{"id":74541,"date":"2006-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006"},"modified":"2017-01-31T04:02:27","modified_gmt":"2017-01-30T22:32:27","slug":"rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 30\/01\/2006\n\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN\n\n\nC.M.A.No.176 of 2002\n\n\nRajamani\t\t\t...\tAppellant\n\n\nVs\n\n\n1.Ponnusamy\n2.Thankavel\n3.Vallivel\n4.Mariammal\n5.Saratha\n6.Bindhu (Minor)\n7.Sathish (Minor)\t\t...\tRespondents\n\n\n(Respondents 6 and 7 being minors, represented by their mother and natural\nguardian 5th respondent, Saratha)\n\n\n\nPrayer: Appeal filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, against the\norder and decree passed in Probate O.P.No.43 of 1997, dated 17.08.2001, on the\nfile of the Sub Court, Padmanabapuram, Kanyakumari District.\n\n\n!For Appellant   \t...\tMr.R.Subramanian\n\t\t\t\tMr.M.Saravanan\n\n\n^For Respondents \t...\tMr.K.Srikumaran Nair\n\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis appeal has been preferred against the order passed in Probate<br \/>\nO.P.No.43 of 1997, on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Padmanabapuram, dated<br \/>\n17.08.2001.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The probate petition was filed by the appellant \/ petitioner to probate<br \/>\na Will No.26 of 1987, dated 25.06.1987.  In the petition, the petitioner had<br \/>\nstated that respondents 1 to 4 are the brothers of the petitioner and 5th<br \/>\nrespondent is her mother and that one, Ambrose is the brother of the 5th<br \/>\nrespondent and the maternal uncle of the petitioner as well as the R1 to R4 and<br \/>\nthat the said Ambrose died on 29.05.1992 and before his death, he had executed a<br \/>\nregistered Will, dated 25.06.1987.  To probate the said Will, the petitioner had<br \/>\nfiled the above said probate O.P.No.43 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. Respondents 1 to 3 and 5 have filed a joint counter, contending that<br \/>\nthe said Ambrose had not executed any Will and the Will relied on by the<br \/>\npetitioner was a bogus one and that the said Ambrose had only 1\/3 share in the<br \/>\nplaint schedule property and the remaining 2\/3 share belonged to 5th respondent,<br \/>\nMariammal and one Therasammal.  The suit property originally belonged to one<br \/>\nPadmanaban, who died intestate and after his death, the property devolved on<br \/>\nAmbrose, Mariammal and Therasammal.  The 5th respondent, Mariammal get 1\/3 share<br \/>\nand she was enjoying it.  The 1\/3 share of Therasammal, was sold on 07.09.1978,<br \/>\nby executing a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and R1 to R4.  Even though,<br \/>\nin the recitals, it has been stated in the sale deed that it was executed in<br \/>\nrespect of . share of Therasammal, actually Therasammal had 1\/3 share in the<br \/>\nsaid property.  After the death of Ambrose, his 1\/3 share also devolved on<br \/>\nTherasammal.  The petitioner was entitled to . share of 1\/5 share.  The<br \/>\ntestators to the Will are closely related to the said Ambrose and with the help<br \/>\nof those testators, Ambrose had concocted the alleged Will.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. On the side of the petitioners, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and<br \/>\nEx.P.1 and P.2 were marked and on the side of the respondents, R.W.1 was<br \/>\nexamined and Ex.R.1 was marked.  After going through the documentary and oral<br \/>\nevidence, the learned Sub Judge, Padmanabapuram, has come to a conclusion that<br \/>\nthe petitioner is not entitled to any relief and consequently dismissed the<br \/>\npetition.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Aggrieved by the orders of the learned Sub Judge, Padmanabapuram, the<br \/>\npetitioner has preferred this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Now, the point for determination is whether the order passed in Probate<br \/>\nO.P.No.43 of 1997, on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Padmanabapuram, dated<br \/>\n17.08.2001, is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the Memorandum<br \/>\nof appeal?\n<\/p>\n<p>The Point:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. The learned Sub Judge has dismissed the Probate O.P.No.43 of 1997, on<br \/>\nthe ground that the petitioner has failed to prove the Will, by examining at<br \/>\nleast any one of the testators to the Will or as per the provisions contemplated<br \/>\nunder Section 69 of the Evidence Act.   Now, the petitioner had filed<br \/>\nC.M.P.No.398 of 2006 and also C.M.P.No.397 of 2006, under Order 41 Rule 27,<br \/>\nC.P.C., to permit the petitioner to adduce the oral evidence and also to receive<br \/>\ndocuments.   As far as C.M.P.No.397 of 2006, to receive the documents, is<br \/>\nconcerned, there is no dispute that both the testators to the Will are now no<br \/>\nmore.  The documents, dated 29.11.2005, are related to the death certificate of<br \/>\nPalrathnam, one of the attestors to the Will and the other document dated<br \/>\n09.12.2005, death certificate of Baliah Nadar, the other attesting witness to<br \/>\nthe Will.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the<br \/>\nadvocate who conducted the petition before the learned Sub Judge,<br \/>\nPadmanabapuram, has failed to examine the witnesses who were present at the time<br \/>\nof registration of the Will and also who knows about the signatures of the<br \/>\ntestating witnesses.  The Section 69 of the Evidence Act, runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Proof where no attesting witness found.- If no such attesting witness can<br \/>\nbe found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United<br \/>\nKingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at<br \/>\nleast is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the<br \/>\ndocument is in the handwriting of that person.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents relying on the<br \/>\ndecision in G.Vaidehi Vs. S.Govindarajan reported in 1992 (2) MLJ 393, contended<br \/>\nthat all that is required is to prove the attestation by bringing on record the<br \/>\nevidence of a witness that the attestation was in the handwriting of that person<br \/>\nwho was described as the attesting witness and that he had put his signature.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. Now, the petitioner wants to let in further evidence in the said<br \/>\nProbate O.P.No.43 of 1997, by filing C.M.P.No.398 of 2006.  The learned Counsel<br \/>\nappearing for the respondent would object to such a course on the ground that<br \/>\nunder Order 41 Rule 27, the petition is not maintainable, because this petition<br \/>\nhas been filed after lapse of five years from the date of disposal of Probate<br \/>\nO.P.No.43 of 1997.  In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied on<br \/>\nthe decision in N.Kamalam Vs. Ayyasamy reported in 2001 (7) SCC 503.  It has<br \/>\nbeen held in the above said judgment as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;The provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 have not been engrafted in the Code so<br \/>\nas to patch up the weak points in the case and to fill up the omission in the<br \/>\ncourt of appeal &#8211; it does not authorise any lacunae or gaps in evidence to be<br \/>\nfilled up.  The authority and jurisdiction as conferred on to the appellate<br \/>\ncourt to let in fresh evidence is restricted to the purpose of pronouncement of<br \/>\njudgment in a particular way&#8230;..\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe time-lag in the matter under consideration is enormous.  The suit was<br \/>\ninstituted in the year 1981 and the decree therein was passed in 1983.  The<br \/>\nfirst appeal was filed before the High Court in April 1983 but the application<br \/>\nfor permission to adduce additional evidence came to be made only in August<br \/>\n1993.  Needless to record that the courts shall have to be cautious and must<br \/>\nalways act with great circumspection in dealing with the claims for letting in<br \/>\nadditional evidence particularly, in the form of oral evidence at the appellate<br \/>\nstage and that too, after a long lapse of time.  A plain reading or Order 41<br \/>\nRule 27 would depict that the rejection of the claim for production of<br \/>\nadditional evidence after a period of 10 years from the date of filing of the<br \/>\nappeal cannot be termed to be erroneous or an illegal exercise of discretion.<br \/>\nThe three limbs of Rule 27 do not stand attracted.  The learned trial Judge<br \/>\nwhile dealing with the matter has, as a matter of fact, very strongly commented<br \/>\nupon the lapse and failure on the part of the plaintiffs even to summon the<br \/>\nattesters to the Will and contextually, the justice of the situation does not<br \/>\nwarrant any interference.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that<br \/>\nunder Order 47 Rule 27(1)(aa), even after due diligence, the advocate who<br \/>\nconducted the case before the Sub Judge, Padmanabapuram, had failed to examine<br \/>\nthe persons who had seen the attestors signing the Will and registration of the<br \/>\nWill, so as to prove the Will.  As per Section 69 of the Evidence Act, in the<br \/>\nabsence of both the testating witnesses expired.  The learned counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the respondent would contend that after a lapse of five years from the<br \/>\ndisposal of the probate petition, it is not open to the appellant \/ petitioner<br \/>\nto agitate the same before the appellate Court and that a partition suit in<br \/>\nrespect of the same suit property is pending in O.S.No.510 of 1992 and the<br \/>\nappellant can file necessary applications to reopen the same and prove the Will<br \/>\nby examining the necessary witnesses.  So, I am of the view, that the appellant<br \/>\nhaving failed to prove the Will before the learned trial Court, now, cannot be<br \/>\nallowed to reopen the same for adducing further oral and documentary evidence.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. Hence, I hold on the point that the order passed in Probate O.P.No.43<br \/>\nof 1997 on the file of learned Sub Judge, Padmanabapuram, dated 17.08.2001, need<br \/>\nnot be set aside for the reasons stated in the Memorandum of appeal.  The point<br \/>\nis answered accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  No costs.  The parties are at<br \/>\nliberty to let in evidence in the partition suit for the same property, pending<br \/>\nbefore the learned District Munsif, Padmanabapuram, in O.S.No.510 of 1992 and to<br \/>\nget an appropriate relief therein.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Sub Judge,<br \/>\nPadmanabapuram,<br \/>\nKanyakumari District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30\/01\/2006 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGA PERUMAL ADITYAN C.M.A.No.176 of 2002 Rajamani &#8230; Appellant Vs 1.Ponnusamy 2.Thankavel 3.Vallivel 4.Mariammal 5.Saratha 6.Bindhu (Minor) 7.Sathish (Minor) &#8230; Respondents (Respondents 6 and 7 being minors, represented by their [&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-74541","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>Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006 - 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\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-30T22:32:27+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\\\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T22:32:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1442,\"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\\\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006\",\"name\":\"Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-30T22:32:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006 - 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\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-30T22:32:27+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\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T22:32:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006"},"wordCount":1442,"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\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006","name":"Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-30T22:32:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajamani-vs-ponnusamy-on-30-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajamani vs Ponnusamy on 30 January, 2006"}]},{"@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\/74541","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=74541"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74541\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74541"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74541"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74541"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}