Madras High Court
Karupayee Ammal vs Rajammal on 27 July, 2001
S.A..No.1307 of 2003
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 01.02.2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNDED ON : 22.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
S.A.No.1307 of 2003
1.Karupayee Ammal
2.Shanthi
3.Rajangam ...Appellants/Respondents
Defendants 1 to 3
Vs
Rajammal ...Respondent/Appellant
/Plaintiff
PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C, against the judgment and decree of the Principal
District Court, Dindigul in A.S.No.5 of 1998 dated
27.07.2001 reversing the judgment and decree of the I
Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul in O.S.No.
1280 of 1997 dated 12.11.1997.
For Appellants : Mr.Viswanathan
Senior Advocate
For Mr.C.Ezhilarasu
For Respondents : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
1/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A..No.1307 of 2003
JUDGMENT
The defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants.
2.The plaintiff filed O.S.No.1280 of 1997 before the I Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.5 of 1998 before the Principal District Court, Dindigul. The learned Principal District Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the defendants 1 to 3 have filed the present second appeal.
3.The plaintiff has contended that she has purchased the suit schedule property under Exhibit A1 from one A.P.Chinnasamy namely the fourth defendant in the suit. The said sale deed has been executed by A.P.Chinnasamy on his behalf and also on behalf of her minor daughter Shanthi and his son Rajangam. According to the plaintiff, after execution of the said sale 2/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 deed, the plaintiff has taken possession of the suit schedule property and the revenue records have been mutated in her name. She is in enjoyment of the suit schedule property in Patta No.851. The plaintiff had further contended that she has cultivated cotton crops in the suit schedule properties. On 06.10.1987, the defendants attempted to disturb the ploughing operations and hence, the present suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
4.The defendants 1 to 3 who are the wife, minor daughter and son of the fourth defendant had filed a written statement and contended as follows:
(i)The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is a forged document.
(ii)The vendor under Exhibit A1 sale deed namely Chinnasamy is having several bad habits and he used to spent money in playing cards and drinking arrack. The plaintiff is the brother's wife of the first defendant.
The plaintiff's brother K.Subramani had taken custody 3/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 of the fourth defendant and created a sale deed.
(iii)Though a sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- is mentioned in the sale deed, no consideration had passed under the sale deed.
(iv)The sale deed refers to discharge of two debts in the execution proceedings but the same have been discharged only by the fourth defendant and not by the plaintiff.
(v)The plaintiff's husband has executed a pro-note for a sum of Rs.5000/- in favour of the fourth defendant towards advance amount of the alleged sale deed under Exhibit A1, but the said amount was not paid.
(vi)The sale deed under Exhibit A1 has been obtained by coercion and inducement and hence, the same is sham and nominal and void.
(vii)The sale deed was not executed for the benefit of the minors namely the second and third defendants or for any legal necessity. Hence, the sale deed is not valid in the eye of law.
4/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003
(viii)The possession of the suit schedule property is still with the defendants and hence, the contention of the plaintiff that the possession was handed over pursuant to Exhibit A1 sale deed is not legally sustainable.
(ix)The suit schedule property is the joint family property belonging to the fourth defendant and his brother. The said joint family property has not yet been partitioned among the brothers. Hence, the contention that the possession was handed over under Exhibit A1, is only imaginary.
(x)The fourth defendant has entered into an agreement with one Koppayammal on 04.05.1985 under Exhibit B5 under which the parties have agreed for installation of 3 HP motor pump set. This will clearly establish that the possession has not been taken by the plaintiff pursuant to Exhibit A1 sale deed.
5.The fourth defendant filed a written statement contending that
(i)He is addicted to the habit of alcohol and gambling.
5/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003
(ii)He has no right to alienate the property.
(iii)The recital under Exhibit A1 sale deed relating to the discharge of decree debt are false.
(iv)While the fourth defendant was in alcoholic mood, the plaintiff and her husband have forged the sale deed. There is no consideration for Exhibit A1 sale deed.
(v)Exhibit A1 sale deed is sham and nominal, void and not legally valid. The said document has not come into force.
(vi)The plaint schedule property belongs to the defendants 1 to 3 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same.
(vii)The possession of the suit schedule property was never handed over to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property.
6.The plaintiff filed a reply statement contending that the pump set referred to under Exhibit B5 has already been conveyed in favour of the plaintiff 6/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 and the plaintiff alone is in possession of the same. The fourth defendant is not in possession or enjoyment of the said pump set and the said agreement has been created for the purpose of the suit.
7.The trial court found that the decree amount has been discharged under Exhibit B6 on 19.10.1983 itself by the fourth defendant. Hence, the contention of the plaintiff that the sale consideration under Exhibit A1 was received by the plaintiff for settlement of the decree debt is not believable. The plaintiff has not produced any document or receipt to establish the payment of advance amount of Rs.5,000/- as found in Exhibit A1. Hence, there is no consideration for Exhibit A1 sale deed. In case, if the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property, they would have taken possession of the house property, in which, the defendants are residing. But admittedly, the defendants are residing in their house and the plaintiff has not taken possession of the said house property. This will disprove the case of the plaintiff that she has taken 7/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 possession pursuant to Exhibit A1 sale deed. That part, the fourth defendant has entered into an agreement with one Koppayammal under Exhibit B5 for installation of a motor pump set. The said Exhibit B5 is after Exhibit A1 sale deed. This will also establish the fact that the possession has not been taken by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also not produced any documentary evidence to establish that she has participated in getting the service connection or purchasing the motor pump set in the Well. Hence, the plaintiff has not established her possession over the suit schedule property. Based upon the said findings, the trial court dismissed the suit.
8.The First Appellate Court considered Exhibit A1 sale deed in detail. As per Exhibit A1 sale deed, an advance amount of Rs.5,000/- is admitted to have been received by the fourth defendant. The balance sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- is stated to have been received by the fourth defendant already for discharge of the decree amount in O.S.No.1463 of 1967 and O.S.No. 8/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 111 of 1967 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dindigul. In fact, the decree amount have been discharged on 19.10.1983, five months prior to Exhibit A1 sale deed. Hence, it is evident that the fourth defendant has received the said sum of Rs.15,000/- from the plaintiff and discharged the decree amount and thereafter, executed the present sale deed. Hence, the contention that the consideration has not passed under Exhibit A1 sale deed is not correct. The sale deed has been executed not only by the fourth defendant but also by the second and third defendants who are made co-nominee parties to the document. The defendants 2 and 3 were minors at the time of sale deeds. Even after three years, after becoming major, they have not questioned Exhibit A1 sale deed. Since Exhibit A1 has been executed by the fourth defendant for discharge of Court decree, the same is also binding upon the defendants 2 and 3. Hence, the First Appellate Court arrived at a finding that the plaintiff has proved execution and validity of Exhibit A1 sale deed. 9/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003
9.The First Appellate Court also found that as per recital in Exhibit A1, possession has been handed over to the plaintiff on the date of the sale deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff has mutated the revenue records under Exhibit A4 and paid taxes under Exhibit A2, A3 and A6 to A14. Exhibit B5 agreement between the fourth defendant and Koppayammal for installation of motor pump set in the suit Well is dated 04.05.1985 is one year after Exhibit A1 sale deed. Hence, this document cannot be pressed into service for proving possession of the defendants. According to the defendants, Exhibit A1 sale deed has been executed by the fourth defendant while he was in a drunken mood and hence, the document is sham and nominal and void. Exhibit A1 sale deed is dated 28.03.1984. The present suit for declaration of title has been filed by the purchaser under Exhibit A1 on 19.10.1987 after a period of three years. In between the period of three years, the fourth defendant has not taken any steps to challenge the said sale deed. The allegation made by the fourth defendant with regard to circumstances under 10/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 which Exhibit A1 came to be executed, only makes the document voidable and hence, unless it is challenged within the period of limitation, the title of the plaintiff cannot be disputed.
10.The First Appellate Court relied upon various judgments of our High Court to the effect that the entire burden is upon the defendants to plead and proved that Exhibit A1 sale deed has been executed by the fourth defendant under coercion and fraud. The First Appellate Court also relied upon Exhibit A16 sale deed which is said to have been executed by the fourth defendant along with his son the third defendant on 15.07.1987. In the said document, the eastern boundary is shown as plaintiff's property. This will clearly establish that the defendants not only admitted the execution of the sale deed, but also the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Based upon the said findings, the First Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, 11/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants 1 to 3.
11.The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
(i)Whether Exhibit A1 sale deed dated
28.03.1984 has been proved beyond doubt?
(ii)Whether patta and kist is enough to
prove possession and title?
12.The learned counsel for the appellants
contended that Exhibit A1 sale deed has been obtained by the plaintiff and her husband Subramani putting the fourth defendant under coercion and committing a fraud upon the fourth defendant. He further contended that no consideration as claimed under Exhibit A1 sale deed has passed from the plaintiff to the fourth defendant. Hence, the sale deed is void. He further contended that the decree amount in both the suits have been discharged only by the fourth defendant and not by the plaintiff. Hence, the said allegation found in the 12/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 recital of Exhibit A1 are false. He further contended that the plaintiff's husband has executed a pro-note for a sum of Rs.5,000/- in favour of the fourth defendant on 11.10.1986 under Exhibit B4, but neither the plaintiff nor her husband have settled the amount. This will clearly indicate that the fourth defendant has been defrauded by the plaintiff. He further contended that the defendants 2 and 3 were minors at the time of Exhibit A1 sale deed and they also had a share in the suit schedule property. The said document under Exhibit A1 has been effected by the fourth defendant is not for the benefit of the said minor children and there is no legal necessity for the same. He further contended that the possession was never handed over to the plaintiff because the suit schedule property remains a joint family property of the fourth defendant and his brother. He further contended that Exhibit B5 agreement between the fourth defendant and one Koppayammal under Exhibit B5 on 04.05.1985 will establish that the plaintiff was never given possession of the suit schedule property.
13/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003
13.The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon 2009 SCC Online Madras 1177 to the effect that the First Appellate Court had relied upon the weakness of the defendants in order to declare the title of the plaintiff which is not legally sustainable. He further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (2) SCC 269 Paragraph No.19 to impress upon the Court that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength on his own title and it does not depend upon the facts whether the defendants have proved their case or not. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 (6) SCC 82 at Paragraph No.45 to contend that the burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting a declaration and weakness, if any, of the cases set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon another judgment of the 14/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 (11) SCC 309 at paragraph 21 for the same ratio. The learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kewal Krishnan Vs.Rajesh Kumar and others decided on 22.11.2020 to contend that where a sale deed was executed without consideration, it will be held as void and it was not necessary to specifically claim a declaration challenging the validity of those sale deeds. A document which is void need not be challenged by claiming a declaration as the said pleading can be set up and proved even in any collateral proceedings. Hence, the sale deed without consideration is void and it will not confer any title upon the plaintiff. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and consequential injunction are liable to be dismissed.
14.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that a perusal of Exhibit A1 sale deed will show that the fourth defendant has already received a sum of Rs.15,000/- for discharging the 15/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 decree debts. Accordingly, the fourth defendant has discharged the decree debts on 19.10.1983 under Exhibit B6 after five months. Thereafter, Exhibit A1 sale deed has been executed by the fourth defendant on 28.03.1984. There is a specific recital in Exhibit A1 sale deed to the effect that the fourth defendant received a sum of Rs.15,000/- already to discharge the decree debts. There is also a recital that he has received a sum of Rs.5,000/- as advance. Hence, the plaintiff has proved the total sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-. He further contended that Exhibit B4 alleged pro-note is dated 11.10.1986. The said pro-note is said to have been executed by the plaintiff's husband in favour of the fourth defendant for Rs. 5,000/-. This document is two years after Exhibit A1 sale deed. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the plaintiff's husband has issued a legal notice under Exhibit B7 to claim discharge of the said loan. However, the fourth defendant has neither replied nor initiated any legal proceedings for recovery of the same. Hence, the allegation of the defendants that 16/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 there is no sale consideration whatsoever for execution of Exhibit A1 sale deed is completely false.
15.The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that though the defendants have pleaded in their written statement about the alcoholic character of the fourth defendant, no evidence has been let in on their side despite the fact that entire burden is upon the defendants. That apart, the fourth defendant along with his son namely the third defendant has chosen to execute Exhibit A16 sale deed in favour of a third party on 15.07.1987. This Exhibit A16 sale deed is three years after Exhibit A1 sale deed. In the said sale deed, the eastern boundary of the alienated property is shown as the plaintiff's property. Hence, the allegation of the defendants that Exhibit A1 document was executed in a drunken mood or possession was not handed over to the plaintiff is completely false. Even three years after Exhibit A1 sale deed, the fourth defendant and his son the third defendant have confirmed the title and possession of the plaintiff 17/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 over the suit schedule property. He further contended that even though the defendants have pleaded coercion, undue influence, fraud and voidness of Exhibit A1 sale deed, they have not let in any evidence to prove the same. That apart, after Exhibit A1 sale deed, the plaintiff has mutated the revenue records in her name immediately and started paying the tax. The defendants at no point of time have objected to the mutation of the revenue records or the payment of the tax by the plaintiff.
16.The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of our High Court reported in 1993 2 MLJ 248 to contend that where the minors were co-nominee parties to a document, they have to challenge the said document within three years from the date of attaining majority. If they have failed to do so, they cannot directly seek a prayer for declaration of title. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgments reported in 2002 2 LW 357, 2006 5 SCC 353 and 2021 4 LW 134 to 18/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 impress upon the Court that the entire burden is upon the defendants to establish that the plea of coercion, fraud and undue influence, when the execution of the same is admitted by the fourth defendant. Hence, he contended that the First Appellate Court has carefully analysis the oral and documentary evidence on either side and reversed the judgement and decree of the trial Court and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the second appeal.
17.I have considered the submissions on either side.
18.The validity of Exhibit A1 sale deed dated 28.03.1984 said to have been executed by the fourth defendant in favour of the plaintiff is in dispute in the present suit. The plaintiff had contended that the said document has been executed by the fourth defendant along with his minor children on 28.03.1984 for a sale consideration of Rs.20,000/- and possession was handed over to the plaintiff pursuant to the said sale deed. 19/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 But, the defendants had contended that the sale deed has been executed under coercion, undue influence and fraud and while the fourth defendant was in a drunken mood. The defendants further contended that no consideration has passed for the execution of Exhibit A1 sale deed. The defendants further contended that there is no partition among the defendants 2 to 4 and hence, the fourth defendant will not be entitled to alienate the same. The defendants further contended that the fourth defendant remains undivided from his brother and hence, the suit schedule properties continue to be the joint family property and hence, the same cannot be alienated by the fourth defendant. They further contended that the sale consideration that is alleged in Exhibit A1 sale deed is not true and the decree debts mentioned in the said sale agreement have been discharged by the fourth defendant himself.
19.A perusal of Exhibit A1 sale deed shows that it has been executed by the fourth defendant along with his minor children in favour of the plaintiff. As per 20/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 recitals in the said document, the fourth defendant has already received a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards discharge of the decree amount in two suits and the balance amount of Rs.5000/- paid as advance by the plaintiff.
20.The First Appellate Court has considered that the fourth defendant has already discharged the decree amount on 19.10.1983 under Exhibit B6 and hence, the said amount cannot be expressed to be a sale consideration under Exhibit A1 on 28.03.1984. A careful perusal of Exhibit A1 shows that the said amount of Rs.15,000/- meant to discharge the decree amount is said to have been already received by the fourth defendant on an earlier date to discharge the decree amount. The said amount has been utilized by the fourth defendant and the decree amount have been discharged. Five months after discharge, Exhibit A1 sale deed has been executed by the fourth defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the interpretation with regard to consideration clause under Exhibit A1 by the First Appellate Court is highly erroneous.
21/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003
21.It is settled position of law that when the documents disclose payment and receipt of consideration, a party to the document cannot be permitted to let in any oral evidence to contradict the said recital in the document, in view of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, the allegations that there is no consideration for Exhibit A1 sale deed has not been proved by the defendants. On the other hand, the plaintiff has established the consideration for the said document. That apart, Exhibit B1 is the legal notice issued by the defendant 1 to 3 to the plaintiff. In the said legal notice, there is no allegation about non payment of consideration for Exhibit A1 sale deed. A new plea has been raised only at the time of filing of the written statement that there is no consideration for Exhibit A1 sale deed and the decree amount have been discharged only by the fourth defendant. Hence, the contention of the defendants that there is no sale consideration has not been proved. On the other hand, the plaintiff has 22/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 established that Exhibit A1 sale deed has been admittedly executed and supported by consideration.
22. Defendants have contended that Exhibit A1 document is vitiated by undue influence, coercion and fraud. The document was executed by the fourth defendant while he was in drunken mood. Though the defendants have pleaded so, no oral or documentary evidence has been let into the said effect. It is also a settled position of law that where a party pleads undue influence, coercion or fraud, the burden is upon him to establish the same. That part, three years after Exhibit A1 sale deed, the fourth defendant and his son, third defendant have executed Exhibit A16 on 15.07.1987. It is a sale deed executed in favour of a third party by the defendants. In the said document, the eastern boundary is shown as the plaintiff's property.
23.Hence, it is clear that the allegation of under influence, coercion, fraud or drunken mood are 23/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 only an afterthought at the time of written statement. If really, the defendants have found out any fraud or any vitiating factors, they would have immediately taken steps to challenge the same. Even three years after Exhibit A1, the defendants have chosen to confirm Exhibit A1 sale deed by way of boundary recital in Exhibit A16 sale deed. Hence, this Court can safely come to a conclusion that the defendants have not established their plea of vitiating factors surrounding Exhibit A1 sale deed.
24.The defendants have further contended that the defendants 2 and 3 are having a share in the suit schedule properties and hence, the fourth defendant is not entitled to execute Exhibit A1 sale deed for the whole of the property. The defendants 2 and 3 are minors at the time of execution of Exhibit A1 sale deed. They are co-nominee parties to Exhibit A1 sale deed. Even three years after becoming major, the defendants 2 and 3 have not chosen to challenge the said document. Hence, the contention of the defendants 24/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 that the fourth defendant do not have any right to alienate the suit schedule property under Exhibit A1 is not legally sustainable.
25.The defendants have further contended that the suit schedule properties have not been partitioned between the fourth defendant and his brother and hence, the fourth defendant will not have any absolute right to alienate the suit schedule property. The defendants have produced Exhibit A15 sale deed on 10.09.1985. This document has been executed by the fourth defendant's brother's son in favour of the third party. As per recitals in the said document, already partition has taken place between the fourth defendant and his brother Azhagarsamy. Hence, the contention of the defendants that the fourth defendant has alienated a joint family property is not legally sustainable.
26.Exhibit B4 is a pro-note said to have been executed by the plaintiff's husband in favour of the fourth defendant on 11.10.1986. This document is two 25/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 years after Exhibit A1 sale deed. Under Exhibit B7 legal notice, the plaintiff's husband has contended that he has already discharged the pro-note and requested for return of the pro-note. The fourth defendant has neither replied nor initiated any legal action based on Exhibit B4. Hence, the same cannot be projected to vitiate Exhibit A1 sale deed.
27.The plaintiff has established his title and possession over the suit schedule property independently to prove his title based on Exhibit A1 sale deed, the execution of which is admitted by the defendant. When the defendants admitted the execution of Exhibit A1 sale deed and contend that the said document is void due to vitiating factors, the burden is only upon the defendants. Hence, the judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that the plaintiff's title cannot be declared based upon the weakness of the defendants' case are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The defendants have established their possession 26/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 over the suit schedule properties by filing Exhibit A2 to A16. Hence, the plaintiff has established her title and possession over the suit schedule property.
28.In view of the above said discussion, the substantial questions of law are answered as follows:
(i)Exhibit A1 sale deed dated 28.03.1984 has been proved beyond doubt by the plaintiff. The execution of the same has been admitted, but the defendants pleaded only certain vitiating factors. The burden is upon the defendants to establish the said vitiating facts in which they are unsuccessful.
(ii)The plaintiff has produced not only the revenue records, but also Exhibit A16 sale deed executed by the fourth defendant in which the eastern boundary recital reflects the possession of the plaintiff. The defendants in their cross examination have categorically admitted that they have not objected to the mutation of the revenue records and they have paid kist to the suit schedule property after Exhibit A1 sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff has proved her 27/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 possession not only based on revenue records but on other documents also.
29.In view of the above said discussion, both the substantial questions of law are answered as against the appellants. The second appeal is dismissed. No costs.
22.02.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
msa
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Dindigul
2.The I Additional District Munsif, Dindigul
3.The Section Officer V.R.Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai 28/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A..No.1307 of 2003 R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
msa Pre-delivery Judgment made in S.A.(MD).No.1307 of 2003 22.02.2022 29/29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis