defendants 1 to 4 Vs. 1.Udaya Kumar [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5138","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-15T06:52:58+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-15T06:52:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3922,\"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\\\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-15T06:52:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 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:\\\/\\\/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":"Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-15T06:52:58+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-15T06:52:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010"},"wordCount":3922,"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\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010","name":"Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-15T06:52:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/paulsamy-nadar-vs-udaya-kumar-lingan-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Paulsamy Nadar vs Udaya Kumar Lingan on 29 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:\/\/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\/5138","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=5138"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5138\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5138"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5138"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5138"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}