{"id":89031,"date":"2004-03-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-03-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004"},"modified":"2015-02-11T18:14:40","modified_gmt":"2015-02-11T12:44:40","slug":"arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004","title":{"rendered":"Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 March, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 March, 2004<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 19\/03\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM\n\nSECOND APPEAL No.195 of 1993\n\n1. Arunachalam\n2. Periya Natchiar                                              ..  Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Arasazhavar Ammal\n2. Padaga Natchiar                                      .. Respondents\n\n        This second appeal is preferred under Sec.100 of  the  Code  of  Civil\nProcedure  against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.28 of 1989 on the file of\nthe Sub Court, Tuticorin, dated 14.8.1992 confirming the judgment  and  decree\nin  O.S.No.404\/87  on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti, dated\n9.2.1989.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.P.Peppin Fernando\n\n^For Respondents :  Mr.V.Shanmugam\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>        What is challenged herein is the judgment of the  learned  Subordinate<br \/>\nJudge,  Tuticorin,  made  in  A.S.No.28  of 1989 affirming the judgment of the<br \/>\ntrial Court in a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:<br \/>\n        The suit property and two other items originally belonged to the three<br \/>\nbrothers namely Devapiran Pillai, Thothathirinatha Pillai and Ramasamy Pillai.<br \/>\nThe plaintiffs are the  daughters  of  Devapiran  Pillai.    Devapiran  Pillai<br \/>\nexecuted  a  registered  maintenance  deed  dated  27.6.19 21 in favour of his<br \/>\nsister Gomathy Ammal, giving her a life interest in  the  suit  property,  and<br \/>\nafter  her life time, it should go to the three brothers or their legal heirs.<br \/>\nDevapiran   Pillai   died   leaving   behind   the   plaintiffs   as    heirs.<br \/>\nThothathirinatha Pillai  died  unmarried.   The said Gomathy Ammal died in the<br \/>\nyear 1972.  The third defendant alone survived the other two  brothers.    The<br \/>\nthird  defendant  demanded  the  plaintiffs  for  partition,  and in the ora l<br \/>\npartition among the members of the family, the third defendant  was  given  35<br \/>\ncents  in  S.No.8 39A\/2 and 1.36 acres in S.No.841A\/6, and the plaintiffs were<br \/>\ngiven the suit property.  The third defendant  sold  his  share  to  one  Samy<br \/>\nNaicker and  others.  The third defendant has no right over the suit property.<br \/>\nAfter the life time of Gomathy Ammal, the property was in the  possession  and<br \/>\nenjoyment of the plaintiffs alone.  One Alagiri Ramanujam managed to get patta<br \/>\nin his  name  in respect of the suit property.  On petition by the plaintiffs,<br \/>\nthe entry in that regard was deleted by the Tahsildar, and patta was issued to<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs and to the third defendant on the basis of the maintenance deed<br \/>\ndated 27.6.1921.  Taking advantage of the patta, the third defendant  colluded<br \/>\nand conspired with the defendants 1 and 2 and brought about a sham and nominal<br \/>\nsale deed in the name of the defendants 1 and 2.  The third defendant sold the<br \/>\nsuit property  to  the  defendants  1  and  2.    Hence,  the  plaintiffs were<br \/>\nconstrained to file the suit for the said reliefs.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  The suit was resisted by the defendants 1 and 2 stating  that  the<br \/>\nalleged  maintenance  deed was false; that the plaintiffs&#8217; father had no right<br \/>\nto execute such a deed; that the said Gomathy Ammal never enjoyed the property<br \/>\npursuant to the deed; that she relinquished her right in the suit property  on<br \/>\n18.7.1964;  that  there  was no partition between the plaintiffs and the third<br \/>\ndefendant; that after the said relinquishment  by  her,  the  third  defendant<br \/>\nalone  was  entitled  to the properties; that the defendants 1 and 2 purchased<br \/>\nthe same from the third defendant, and they were in enjoyment of the same, and<br \/>\nhence, the suit was to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  The third defendant contested the suit by stating that originally,<br \/>\nas per the provisions of the Hindu  Succession  Act,  the  plaintiffs  had  no<br \/>\nshares  in  the  suit property; that the third defendant alone was entitled to<br \/>\nthe property; that Gomathy Ammal executed a release deed  dated  18.7.1964  in<br \/>\nhis  favour;  that  the  plaintiffs  never enjoyed the suit property; that the<br \/>\nthird defendant  entered  into  an  agreement  for  Rs.80,000\/-  and  received<br \/>\nRs.4,000\/-;  that  the  said  sale transaction has not yet been completed, and<br \/>\nhence, the suit was to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  The trial Court framed the necessary issues, tried  the  suit  and<br \/>\ndecreed the  same.    On  appeal  by  the  defendants  1 and 2, their plea was<br \/>\nrejected by the first appellate forum also.  Pending  the  first  appeal,  the<br \/>\nthird   defendant   died,   and   the   plaintiffs   were  recorded  as  legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives.  Thus, this second appeal  has  been  brought  forth  by  the<br \/>\ndefendants 1 and 2.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.   At  the  time of admission, the following substantial question of<br \/>\nlaw was formulated by this Court:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Whether the Courts below were correct in holding that in a oral partition the<br \/>\n3rd defendant relinquished his right over the suit property after receiving  1<br \/>\nacre and 36 cents in Survey No.841\/A6 and another 35 cents in Survey No.839\/A2<br \/>\nin Nalatinputhur village without rendering any finding on this aspect?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   This  Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and also<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel for the respondents on those contentions.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.  This Court is of the considered  opinion,  on  hearing  the  rival<br \/>\nsubmissions  and  scrutiny  of  the  materials,  that  the  appeal requires an<br \/>\noutright rejection by this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Admittedly, the suit property originally  belonged  to  the  three<br \/>\nbrothers Devapiran  Pillai,  Thothathirinatha Pillai and Ramasamy Pillai.  The<br \/>\nthird defendant is the last brother.  While so, the eldest  brother  Devapiran<br \/>\nPillai  executed  Ex.A1,  a  deed  of  maintenance,  in favour of their sister<br \/>\nGomathy Ammal under Ex.A1 on 27.6.1921, wherein it has been  stated  that  the<br \/>\nsaid Gomathy Ammal should recover the income from the properties and enjoy the<br \/>\nsame,  and  on her death, the properties should go to the heirs of these three<br \/>\nbrothers.  The said Devapiran died in 1944 without marriage.    Gomathy  Ammal<br \/>\nalso died  in  1972.    According  to  the  plaintiff, during the life time of<br \/>\nGomathy Ammal,  the  third  defendant  was  demanding  for  a  partition,  and<br \/>\naccordingly,  by  way  of oral partition, two items were allotted to the third<br \/>\ndefendant, and the suit property was allotted to the plaintiffs, and the third<br \/>\ndefendant has executed a sale deed in favour of the  defendants  1  and  2  in<br \/>\nrespect of the suit property, and the defendants 1 and 2 pursuant to the sale,<br \/>\nwere put in possession, and they have become the owners of the properties.  It<br \/>\nis  the further case of the plaintiffs that the sale deeds are not valid; that<br \/>\non the death of Gomathy Ammal, the plaintiffs as heirs of these three brothers<br \/>\navailable, are to get the properties,  and  hence,  they  are  entitled  to  a<br \/>\ndeclaration.  The suit was contested by the defendants 1 and 2 stating that in<br \/>\nthe oral partition entered into between Gomathy Ammal and the third defendant,<br \/>\nthe  suit  property  was allotted to the third defendant, pursuant to which he<br \/>\nsold the same to the defendants 1 and 2, and thus, they are the owners of  the<br \/>\nproperty, and  hence,  the  plaintiffs&#8217;  claim  was  to be rejected.  Both the<br \/>\nCourts below were perfectly correct in rejecting the defence plea.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  It is not  in  controversy  that  the  suit  property  originally<br \/>\nbelonged  to  the  said  three  brothers, and the third defendant is the third<br \/>\nbrother.  The eldest brother executed the maintenance deed, which  is  evident<br \/>\nfrom Ex.A1, giving Gomathy Ammal, their sister, the right for enjoyment of the<br \/>\nproperty  and  deriving  the income therefrom during her life time, and on her<br \/>\ndeath, the property should go to the hands of the heirs of the three brothers.<br \/>\nIt is not in controversy that Gomathy Ammal  died  in  the  year  1972.    The<br \/>\ndefence plea was that during the life time of Gomathy Ammal, when a demand for<br \/>\npartition was made by the third defendant, the property was orally partitioned<br \/>\nand  was  handed  over  to  the  third  defendant,  which would be nothing but<br \/>\nrepugnant to the terms found under  Ex.A1,  which  is  admitted  by  both  the<br \/>\nparties.  That apart, as far as the oral partition and the allotment of shares<br \/>\nare  concerned, the Courts below have found that it could not be accepted both<br \/>\non facts and in law also.  The first and second defendants denied  the  relief<br \/>\nasked  for  by  the  plaintiffs  by  stating that they have purchased the suit<br \/>\nproperty from the third defendant.  It is pertinent  to  point  out  that  the<br \/>\noriginal sale  deeds  were  not  placed  before  the  trial  Court.  The third<br \/>\ndefendant&#8217;s heirs have filed  a  written  statement  before  the  trial  Court<br \/>\nchallenging  those  sale  deeds  and  stating  that they were not supported by<br \/>\nconsideration and not acted upon.   The  third  defendant  pending  the  first<br \/>\nappeal   died,   and   the   plaintiffs   have  been  recorded  as  the  legal<br \/>\nrepresentatives of the third defendant.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.  At this time of the second appeal, the learned  Counsel  for  the<br \/>\nappellants  would  submit  that  Gomathy  Ammal,  a female member of the joint<br \/>\nfamily, was given maintenance under Ex.A1 maintenance deed,  wherein  she  was<br \/>\ngiven  a  life  interest, and in view of the provisions under Sec.14(1) of the<br \/>\nHindu Succession Act, it has become absolute in her hands; that on her  death,<br \/>\nthe  third  defendant  became  the  owner  of  the  property, and hence he was<br \/>\ncompetent enough to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendants 1 and 2.<br \/>\nThis contention cannot be accepted for more reasons than one.   It  cannot  be<br \/>\nstated  that  she  was  having  any  pre-existing  right, since she was only a<br \/>\nsister, and nowhere, this plea has been taken all along the proceedings;  but,<br \/>\nthis is  an invention at the time of the second appeal.  Attractive though the<br \/>\ncontention of the learned Counsel for the appellants may be, it does not stand<br \/>\nthe scrutiny of law.  In the absence of the  production  of  the  sale  deeds,<br \/>\nunder  which the defendants 1 and 2 claimed their title and that too, when the<br \/>\nsale deeds were challenged by the vendor under those  sale  deeds  namely  the<br \/>\nthird  defendant,  Gomathi  Ammal cannot claim a full-fledged ownership in the<br \/>\nproperty.  The Court is of the view that the facts  on  hand  do  not  warrant<br \/>\napplication of  Sec.14(1)  of  the  Hindu  Succession  Act.    In  view of the<br \/>\navailable evidence, the defence plea has been  rejected  by  both  the  Courts<br \/>\nbelow and  rightly  too.   Thus, this Court is unable to see any merit in this<br \/>\nappeal, and the same is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  In the result, this second appeal is  dismissed,  confirming  the<br \/>\njudgments  and  decrees  of  the  lower Courts and leaving the parties to bear<br \/>\ntheir costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  yes<br \/>\nInternet:  yes<\/p>\n<p>To:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Subordinate Judge<br \/>\nTuticorin\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The District Munsif<br \/>\nKovilpatti\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Record Keeper<br \/>\nV.R.  Section<br \/>\nHigh Court, Madras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 March, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19\/03\/2004 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM SECOND APPEAL No.195 of 1993 1. Arunachalam 2. Periya Natchiar .. Appellants -Vs- 1. Arasazhavar Ammal 2. Padaga Natchiar .. Respondents This second appeal is preferred under Sec.100 of [&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-89031","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>Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 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\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-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=\"2004-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-11T12:44:40+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\\\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 March, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-11T12:44:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1607,\"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\\\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004\",\"name\":\"Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-03-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-11T12:44:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 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":"Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 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\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-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":"2004-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-11T12:44:40+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\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 March, 2004","datePublished":"2004-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-11T12:44:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004"},"wordCount":1607,"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\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004","name":"Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 March, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-03-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-11T12:44:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/arunachalam-vs-arasazhavar-ammal-on-19-march-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arunachalam vs Arasazhavar Ammal on 19 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\/89031","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=89031"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/89031\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=89031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=89031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=89031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}