{"id":69277,"date":"2007-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007"},"modified":"2015-06-10T08:39:43","modified_gmt":"2015-06-10T03:09:43","slug":"subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 13\/07\/2007\n\n\nCORAM\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.NAGAMUTHU\n\n\nCivil Revision Petition PD (MD) No.522 of 2005\nand\nC.M.P.(MD) No.4092 of 2005\n\n\n1. Subbulakshmi\n2. Gopalasamy\n3. Kavitha\n4. Jeyaraman\n5. Umapathi\t\t\t..\tPetitioners\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n1. Dhanalakshmi\n2. Rajeswari\t\t\t..\tRespondents\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nRevision filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India against\nthe fair and decreetal order of the learned Additional District Munsif,\nSrivilliputtur dated 11.02.2005 passed in I.A.No.1612 of 2004 in O.S.No.403 of\n2000 dated 11.02.2005.\n\n\n!For Petitioners\t...\tMr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan\n\n^For Respondents\t...\tMr.T.Sivakumar for\n\t\t\t\tMr.J.Sureshkumar\n\t\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe petitioners who are the defendants 1 to 5 in O.S.No.403 of 2000, on<br \/>\nthe file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Srivilliputtur, have come<br \/>\nforward with this revision challenging the order dated 11.02.2005 made in<br \/>\nI.A.No.1612 of 2004. The respondents are the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Originally, the respondents have filed the above suit as against the<br \/>\npetitioners 1 to 4 herein alone for declaration and for consequential relief of<br \/>\npermanent injunction and also for mandatory injunction. During the pendency of<br \/>\nthe suit, the respondents have filed I.A.No.1445 of 2000, before the lower Court<br \/>\nseeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of noting<br \/>\ndown the physical features of the suit property and to submit a detailed report<br \/>\nregarding the same along with a rough sketch drawn by the Commissioner.<br \/>\nAccordingly, an exparte Commissioner was appointed and he visited the suit<br \/>\nproperty and submitted a report along with the sketch as directed by the Court.<br \/>\nHowever, the Commissioner did not measure the suit property with the assistance<br \/>\nof a Surveyor as it was not requested by both parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Objection regarding the Commissioner&#8217;s report was originally submitted<br \/>\nby the petitioners 1 to 4 herein, pointing out certain defects. Thereafter, the<br \/>\npetitioners 1 to 4 herein have filed I.A.No.559 of 2002, requesting the Court to<br \/>\nscrap the Commissioner&#8217;s report and to appoint a fresh Advocate Commissioner for<br \/>\nthe very same purpose. It was opposed by the respondents\/plaintiffs by filing an<br \/>\nappropriate counter. It is also brought to my notice that during enquiry in<br \/>\nI.A.No.559 of 2002, the Commissioner was also examined. Finally, the lower Court<br \/>\nby order dated 23.10.2002 has dismissed I.A.No.559 of 2002, thereby refusing to<br \/>\nscrap the Commissioner&#8217;s report and further, refusing to appoint a new<br \/>\nCommissioner. However, in paragraph No.7 of the said order, the lower Court has<br \/>\nscraped only the opinion given by the Commissioner in his report stating that<br \/>\nthe wall is a common wall. In the opinion of the lower Court whether the wall is<br \/>\na common wall or not is to be decided by the Court and therefore, the<br \/>\nCommissioner&#8217;s opinion is not relevant and therefore, the said opinion alone is<br \/>\nscrapped.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. Subsequently, the fifth petitioner herein was impleaded as the fifth<br \/>\ndefendant in the suit. The fifth petitioner, however, has not chosen to file a<br \/>\nseparate written statement, claiming that he has got a separate case than that<br \/>\nof the case advanced by the petitioners 1 to 4\/defendants 1 to 4. He simply<br \/>\nadopted the written statement filed by the petitioners 1 to 4 herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Thereafter, the petitioners herein have filed I.A.No.1612 of 2004,<br \/>\nrequesting the Court for appointment of an another Advocate Commissioner who<br \/>\nshall be a senior member of the Bar for the purpose of inspecting the suit<br \/>\nproperty and to submit a report along with a sketch to be drawn by him. It was<br \/>\nopposed by the respondents. The learned Additional District Munsif, by order<br \/>\ndated 11.02.2005 has dismissed the same. Challenging the said order of<br \/>\ndismissal, this revision has been filed by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, since the<br \/>\nfifth petitioner was not a party to the suit when the earlier Commissioner was<br \/>\nappointed in I.A.No.1445 of 2000 and when I.A.No.559 of 2002 was filed and<br \/>\nheard, those orders would not bind him and therefore, he can maintain<br \/>\nI.A.No.1612 of 2004. The learned counsel would further submit that in so far as<br \/>\nthe fifth petitioner is concerned, since he had no opportunity to oppose the<br \/>\nearlier Commissioner&#8217;s report, even without praying for scrapping the earlier<br \/>\nCommissioner&#8217;s report, he can maintain the present I.A.No.1612 of 2004 for<br \/>\nappointment of fresh Commissioner. He would further submit that for coming to<br \/>\nthe right conclusion in the case, it is absolutely necessary that a fresh<br \/>\nCommissioner has to be appointed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that<br \/>\nthe present I.A.No.1612 of 2004, is barred by constructive res judicata since in<br \/>\nview of the order made in I.A.No.559 of 2002, wherein the lower Court has<br \/>\nrefused to scrap the Commissioner&#8217;s report and to appoint a new Advocate<br \/>\nCommissioner. The fact remains that the order made in I.A.No.559 of 2002, was<br \/>\nnot at all challenged by the petitioners 1 to 4. The learned counsel would<br \/>\ntherefore, submit that the fifth petitioner does not claim to have a separate<br \/>\ncase since he sails along with the petitioners 1 to 4 herein in filing<br \/>\nI.A.No.1612 of 2004 and also in filing a common written statement and so, his<br \/>\ncase alone cannot be now separated before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. I have considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel<br \/>\nfor both parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In this case, admittedly, the Commissioner&#8217;s report filed in<br \/>\nI.A.No.1445 of 2000, was challenged in I.A.No.559 of 2002. The lower Court,<br \/>\nhaving extensively gone into the rival contentions and after perusing the<br \/>\nevidence of Commissioner, has dismissed I.A.No.559 of 2002 thereby refusing to<br \/>\nscrap the Commissioner&#8217;s report and also to appoint another Commissioner for the<br \/>\nvery same purpose. Having failed to challenge the correctness or otherwise of<br \/>\nthe report filed by the Commissioner, the petitioners 1 to 4 cannot maintain the<br \/>\npresent I.A.No.1612 of 2004, for the very same purpose, as they are barred by<br \/>\nres judicata. Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty for this Court to<br \/>\ndismiss the civil revision petition in so far as the petitioners 1 to 4 herein<br \/>\nare concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. So far as the fifth petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe petitioners would submit that since he was not a party to the suit when<br \/>\nearlier I.A.No.1445 of 2000 and I.A.No.559 of 2002 were decided, his case should<br \/>\nbe separately considered now. To afford an opportunity to highlight his claim in<br \/>\nthis case, it is necessary to appoint Advocate Commissioner afresh. Though, this<br \/>\nargument appears to be attractive, in my considered view, it deserves only to be<br \/>\nrejected. If it is the case of the fifth petitioner that he has filed a separate<br \/>\nwritten statement contending that he has got a different case from the case of<br \/>\nthe other petitioners namely, the petitioners 1 to 4\/defendants 1 to4, then, his<br \/>\ncase may be required to be considered separately. But admittedly, he does not<br \/>\nhave a separate case. He has simply adopted the written statement of the other<br \/>\ndefendants. Even in the present I.A.No.1612 of 2004, he has joined along with<br \/>\nthe petitioners 1 to 4. Before this Court also all the five petitioners are the<br \/>\nrevision petitioners. When that be so, the case of the fifth petitioner alone<br \/>\ncannot be separated and decided accordingly. Thus, he is also barred by means of<br \/>\nconstructive res judicata though he was not a party in the earlier proceedings.<br \/>\nIn view of the said position as against the fifth petitioner also, the order of<br \/>\nthe lower Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. In the result, the order passed by the learned Additional District<br \/>\nMunsif, Srivilliputtur dated 11.02.2005 made in I.A.No.1612 of 2004 in<br \/>\nO.S.No.403 of 2000, is confirmed. I do not find any merit in the revision. The<br \/>\ncivil revision petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs.<br \/>\nConsequently, connected C.M.P is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>To,<\/p>\n<p>The Additional District Munsif,<br \/>\nSrivilliputtur<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13\/07\/2007 CORAM The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice S.NAGAMUTHU Civil Revision Petition PD (MD) No.522 of 2005 and C.M.P.(MD) No.4092 of 2005 1. Subbulakshmi 2. Gopalasamy 3. Kavitha 4. Jeyaraman 5. Umapathi .. Petitioners Vs. 1. Dhanalakshmi [&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-69277","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>Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007 - 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\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-10T03:09:43+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-10T03:09:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1235,\"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\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-10T03:09:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007 - 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\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-10T03:09:43+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-10T03:09:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007"},"wordCount":1235,"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\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007","name":"Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-10T03:09:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subbulakshmi-vs-dhanalakshmi-on-13-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subbulakshmi vs Dhanalakshmi on 13 July, 2007"}]},{"@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\/69277","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=69277"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69277\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69277"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69277"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69277"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}