{"id":6025,"date":"2008-02-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-17T20:10:17","modified_gmt":"2015-06-17T14:40:17","slug":"k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 21\/02\/2008\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA\n\nS.A.No.986 of 2000\n\n\nK.Sebasthi\t\t\t... Appellant\/Appellant\/Plaintiff\n\nVs\n\n\n1.Palaniammal alias Palaniselvi\n\n2.Arul Selvarani\t\t... Respondents\/Respondents\/Defendants\n\n\nPrayer\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the  Code of Civil Procedure,\nagainst the judgment and decree dated 17.02.1999 passed in A.S.No.90 of 1998 by\nthe learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai, in confirming the judgment and decree\ndated 26.06.1998 passed in O.S.No.272 of 1997 by the learned Principal District\nMunsif, Sivagangai.\n\n!For Appellant  \t... Mr.A.L.Gandhimathi\n\n^For Respondents\t... No representation.\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis second appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated<br \/>\n17.02.1999 passed in A.S.No.90 of 1998 by the learned Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\nSivagangai, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.06.1998 passed in<br \/>\nO.S.No.272 of 1997 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Sivagangai.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.  Despite printing the name<br \/>\nof the Counsel for the respondents, no one appeared.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the case of the<br \/>\nplaintiff as stood exposited from the records could be portrayed thus:<br \/>\n\tThe plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and for injunction as against<br \/>\nthe defendants on the strength of the sale deed dated Ex.A.1, dated 08.03.1993,<br \/>\nin his favour relating to the suit property.  According to him, there was some<br \/>\nloan transaction alone between the plaintiff and the first defendant and that he<br \/>\nnever executed any sale deed in favour of the first defendant relating to the<br \/>\nsuit property at any point of time and in that connection, there was some<br \/>\ndispute.  The first defendant with the assistance of the second defendant,<br \/>\ndemanded the plaintiff to sell the suit property for which he refused.<br \/>\nThereupon, the first and the second defendants joining hands with each other,<br \/>\nare trying to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Per contra, denying and disputing the allegations\/averments in the<br \/>\nplaint, the first defendant filed the written statement, with the averments<br \/>\ninter alia thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe plaintiff executed validly the sale deed Ex.B.1 on 28.11.1995 for<br \/>\nvalid consideration in respect of the suit property and possession was also<br \/>\nhanded over to him.  Thereupon, the first defendant executed the sale deed in<br \/>\nfavour of the second defendant on 19.03.1997.  Accordingly, the first defendant<br \/>\nprayed for the dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The second defendant filed separate written statement reiterating the<br \/>\naverments as found set out in the written statement of the first defendant. Over<br \/>\nand above that, he also added that after purchasing the suit property, vide<br \/>\nEx.B.3 dated 19.03.1997 from the first defendant, the second defendant laid<br \/>\nfoundation and made construction upto the level of plinth area.  Thereafter, the<br \/>\nplaintiff also had put up a temporary structure so as to store the building<br \/>\nmaterials for raising superstructure.  He also constructed a small room for the<br \/>\npurpose of renting it out.  As such, the plaintiff is having no right to file<br \/>\nthe suit for declaration and for injunction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The trial Court framed the relevant issues.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were<br \/>\nmarked on the side of the plaintiff.  D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Exs.B.1<br \/>\nto B.3 were marked on the side of the defendants.  Exs.C.1 and C.2 were marked<br \/>\nas Court documents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff<br \/>\npreferred appeal in A.S.No.90 of 1998 before the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai,<br \/>\nwhich Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with, the judgments and decrees of<br \/>\nboth the Courts below, this second appeal has been filed on the following main<br \/>\ngrounds among others:\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBoth the Courts below fell into error in not appreciating the relevant<br \/>\nfacts and also the principles relating to the burden of proof.  The plaintiff<br \/>\ndisputed his signature in the sale deed Ex.A.1, even then the trial Court barely<br \/>\nbelieved the execution of the sale deed Ex.A.1 in favour of the first defendant<br \/>\nby the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.  The first appellate Court erroneously<br \/>\nassumed and presumed as though there were lack of pleadings, ignoring the fact<br \/>\nthat the plaintiff had spelt out the relevant facts.  The trial Court enormously<br \/>\nexpressed its view that even assuming that the plaintiff might be in possession<br \/>\nof the suit property, yet he was not entitled to any relief.  Accordingly, he<br \/>\nprayed for setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below and<br \/>\nfor decreeing the suit as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. At the time of admitting the second appeal, my learned Predecessor<br \/>\nframed the following substantial questions of law:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;1.Whether the judgments of the Courts below are erroneous and against the<br \/>\nrules of evidence contained in Section 100 to 104 of the Evidence Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in refusing to consider<br \/>\nthe question of validity of the sale deed propounded by the defendants on the<br \/>\nground of lack of pleadings as required under Order VI Rule 4 CPC, when the said<br \/>\nrule is wholly inapplicable in the present case?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Both the points are taken together for discussion as they are<br \/>\ninterlinked and interwoven with each other.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Points:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. At the outset itself, I would like to highlight that this is a case in<br \/>\nwhich the plaintiff had taken a specific plea to the effect that he did not<br \/>\nexecute the sale deed in favour of the first defendant.  Indubitably and<br \/>\nindisputably, the sale deed bears the left thumb impression of the plaintiff.<br \/>\nIt is not as though the sale deed contains only the signature of the plaintiff.<br \/>\nIn the first sheet of Ex.B.1 at the back portion, clearly the left thumb<br \/>\nimpression of the plaintiff  was obtained by the Sub-Registrar of Documents at<br \/>\nthe time of registering the sale deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the<br \/>\nfirst defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. It is at once clear that illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Indian<br \/>\nEvidence Act would be attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. At this juncture, the famous maxim &#8220;Omnia Praesumuntur contra<br \/>\nspoliatorem&#8221; [Every presumption is made against a wrong-doer.] could also<br \/>\nfruitfully be referred to.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. Here, the best evidence could have been adduced by the plaintiff.  The<br \/>\nlegal presumption is in favour of the defendants.  When the onus probandi got<br \/>\nshifted from the defendants&#8217; side to the plaintiff&#8217;s side on examination of one<br \/>\nof the attestators, namely D.W.2, Mahamuni, the plaintiff ought to have<br \/>\npetitioned the trial Court for sending the sale deed for being verified by the<br \/>\nfinger print expert so as to find out whether the left thumb impression of the<br \/>\nplaintiff as found in Ex.A.1 is that of the plaintiff or not.  But, for reasons<br \/>\nbest known to the plaintiff, he has not done so.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. I am fully aware of the fact that initially, the burden is on the<br \/>\ndefendants&#8217; side to prove Ex.B.1.  The defendants in addition to examining<br \/>\nthemselves examined D.W.2, the attesting witness to Ex.B.1.  Thereupon, the<br \/>\nburden of proof legally got shifted to the plaintiff&#8217;s side to prove that the<br \/>\npurported left thumb impression of the plaintiff in Ex.B.1, is not that of his,<br \/>\nbut he had not discharged the burden cast on him.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. Both the Courts below consistently held by analysing the evidence that<br \/>\nthe plaintiff executed the sale deed Ex.B.1 and only as an afterthought, he came<br \/>\nforward with the plea as though he did not execute the sale deed Ex.B.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the trial<br \/>\nCourt at paragraph No.13 of its judgment, has held wrongly that even though for<br \/>\nargument sake that the plaintiff is taken to be in possession of the suit<br \/>\nproperty, yet he is not entitled to any relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff would also submit that once<br \/>\npossession is recognised in favour of the plaintiff, then there would be no harm<br \/>\nin granting injunction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21. I could not countenance such a proposition as put forth by the learned<br \/>\nCounsel for the plaintiff.  No doubt, even a trespasser who could prove his<br \/>\nestablished possession, could be granted permanent injunction to the effect that<br \/>\nhis possession should not be disturbed till he is evicted under due process of<br \/>\nlaw.  But, here, the position is some what different.  The plaintiff after<br \/>\nexecuting Ex.A.1 in favour of the first defendant, veered round and took a quite<br \/>\nantithetical plea and it is turned out to be a false plea. In such a case, I am<br \/>\nof the considered opinion that the plaintiff who is duty bound to hand over the<br \/>\npossession in favour of the first defendant cannot be heard to contend that even<br \/>\nthough he might be in illegal possession of the suit property, his possession<br \/>\nhas to be protected by way of permanent injunction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t22. Ultimately, there is no merit in this second appeal.  Both the Courts<br \/>\nbelow properly analysed the evidence available on record and arrived at the just<br \/>\nconclusion and I could see no perversity in the judgments and decrees of both<br \/>\nthe Courts below.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t23. Accordingly, both the points are answered as under:<br \/>\n\tThe Substantial question of law No.(i) is decided to the effect that the<br \/>\nCourts below have not ignored Sections 100 and 104 of the Indian Evidence Act in<br \/>\nrendering the judgments and the Substantial question of law No.(ii) is decided<br \/>\nto the effect that the judgments of both the Courts below are not illegal even<br \/>\nthough they referred to lack of pleadings as they based their judgments on<br \/>\nfactual evidence proving Ex.B.1.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t24. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, confirming the<br \/>\njudgments and decrees of both the Courts below.  However, in the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The  Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Principal District Munsif, Sivagangai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 21\/02\/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A.No.986 of 2000 K.Sebasthi &#8230; Appellant\/Appellant\/Plaintiff Vs 1.Palaniammal alias Palaniselvi 2.Arul Selvarani &#8230; Respondents\/Respondents\/Defendants Prayer Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, [&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-6025","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>K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008 - 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\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-17T14:40:17+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-17T14:40:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1557,\"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\\\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008\",\"name\":\"K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-17T14:40:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 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":"K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008 - 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\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-17T14:40:17+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-17T14:40:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008"},"wordCount":1557,"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\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008","name":"K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-17T14:40:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sebasthi-vs-palaniammal-alias-palaniselvi-on-21-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.Sebasthi vs Palaniammal Alias Palaniselvi on 21 February, 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\/6025","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=6025"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6025\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6025"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6025"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}