{"id":99224,"date":"2009-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009"},"modified":"2015-01-04T19:00:52","modified_gmt":"2015-01-04T13:30:52","slug":"p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated: 10\/02\/2009\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.JAICHANDREN\n\nC.M.A.(MD) No.587 of 2002\n\n1.P.Gnanasundari\n\n2.M\/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nSquare Market, Mettur Dam,\nSalem District-636 401.\t\t\t\t.. Appellants.\n\nVersus\n\n1.Ponnammal\n2.Sornammal\n3.Kanga\n4.Paramasivam\n5.Pandiyan\n6.K.Chellaiah\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents.\n\nPrayer\n\nAppeal against the judgment and decree, dated 9.4.2001, made in\nM.C.O.P.No.135 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal\n(Principal District Judge), Karur.\n\t\t\n!For Appellants     \t... Mr.S.Natarajan\n^For Respondents\t... No Appearance\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the judgment and<br \/>\ndecree, dated 9.4.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2000, on the file of the Motor<br \/>\nAccidents Claims Tribunal, (Principal District Judge), Karur.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The appellants in the present appeal were the first and the third<br \/>\nrespondents, in M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2000, before the Motor Accident Claims<br \/>\nTribunal, Karur.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. This appeal has been filed on various grounds stating that the judgment<br \/>\nand decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur, is contrary to law,<br \/>\nand the weight of evidence available on record. The Tribunal had erred in<br \/>\ngranting a disproportionate amount, as compensation, to the claimants, for the<br \/>\nfatal accident that had occurred, on 26.7.98, without following the guidelines<br \/>\nand the norms prescribed for the awarding of such compensation. The Tribunal had<br \/>\nfailed to note that the married sisters of the deceased, who was a Bachelor,<br \/>\naged about 42 years, cannot be treated as his dependants. The Tribunal had<br \/>\nfailed to note that the claimants 1 to 3 were married and the fourth claimant<br \/>\nwas the elder brother of the deceased and the fifth claimant was the younger<br \/>\nbrother of the deceased, aged about 40 years. None of the claimants can be<br \/>\nconsidered as the dependants of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The appeal has also been filed on the ground that the Tribunal had<br \/>\nfailed to note that the claimants had not produced any legal heir certificate,<br \/>\nration card or other acceptable documents to establish the claim that the<br \/>\ndeceased was living with them and that he was taking care of the family with his<br \/>\nincome. Further, there was no evidence, either documentary or oral, available<br \/>\nbefore the Tribunal, to establish the monthly income of the deceased. While so,<br \/>\nthe notional income of the deceased should have been taken only as Rs.1500 per<br \/>\nmonth, under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal had<br \/>\nalso failed to note that the claimants would be entitled to claim compensation<br \/>\nfor the loss of expectation of life, only as legal heirs and they are not<br \/>\nentitled to claim any pecuniary loss. The amount of compensation granted to the<br \/>\nclaimants by the Tribunal is excessive in nature and therefore, it is liable to<br \/>\nbe reduced, in accordance with the norms and guidelines applicable to the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. The claimants had filed the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2000,<br \/>\nbefore the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur, stating that the petitioners<br \/>\nwere the brothers and sisters of the deceased, who had died in the accident that<br \/>\nhad occurred, on 26.7.98. The accident had occurred due to the rash and<br \/>\nnegligent and driving of the driver of a lorry, which had dashed against the<br \/>\nbicycle, which the deceased Kolan @ Thangavel was riding. The deceased had died<br \/>\ndue to the multiple injuries caused by the accident. At the time of the<br \/>\naccident, the deceased was in a good physical condition and he was working as a<br \/>\ncarpenter, earning Rs.5,000\/- per month. He was contributing all his earnings to<br \/>\nthe petitioners. The petitioners are the only available class II legal heirs of<br \/>\nthe deceased. The petitioners have been adversely affected due to the loss of<br \/>\nlove and affection due to the death of Kolan @ Thangavel, who was living with<br \/>\nthem. The petitioners had also been put to great pain and suffering, due to the<br \/>\nloss of their brother. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle, which<br \/>\nhad caused the accident. The second respondent is the driver of the said vehicle<br \/>\nand the third respondent is the insurer of the vehicle. The petitioners had<br \/>\nclaimed that the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the<br \/>\ncompensation of Rs.7,00,000\/-, along with the interest and costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. The second respondent had remained exparte. The contentions raised in<br \/>\nthe counter affidavit filed by the third respondent had been adopted by the<br \/>\nfirst respondent. In the said counter affidavit, it has been stated that the<br \/>\nclaim of the petitioners that, on 26.7.98, the driver of the lorry bearing<br \/>\nRegistration No.TML-7462 had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and<br \/>\nhad caused the accident, due to which Kolan @ Thangavel had died, is false. It<br \/>\nis only the deceased Kolan @ Thangavel had been riding the bicycle in a<br \/>\nnegligent manner due to which the accident had occured. Therefore, the third<br \/>\nrespondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The claim<br \/>\nthat the deceased was in a healthy physical condition had been denied. The claim<br \/>\nmade by the petitioners is highly excessive in nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. Based on the claims made by the petitioners and the contentions raised<br \/>\non behalf of the first and the third respondents, the Motor Accident Claims<br \/>\nTribunal, Karur, had framed the following points for consideration as follows:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;1. Whether the accident that has happened on 26.7.98 at about 10.30 hrs<br \/>\nin Karur Taluk near Thirumanilayur Bazaar is due to the rash and negligent<br \/>\ndriving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent.?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation amount, and if<br \/>\nso to what amount and from whom?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Based on the evidence available, both oral as well as documentary, the<br \/>\nTribunal had come to the conclusion that the accident that had occured, on<br \/>\n26.7.98, was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry<br \/>\nbelonging to the first respondent. The Tribunal had come to such a conclusion<br \/>\nfrom the evidence of P.W.1, and the documents marked as Exs.P-1, and P-3 to P-6.<br \/>\nThus, the Tribunal had answered Point No.1 in favour of the claimants.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. With regard to Point No.2 the Tribunal had held that the claimants 1 to<br \/>\n5 were entitled to get the compensation of Rs.2,78,800\/-, from the third<br \/>\nrespondent, who is the insurer of the vehicle, which had caused the accident.<br \/>\nThe Tribunal had found that the age of the deceased, at the time of the<br \/>\naccident, was 42 years. He was working as a carpenter and he was earning<br \/>\nRs.5,000\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased Kolan @ Thangavel, had<br \/>\ndeposed in his evidence stating that his deceased brother, aged about 42 years<br \/>\nwas earning Rs.5,000\/- per month, as a Carpenter. Since the deceased was a<br \/>\nbachelor at the time of the accident, he was living with the petitioners<br \/>\ncontributing his entire income for the welfare of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. From the evidence of P.W.1, the Tribunal had concluded that the<br \/>\ndeceased was earning not less than Rs.2100\/- per month. Deducting 1\/3 rd of the<br \/>\nsaid amount towards his personal expenses, the balance sum of Rs.1,400\/- was the<br \/>\nmonthly contribution of the deceased to his family consisting of the<br \/>\npetitioners. Accordingly, the annual contribution of the deceased to the<br \/>\npetitioners was Rs.16,800\/-. Since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of<br \/>\nthe accident the age of his brother, who was the 5th petitioner in the claim<br \/>\npetition, had been taken into consideration by the Tribunal for arriving at the<br \/>\nmultiplier. Since the age of the 5th petitioner was 40, the multiplier of 16 had<br \/>\nbeen applied. Accordingly, the total amount calculated, as the compensation to<br \/>\nbe paid to the petitioners is Rs.2,68,800\/-. For the loss of love and affection<br \/>\na sum of Rs.10,000\/- had been awarded. Thus, the total amount of compensation<br \/>\nawarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is Rs.2,78,800\/-.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The main contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellant are that the claimants have not adduced any evidence to show that they<br \/>\nare the dependants of the deceased person. Respondents 1 to 3 are said to be the<br \/>\nsisters and the respondents 4 and 5 are the brothers of the deceased. Further,<br \/>\nit has not been shown that they are the legal heirs of Kolan @ Thangavel, who<br \/>\nhad died due to the accident. Even though the respondents had claimed that they<br \/>\nare the Class II heirs of the deceased person they have to prove that they are<br \/>\nhis dependants. The legal heir certificate has not been produced before the<br \/>\nTribunal to substantiate their claim. There is no proof of the income of the<br \/>\ndeceased, even though it has been stated that he was a carpenter earning nearly<br \/>\nRs.5000\/- per month. The notional income could be taken to be a maximum of<br \/>\nRs.15,000\/-. Deducting 1\/3 of the said amount for his personal expenses, it<br \/>\nwould be Rs.10,000\/- per annum. The fixing of Rs.2,100\/- as the monthly income<br \/>\nof the deceased is arbitrary and excessive in nature. After deducting 1\/3 of the<br \/>\nsaid sum, the Tribunal had taken Rs.1400\/- as the monthly income of the deceased<br \/>\nand the calculation of the amount of compensation has been made on that basis.<br \/>\nThe appropriate multiplier that could have been used for arriving at the<br \/>\ncompensation would be 15. Further, the Tribunal had used the multiplier of 16,<br \/>\nwhich is inappropriate. Since the deceased person was 42 years of age at the<br \/>\ntime of the accident, the multiplier of 15 should have been used by the Tribunal<br \/>\nto arrive at the amount of compensation due to be paid for the death of Kolan @<br \/>\nThangavel. The awarding of the interest at the rate of 9% per annum is excessive<br \/>\nin nature. In such circumstances, only 7.5.% per annum would have been the<br \/>\nappropriate interest that should have been awarded by the Tribunal. Further,<br \/>\ntaking the age of the younger brother of the deceased person, for applying the<br \/>\nmultiplier method, is erroneous and invalid in the eye of law. In such<br \/>\ncircumstances, the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,<br \/>\nKarur, dated 9.4.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2000, is liable to be set<br \/>\naside.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. In view of the grounds raised by the appellants in the present appeal<br \/>\nand in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf<br \/>\nof the appellants and on a perusal of the records available before this Court,<br \/>\nit is seen that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur, while awarding the<br \/>\ncompensation to the claimants for the death of Kolan @ Thangavel, had come to<br \/>\nthe conclusion that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and that<br \/>\nthey have been his dependants. The Tribunal had taken into account the notional<br \/>\nincome of the deceased for calculating the amount to be awarded, as compensation<br \/>\nto the claimants. By fixing the notional monthly income of the deceased to be<br \/>\nRs.2,100\/-, after deducting 1\/3 rd of the amount, Rs.1,400\/- has been taken to<br \/>\nbe the monthly loss of income of the claimants. Further, the Tribunal had taken<br \/>\n16 as the multiplier, considering the age of the younger brother of the<br \/>\ndeceased, who was 40 years of age and it had come to the conclusion that the<br \/>\nappropriate compensation to be awarded to the claimants would be Rs.2,78,800\/-,<br \/>\nat the interest at 9% per annum. In such circumstances,  the judgment and<br \/>\ndecree, dated 9.4.2001, made in M.C.O.P.No.135 of 2000, on the file of the Motor<br \/>\nAccident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Karur, stands confirmed.<br \/>\nHence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>csh<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal<br \/>\n(Principal District Judge), Karur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 10\/02\/2009 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice M.JAICHANDREN C.M.A.(MD) No.587 of 2002 1.P.Gnanasundari 2.M\/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Square Market, Mettur Dam, Salem District-636 401. .. Appellants. Versus 1.Ponnammal 2.Sornammal 3.Kanga 4.Paramasivam 5.Pandiyan 6.K.Chellaiah .. Respondents. Prayer Appeal [&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-99224","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>P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009 - 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\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-04T13:30:52+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-04T13:30:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1867,\"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\\\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009\",\"name\":\"P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-04T13:30:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009 - 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\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-04T13:30:52+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-04T13:30:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009"},"wordCount":1867,"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\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009","name":"P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-04T13:30:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-gnanasundari-vs-ponnammal-on-10-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.Gnanasundari vs Ponnammal on 10 February, 2009"}]},{"@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\/99224","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=99224"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99224\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99224"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}