{"id":84189,"date":"2007-06-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-06-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007"},"modified":"2016-11-01T15:11:43","modified_gmt":"2016-11-01T09:41:43","slug":"ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007","title":{"rendered":"Ramalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of … on 26 June, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ramalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of … on 26 June, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED : 26\/06\/2007\n\nCORAM:\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR\n\nS.A.(MD).No.264 of 1996\nand\nC.M.P.(MD).No.2362 of 1996\n\n\n1.Ramalingam Nadar\n2.Poothankam\n3.P.Kamalam\n4.R.Muthukrishnan\n5.R.Geetha\n6.R.Vijaya\n7.R.Radhakrishnan\n8.R.Shanthi\n9.R.Muthulakshmi\n  (appellants 3 to 9\n   impleaded as per the order\n   of this Court dt.05.12.2006\n   made in M.P.(MD)No.3\/2006)\t\t... Appellants\n\n\nVs.\n\n\t\t\t\t\n1.The Residents of Keezharamanputhoor Oor,\n  Nagercoil Village,\n  represented by its\n  trustees.\n2.Chellan\n3.Ganapathi Nadar\n4.T.Ayyappan\n5.Madavarajan\n6.R.Gopalan\n7.N.Thavasilingam\n8.P.Bhaskar\n  (respondents 4 to 8 impleaded as\n   per the order of this Court\n   dt.22.06.2000 made in\n   C.M.P.No.2343 of 1999)\t\t... Respondents\n\n\n\n:Prayer\n\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure\nagainst the Judgment and decree dated 25.09.1995 made in A.S.No.69 of 1992 on\nthe file of the Sub Court, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree dated\n27.04.1992 made in O.S.No.335 of 1983 on the file of the Principal District\nMunsif, Nagerocil.\n\n!For Appellants \t..\tMr.K.N.Thambi\n\t\t\n^For RR-2 and 3\t\t..\tMr.S.Vinayak\n\t\nFor RR-4 to 8     \t..\tMr.C.Godwin\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe second and third plaintiffs before the trial Court are the original
\nappellants 1 and 2 in the second appeal.  The original suit, namely O.S.No.335
\nof 1983 was instituted by one Abayanarayanan Nadar (since deceased) and
\nRamalingam Nadar, the second plaintiff (first appellant) for the relief of
\ndeclaration of their title in respect of one cent of land and a well situated
\ntherein described in detail in the schedule attached to the plaint. During the
\npendency of the suit, the first plaintiff Abayanarayanan Nadar died and one
\nPoothankam was impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased
\nAbayanarayanan Nadar.  The learned Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil after
\ntrial non-suited the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit in its entirety with cost
\nby judgment and decree dated 27.04.1992.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. As against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the then
\nsurviving plaintiffs Ramalingam Nadar and Poothankam filed an appeal on the file
\nof Sub Court, Nagercoil in A.S.No.69 of 1992. At the conclusion of hearing of
\nthe first appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil allowed the appeal in
\npart and granted a decree declaring the title of the plaintiffs in respect of
\ntheir 1\/12th share in the suit property. So far as the remaining 11\/12th share
\nin the suit property was concerned, the relief of declaration was negatived and
\nthe relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the entire property was also
\nnegatived.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants 1 and 2 (Ramalingam Nadar and
\nPoothankam) preferred this second appeal before this Court. During the pendency
\nof the second appeal, the first appellant Ramalingam Nadar died and the
\nappellants 3 to 9 were impleaded as his legal representatives.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. According to the case of the appellants\/plaintiffs, the suit property,
\nan extent of one cent of land comprised in Survey No.1905\/1 at Kottar Melakkadu,
\nNagercoil Pakuthy, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Nagercoil Sub-Division, Kanyakumari
\nDistrict and a well situated therein originally belonged to one Ponnamperumal
\nNadar. For digging the well, 12 persons including the above said Ponnamperumal
\nNadar provided the funds. In recognition of the contribution made by the other
\n11 persons for digging the well, Ponnamperumal Nadar executed a sale deed in
\nfavour of those 11 persons on 05.05.1097 of Malayalam Era corresponding to the
\nEnglish calendar year 1922, conveying common 1\/12th share in the well alone to
\nthe purchasers therein. According to them,  a right to take water corresponding
\nto their share, namely 11\/12th share, alone was conveyed and the title to the
\nproperty continued to remain with Ponnamperumal Nadar.  Subsequently
\nPonnamperumal Nadar died unmarried and the original plaintiffs, namely
\nAbayanarayanan Nadar and Ramalingam Nadar, being the sister’s sons of
\nPonnamperumal Nadar, became entitled to the entire suit property as the legal
\nheirs of Ponnamperumal Nadar. Out of the eleven persons who got 11\/12th share in
\nthe well except the fifth defendant, all others are no more and their legal
\nheirs are not traceable by the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. On the strength of the above said pleadings and with a further
\ncontention that the villagers were not only denying the title of the plaintiffs
\nto the entire suit property but also trying to interfere with their right to
\npeaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, the suit had been instituted for
\nthe reliefs of declaration and injunction.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. The suit was resisted on the ground that the same was not maintainable
\nfor non-joinder of necessary parties in so far as the vendees or legal heirs of
\nthe vendees under the sale deed dated 05.05.1097 of Malayalam Era were not made
\nparties to the suit. On merit also the defendants contended that by virtue of
\nthe sale deed dated 05.05.1097 of Malayalam Era, the vendees therein, namely
\nAppavoo Nadar and 10 others had become the absolute owners of the suit
\nproperties and that the vendees in turn sold it to the Keela Ramanpudhur,
\nNagercoil Village, Muttharamman Temple Trust by a registered sale deed dated 8
\nMasi 1110 of Malayalam Era. A plea that the suit was barred by the limitation
\nwas also raised in the written statement.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. After framing necessary issues, the learned District Munsif conducted
\nthe trial in which one witness was examined and seven documents were marked as
\nExs.A-1 to A-7 on the side of the plaintiffs and one witness was examined and
\nnine documents Exs.B-1 to B-9 were marked on the side of the defendants. At the
\nconclusion of trial, on an appreciation of evidence, the trial Court answered
\nall the issues against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit in its entirety
\nwith cost. As against which, A.S.No.69 of 1992 was preferred on the file of the
\nSub Court, Nagercoil. The lower appellate Court, on a re-appreciation of
\nevidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were entitled to a common
\n1\/12th share in the suit property and granted a decree of declaration declaring
\nthe 1\/12th share of the plaintiffs in the suit property. So far as the relief of
\ndeclaration in respect of the remaining 1\/12th share and the relief of
\ninjunction in respect of the entire suit property, the claim of the plaintiffs
\nwere rejected. Hence the appellants are before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. As projected by the appellants, the following question has been framed
\nas the substantial question of law involved in this appeal:
\n\t“Whether the lower Appellate Court is correct in dismissing in part the
\nAppeal before him, without considering the appellants’ vital and relevant
\ndocuments under Exs.A-1,A-3,A-4,A-6 and A-7?”\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The Court heard the arguments advanced by Mr.K.N.Thambi, learned
\ncounsel appearing for the appellants, Mr.S.Vinayak, learned counsel appearing
\nfor the respondents 2 and 3 and also       Mr.C.Godwin, learned counsel
\nappearing for the respondents 4 to 8.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. Upon such a hearing and after perusing the relevant records, this
\nCourt is of the considered view that the appellants must fail in this second
\nappeal. The reasons are found in the succeeding paragraphs.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Exs.A-3,A-4,A-6 and A-7 are none other than the kist receipts and
\nproperty tax receipts evidencing payment of kist and property tax by the
\nappellants. The certified copy of the sale deed dated 05.05.1097 of Malayalam
\nEra is Ex.B.1. Another certified copy of the same sale deed is Ex.A.2.
\nAdmittedly, the  sale deed was executed by the appellants predecessor-in-title
\nconveying a common 11\/12 th share in the suit well to 11 persons including D-5.
\nAccording to the plaint averments,  what was conveyed was only a right to take
\nwater from the well and not any share in the well or in the land in which the
\nwell has been dug.  This Court is not in a position to accept the above said
\ncontention for the simple reason that the document itself recites  that 11\/12th
\nshare in the land as well as well was the subject matter of conveyance under
\nEx.B.1. All the documents Exs.A-3,A-4,A-6 and A-7 came into existence subsequent
\nto the above said sale deed. By Ex.B.1 the entire suit property was not
\nconveyed. A common 1\/12th share in the suit property (land and well) was
\nretained by the vendor. As such, the vendor, namely Ponnamperumal Nadar, from
\nthe date on which Ex.B.1 – sale deed was executed, continued to be a co-owner in
\nrespect of the suit property. There is no wonder in a co-owner paying the kist
\nand property tax in respect of the common property. Hence the above said
\ndocuments, namely Exs.A-3,A-4,A-6 and A-7 are not enough to establish exclusive
\ntitle of Ponnaperumal Nadar or his legal heirs, namely the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. So far as Ex.A-1 is concerned, it is a patta pass book issued in the
\nname of Ramalingam Nadar, the first appellant in which the survey numbers are
\nN2\/30 and 45. There is no evidence to correlate the above said survey numbers to
\nthe suit properties.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. Taking note of all the above said facts and circumstances of the case,
\nthis Court is of the considered view that the contention raised on behalf of the
\nappellants that the lower appellate Court did not consider the above said
\ndocuments does not hold water. The lower Court has correctly come to the
\nconclusion that those documents are not enough for establishing the plaintiffs’
\ncontention that the entire suit property exclusively belonged to the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The basic contention on which the appellants want to sustain their
\nclaim is that under Ex.B-1 only a right in the user of the well alone was sought
\nto be conveyed and that the title in respect of the well as well as the land
\ncontinued to vest with Ponnamperumal Nadar. This contention is factually
\nincorrect. Ex.B.1 itself contains the following recitals:
\n\t“i\\ brhj;jpYk;> fpzw;wpYk; 1\/12 gq;F vd;jdJf;F ePf;F kPjp 11 gq;F
\nmgfhrj;ija[k; i\\ fpzw;wpw;f;F nghf;Ftuj;Jf;F tlf;fUfpy; bjd;tlyhf i\\ mof;F 5 mo
\ntPjpapy; To tHp elg;gjw;Fs;s ghj;jpaija[k; nrh;j;J i\\ahh;fs; tpiybaGjpf;bfhLj;J
\nthq;fpd bjhif gzk; 175\/- ,g;gzk; E}w;wpvGgj;jQ;Rk; ,d;W buhf;fk; gw;wpf; bfhz;L
\ni\\ brhj;ij tpiyahf vGjpf;bfhLj;jpUf;fpwjpdhy;…”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe said recital is enough to non-suit the plaintiffs in respect of their
\nplea for a declaration of their supposed exclusive title to the entire suit
\nproperty. The lower appellate Court has correctly held that the plaintiffs were
\nentitled to a common 1\/12th share alone in the suit property. The approach made
\nby the learned Single Judge in holding that the plaintiffs were entitled to
\n1\/12th share alone in the suit property cannot be termed either infirm or
\ndiscrepant and the same deserves the stamp of approval of this Court.  The
\nlearned counsel for the appellants drawing the attention of the Court to
\nparagraph – 12 of the judgment of the lower appellate Court argued that the
\nlower appellate Court gave a finding to the effect that the plaintiffs were
\nentitled to a decree for permanent injunction in respect of their 1\/12th share
\nin the property and by mistake in the operative portion of the judgment, the
\nlower appellate Court has rejected the prayer for permanent injunction in its
\nentirety. That apart, in the previous paragraph (paragraph 11), a clear finding
\nhas been recorded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of
\npermanent injunction. In fact, the mistake is found only in paragraph 12 in so
\nfar as the sentence was couched in the affirmative form instead of negative
\nform. What is relevant is the decree drafted based on the operative portion of
\nthe judgment.  Ultimately the lower appellant Court has rejected the relief of
\npermanent injunction sought for in its entirety. The rejection of the relief for
\npermanent injunction even in respect of the common 1\/12th share of the
\nplaintiffs can be sustained on the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) The appellants\/plaintiffs have sought for an injunction against the
\nco-owners who hold 11\/12th share in the suit property. In respect of enjoyment
\nof a common property, a co-owner cannot get an injunction against another co-
\nowner.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) The plaintiffs have prayed for injunction restraining the defendants
\nincluding the co-owners from interfering with their possession and enjoyment, as
\nif they are entitled to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the entire
\nsuit property, which is untenable as pointed out supra.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. For all the reasons stated above, this Court hereby comes to the
\nconclusion that there is no merit in this appeal and the appellants have failed
\nin their attempt to challenge the judgment and decree passed by the lower
\nappellate Court and that the appeal must fail. Accordingly the judgment and
\ndecree of the lower appellate Court are sustained and the Second Appeal is
\ndismissed with cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t26.06.2007
\nIndex:Yes\/No
\nInternet:Yes\/No<\/p>\n
SML<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Sub Court,
\n  Nagercoil.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Principal District Munsif,
\n  Nagerocil.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ramalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of … on 26 June, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26\/06\/2007 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR S.A.(MD).No.264 of 1996 and C.M.P.(MD).No.2362 of 1996 1.Ramalingam Nadar 2.Poothankam 3.P.Kamalam 4.R.Muthukrishnan 5.R.Geetha 6.R.Vijaya 7.R.Radhakrishnan 8.R.Shanthi 9.R.Muthulakshmi (appellants 3 to 9 impleaded as per the […]<\/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-84189","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of ... on 26 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of ... on 26 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-06-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-01T09:41:43+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of … on 26 June, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-01T09:41:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1975,\"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\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007\",\"name\":\"Ramalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of ... on 26 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-06-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-01T09:41:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of … on 26 June, 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":"Ramalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of ... on 26 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of ... on 26 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-06-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-01T09:41:43+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of … on 26 June, 2007","datePublished":"2007-06-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-01T09:41:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007"},"wordCount":1975,"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\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007","name":"Ramalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of ... on 26 June, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-06-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-01T09:41:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramalingam-nadar-vs-the-residents-of-on-26-june-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramalingam Nadar vs The Residents Of … on 26 June, 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\/84189","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=84189"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84189\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84189"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84189"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84189"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}