{"id":65900,"date":"2009-01-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009"},"modified":"2015-10-26T02:44:18","modified_gmt":"2015-10-25T21:14:18","slug":"kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 07\/01\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN\n\nS.A.No.1011 of 2000\n\n1. Kabulath Beevi (Deceased)\n2. Idayadullah\n3. Eassak\n4. Inool Jariya\n5. Jafer Nisha \t\t\t\t\t\t    .. Appellants\n\n(Appellants 2 to 5 are brought\non record as LRs of the deceased\nsole appellant vide order of the\nCourt, dated 14.02.2008 made in\nM.P.No.1 of 2008 in S.A.No.1011 of 2000\nby GRJ)\n\nvs\n\n1. Muthathal\n\n2. Raju\n\n3. Samy\n\n4. Panchavarnam\n\n5. Kannan\n\n6. Mani\n\n7. Papammal            \t\t\t\t\t    .. Respondents\n\n\tAppeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree,\ndated 28.01.2000 made in A.S.No.181 of 1996 on the file of the Principal\nDistrict Judge, Ramanathapuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated\n26.09.1996 made in O.S.No.111 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District\nMunsif, Ramanathapuram.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t...  Mr.P.Chenthurpandian\n^For Respondents\t...  Mr.V.Sitharanjandas for R1 to R6\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree,<br \/>\ndated 28.01.2000 made in A.S.No.181 of 1996 on the file of the Principal<br \/>\nDistrict Judge, Ramanathapuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated<br \/>\n26.09.1996 made in O.S.No.111 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District<br \/>\nMunsif, Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff had filed the suit, seeking<br \/>\nthe relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The trial court,<br \/>\nconsidering the oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced by both<br \/>\nsides, decreed the suit as prayed for without costs. Aggrieved by which, the<br \/>\ndefendant preferred appeal against the legal representatives of the plaintiff.<br \/>\nThe first appellate court, by Judgment and Decree, dated 28.01.2000 confirmed<br \/>\nthe Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal.<br \/>\nAggrieved by which, this Second Appeal has been preferred by the legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. It is not in dispute that the defendant in the suit had purchased 15<br \/>\ncents of land in S.No.241\/10 in Valudoor Village, Ramanathapuram District,<br \/>\nVelipatnam Sub District. Ex.B.1 is the original sale deed executed by the<br \/>\nplaintiff in favour of the defendant Kabulath Beevi. As per the schedule of<br \/>\nproperty, the properties described in Patta No.1042 of the aforesaid village in<br \/>\nS.No.241\/10, a total extent of 1 acre 47 cents on the western side, southern<br \/>\nportion has been purchased. In the document, specific four boundaries are given.<br \/>\nIn the evidence both the parties have not disputed the aforesaid sale deed<br \/>\nexecuted by the plaintiff on 22.10.1981 in favour of the defendant. In the<br \/>\nplaint, the plaintiff, who was the vendor in Ex.B.1 has specifically stated that<br \/>\nthe schedule of property which is in S.No.241\/10, Valudoor Village consisting of<br \/>\n24 . cents, out of which, after deducting 15 cents, that had been sold in favour<br \/>\nof the defendant. However, he has stated the balance in his possession on the<br \/>\nnorthern side was 9 . cents, only the extent of the balance land stated as 9 .<br \/>\ncents by the plaintiff, is not admitted by the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. As the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and injunction in<br \/>\nrespect of the land, leaving the portion, that was sold by him in favour of the<br \/>\ndefendant, under Ex.B.1, the trial court considering the admitted fact, by both<br \/>\nthe parties, has decreed the suit as prayed for, which was confirmed by the<br \/>\nfirst appellate court. Aggrieved by which, this Second Appeal has been<br \/>\npreferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. In this Second Appeal, the following Substantial Questions of Law have<br \/>\nbeen framed for consideration :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;1. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the plaintiffs have<br \/>\ntitle of 9 1\/2 cents instead of 2 cents out of 24 1\/2 cents in Survey No.241\/10,<br \/>\nas per Ex.A.1, when there is no such recital in Ex.A.1 itself and it was<br \/>\nadmitted by P.W.1 himself in his evidence ?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the suit property<br \/>\nbelong to the plaintiffs even though in Ex.C.4, Exs.B.12 to B.14, it appears<br \/>\nthat only 2 cents are available, the sub division does not reflect the real<br \/>\nenjoyment of parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that there was no<br \/>\nevidence on record to show that the sub division was brought to be knowledge of<br \/>\nthe deceased plaintiff while it was categorically admitted by P.W.1 in his<br \/>\nevidence ?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Mr.P.Chenthurpandian, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,<br \/>\nlegal representatives of the defendant, submitted that subsequently, the land<br \/>\nwas sub-divided as S.No.241\/10A and 10B. S.No.241\/10A is only two cents of land,<br \/>\nas per Ex.C.4. As per the Commissioner&#8217;s plan, it was only an extent of 2 cents<br \/>\nand S.No.241\/10B is the land sold in favour of the defendant, which is being<br \/>\nenjoyed by the appellant herein as legal representatives of the defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Mr.V.Sitharanjandas, learned counsel appearing for R1 to R6 fairly<br \/>\nconceded that the appellants are entitled to claim 15 cents in view of Ex.B.1,<br \/>\nsale deed, executed in favour of the defendant, Kabulath Beevi by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. In the plaint, in paragraph number 5, the plaintiff has specifically<br \/>\nstated that though the land sold under Ex.B.1 is on the southern side, it was<br \/>\nbrought to the notice that the patta is being given for the property on the<br \/>\nnorth and with regard to the same, he has raised objection before the Revenue<br \/>\nDivisional Officer, Ramanathapuram. Even in the cause of action, the plaintiff<br \/>\nhas stated that instead of issuing patta for the land purchased by the defendant<br \/>\nunder Ex.B.1, which is lying on the south, the other part of the land on the<br \/>\nnorth belongs to the plaintiff, patta was wrongly given. However, there is no<br \/>\nsupporting document available to show that the patta was issued wrongly for the<br \/>\nland available on the North in S.No.241\/10 of the land.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that by<br \/>\nfiling the suit and getting a decree, the respondents are claiming 9 . cents of<br \/>\nland on the North, though they are entitled only to 2 cents of land. Per contra,<br \/>\nthe learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per the sale<br \/>\ndeed, Ex.B.1, copy of which has been marked as Ex.A.1, the appellants are<br \/>\nentitled to 15 cents of land on the southern side and therefore, they need not<br \/>\nbother about the balance of land, which is being enjoyed by the respondents,<br \/>\nlegal representatives of the vendor of the defendant, so far as the property<br \/>\nsold under Ex.B.1 is concerned. Admittedly, the appellants are the legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives of the defendant, who was only the purchaser of a portion of the<br \/>\nproperty, under Ex.B.1 and the respondents are the legal representatives of the<br \/>\nvendor, who was the original owner of the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. It is not in dispute that the appellants can claim right only for an<br \/>\nextent 15 cents of land, as specified in the sale deed, Ex.B.1, which is on the<br \/>\nsouthern side with specific boundaries, as per the sale deed. In the schedule of<br \/>\nproperty of the plaint itself, the plaintiff had specifically stated that he was<br \/>\nseeking the relief in the land, leaving the 15 cents of land sold in favour of<br \/>\nthe defendant and therefore, there is no legal grievance available to the<br \/>\ndefendant or her legal representatives, the appellants herein. In such<br \/>\ncircumstances, I am of the view that there is no error committed by the courts<br \/>\nbelow in the concurrent finding.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. Admittedly, the appellants are entitled to claim right only for the 15<br \/>\ncents of land sold, as per the sale deed, Ex.B.1 and therefore, the first<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law is no way relevant to be decided, whether vendor had<br \/>\nbalance of 2 cents or 9 . cents. Similarly, the second substantial question of<br \/>\nlaw is, as per Ex.C.4 and Exs.B.12 to B.14, the available land on the North<br \/>\ncould be two cents and hence, the court below could not have decreed the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. It is clear that the appellants have not claimed title, by way of<br \/>\nadverse possession, therefore, the claim is based on the sale deed, Ex.B.1,<br \/>\nwhich is not in dispute. Since the respondents have admitted that the appellants<br \/>\nare entitled to 15 cents of land in S.No.241\/10B, as per the sale deed, Ex.B.1,<br \/>\nthe second substantial questions of law already framed has no significance in<br \/>\nthe second appeal to be decided. The only substantial question is whether the<br \/>\nconcurrent finding of the courts below is perverse, in respect of granting<br \/>\ndeclaration and injunction in favour of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. When the finding is against the evidence or without evidence, that can<br \/>\nbe said to be a  perverse finding. In the instant case, it has been clearly<br \/>\nadmitted by both the parties that the defendant had purchased 15 cents of land<br \/>\nin S.No.241\/10 on the southern side and for the balance on the north only, the<br \/>\nplaintiff was the owner. The prayer sought for in the plaint is relief of<br \/>\ndeclaration and consequential injunction, only for the land in S.No.241\/10,<br \/>\nleaving 15 cents of land already sold to the defendant under Ex.B.1 and<br \/>\ntherefore, the concurrent finding is based on the admitted facts and the<br \/>\nevidence available on record. Therefore, the finding cannot be construed as<br \/>\nperverse finding and accordingly, the third substantial question of law is<br \/>\nanswered. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no illegality or<br \/>\nirregularity in the impugned Judgment to be interfered with by this Court in<br \/>\nthis Second Appeal, accordingly, the Second Appeal fails.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. In the result, confirming the Judgment and Decree of the courts below,<br \/>\nthis Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>tsvn\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1. The Principal District Judge<br \/>\n   Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. The Principal District Munsif<br \/>\n   Ramanathapuram.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07\/01\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN S.A.No.1011 of 2000 1. Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) 2. Idayadullah 3. Eassak 4. Inool Jariya 5. Jafer Nisha .. Appellants (Appellants 2 to 5 are brought on record [&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-65900","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 v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009 - 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\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-25T21:14:18+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\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-25T21:14:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1471,\"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\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-25T21:14:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009 - 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\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-25T21:14:18+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\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-25T21:14:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009"},"wordCount":1471,"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\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009","name":"Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-25T21:14:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kabulath-beevi-deceased-vs-muthathal-on-7-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kabulath Beevi (Deceased) vs Muthathal on 7 January, 2009"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/65900","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=65900"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65900\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65900"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65900"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65900"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}