{"id":63058,"date":"2010-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010"},"modified":"2018-09-19T22:54:13","modified_gmt":"2018-09-19T17:24:13","slug":"veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 2010<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 20\/04\/2010\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN\n\nC.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.903 of 2006\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006\n\n\n1.Veerammal\n2.P.Palamuthu\n3.P.Nataraja Pandian\n4.P.Latha\n5.P.Annakili               ... Petitioners\/Defendants\n\nvs\n\nP.Selvi                   ... Respondent\/Plaintiff\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\nPrayer\n\nCivil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the\nConstitution of India, to set aside the order passed on 11.10.2006 made in\nI.A.No.707 of 2006 in O.S.No.937 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District\nMunsif, Madurai.\n\n!For Petitioners  ... Mr.Mohan\n                      for Mr.G.R.Swaminathan\n^For Respondent   ... Mr.R.Ganesan\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tHeard both sides<\/p>\n<p>\t2.The defendant in O.S.No.937 of 2003 are the revision petitioners.  The<br \/>\nsuit O.S.No.937 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Madurai<br \/>\nwas filed by the respondent for specific performance of an agreement of sale<br \/>\nexecuted by the defendants\/revision petitioners on 02.09.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3.The case of the respondent\/plaintiff in the plaint was that the suit<br \/>\nproperty was purchased by the first defendant viz., the 1st revision petitioner<br \/>\nherein from one Veerammal, under a registered sale dated, dated 27.08.1980 and<br \/>\nthe defendants 2 to 5 are the children of the 5th defendant.  On 02.09.2001, the<br \/>\ndefendants borrowed a sum of Rs.12,000\/- as earnest money from the plaintiff and<br \/>\nagreed to sell the property and treated the debt of Rs.12,000\/- as earnest money<br \/>\nand the balance sale consideration was payable at the time of execution of the<br \/>\nsale deed.  The plaintiff was willing to pay the balance amount and was ready to<br \/>\nget the sale deed executed, but the defendants evaded and therefore, a notice<br \/>\nwas sent through lawyer directing the defendants to execute the sale deed as per<br \/>\nthe agreement deed and the notices were received by the first defendant, but no<br \/>\nreply was sent.  Another notice was sent to all the defendants and they also did<br \/>\nnot come forward to execute the sale deed and hence, the suit was filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4.The first defendant denied the borrowal of Rs.12,000\/- on 02.09.2001,<br \/>\nexecution of agreement on the same date agreeing to sell the property for<br \/>\nRs.16,000\/- and in paragraph 5, it has been stated the sale agreement is invalid<br \/>\nand not maintainable and she also had taken a plea that the defendants have not<br \/>\nentered into any agreement of sale as stated in the plaint and the defendants<br \/>\nhave not signed in the filed stamp paper of the suit sale agreement. It is<br \/>\nfurther stated in paragraph &#8216;7&#8217; that there was an oral agreement by which the<br \/>\ndefendants have agreed to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,12,000\/- and<br \/>\nthey have received a sum of Rs.12,000\/- and the sale would have be completed<br \/>\nwithin three months and the plaintiff did not pay the balance amount of<br \/>\nRs.1,00,000\/- within three months and therefore, as per the oral agreement, the<br \/>\ndefendant has forfeited the advance amount and therefore, the plaintiff is not<br \/>\nentitled to claim any relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5.After the case was listed for trial and after PW1 was examined in chief<br \/>\nand during the cross examination of PW1, the defendants filed I.A.No.707 of 2006<br \/>\nto receive the additional written statement.  In the affidavit filed in support<br \/>\nof the petition, it has been stated that the first defendant is an illiterate<br \/>\nand she has given instructions to her Advocate to file the written statement who<br \/>\nprepared it in English and asked her to sign and without knowing the contents of<br \/>\nthe same, she filed the written statement, which is in English and thereafter,<br \/>\nshe engaged another Advocate and he also refused to appear for her and later,<br \/>\nshe engaged another Advocate and through him, she came to know that in the<br \/>\nwritten statement what she had told to the first Advocate was not stated<br \/>\nproperly and therefore, to state the full facts, additional written statement is<br \/>\nfiled and that may be taken into the consideration.  In the additional written<br \/>\nstatement, she denied the agreement of sale as stated by the plaintiff and<br \/>\nstated that she purchased 3-1\/2 Cents under two sale deeds, one is a registered<br \/>\nsale deed and another is a unregistered one and she received a sum of<br \/>\nRs.12,000\/- as loan from the plaintiff as she never agreed to sell the property<br \/>\nand her signature was obtained by force by the plaintiff and her relatives in<br \/>\nvarious stamp papers and when the first defendant threatened to give a police<br \/>\ncomplaint against the plaintiff for having obtained signatures in blank stamp<br \/>\npapers, the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000\/- to the first defendant and<br \/>\nrequested plaintiff to convey . cents of lands. The defendants would have<br \/>\nreceived a sum of Rs.1,00,000\/- as promised by the plaintiff and would have<br \/>\nconveyed . cents of lands or would have returned a sum of Rs.12,000\/- received<br \/>\nfrom the plaintiff, but they cannot execute the sale deed by receiving<br \/>\nRs.4,000\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6.The plaintiff filed a counter stating that the plea taken by the<br \/>\ndefendants in the additional written statement are not correct and originally<br \/>\nwritten statement was translated to her in Tamil and thereafter only it was<br \/>\nsigned by the first defendant and the story now invented by the plaintiff that<br \/>\nnow the 3rd Advocate informed her the contents of the original written<br \/>\nstatement, which did not contain full facts and therefore, to state the full<br \/>\nfacts, she wants to file additional written statement cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7.The lower Court rejected the application relying upon the judgment of<br \/>\nthe Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2003(2) LW 395 in the case of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1352808\/\">Thirupathi vs. Kothai Aachi and<\/a> 2006(4) CTC 135 in the case of Kamatchiammal vs.<br \/>\nLakshmanan and 2006(3)CTC 27 in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1260889\/\">D.Ramanujam vs. R.Panneerselvam<\/a><br \/>\nholding that as per the above judgments, the defendants are attempting to<br \/>\nintroduce a new plea, which are inconsistent to the plea taken by them earlier<br \/>\nand if the additional written statement is allowed to be received, that would<br \/>\ncause serious prejudice to the plaintiff and the scope of the suit would also be<br \/>\nchallenged and the reasons stated by the defendants that she was not aware of<br \/>\nthe contents of the original written statement cannot be accepted and as per the<br \/>\njudgment of this Court reported in 1976 AIR 302(Mad.) in the case of Manachersw<br \/>\nvs. N.D.S. &amp; W Company, no supplementary written statement can be filed after<br \/>\nthe evidence of the plaintiff is closed or after hearing has begun and<br \/>\ntherefore, in the additional written statement cannot be received.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8.Mr.Mohan, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners<br \/>\nsubmitted that as per the judgment reported in 2005(4) MLJ 119 and 2007(7) MLJ<br \/>\n444, the lower court ought to have given a liberal approach while receiving the<br \/>\nadditional written statement and the lower court confussed itself with the<br \/>\namendment of written statement and dismissed the application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent<br \/>\nreiterated the judgments relied upon by the lower court and submitted that as<br \/>\nper the judgment of this Honourable Court additional written statement cannot be<br \/>\nreceived after the trial has commenced.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10.In my opinion, the lower Court without appreciating the difference<br \/>\nbetween the amendment of the written statement and the receipt of the additional<br \/>\nwritten statement, proceeded on the basis that after the trial has commenced the<br \/>\ndefendants cannot be permitted to file additional written statement and that<br \/>\nwould prejudice the rights of the plaintiffs. In the judgment reported in<br \/>\n2005(4) MLJ 119, in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1341955\/\">Muthusamy vs. Thangaraj,<\/a> this Court has<br \/>\ndistinguished the provision under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 9 CPC and<br \/>\nheld as follows; &#8220;O8 Rule 9 CPC, does not say that no application for receiving<br \/>\nthe additional statement shall be allowed, after the trial has commenced, unless<br \/>\nthe court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could<br \/>\nnot have raised the matter before the commencement of trial, as provided under<br \/>\nO6, Rule 17 CPC, Proviso. The legislators when amended the C.P.C, though it fit<br \/>\nnot to allow the party to have amendment, as a matter of right, that too in a<br \/>\ncase where they had an opportunity to raise the same, that the time of filing<br \/>\nthe pleadings. But when they come to O8, C.P.C., no such restriction has been<br \/>\nimposed, thereby giving discretion to the Court concerned to allow the<br \/>\nsubsequent pleadings, for which it is not necessary to consider whether that<br \/>\ndefence was available on the date of filing of the original written statement or<br \/>\nnot. Under O8,Rule 9 CPC, power is given to the Court to call for the written<br \/>\nstatement or additional written statement from any party, fixing time, not<br \/>\nexceeding 30 days, thereby showing the provisions of O8 Rule 9 CPC, is liberal<br \/>\nin its application, giving wide discretion to the court, probably to give a<br \/>\nchance to the parties, to agitate their right even raising subsequent pleas, for<br \/>\nwhich, the court should not be rigid. The courts should exercise their<br \/>\ndiscretion liberally, when it will not affect the right of the party.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tO8 Rule 9 CPC, does not say, after commencement of trial, no subsequent<br \/>\npleading shall be entertained by the court, as said in O6 Rule 17 CPC Proviso.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tConsidering all these facts as well as in order give an opportunity to the<br \/>\ncontesting defendant to raise the plea available, the trial court has allowed<br \/>\nthe application to receive the additional written statement, in which the court<br \/>\nis unable to see any infirmity warranting any interference.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11.Further, in this case the defendants did not introduce any new case in<br \/>\nthe written statement. In the original written statement as well as in the<br \/>\nadditional written statement, they denied the execution of the agreement of sale<br \/>\nand also admitted that their signature was obtained by force and they never<br \/>\nagreed to execute a sale for consideration of Rs.16,000\/-.  As a matter of fact,<br \/>\nin the written statement the defendants pleaded the oral agreement of sale for a<br \/>\nconsideration of Rs.1,12,000\/- and admitted the receipt of Rs.12,000\/- and<br \/>\nagreed to execute the sale deed if the balance amount was paid within three<br \/>\nmonths and as the amount was not paid, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim<br \/>\nthe relief.  In the additional written statement also they have not taken a<br \/>\ndifferent stand and they admitted the receipt of Rs.12,000\/- and further stated<br \/>\nthat as per oral agreement of sale if one lakh is paid, they would receive the<br \/>\nsame.  Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case, the defendants in the<br \/>\nwritten statement have not taken any inconsistent plea or mutually destructive<br \/>\nplea.  It is settled law that the defendant is entitled to take inconsistent<br \/>\nplea and in this case they have only explained the stand taken in the original<br \/>\nwritten statement and therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12.Further, as held by this Court in the judgment reported in 1999 (3) CTC<br \/>\n52, in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1872869\/\">Subramanian vs. Jayaraman,<\/a> contradictory pleas can be taken<br \/>\nin the written statement. Further this Court has held in the judgment reported<br \/>\nin 2007(4) MLJ 1098, in the case of S.Suresh vs, Sivabalakannan and others,<br \/>\nleave to file  the additional written statement can be granted liberally except<br \/>\nwhen the defendant raises mutually destructive pleas or tries to introduce a new<br \/>\ncase altogether.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13.In the judgment reported in 2007(7)MLJ 444, in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/489165\/\">Thiyagarajan<br \/>\nvs. Manivannan,<\/a> it has been held that when the averments in the additional<br \/>\nwritten statement are consistent with the original written statement and even<br \/>\nthere are some in-consistencies in the additional written statement that does<br \/>\nnot amount to setting up a new case in the additional written statement and the<br \/>\ncourt should be very liberal in considering application Order 8 Rule 9 CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14.The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the<br \/>\nrespondent deals with the amendment of written statement and that cannot be<br \/>\napplicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, having regard to the facts of<br \/>\nthe judgments of this Court referred to above, the order of the lower Court is<br \/>\nnot correct and is liable to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15.In fine, the order of the lower Court is set aside and this civil<br \/>\npetition is allowed.  Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.<br \/>\nNo costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>er<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 2010 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20\/04\/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.903 of 2006 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006 1.Veerammal 2.P.Palamuthu 3.P.Nataraja Pandian 4.P.Latha 5.P.Annakili &#8230; Petitioners\/Defendants vs P.Selvi &#8230; Respondent\/Plaintiff Prayer Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution [&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-63058","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>Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 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\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-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=\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-19T17:24:13+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-19T17:24:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1947,\"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\\\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010\",\"name\":\"Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-19T17:24:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 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":"Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 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\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-19T17:24:13+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-19T17:24:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010"},"wordCount":1947,"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\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010","name":"Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-19T17:24:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/veerammal-vs-p-selvi-on-20-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Veerammal vs P.Selvi on 20 April, 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\/63058","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=63058"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63058\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}