{"id":88685,"date":"2004-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004"},"modified":"2014-02-23T23:01:00","modified_gmt":"2014-02-23T17:31:00","slug":"thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 29\/03\/2004  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM                \n\nC.R.P. (NPD). No.342 of 2004 \nand \nC.M.P.Nos.2856 and 2857 of 2004  \n\nThangasamy                                             .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Madasami  \n2. Anthonysamy @ Hariharan                                 .. Respondents\n\n\n        Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure\nCode against the order dated 1.8.2003 in E.A.No.78 of  2002  in  E.P.No.76  of\n2000  in  O.S.No.566  of  1990  on  the  file  of  the  District Munsif Court,\nSrivaikundam. \n\n!For petitioner :  Mr.O.Venkatachalam\n\n^For Respondents:  ---\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n<p>        Madasami, the first respondent herein obtained  money  decree  against<br \/>\nThangasamy, the  petitioner  herein  in  O.S.No.566  of  1990.    In execution<br \/>\nproceedings in E.P.No.76 of 2000, he attached the property in question.    The<br \/>\nsaid  property  was  purchased  by  Anthonysamy  alias  Hariharan,  the second<br \/>\nrespondent herein, in Court auction.  In pursuance of the Court&#8217;s  order,  the<br \/>\nCourt Ameen  delivered the property to the second respondent.  Questioning the<br \/>\nidentity of the property, the petitioner applied a  petition  challenging  the<br \/>\ndelivery in  E.A.No.78  of  2002.    The said application was dismissed by the<br \/>\nlearned District Munsif.  Hence, this civil revision petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  According to the petitioner, the  property  in  question,  bearing<br \/>\nDoor No.6\/56-G, was delivered instead of the house bearing Door No.6\/56 and as<br \/>\nsuch, the said property has to be delivered back to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Assailing the impugned order dated 1.8.2003 in E.A.No.78 of 2002 ,<br \/>\nlearned  counsel  for  the  petitioner  would  state that the learned District<br \/>\nMunsif, instead of invoking Section  144  of  the  Civil  Procedure  Code  for<br \/>\nre-delivery, wrongly  applied  Order  21  Rules  99,  100  and 101 C.P.C.  and<br \/>\ndismissed the petition, and as such,  the  order  impugned  is  liable  to  be<br \/>\ninterfered with.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.   I  have  carefully  considered  the  submissions  made by learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the petitioner and also gone through the typed set of  papers  and<br \/>\nthe impugned order.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  This case has got a chequered history.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (a)  Madasami,  the first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.5<br \/>\n66 of 1990 against the petitioner, for damages of Rs.5,000\/- and the same  was<br \/>\ndecreed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (b) For recovery of the said amount, the said Madasami filed execution<br \/>\npetition in  E.P.No.232  of  1991  under  Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 C.P.C.  for<br \/>\narrest.  The petitioner immediately appeared before the Court and  represented<br \/>\nthat  instead of recovery of the money, he is prepared to agree for attachment<br \/>\nof his house bearing Door No.6\/56 and after the sale of the  property  through<br \/>\nCourt auction,  the decree amount could be realised.  Therefore, the said E.P.<br \/>\nwas dismissed on 7.9.1994.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (C) Then, for bringing the property in question in auction,  necessary<br \/>\napplication  has  been  filed in E.P.No.71 of 1997 under Order 21 Rules 54, 66<br \/>\nand 72 C.P.C.  In the sale, Anthonysamy alias Hariharan, the second respondent<br \/>\nherein was the successful bidder and the sale was also confirmed on 2.8.1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (d) Then, for recovery, he filed an application in E.A.No.76  of  2000<br \/>\nunder Order 21  Rule  95  C.P.C.  Accordingly, the delivery was ordered.  When<br \/>\nthe Court Ameen went to the spot for delivery of the property, he  found  that<br \/>\nthere was  a  mistake in the Door Number.  Therefore, the warrant was returned<br \/>\nto the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (e) Again, another  application  has  been  filed  by  Anthonysamy  in<br \/>\nE.A.No.132 of 2001 for correcting the Door Number.  Accordingly, on 10.9.2001,<br \/>\nafter  hearing  both parties, the order was passed, correcting the Door Number<br \/>\nof the property.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (f) Thereafter, on 26.9.2001, the Court Ameen came  with  the  parties<br \/>\nand  in  their  presence, the property in question has been taken delivery and<br \/>\nwas handed over to the auction purchaser, the second respondent herein.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  Admittedly, there was no  challenge  of  the  earlier  decree  and<br \/>\nsubsequent orders  passed  in several execution petitions.  At that stage, the<br \/>\npetitioner choose to file the application under Order 21 Rules 99, 100 and 101<br \/>\nC.P.C.  in E.A.No.78 of 2002 for re-delivery, since  the  property  which  was<br \/>\ndelivered  to  the  auction  purchaser, is not the property in question and as<br \/>\nsuch, there was a mistaken identity.  This application was filed in 2002.    A<br \/>\ncounter has  been  filed  to  the said E.A.  and after hearing the parties, by<br \/>\norder dated 1.8.2003, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  The only contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is<br \/>\nthat the application was filed only under Section 144 C.P.C.    and  as  such,<br \/>\nrestoration of  the  property  must  have  been ordered.  Chronological events<br \/>\nnarrated earlier would indicate that this question relating to the wrong  Door<br \/>\nNumber  of the property in question, has already been decided in E.A.No.132 of<br \/>\n2001, in the order dated 10.9.2001 itself.  Further, the impugned order  would<br \/>\nindicate  that the application has been filed by the petitioner under Order 21<br \/>\nRules 99, 100 and 10 1 C.P.C.  and under Order 26 Rules 1 and  2  and  Section<br \/>\n144 C.P.C.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   As  correctly  pointed  out  by the executing Court, Order 21 and<br \/>\nOrder 26  C.P.C.    would  relate  to  the  person  who  is  other  than   the<br \/>\njudgment-debtor.   Admittedly,  the  petitioner  is the judgment-debtor and as<br \/>\nsuch, these provisions would not apply to the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Section 144 C.P.C.  reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Application for restitution:  (1) Where and in so far as a decree or an order<br \/>\nis varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or other proceeding  or  is  set<br \/>\naside  or  modified  in  any  suit instituted for the purpose, the Court which<br \/>\npassed the decree or order, shall on the application of any party entitled  to<br \/>\nany  benefit  by way of restitution or otherwise, cause such restitution to be<br \/>\nmade as will, so far as may be, place the parties in the position  which  they<br \/>\nwould  have  occupied but for such decree or order or such part thereof as has<br \/>\nbeen varied, reversed, set aside or modified; and, for this purpose, the Court<br \/>\nmay make any orders, including orders for the refund  of  costs  and  for  the<br \/>\npayment  of  interest,  damages,  compensation  and  mesne  profits, which are<br \/>\nproperly  consequential  on  such  variation,  reversal,  setting   aside   or<br \/>\nmodification of the decree or order.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  Even  Section  144  C.P.C.   would not apply to the present case,<br \/>\nsince there is no material to show that the decree is varied  or  reversed  in<br \/>\nany  appeal,  revision  or other proceeding or is set aside or modified in any<br \/>\nsuit instituted for the purpose.  A reading of Section  14  4  C.P.C.    would<br \/>\nindicate  that  the Court which passed the decree or order, on the application<br \/>\nof any party entitled to any benefit by way  of  restitution,  may  order  for<br \/>\nrestitution,  if  the  decree is varied or reversed in any appeal, revision or<br \/>\nother proceeding or is set aside or modified in any suit  instituted  for  the<br \/>\npurpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   A  reading  of  the  petition filed by the petitioner before the<br \/>\nexecuting Court indicates that it does not specify the requirements of Section<br \/>\n144 C.P.C.  It is not the case of the petitioner that  the  decree  which  was<br \/>\noriginally  passed,  was  varied  or  reversed  by  any other appellate forum.<br \/>\nTherefore, the observation  made  by  the  executing  Court  relating  to  the<br \/>\nattitude  of  the  petitioner,  namely that he lacks bona-fide, in my view, is<br \/>\nperfectly justified.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  Hence, in my view, the civil revision  petition  is  misconceived<br \/>\nand as such, the impugned order is liable to be confirmed.  Accordingly, while<br \/>\nconfirming the impugned order, the civil revision petition is dismissed at the<br \/>\nadmission stage  itself.    Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.2 856 and 2857 of 2004 are<br \/>\nclosed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n<p>cs<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nDistrict Munsif, Srivaikundam.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29\/03\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM C.R.P. (NPD). No.342 of 2004 and C.M.P.Nos.2856 and 2857 of 2004 Thangasamy .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. Madasami 2. Anthonysamy @ Hariharan .. Respondents Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 [&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-88685","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>Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004 - 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\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-23T17:31:00+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-23T17:31:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1154,\"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\\\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004\",\"name\":\"Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-23T17:31:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004 - 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\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-23T17:31:00+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-23T17:31:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004"},"wordCount":1154,"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\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004","name":"Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-23T17:31:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thangasamy-vs-madasami-on-29-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thangasamy vs Madasami on 29 March, 2004"}]},{"@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\/88685","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=88685"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88685\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}