{"id":76334,"date":"2005-01-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005"},"modified":"2017-12-03T11:01:22","modified_gmt":"2017-12-03T05:31:22","slug":"commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; &#8230; vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; &#8230; vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Srikrishna<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, B.N. Srikrishna<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4740 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nCommissioner Hindu Religious &amp; Charitable Endowment\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP Shanmugama &amp; Ors.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/01\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nShivaraj V. Patil &amp; B.N. Srikrishna\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n<p>Srikrishna, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOne Ponnu Iyer alias Viruddeswara Sivacharya had purchased<br \/>\nlarge extent of land and properties. One of such properties was Door<br \/>\nno.278, West Car Street, Tirunelveli.  In 1960 the second respondent<br \/>\nwho was  Madathipathi of &#8220;Meda Madam&#8221; and the Kartha of family<br \/>\nfiled O.A. No.74\/60 before the Deputy Commissioner of the Hindu<br \/>\nReligious and Charitable Endowment under section 63(a) of the Hindu<br \/>\nReligious and Charitable Endowment Act, to declare the property<br \/>\nmentioned above  as his personal property and not belonging to a<br \/>\nreligious institution.  This application was rejected by the Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner. An  appeal carried by the second respondent to the<br \/>\nCommissioner was also rejected.  In 1969 the second respondent filed a<br \/>\nstatutory suit being OS No.133\/69 before the Sub-Judge, Tirunelveli<br \/>\nseeking a declaration that the property was his private property. This<br \/>\nsuit was also dismissed by the Sub-Judge holding that the property<br \/>\nbelonged to the &#8220;Mela Madam&#8221; a religious institution.  The appeal<br \/>\ncarried to the High Court vide A.S.No.640\/1971 was also dismissed.<br \/>\nThe second respondent thereafter continued to maintain records as<br \/>\ndirected by the concerned authorities and submitted to the jurisdiction<br \/>\nof the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act with  respect to<br \/>\nall the properties belonging to the Mela Madam.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the year 1978, after the first respondent attained the age of<br \/>\nmajority he filed a suit for declaration that the properties described in<br \/>\nschedule A,B and C  of the plaint were his ancestral properties, and in<br \/>\nview of the oral partition which was subsequently registered, he was<br \/>\nentitled to B schedule properties. He, therefore, sought a decree for<br \/>\npartition of the ancestral properties and a declaration that the &#8216;B&#8217;<br \/>\nschedule properties exclusively belonged to him and sought<br \/>\nconsequential injunction.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis suit was opposed, inter alia, by the Commissioner, Hindu<br \/>\nReligious and Charitable Endowment (appellant before us and the 4th<br \/>\ndefendant in the suit).\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe appellant contended in the suit that the suit properties were<br \/>\nendowed properties and that the character of properties had been<br \/>\naffirmatively declared as one belonging to a religious institution. He<br \/>\ncontended that the second respondent, who had not succeeded in his<br \/>\nearlier attempt to grab the property, had now set up the first respondent<br \/>\nto commence a second round of litigation for the same purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>The trial court accepted the contentions of the plaintiff and<br \/>\ngranted a preliminary decree as sought for in the plaint. The present<br \/>\nappellant preferred an appeal against the trial court judgment in O.S.<br \/>\nNo. 228\/78.  The first appellate court, the District Judge, Tirunelveli<br \/>\nallowed the appeal, and dismissed the suit of the 1st respondent.  The<br \/>\nfirst respondent brought second appeal No.S.A.No.2105 of 1983 before<br \/>\nthe High Court. The High Court in a lengthy judgment reversed all the<br \/>\nfindings of facts recorded by the 1st appellate court, set aside the<br \/>\njudgment of the first appellate court and decreed the suit. Hence this<br \/>\nappeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>At the very outset, we notice that, though the High Court was<br \/>\ndeciding the second appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil<br \/>\nProcedure, it failed to act in accordance with the requirements of<br \/>\nsection 100. It is trite law that under section 100 of the CPC a High<br \/>\nCourt can entertain a second appeal only if the High Court is satisfied<br \/>\nthat the case involves a substantial question of law. Sub-section (4) of<br \/>\nsection 100 provides that where the High Court is satisfied  that a<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate<br \/>\nthat question. Sub-section (5) stipulates that the appeal shall be heard<br \/>\non the question so formulated and the respondent shall at the hearing of<br \/>\nthe appeal be allowed to argue that the case does not involve such<br \/>\nquestion.  The mandatory requirements of this provision of law have<br \/>\nbeen totally flouted by the High Court. The High Court has not<br \/>\nindicated in the long judgment as to which was the substantial question<br \/>\nof law, if any, considered, nor has it formulated the substantial question<br \/>\nof law on which the decision in the second appeal was being given.<br \/>\nThe High Court has proceeded as if it were deciding a first appeal<br \/>\nagainst a decree in original proceedings. On this ground alone the<br \/>\njudgment is liable to be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWhen the appeal was argued before us, we repeatedly called<br \/>\nupon the learned counsel for the respondent to satisfy us as to the<br \/>\nsubstantial question of law which could have given jurisdiction to the<br \/>\nHigh Court to entertain and adjudicate the second appeal. The learned<br \/>\ncounsel replied that the question of interpretation of the documents<br \/>\nplaced on record was such a substantial question of law.   We are not<br \/>\nsatisfied that this was so.  Nonetheless we permitted the learned<br \/>\ncounsel on both sides to make detailed submissions since the present<br \/>\nappeal had already been admitted.\n<\/p>\n<p>The first appellate court formulated the points for determination<br \/>\nin the two appeals and the cross objection in AS No.139 of 1981 as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tWhether the plaint &#8216;A&#8217; schedule properties are<br \/>\nthe joint family  properties of defendants 1 and 2<br \/>\nand the plaintiffs ?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tIs the plaintiff entitled to declaration of title<br \/>\nover plaint &#8216;B&#8217; Schedule lands and for paramount<br \/>\ninjunction against the defendants 4 and 5 in respect<br \/>\nof those lands?\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tWhether the suit properties belong to Mela<br \/>\nMadam ?\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tIs the suit barred under Section 108 of Tamil<br \/>\nNadu Act 22 of 1959 and more particularly in<br \/>\nrespect of plaint &#8220;A&#8217; schedule items 1 and 2<br \/>\ncomprised in Door No.278 ?\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tWhether the 1st defendant and his sons namely<br \/>\nthe plaintiff and 2nd defendant are estopped from<br \/>\ncontending, that the suit properties do not belong to<br \/>\nMela Madam ?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAfter considering the manner in which the ancestors of the<br \/>\nplaintiff had dealt with the properties, particularly with regard to<br \/>\nthe documents placed on record, the first appeal court divided the<br \/>\nconsideration into 5 periods, namely, from 1845 to 1881, 1882 to<br \/>\n1927, 1927 to 1934, 1934 to1943 and 1943 to 1968.\n<\/p>\n<p>Upon a careful consideration of the documents, the first<br \/>\nappellate court came to the conclusion that it was only in 1960<br \/>\nthat the first respondent before us claimed for the first time that<br \/>\nthe property Door no.278, West Car Street, Tirunelveli, belonged<br \/>\nto him personally.  At no time earlier had any of his predecessor<br \/>\nclaimed or dealt with the properties as their own and individual<br \/>\nor private properties.  The first appellate court found that on the<br \/>\nother hand the documents executed throughout the relevant five<br \/>\nperiods gave a reasonable impression that the properties were<br \/>\nalways treated as that of the &#8216;Mela Madam&#8217;.  The first appellate<br \/>\ncourt rightly pointed out that the word &#8220;Madam&#8221; has been used in<br \/>\nthe documents right from 1845 and had to be given importance<br \/>\nand cannot be lightly brushed aside.  It was rightly emphasized<br \/>\nby the appellate court that the so called documents of oral<br \/>\npartition had come into existence only during the pendency of the<br \/>\nproceeding before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious &amp;<br \/>\nCharitable Endowment wherein the father of the first respondent<br \/>\nhad claimed the property bearing  Door no.278, West Car Street,<br \/>\nTirunelveli, as his private property. It noticed that the<br \/>\nproceedings before the Deputy Commissioner had also ended in<br \/>\nfavour of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments<br \/>\ndepartment.\n<\/p>\n<p>The first appellate court, therefore, recorded a clear<br \/>\nconclusion : &#8220;thus, neither the oral evidence nor the documentary<br \/>\nevidence adduced on the side of the plaintiff prove, that these suit<br \/>\nproperties are the secular or private properties of 1st defendant&#8217;s<br \/>\nfamily for granting partition relief in respect of  plaint &#8216;A&#8217;<br \/>\nschedule buildings and for declaration of title and consequential<br \/>\nrelief of permanent injunction in respect of plaint &#8216;B&#8217; Schedule<br \/>\nlands in favour of the plaintiff&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>The first appellate court noticed that in a situation where<br \/>\nthe Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment department was<br \/>\ncalled upon to prove that the properties had been endowed more<br \/>\nthan 100 years ago it was not possible for them to prove it by<br \/>\ndirect evidence that there was any gift or settlement to the<br \/>\nMadam.  In the circumstances, the first appellate court rightly<br \/>\nrelied on the fact of possession of the properties and their<br \/>\ndealings by the other  respondents.  The father of the first<br \/>\nrespondent who was the first defendant in the suit had filed a<br \/>\nwritten statement supporting the case of the plaintiff.  The first<br \/>\nappellate court justifiably held that he was really in the position<br \/>\nof a co-plaintiff, though ranking as the first defendant. The first<br \/>\ndefendant had proclaimed himself as a Mathadipati by printing an<br \/>\ninvitation (Ex.B-5) for the assumption of office by him. It was<br \/>\nalso noticed that Ex. B-1 property register had been maintained<br \/>\nfrom 1946 by the first defendant and the said register was a<br \/>\nstatutory register maintained under Tamil Nadu Act 22\/1959, in<br \/>\nwhich all the properties were mentioned as belonging to the<br \/>\nMadam.   The conspicuous failure of the first defendant the father<br \/>\nof the plaintiff to come forward and explain this Exhibit B-1<br \/>\nproperty register maintained and signed by him was a fact held as<br \/>\nfatal to the case sought to be made out in the present suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>These were some of the salient findings made by the first<br \/>\nappellate court. We have referred to them briefly to indicate that<br \/>\nthe first appellate court was not concerned with the construction<br \/>\nof a document like a will or sale deed only, but was concerned<br \/>\nwith appreciation of oral and documentary evidence over the<br \/>\nperiod from  1846 to 1968. Upon appreciation of the evidence<br \/>\nbefore it, the first appellate court recorded a number of findings,<br \/>\nwhich have to be accepted.\n<\/p>\n<p>In our view, the High Court has no jurisdiction in the<br \/>\nsecond appeal to interfere with the finding of facts recorded by<br \/>\nthe first appellate court after careful consideration of the<br \/>\nevidence, oral and documentary on record.  It was not open to the<br \/>\nHigh Court to reverse the findings of facts as it has done. Even<br \/>\notherwise, we are satisfied that the findings recorded by the first<br \/>\nappellate court were justified and there was no scope for<br \/>\ninterference therewith.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the result, we hold that the impugned judgment is<br \/>\nwithout jurisdiction and also otherwise erroneous. Consequently,<br \/>\nwe allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the<br \/>\nHigh Court and restore the judgment of the District Judge,<br \/>\nTirunelveli in appeal No.139\/81, 13\/82 and the cross objections<br \/>\nfiled in AS No.130\/81.\n<\/p>\n<p>The first and second respondents shall pay a sum of<br \/>\nRs.10,000\/- as costs to the appellant.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; &#8230; vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005 Author: Srikrishna Bench: Shivaraj V. Patil, B.N. Srikrishna CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4740 of 1999 PETITIONER: Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; Charitable Endowment RESPONDENT: P Shanmugama &amp; Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/01\/2005 BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil &amp; B.N. [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76334","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; ... vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005 - 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\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; ... vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-03T05:31:22+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; &#8230; vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-03T05:31:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1751,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; ... vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-03T05:31:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; &#8230; vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; ... vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005 - 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\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; ... vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-03T05:31:22+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; &#8230; vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-03T05:31:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005"},"wordCount":1751,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005","name":"Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; ... vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-03T05:31:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-hindu-religious-vs-p-shanmugama-ors-on-10-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Hindu Religious &amp; &#8230; vs P Shanmugama &amp; Ors on 10 January, 2005"}]},{"@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\/76334","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=76334"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76334\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76334"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}