Second appeal arising from a suit for declaration, injunction and possession over land the plaintiff traced to a 1924 sale deed and a 1945 partition dealing only with Sathyamangalam village lands. Finding the disputed Malayadipudur village land outside those deeds and the 1969 re-survey unchallenged, the court dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 16.11.2017 PRONOUNCED ON : 03.01.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN S. A.No.159 of 2001
1.V.S.Rangasamy (died) ...1st Appellant/Plaintiff
(Appellants 2 to 6 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole appellant vide order dated 16.12.2003 in MP No.12959 of 2002)
Vs.
S.N.Subramanian ... Respondent/Defendant
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.72 of 1999, on the file of the Principal Sub-ordinate Court, Gobichettypalayam dated 22.12.2000 by reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.335 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam dated 14.9.1999.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Parthasarathy, Senior Counsel, for Mr. V.S. Kesavan.
For Respondent : Mr.R.T.Doraisamy
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 22.12.2000, passed in A.S.No.72 of 1999, on the file of the Principal Sub-ordinate Court, Gobichettypalayam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.9.1999, passed in O.S.No.335 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam.
title to the suit properties by way of adverse possession, on account of continuous enjoyment of the same, from the days of his predecessors in title since 1924 and the Well in the plaint A schedule property was dug more than 75 years back and the electricity service connection No.15 was obtained on 30.09.1955, in the name of the plaintiff's father and the paternal uncle. Hence, the defendant has no title or right to the suit properties and on the other hand, as the defendant had encroached into the B schedule property and trying to obstruct the plaintiff from drawing water from the Well in the suit A schedule property, according to the plaintiff he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.
plaintiff's predecessor in interest had enjoyed the same at any point of time and had not obtained any service connection and it is false to state that the defendant had unlawfully encroached into the B schedule property and there is no necessity for the defendant to encroach into the same and the said land belongs to the defendant absolutely and the plaintiff has no right or title to the plaint A and B schedule properties and it is false to state that the plaintiff has also perfected title to the plaint schedule properties by way of adverse possession, on account of long and continuous enjoyment from 1924 onwards and it is false to state that the defendant has attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property and the plaintiff is not entitle to obtain the reliefs sought for in the plaint and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
is marked subject to objection can be admissible evidence for the purpose of deciding the matter in issue?
the plaintiff that his father and paternal uncle S.R.Arumugamchettiar had partitioned the properties derived under Ex.A1, by way of a partition deed dated 14.09.1945 and the said deed has been marked as Ex.A2. It is the case of the plaintiff that his father S.R.Sinnasamychettiar was allotted 5 acres of land in common with half right in the Wells in old S.F.No.139 of Sathyamangalam village and the properties allotted to him were described in the B schedule of Ex.A2 and it is stated that along with the above said properties, other properties were also allotted to his father, similarly, it is the case of the plaintiff that his paternal uncle S.R.Arumugamchettiar was allotted properties inclusive of the remaining 5.01 acres in common and half shares in both Wells located in old S.F.No.139 of Sathyamangalam village and it is stated that the property allotted to his paternal uncle had been described under the C schedule of Ex.A2. The plaintiff, during the course of cross examination, had clearly admitted that both in Exs.A1 and A2, only the lands located in Sathyamangalam village had been dealt with and there is no reference about any land located in Malayadipudur village in the above said documents. Thus it is seen that, on a cumulative reading of the evidence of PW1, as above adverted to, it is evident that the plaintiff claims title to the plaint schedule properties only by way of Ex.A1 and A2.
the basis of the re-survey conducted during 1969. Now according to the plaintiff, during the course of cross examination, he has clearly admitted that the re-survey conducted during 1969 at Sathyamangalam village came into force in 1972 and thus, it is seen that the re-survey had been given effect to from 1972 onwards as per the above said admission of the plaintiff. Further according to the plaintiff, he has clearly admitted during the course of cross examination that his paternal uncle has not derived any title or interest in the lands by way of purchase situated at Malayadipudur village. As above adverted to, it has been admitted by the plaintiff that the properties described in Exs.A1 and A2 only pertain to Sathyamangalam village and not Malayadipudur village. So, as per the above factual position, it is seen that the plaintiff's paternal uncle does not own any ancestral properties at Malayadipudur village and equally it is also seen that he has not acquired any property in Malayadipudur village by way of purchase and other modes. However, it is seen from the plaintiff's case that his paternal uncle was granted patta for new S.F.No.79/1 and it is also the evidence of the plaintiff that based upon the patta granted to his paternal uncle, it is stated that they had included the properties at Malayadipudur village along with the other properties and accordingly, effected a partition on 24.4.91, as per Ex.A4 partition deed. The patta said to have been issued to the paternal uncle of the plaintiff has come to be marked as Ex.A4 and it is found that as per Ex.A4, S.R.Arumugamchettiar has been granted patta in S.F.79/1 measuring an extent of 0.05.0 hectares located at Malayadipudur village. When according to the plaintiff, the parent title deed, namely, Exs.A1 and A2, do not contain any reference about the property located at Malayadipudur village and only deal with the property located at Sathyamangalam village and when it is also the further case of the plaintiff that his paternal uncle has not acquired any property at Malayadipudur village, by way of purchase etc., it is evident that he has not acquired any ancestral properties at Malayadipudur village. Hence, as rightly found by the first appellate Court, there is no proper explanation on the part of the plaintiff as to on what basis his paternal uncle S.R.Arumugamchettiar had been granted patta by way of Ex.A4, in respect of the above said lands located at Malayadipudur village, situated in S.F.79/1. It is also found that S.R.Arumugamchettiar has been granted patta in respect of the S.F.No.79/1 also measuring an extent of 4.265 hectares of Malayadipudur village. Further, as per the settlement deed, copy of the A register marked as Ex.A6, it is found that new S.F.no.79/1 of Malayadipudur village corresponds only to old S.F.No.11 of Malayadipudur village and does not correlate to old S.F.No.139 of Sathyamangalam village. This fact has been admitted by Taluk Deputy Surveyor examined as PW2 and PW2, during the course of cross examination has admitted that new S.F.No.79/1 of Malayadipudur village corresponds to old
S.F.No.11 of the said village as per the RSR and he has further admitted that as per Ex.A6, new S.F.No.79/1 of Malayadipudur village only corresponds to old S.F.No.11 of the said village and he has clearly admitted that as per the re-survey conducted, new S.F.No.79/1 does not relate to Sathyamangalam village and also admitted that as per re-survey conducted by the survey department, it has been verified and confirmed that old S.F.No.11 of Malayadipudur village only corresponds to New S.F.No.79/1 of the same village and thus being the evidence of PW2 as well as the plaintiff, it is made very clear that new S.F.79/1 corresponds to old S.F.No.11. Both S.F number properties only correspond to the lands located at Malayadipudur village and they do not have anything in common whatsoever with the lands located at Sathyamangalam village. Such being the position, as per the admitted case of the plaintiff as well as the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff, it is found that the plaintiff has without any basis averred that the survey officials, by mistake, during re-survey, had carved out an extent of 0.05.0hectares of land of Sathyamnagalam village located in old S.F.No. 139 and re-numbered it as new S.F.No.79/1 of Malayadipudur village. However, when the above said facts point to otherwise and not corroborate with the pleadings set out in the plaint above referred to, it is seen that the plaintiff for the purpose of his case has putforth the case that the portion of the properties located in old S.F.No.139 of Sathyamangalam village had been wrongly re-numbered as new S.F.No.79/1 of Malayadipudur village. As rightly putforth by the defendant's counsel, the above pleadings or the case projected by the plaintiff seems to be made only to establish the so called patta said to have been issued in favour of his paternal uncle Ex.A4. However, as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, when admittedly neither the plaintiff's father nor the plaintiff's uncle had any ancestral properties located at Malayadipudur village and when it has been clearly admitted that the plaintiff's paternal uncle did not acquired any land at Malayadipudur village by way of purchase or other modes, it is very strange to note that Ex.A4 had come to be issued in favour of the plaintiff's paternal uncle in respect of the lands located at Malayadipudur village in new S.F.No.79/1. With reference to the same, absolutely there is no proper explanation adduced on the part of the plaintiff and it appears that only based upon the said patta Ex.A4, the plaintiff has laid the suit claiming the relief in respect of the plaint schedule properties.
course of cross examination has also admitted that new S.F.No.79/1 of Malayadipudur village is not reflected under Exs.A1 and A2, however, he would contend that only based upon Exs. A1 and A2, he and the sons of his paternal uncle had effected the partition by way of Ex.A3. That apart, PW1 has also further admitted that he had not taken any steps to rectify the mistake committed by the survey officials for their inclusion of the properties at Sathyamangalam village located in S.F.No.139 as being located at Malayadipudur village in new S.F.No.79/1 and the reasons given by him for the same is that inasmuch as the patta stood in their name in respect of the new S.F.No.79/1 of Malayadipudur village, he had not taken necessary steps to rectify the alleged mistake committed by the survey officials during the re-survey. Further, he has also admitted that they had included the properties at Malayadipudur village in Ex.A3 partition deed, as the patta for the said properties had been effected in their names and that apart, he has also admitted that though as per his case, the survey officials had committed the mistake during the re-survey, as patta had been granted in respect of the properties at Malayadipudur village in their names, they had chosen to include the said properties in the partition effected under Ex.A3. Therefore, the cumulative reading of the above admission of PW1, the plaintiff, would go to show the falsity of the case that the survey officials had committed mistake during the re-survey by including certain properties of S.F.No.139 of Sathyamangalam village as being located in new S.F.No.79/1 of Malayadipudur village. If really such a mistake had been committed by the survey officials, the plaintiff, atleast, on being aware of the same would have taken appropriate steps with reference to the same. It is not the case of the plaintiff, either in the plaint or during the course of evidence, that he has not been served with due notice by the survey officials as regards the re-survey conducted by them in 1969. Therefore, it is seen that the plaintiff or his men were aware of the re-survey conducted during 1969 and despite the same, if at all any mistake had been committed during the said re-survey, thereby if the same had affected the plaintiff's case, naturally, one would have expected him to take further steps with reference to the same as provided under the Tamilnadu Surveys and Boundaries Act, 1923. But, the mere admission of PW1 that inasmuch as the patta had been granted in respect of the properties located at Malayadipudur village in their names, they had not preferred any action would only go to show that in other words, the plaintiff had acquiesced to the action of the re-survey done during 1969 and accordingly, it is found that, as such, the plaintiff is claiming reliefs in the suit, only relying upon the records issued by the concerned officials based upon the re-survey made during 1969. Therefore, it is found that the plaintiff was fully aware of the re-survey made during 1969 and that apart, by his conduct and also the mode in which he claims the reliefs in the present suit is also based upon the
record effected following the re-survey, it is seen that the plaintiff had given acquiescence of the re-survey proceedings and hence, the contention that the survey officials had committed the mistake during the re-survey, as such, cannot be accepted. When it is the admitted case of the plaintiff that he had no ancestral properties located at Malayadipudur village and the properties at Malaydipudur village are not dealt with under Ex.A1 and A2 and when it is also the admitted case of the plaintiff that his paternal uncle had not acquired any land at Malayadipudur village by sale or otherwise and when it is also not the case of the plaintiff that his paternal uncle owned any land at Malayadipudur village ancestrally, it is found that only based upon the patta marked as Ex.A4, the lands located in Malayadipudur village are included in the partition deed, marked as Ex.A3. Now, Ex.A3 partition deed is found to have been effected on 24.4.91, whereas, the patta relied upon by the plaintiff issued in the name of his paternal uncle S.R.Arumugamchettiar marked as Ex.A4 seems to have been issued on 07.05.1991. It is therefore found that only after the partition had been effected under Ex.A3, patta Ex.A4 seems to have been obtained on 07.05.1991 and the allied documents Exs.A5 and A6, have also come to be issued only on 07.05.1991. When from the above said documents Exs.A5 and A6 seen cumulatively, new S.F.79/1 only corresponds to old S.F.No.11 of Malayadipudur village and when there is no material placed on record to hold that the survey officials had wrongly classified the portion of the lands in S.F.No.139 of Sathyamangalam village as new S.F.No.79/1 of Malayadipudur village and when the evidence of PW2 Deputy Taluk Surveyor also does not lend support to the plaintiff's case, as adverted supra, the plaintiff, without any basis had included the lands in the Malayadipudur village in the partition effected under Ex.A3 and accordingly, has come forward with the false case, as if, in the said partition the lands located in new S.F.No. 79/1 of Malayadipudur village measuring an extent of 0.05.0hectares had been allotted to his share under Ex.A3. When the source of title to the above said lands located in Malayadipudur village shown to be allotted to the plaintiff under Ex.A3 had not been established by the plaintiff either as belonging to him ancestrally or as acquired and when there is no material also to hold that the said lands described under Ex.A3 were originally located or situated in S.F.No.139 of Sathyamangalam village and if really, any such mistake had been committed by the survey officials during the re-survey, the plaintiff, being aware of the same, would have taken appropriate steps to rectify the same and the plaintiff having not moved his little finger to challenge the re-survey and the re-survey records marked, only point out that the new S.F.Number 79/1 corresponds to old S.F.Number 11 of Malayadipudur village. It is seen that without any basis or hold the parties to the partition deed Ex.A3, had included the above said land situated in the Malayadipudur village and shown as if, the same had been
allotted to the share of the plaintiff under Ex.A3. It is thus seen that there is no basis for the plaintiff for including the said land at Malayadipudur village under the partition deed Ex.A3 and it is thus found that the plaintiff cannot claim to hold a valid title to new S.F.No.79/1 measuring 0.05.0 hectares of Malayadipudur village based on Ex.A3 alone, when the plaintiff's right to effect the partition to the said properties has not been established clearly with reliable and acceptable materials. However, it is argued by the plaintiff's counsel that in respect of the Well situated in the disputed land, it is only the plaintiff's predecessor in interest, who had obtained the service connection no.15, even way back in 1955 and based upon the said fact, the Court should come to the conclusion that the disputed land had been alone enjoyed by the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest and accordingly, the same had also been the subject matter of the partition effected under Ex.A3. In this connection, reliance is placed upon Ex.A14 and the evidence of PW3. From Ex.A14 and the evidence of PW3, it could be seen that the service connection no.15 was given in respect of the S.F.No.139 of Sathyamangalam village, in connection with the 5 hp motor in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor in interest and according to the plaintiff, the said Well is still available in the disputed lands located at Malayadipudur village and based on the same, the Courts should hold that it is only the plaintiff and the predecessor in interest who had title to the Well located in the disputed lands and thereby to the disputed lands also. However, as seen from the evidence of PW3, the electricity board Engineer, it is found that a pole erected with reference to the above said electricity connection has all along been located only in Sathyamangalam village and service connection no.15 had been effected only in respect of the land located in Sathyamangalam village and the pole erected at the time of the effecting the above said service connection has not been changed and it remains at the same place and he has also further stated that if any name of the village is to be mutated in respect of the above said service connection, necessary permission should be obtained and necessary fees should be paid and he has further admitted that service connection no.15 has not been mutated in the name of the another village and it stands, as on date, only as being located at Sathyamangalam village and if any change had been effected without their permission, as regards the change of the village with reference to the service connection, they would take appropriate action. Thus, it is seen from the evidence of the PW3 and the document Ex.A14, service connection no.15 had been effected only to the lands in S.F.No.139 of Sathyamangalam village and such being the position, when the plaintiff has not taken any appropriate steps to effect the change of the above said service connection to the Well located at Malayadipudur village, the plaintiff's case that the Well is fitted with service connection no.15 is actually located at the disputed lands as such cannot be accepted. It is
the case of the defendant that one day prior to the lodging of the suit, the plaintiff has illegally shifted the motor to the disputed Well and thereby, after obtaining the ex-parte injunction order had taken the commission inspection and the defendant being aware of the suit proceedings only thereafter. It is thus found and the above facts seen cumulatively, when the claim of the plaintiff that the motor with the service connection no.15 is still available in the disputed lands and when the said case is belied by the evidence of PW3 and Ex.A14 as such, it is seen that as rightly putforth by the defendant, the plaintiff seems to have clandestinely installed the motor pumpset in the Well at the disputed land and thereby, laid the suit for obtaining the relief claimed in the suit. However, when the disputed lands are admittedly situated only at Malayadipudur village and when the plaintiff has no source of title to the said disputed land other than Ex.A3 and when the plaintiff has not established his legal rights for the inclusion of the disputed land under Ex.A3 partition deed, the claim that the disputed motor pumpset with service connection no.15 is available in the disputed land, as such, cannot be accepted and hence, it is seen that the first appellate Court has accordingly not accepted the above case of the plaintiff. In this connection, the plaintiff, also during the course of the his evidence, admitted that the suit Well is associated with only the lands at Sathyamangalam village in S.F.No.139 and not located in Malayadipudur village and he has not taken any steps with reference to the change of the service connection to Malayadipudur village and also admitted that the pole starter etc. for the Well located in the disputed properties were located only in the Sathyamangalam village during the inspection of the Commissioner and the facts being above, that the case of the motor in the disputed Well by alone would not entitle the plaintiff to claim the reliefs sought for in the suit.
the east of New S.F.No.401/1,2,3, the land of the defendant at Malayadipudur village in old S.F.No.11 and New S.F.No.79/2 is located and it is seen that under the said document, they had also come to an understanding that they would accordingly, measure the land with the assistance of the surveyor and it is seen that accordingly, the parties have come to an understanding and effected the Muchilika marked as Ex.B1. However, it is seen that, following the same, they have not taken steps to measure the properties concerned through the surveyor and however, the fact remains that as seen from the above admission of PW1, the parties have come to an understanding through the Panchayatdars, by way of Ex.B1 and from the recitals found in Ex.B1 and the evidence of PW1 as narrated above, would go to show that the plaintiff has admitted the ownership of the land at Malayadipudur village located in old S.F.No.11 corresponding to new S.F.No.79 as belonging only to the defendant and it is further seen that in the said document, the plaintiff has not made any claim to the land located at Malayadipudur village, based upon the Ex.A3 partition deed. All these facts would go to show that as the plaintiff is well aware that he has no right or title to the lands located at Malayadipudur village, it is found that he is unable to place any material with reference to the same and substantiate his case and on the other hand, conceding the title of the disputed land as belonging to the defendant, it is found that Ex.B1 Muchilika has come to be effected by the parties though no follow up action has been initiated in continuation of the same and on that score, it cannot be held that Ex.B1 as such had not been effected between the parties concerned. As seen from the discussions made above, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he has valid title or right to the suit properties shown to be located at Malayadipudur village and the Well located therein and in such view of the matter, it is seen that the plaintiff cannot be granted the relief of declaration and also the reliefs of permanent injunction and possession as claimed in the suit.
for the plaintiff to establish his case by placing acceptable and reliable materials. Merely on account of the failure of the defendant to establish his defence version, that by itself would not lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff's case is true and that he should be granted the reliefs accordingly. In other words, it is seen that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to pick holes in the defendant's case and thereby endeavour to succeed in his case without any basis or proof in respect of his case, for claiming title to the suit properties. Thus being the position, in my considered opinion, de-hors the proof placed by the defendant for claiming title to the disputed properties, in the light of the discussions made, when it is found that the plaintiff has failed to establish his right or title to the suit properties, it is to be held that he cannot be granted the reliefs sought for in the suit.
men as regards the re-survey, it is not incumbent upon him to challenge the same by way of setting-aside the order of the survey officials and in this connection, reliance is placed upon the decision reported in 1974 T.L.N.J. Page 145 (State of Madras by Collector, Ramnad Vs. Kasthuri Ammal and others). A perusal of the above said decision would go to show that when no notice has been served on the affected parties as regards the survey exercise, the concerned party is not required to lay any suit challenging the same within the time allowed by law as per the Tamilnadu Surveys and Boundaries Act,1923. However, it is found that, in the same, it has been held that when the affected party had acquiesced to the correctness of the survey measurements effected, he has to take necessary action against the survey effected as provided under the Act. In so far as this case is concerned, it is not pleaded by the plaintiff that no notice has been served on him and his men as regards the re-survey exercise made during 1969. It is found that the plaintiff is also aware of the re-survey done during 1969 and despite having knowledge about the same, he has not challenged the proceedings thereof. That apart, the plaintiff has also acquiesced to the re-survey effected and accordingly, placed reliance only upon the resurvey records for claiming the reliefs sought for in this suit. However, the plaintiff has not placed any material as such, to show that the officials had committed mistake during re-survey by including the land at Sathyamangalam village located in S.F.No.139 as being located in New S.F.No.79/1 of Malayadipudur village. When there is no material to hold that the new S.F.No.79/1 of Malayadipudur village has any nexus or connection with the S.F.No.139/1 of Malayadipudur village and on the other hand, when materials pointed out that the new S.F.No.79/1 of Malayadipudur village only corresponds to old S.F.No.11 of Malayadipudur village and in such view of the matter, when it is further found that no mistake had been committed by the officials concerned during the re-survey and accordingly, the plaintiff having knowledge about the re-survey, had also not challenged the same, as provided under the said Act and also has acquiesced to the same by relying upon the re-survey done, it is seen that if at all any mistake as such had been committed, the plaintiff should have only resorted to the appropriate remedies provided under the Tamilnadu Surveys and Boundaries Act 1923 by challenging the same. In this connection, a perusal of the above said Act would only go to show that the aggrieved party had been provided with the appeal remedy, the second appeal remedy and also the revision remedy before the appropriate authorities as provided under Section 12, 12 A and 12 B of the said Act and further, it is found that the aggrieved party is also provided with the remedy of institution of the Civil Suit within three years to establish his rights in respect of the disputed lands by challenging the same and when it is found that the plaintiff has not resorted to any of the above said remedies and also not laid the suit as provided under
the Act, within the time allowed by law and on the other hand, acquiesced to the re-survey proceedings as discussed above, it is seen that it is too late for the plaintiff to complain about the re-survey, as if a mistake had been done by the officials concerned as putforth by him. Inasmuch as no mistake as such had been committed by the officials concerned during the resurvey, it is seen that the plaintiff has not endeavoured to challenge the same. In such view of the matter, when it is found that as per Section 13 of the Act, the records of the survey shall be a conclusive proof that the boundaries determined and recorded therein have been correctly determined as recorded and when the same had not been challenged and setaside in the manner known law and the survey effected had not been shown to be done wrongly by the plaintiff, by acceptable and reliable materials, it is seen that the plaintiff's case for claiming the relief in the present lis without any basis, has been rightly discountenanced by the first appellate Court.
(R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder Vs.Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and another), as rightly argued, would not be applicable to the case at hand.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
sli
To
1. The Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Gobichettypalayam.
2. The District Munsif
Sathyamangalam.
3.The Section Officer
VR Section
High Court, Madras
(+2 copies)
+1 cc to Mr.V.S.Kesavan Advocate sr 344
+1 cc to Mr.R.T.Doraisamy Advocate sr 172
S. A.No.159 of 2001
nmi(co)
aa29/01/2018
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff established valid title to the suit properties at Malayadipudur village when his parent title deeds and partition deeds dealt only with lands at Sathyamangalam village?
Whether the plaintiff, having acquiesced in the 1969 re-survey and relied on its records, could complain of a mistake without challenging the re-survey under the Tamilnadu Surveys and Boundaries Act,
Whether the partition deed under which the plaintiff claims the disputed properties could confer title when those properties were not shown to belong to the family or to have been acquired by it?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madras by Collector, Ramnad Vs. Kasthuri Ammal and othersDistinguished¶15
1974 T.L.N.J. Page 145
R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder Vs.Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple and anotherDistinguished¶17
(2003) 8 SCC 752 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
V.S.Rangasamy
R.Chinnasamy
R.Revathi
Hema
Uma maheswari
S.N.Subramanian
T.Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
