{"id":59807,"date":"2002-04-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002"},"modified":"2017-06-13T14:25:11","modified_gmt":"2017-06-13T08:55:11","slug":"the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 01\/04\/2002  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN            \n\nS.A.No.313 of 2002 \n\nThe Commissioner  \nOffice of the Regional Provident Fund\nRoyapettah \nChennai-600 014.                        ..      Appellant\n\nversus\n\n1. Ariyamala\n\n2. The General Manager \n   Swadeshi Cotton Mills\nPondicherry.                    ..      Respondents  \n\n\n        Appeal against the judgment and decree dated  29.6.2001  made  in        \nA.S.  No.77 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge,\nPondicherry,  reversing  the  judgment and decree dated 13.3.2000 made in \nO.S.No.876 of 1990 on the file of the learned Principal District  Munsif,\nPondicherry.\n\n!For appellant                          :       Mr.V.Vibhishanan \n\n^For respondent-1                       :       Mr.K.V.Subramanian  \n\n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n
        Heard.\n<\/p>\n
        2.   The  appellant is the first defendant in O.S.No.876 of 1990,
\nfiled by the first respondent for a permanent injunction restraining  the
\nfirst  defendant  from  stopping  the  family  pension and recovering the
\npension amount by letter dated 14.6.1990.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  For the purpose of convenience, the parties  are  arrayed  as
\nper their rank in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The plaintiff laid the suit in O.S.No.876 of 1990 before the
\nlearned Principal District Munsif, Pondicherry,  alleging  that  she  got
\nmarried  to  one  Subramanian,  son  of  Rangasamy, an employee under the
\nsecond  defendant-mill,  and  begot  four  children,  viz.,   Murugasamy,
\nGunavathy, Murthy and Vellayan.  According to the plaintiff, her husband,
\nSubramanian, son of Rangasamy, died on 28.10.1978, when he was in service
\nunder  the second defendant-mill, and therefore, she was given employment
\non compassionate  ground.    Unfortunately,  she  lost  her   first   son
\nMurugasamy in  the  year  1979.    But  after the death of her husband on
\n28.10.1978, she was paid family  pension  under  the  provisions  of  the
\nEmployees’  Provident  Funds  (Family  Pension  Fund  and  Deposit Linked
\nInsurance Fund) Act, 1952.    However,  without  any  reason,  the  first
\ndefendant  stopped  the  pension  from  January, 1990, and communicated a
\nproceedings dated  14.6.1990,  conveying  that  the  family  pension  was
\nstopped  from  1.1.1990,  as  she  had  re-married  one Subramani, son of
\nGovindasamy.  Hence, she filed the above suit.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The first defendant resisted the suit,  contending  that  the
\nplaintiff  re-married  one  Subramani,  son  of  Govindasamy,  as per the
\nregistered deed dated 11.3.1981, marked by the first defendant  as  Ex.B4
\nand also marked as a Court document viz., Ex.X2.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   Upon  the  above  rival  contentions,  the learned Principal
\nDistrict Munsif, Pondicherry, framed the following issues:
\ni.  Whether the plaintiff is having prima facie case over the suit claim?
\nii.  Whether any injury would be caused to the plaintiff, if an order  of
\npermanent injunction as prayed by her is not granted in her favour?\n<\/p>\n
iii.  Whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff?\n<\/p>\n
        7.   To substantiate her claim, the plaintiff examined herself as
\nP.W.1 and also examined one Thiru Kumar, a mill worker — an  independent
\nwitness  as P.W.2, as well as one Kanagavalli, the wife of Subramani, son
\nof Govindasamy, as P.W.3, and marked 13 uments as Ex.A1 to A13 .\n<\/p>\n
        8.  On behalf of the first defendant,  Ex.B4,  viz.,  deed  dated
\n11.3.19  81,  alleged  to  have  been  executed between the plaintiff and
\nSubramani, son of Govindasamy, was marked, which is the same as  that  of
\nthe  document  marked through the Court, viz., Ex.X2, a certified copy of
\nthe registered deed 11.3.1981.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Appreciating the evidence, both  documentary  and  oral,  and
\nholding   that  the  plaintiff  had  re-married  one  Subramani,  son  of
\nGovindasamy after the death of her husband Subramanian, son of Rangasamy,
\nas per  the  registered  deed  dated  11.3.1981,  the  learned  Principal
\nDistrict  Munsif,  Pondicherry,  by a decree and judgment dated 13.3.2000
\nmade in O.S.No.876 of 1990, dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  However,  on  appeal  in  A.S.No.77  of  2000,  the  learned
\nAdditional  District  Judge,  Pondicherry,  by  judgment and decree dated
\n29.6.2001, reversed the said decree and judgment of the learned Principal
\nDistrict Munsif, Pondicherry, dated 13.3.2000 made in O.S.No.876 of  1990
\nand allowed the appeal, holding that the registered deed dated 11.3.198 1
\nhas not been proved in a manner known to law, and therefore, rejected the
\ncontention  of  the  first defendant that the plaintiff had remarried one
\nSubramani,  son  of  Govindasamy,  as  per  the  registered  deed   dated
\n11.3.1981,  after  the  death  of  her husband, viz., Subramanian, son of
\nRangasamy, and consequently, decreed the suit in O.S.No.876 of 1 990,  as
\nprayed for.  Hence the above second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
        11.1.    Mr.V.Vibhishanan,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the
\nappellant, seriously contends that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to
\ndecide on the liability of the defendants under  the  provisions  of  the
\nEmployees’  Provident  Funds  and  Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, in
\nview of Section 7A(4) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
\nProvisions Act, 1952, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
7A.  Determination of moneys due from employers.
\n(1) …..\n<\/p>\n
(2) …..\n<\/p>\n
(3) …..\n<\/p>\n
(4) Where an order under sub-section (1) is passed  against  an  employer
\nex-parte,  he  may, within three months from the date of communication of
\nsuch order, apply to the officer for setting aside such order and  if  he
\nsatisfies  the  officer that the show cause notice was not duly served or
\nthat he was prevented by any sufficient cause  from  appearing  when  the
\ninquiry  was  held,  the  officer  shall  make an order setting aside his
\nearlier order and shall appoint a date for proceeding with the inquiry:\n<\/p>\n
                Provided that no such order shall be set aside merely  on
\nthe ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of the show
\ncause  notice if the officer is satisfied that the employer had notice of
\nthe date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear before the officer.\n<\/p>\n
        Explanation.  — Where an appeal has been  preferred  under  this
\nAct against an order passed ex parte and such appeal has been disposed of
\notherwise than on the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal,
\nno  application shall lie under this sub-section for setting aside the ex
\nparte order.  ”\n<\/p>\n
In this regard, Mr.V.Vibhishanan,  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant,
\nplaces reliance on the decision in UNION OF INDIA V.  NARAYAN reported in
\n1989 LAB.I.C.  854.\n<\/p>\n
        11.2.   Mr.V.Vibhishanan, learned counsel for the appellant, also
\ncontends that the plaintiff is not entitled for  family  pension  benefit
\nunder  the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
\nProvisions Act, 1952, read with the  Employees’  Family  Pension  Scheme,
\n1971.   Proviso 29 of the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971 reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
” Family Pension to whom payable.    —  Subject  to  the  provisions  of
\nparagraph 28 of this Scheme, the family pension is payable–\n<\/p>\n
(a)  to  the  widow  or  widower  up  to the date of death or re-marriage
\nwhichever is earlier;\n<\/p>\n
(b) failing (a), to the children in the order  of  their  birth  and  the
\nyounger of them shall not be eligible for family pension unless the elder
\nnext  above  him  or  her  has  become ineligible for the grant of family
\npension;\n<\/p>\n
                Provided that in the case of the male child,  the  family
\npension  shall  be  payable  up to the age of 25 years and in the case of
\nfemale child, family pension shall be payable up to the age of  25  years
\nor her marriage, whichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n
                The  family  pension  shall  not be paid to more than one
\nperson at a time.\n<\/p>\n
        NOTES.– (i) In cases where there are 2 or  more  widows,  family
\npension shall be payable to the eldest surviving widow.  On her death, it
\nshall be payable to the next surviving widow, if any.  The term ” eldest”
\nwould mean seniority with reference to the date of marriage.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii)  In  the  event  of  re-marriage  or  death  of the widow or
\nwidower, the pension will be granted to the minor children through  their
\nnatural guardian.    In  disputed  cases,  however, payments will be made
\nthrough a legal guardian.  ”\n<\/p>\n
        12.  Per contra, Mr.K.V.Subramanian,  learned  counsel  appearing
\nfor  the  first  respondent, brought to my notice that the plea regarding
\nthe bar of jurisdiction was not raised by the appellant before the Courts
\nbelow, and in any event, Ex.B4,  the  registered  deed  dated  11.3.1981,
\ncannot,  by  itself,  be a proof to hold that the plaintiff had remarried
\nSubramani, son of Govindasamy after the death of her husband Subramanian,
\nson of Rangasamy on 28.10.1978.  In  any  event,  it  is  contended  that
\nliving  together  as  husband  and  wife, by itself, would not confer the
\nstatus as husband and wife, as held  in  SURJIT  KAUR  V.    GARJA  SINGH<\/a>
\nreported in AIR 1994 S.C.  135.\n<\/p>\n
        13.   I have given my careful consideration to the submissions of
\nboth sides.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  It is true that K.A.Swami,J., (as he then was), in UNION  OF
\nINDIA V.   NARAYAN  reported  in  1989  LAB.I.C.   854, has held that the
\ndetermination of liability of  the  employer  under  Section  7A  of  the
\nEmployees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, cannot
\nbe  gone  into  in  a civil proceedings, as the civil suits are barred to
\ndecide such issues impliedly that are governed under Section  7A  of  the
\nEmployees’  Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which
\ndeals with the determination of dues from the employer.  K.A.  Swami,  J.
\n(as he then was), in this regard, has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
”  Thus  all  the trappings of a judicial proceeding are grafted into the
\nprocess of determination to be made under  S.7A(1)  of  the  Act.    Even
\nthereafter,  if  the  employer feels aggrieved by the order it is open to
\nhim  to  challenge  the  same  under  Art.226  or  227  or  both  of  the
\nConstitution.  The bar contained in sub-sec.(4) of S.7A of the Act has to
\nbe appreciated  in the background of the object of the Act.  The Act is a
\nbeneficial legislation and it  is  intended  to  serve  interest  of  the
\nemployees.   Even  after  the  determination  is made after holding a due
\nenquiry under S.7A of the Act to the effect that the  provisions  of  the
\nAct are attracted and the employer is liable to deposit the amount as per
\nthe  provisions  of  the  Act,  and  such a determination in spite of the
\nprovisions contained in sub-sec.(4) of S.7A of the Act,  is  held  to  be
\nopen  to  challenge by seeking relief in a civil court either in the form
\nof an injunction or declaration, it will be  nothing  but  defeating  the
\nvery Act itself inasmuch as the enforcement authority will not be able to
\nenforce  the  Act,  until  the  proceeding  before  a civil Court attains
\nfinality; which, having regard to several stages including an appeal  and
\nfurther  appeal  have  to  be  covered,  before  it  attains finality, is
\npossible only after a decade  or  two  and  by  that  time  many  of  the
\nemployees  would  be  either out of employment or have left the world for
\never.  Keeping this aspect in view and also the fact  that  an  aggrieved
\nemployer  has  a  remedy  against  the order passed under S.7A of the Act
\nunder Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution, the Parliament in its  wisdom
\nhas  excluded  the jurisdiction of a Civil Court and has issued statutory
\ninjunction that the order made  under  S.7A  of  the  Act  shall  not  be
\nquestioned in  any  court of law.  A party cannot be allowed to over-come
\nor avoid such a statutory injunction by seeking a prayer in a civil Court
\nin such a manner so as to make it appear that apparently the order passed
\nunder S.7A of the  Act  is  not  challenged;  though  in  effect  and  in
\nsubstance  the  relief,  if  granted would result in nullifying the order
\npassed under S.7A of the Act.  Therefore having regard to the fact  that,
\nin  the  instant case, if the decree as prayed for is granted, it results
\nin setting aside or nullifying the order passed under S.7A of the Act,the
\nCivil Court has no jurisdiction to grant such a relief.  ”\n<\/p>\n
        15.  The issue raised in the above suit is not with regard to the
\ndetermination of money due from the employer,  which  is  governed  under
\nSection 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
\nAct,  1952,  but the one as to the status of the plaintiff as the wife of
\nSubramanian, son of Rangasamy, that entitles  her  to  claim  the  family
\npension under  the  Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971.  Clause 21 of
\nthe Scheme, admittedly, applies to the widow, and disqualifies the  widow
\nin the  event of her re-marriage.  But what is pertinent to be decided is
\nthat whether the plaintiff had re-married Subramani, son of  Govindasamy,
\nas alleged by the first defendant based on Ex.B4, a registered document.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   The  learned Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, in his
\ndetailed discussion, appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary
\nevidence, especially that of  P.W.3,  who  is  nonetheless  the  wife  of
\nSubramani,  son  of  Govindasamy,  the  so-called  second  husband of the
\nplaintiff,  has  disbelieved  the  marriage  between  the  plaintiff  and
\nSubramani,  son  of  Govindasamy, which is purely a question of fact, but
\nnot a question of law.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  That apart, the Apex Court in SURJIT KAUR V.    GARJA  SINGH<\/a>
\nreported in AIR 1994 S.C.  135, has held that as early as in B.S.LOKHANDE
\nv.  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA reported in AIR 1965 SC 1564, the bare fact of a
\nman  and  a  woman  living  as  husband  and  wife does not, at any rate,
\nnormally give them the status of husband and wife even  though  they  may
\nhold  themselves  out  before society as husband and wife and the society
\ntreats them as husband and wife.  The above ratio was  also  subsequently
\nupheld by  the  Apex Court in SURJIT KAUR V.  GARJA SINGH<\/a> reported in AIR
\n1994 S.C.  135, holding that living together  as  husband  and  wife,  by
\nitself, would not confer a status of husband and wife.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  If the facts are tested in the teeth of the above ratio laid
\ndown  by  the Apex Court, I have no hesitation to hold that the factum of
\nmarriage between the plaintiff and Subramani, son  of  Govindasamy  after
\nthe  death  of her husband Subramanian, son of Rangasamy, merely based on
\nthe document marked as Ex.B4 has not been proved.  If  that  be  so,  the
\nrefusal  to pay the family pension to the plaintiff from 1.1.199 0 as per
\nthe letter dated 14.6.1990, in my  considered  opinion,  is  held  to  be
\nillegal,  as  rightly  held  by  the  learned  Additional District Judge,
\nPondicherry.  Hence, finding no substantial question of law, this second
\nappeal is dismissed.  No costs.  Consequently, C.M.P.No.2551 of  2002  is
\nalso dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
ksv
\nP.D.DINAKARAN,J.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes \/ No
\nInternet:  Yes
\n01\/04\/2002
\nksv<\/p>\n
Sd\/- Assistant Registrar<\/p>\n
\/True Copy\/<\/p>\n
Sub Assistant Registrar
\nTo:\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Additional District Judge
\nPondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Principal District Munsif
\nPondicherry.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.313 of 2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01\/04\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN S.A.No.313 of 2002 The Commissioner Office of the Regional Provident Fund Royapettah Chennai-600 014. .. Appellant versus 1. Ariyamala 2. The General Manager Swadeshi Cotton Mills Pondicherry. .. Respondents […]<\/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-59807","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002 - 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\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-13T08:55:11+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\\\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-13T08:55:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2276,\"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\\\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-13T08:55:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"The Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002 - 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\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-13T08:55:11+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\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-13T08:55:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002"},"wordCount":2276,"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\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002","name":"The Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-13T08:55:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-ariyamala-on-1-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner vs Ariyamala on 1 April, 2002"}]},{"@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\/59807","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=59807"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59807\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59807"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59807"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59807"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}