Madras High Court
Rajendran vs Saroja on 6 March, 2018
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :06.03.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI S.A.No.127 of 2000 Rajendran ... Appellant/2nd respondent Vs. 1.Saroja 2.Minor Suganthi 3.Minor Sathishkumar (Minors 2 & 3 are represented by mother and guardian first respondent) 4.Narayasamy Naidu 5.Rajalakshmi 6.Vasantha ...Respondents PRAYER: The Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.1999 in A.S.No.74/1998 before the Principal District Court, Cuddalore reversing the Judgment and the Decree dated 18.02.1998 in O.S.No.41/1996 before the Sub Court, Panruti. For Appellant : M/s.R. Meenal For Respondents : M/s.R.Sunilkumar (For R1 to R3) Died (for R4) No appearance (for R5 & R6) J U D G M E N T
Suit for partition and separate possession.
2. The second defendant is the appellant, who lost the case before the lower appellate court and has filed the present Second Appeal.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings in the lower court.
4. The averments contained in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:
a) The first plaintiff is the wife of one Manokaran who passed away on 06.08.1990 and the defendants 2 to 5 are the sons and daughters of the said Manokaran. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition claiming one-third share in the 'A' schedule property and Item Nos. 1 to 9 and 13 belonging to the joint family of Narayanasamy Naidu/first defendant therein and his two sons are claiming half share in Item No.10 and one-fifth share in Item Nos.11 and 12 and one-third share in the 'B' schedule property movables.
b) The first defendant had two sons viz., Rajendiran and Manokaran and two daughters viz., Rajalakshmi and Vasantha. The suit items absolutely are the properties of the second defendant and his brother Manoharan who got them by deed of exchange. The suit item Nos.11 and 12 belonged to one Muniammal, the wife of Narayanaswamy Naidu and mother of defendants 2 to 4. Manokaran died on 06.08.1990 intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs to succeed his property as Class-I legal heirs. The plaintiffs further averred that the first defendant is the karta of the joint family and the other members of the family viz., Rajendiran and deceased Manokaran have been living as the joint family members. As per the Hindu Law, Manokaran and defendants 1 and 2 are each entitled to one-third share in the joint family property. The second defendant and the deceased Manokaran were the absolute owners of the Item No.10 by way of their exchange deed on 03.03.1987 (Ex.A6). Thus, Manokaran and Rajendiran are each entitled to half share in the property. The said Manokaran's half share in the suit item will devolve on the plaintiffs on his death.
c) The suit Item Nos.11 and 12 were absolutely the properties of Muniammal, mother of Manokaran and Rajendiran, wife of the first defendant by her purchase dated 17.06.1970. But mother of the second defendant died leaving behind the defendants 1 to 4 and Manokaran to succeed her estate. So, the defendants 1 to 4 and Manokaran are each entitled to one-fifth share in the property. Thus the plaintiffs are entitled to one-fifth share in the suit Item Nos. 11 and 12 that stands in the name of Muniammal.
d) After the death of the Manokaran, the first plaintiff was with the joint family of defendants 1 and 2 for some time. But subsequently, the first plaintiff is living separately with her children struggling for her day-to-day life. So the first plaintiff demanded for a partition and separate possession of her due share in the schedule property. But the same was denied. Hence, the first plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession.
e) The first plaintiff further averred that Item No.13 of the suit properties belonged to the joint family property. The first defendant seems to have executed a gift deed in respect of Item No.13 in favour of the third defendant on 17.08.1992. The gift in respect of joint family is void ab initio. Hence, the plaintiffs are not liable to set aside the gift deed. The said gift deed will not give any right to the third defendant.
f) The plaintiffs further averred that there are no debts for the joint family but a sum of Rs.15,000/- is due from one Krishnappa Naidu of Elumedu village and a sum of Rs.12,000/- is due from Muthaiammal of Ezhumedu village. In these amounts, the plaintiffs are entitled to one-third share. There are also movables in the family which is described as 'B' schedule, in which, the plaintiffs are entitled to one-third share in the property.
5. The averments contained in the written statement, in brief, are as follows:
a) The second defendant denied the relationship set out in the plaint. However, the defendants admitted the death of Manokaran who died on 06.08.1990. The above said Manokaran died unmarried and issueless. Hence, the suit property filed by the plaintiffs alleging that they are the legal heirs of Manokaran is totally false and only for the purpose of grabbing the property from the defendants, the said partition suit is filed. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable in law and on facts. The property mentioned as 'A' schedule in the plaint does not belong to the family at all. The family never owns any property in Veeranam village, Villupuram Taluk.
b) In fact, it is true that the properties mentioned as Item Nos. 2 to 5 and 7 and 8 in 'A' schedule and another item belonged to the joint family of Narayanasamy Naidu. This defendant father's sister was one Manganayagi. The said Manganayaki, though married, was monetarily sound, had no issues, as her husband pre-deceased and hence out of love and affection, she took the second defendant to her house and brought him up from his childhood itself and the properties covered under Ex.A5 from the kartha of the joint family. The first defendant purchased and registered sale deed dated 25.07.1964 and the same was executed by the first defendant in favour of the then minor second defendant was for family necessity and binding purposes and the sale was binding on the family members. The sale consideration was spent by the first defendant for maintaining the joint family. In pursuance of the sale deed dated 25.07.1964, the plaintiff's mother was put in possession of the properties. Accordingly, the item Nos.2 to 5 and 7 and 8 were treated as properties of the second defendant and they were handed over to the second defendants after attaining majority. Hence, the plaintiffs have no right to claim the abovesaid properties. Thus, the defendants and his predecessor-in-title have been open, continuous, hostile possession of item Nos.2 to 5, 7 and 8 mentioned above and exercising all kinds of ownership to the knowledge of other defendants and Manokaran by adverse possession and outster.
c) The property mentioned as Item No.6 in 'A' schedule property does not belong to the family at all. The property mentioned as Item No.'9' in 'A' schedule is alone the remaining joint family property of the first defendant. The property mentioned as item 10 in 'A' schedule, originally belonged to one Jayakanthammal and her heirs. The said Jayakanthammal wanted to exchange item No.10 in favour of this defendant and wanted to exchange item No.2 in 'A' schedule in favour of her and others in the year 1987. The purpose of exchange is for the consideration of convenient enjoyment of the properties. While executing the exchange deed, the above said Manokaran was figured as a party to the document at the instance of Jayakanthammal, though the deceased Manokaran has no right in the property. However, his name is inserted at the instigation of Jayakanthammal. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit property. On trial, the lower court has held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition and dismissed the suit and denied the marriage between the first plaintiff and Manokaran. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit, the matter was taken up before the learned Principal District Court, Cuddalore.
6. Learned Principal District Court, Cuddalore, after elaborate discussion and after perusal of the documents available on record submitted by the plaintiffs decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the order of the lower appellate court, the present second appeal is filed.
7. At the time of admission, this court has framed the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether in law the lower appellate court was right in presuming that marriage between the first respondent and Manoharan without any proof for the actual celebration of marriages laid down in 94 LMW 40 SN?
2. Whether in law the lower appellate court was not wrong in not even framing proper points for consideration as contemplated in Or.41 R.31 CPC and as laid down in 1997 (1) LW 704?
3. Whether in law the lower appellate court did not err in finding that Ex.A5 registered sale deed could not be acted upon overlooking that the sale was in favour of the appellant and that even otherwise the provisions of the Benami?
4. Whether in law the lower appellate court was not wrong in overlooking that there was no pleading or proof to show that all the properties belongs to the joint family?
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondents/ plaintiffs did not establish the marital status of the first plaintiff and Manokaran. In order to establish the marital status, the temple receipt was marked as Ex.A1. But the temple receipt did not disclose any marriage and the other documents are self serving documents which are not permissible in proving the marital status between the first plaintiff and Manokaran.
9. In the absence of any documentary evidence, the lower court has rightly held that there is no marital status between first plaintiff and Manokaran. When there is no document to prove marital status between the husband and wife, the partition suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs is an unsustainable one. Apart from the above, the suit property was purchased by the second defendant through her aunt from the first defendant. Though the karta of the joint family has executed a sale deed in favour of second defendant for legal necessity to run the joint family, the said amount was parted by his aunt Manganayaki for the valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,800/-. Already the karta of the joint family alienated the same in favour of the second defendant. Thereafter, the second defendant was in enjoyment of the property and prescribed title by way of adverse possession. Accordingly, this is a separate property of the second defendant, in which, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit property. However, without considering the said facts, the lower appellate court, on erroneous consideration, has decreed the suit, which is unsustainable.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention, has relied upon his decision in 1994 (1) LW 38 in the case of Surjit Kaur V. Garja Singh & Others in paragraph No.12 which reads as follows:
12. Reliance placed on Charan Singh case' is not correct because that will apply only if the widow were to marry the brother of the husband. But, here Gulaba Singh was a stranger. As rightly contended by the respondent, mere living as husband and wife does not, at any rate, confer the status of wife and husband. In B.S. Lokhande case2, it was laid down that the bare fact of the man and woman living as husband and wife does not, at any rate, normally give them the status of husband and wife even though they may hold themselves out before the society as husband and wife and the society treats them as such. The following extract is useful for this purpose.
"Prima facie, the expression 'whoever ...
marries' must mean 'whoever ... marries validly' or 'whoever ... marries and whose marriage is a valid one'. If the marriage is not a valid one, according to the law applicable to the parties, no question of its being void by reason of its taking place during the life of the husband or wife of the person marrying arises. If the marriage is not a valid marriage, it is no marriage in the eye of law. The bare fact of a man and a woman living as husband and wife does not, at any rate, normally give them the status of husband 1 (1965) 2 SCR 837 : AIR 1965 SC 1564 :
(1965) 2 Cri LJ 544 and wife even though they may hold themselves out before society as husband and wife and the society treats them as husband and wife. and also relied on the case of Mohan & Another Vs.Santha Bai Ammal and Others reported in 1989 (2) LW 197 in paragraph No.10 which is extracted as follows:
10. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on the ground that their mother Drowpathi was not married to their father late Subbarayalu Naidu and that she was only his concubine for some time. The fact that the plaintiffs were born to Subbarayalu Naidu through their mother Drowpathi is not disputed. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiffs to show that their mother Drowpathi was the legally wedded wife of late Subbarayalu Naidu and that they are his legitimate sons entitled to succeed to his properties. The plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that the marriage of their mother with Subbarayalu Naidu took place at Thiruvendipuram in Sri Devanathaswami temple on 13-7-1952, and that during the life time of Subbarayalu Naidu, the plaintiffs were living in a separate house and the defendants were living in another house and Subbarayalu Naidu used to stay in both the .houses. However, there is no specific plea as to the form of marriage in which their mother was married to Subbarayalu Naidu. In order to establish the marriage, the plaintiffs have filed Ex. Al which is a true copy of the marriage receipt bearing No. 86 evidencing the payment of Rs. 5 on 13-7-1952 as "(In vernacular)" for the marriage between. Subbarayalu Naidu and Drowpathi Ammal, daughter of Narayana Menon of Tiruppapuliyur. There is also a receipt attached to Ex. Al for the payment of Rs. 15 for the grant of a copy of the marriage extract. A perusal of Ex. A1 shows that it is merely a receipt for having paid a sum of Rs. 15 towards the marriage of their mother. There is nothing to indicate that actually the marriage took place between their mother Drowpathi and late Subbarayalu Naidu on 13-7-1952. Ex. Al is not a certified copy of the marriage register maintained by the temple authorities. Therefore, Ex. Al by itself is not sufficient to prove the factum of the marriage which is being seriously disputed by the defendants.
and also relied on the case of Palaisami Pillai Vs. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Admn ) Department, Madras-34. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments (Admn) Dept., Madurai reported in 1997-1-LW-704 which reads as follows:
12. The object of 0.41, Rule 31, C.P.C., in making it incumbent upon the appellate court to raise the points for determination and to state reasons for the decision is to clear up the pleadings and focus the attention of the court and of the parties on the specific and rival contentions which arise for determination as also to offer the litigant parties an opportunity of knowing and understanding the grounds upon which the decision proceeds with a view to enable them to exercise, if they see fit, and are so advised, the right of second appeal conferred by Section 100, C.P.C. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned single Judge, it appears to us that the reasons for his findings would not satisfy Order 41, C.P.C., This Court being the first appellate court, and being the final court of facts, it is incumbent on it to consider all the evidence adduced by the parties in the case. Learned single Judge has not even turned to the side of the plaintiffs who filed voluminous documents marked as Exs.A-1 to A-33. The parties to the suit or appeal, in our opinion, have a right to know the reasons that have led the Judge to his conclusions. The learned single Judge (Bellie, J.) has not considered any facts and circumstances and the evidence adduced both oral and documentary by both sides, but merely recorded a finding by accepting the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 without himself bestowing any consideration thereon, it can surely be said that this is not a judgment in the eye of law. In the instant case, the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is exhaustive and well reasoned. The learned single Judge when he reversed the judgment, there should be enough material to show that the Court of Appeal has considered it fully and formed its own opinion. In the present judgment, there is no discussion at all about the documentary evidence filed and marked as Exs.A-1 to A-33. The Law imposes upon the Court of Appeal the imperative duty and obligation of giving an adequate and satisfactory judgment such as is required by law and it is the duty to explain its reasons for so doing more especially when the court of first instance has gone so fully into the facts and the reasons for the conclusions arrived at. Since the learned single Judge has not considered the voluminous exhibits filed by the appellant, the aggrieved party is entitled to a consideration of the points raised and considered by the lower court, in this Letters Patent appeal. Therefore, without remitting the matter, we ourselves have decided to go through the evidence and then arrive at a conclusion.
and he also relied on the case of S. Mani Vs. Sivagnanam Pillai reported in LW 1981 Vol.94 40 which reads as follows:
It is true that where a man and woman have cohabited for such a length of time and in such circumstances as to have acquired the reputation of being man and wife a lawful marriage between them can generally be presumed, though there may be no positive evidence of any marriage having taken place.
..... The proposition cannot also be disputed that a party cannot fall back on the theory of presumption if he failed to prove the celebration of the marriage. The presumption can be drawn only in the context of a cohabitation for such a length of time and in such circumstances as to have acquired the reputation of being man and wife.
The length of time in the present case shrinks to 2= years between January 1948 and May, 1950. In Bachubhai V. Bai Dhanlaxmi A.I.R. 1961 Gujarat, 141 the Gujarat High Court did not find it possible to draw the presumption in a case where the cohabitation had lasted for less than two years. It is not possible to specify a particular period which can alone be considered as long enough for drawing the presumption. The length of the period which gives rise to the presumption would depend upon the facts. However, the period in the present case is so short or brief that we cannot consider the applicability of the presumption in the present case.
Further in order that a presumption should be drawn, it must be established by evidence that the man and woman were not merely living together but professed themselves to be husband ad wife and were treated as such in the society in which they moved and the conduct and recognition should have extended over a sufficiently long time. In the present case, significantly there is no evidence to show that R and the defendant were treated as husband and wife by the society in which they moved. R herself had admitted that she had not attended any function in any family related to the defendant. She had not gone with the defendant even to her relations. She had not even been taken out on any social visits. In these circumstances, we do not find it possible to consider the question of invoking the presumption.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs would submit that the first plaintiff married Manokaran without the consent of the first defendant. The first defendant's family strongly opposed the marriage of the first plaintiff and Manokaran on the ground that the first plaintiff did not have sufficient wealth and she has not brought considerable sreethana in favour of first defendant. Thereby, the said marriage was opposed by the family and Manokaran married the first plaintiff in the year 1985 in a temple. In order to prove their marital status, the ration card and birth certificate of the second plaintiff were marked. He further averred that after perusal of the entire documents filed by the plaintiffs and after perusal of the depositions of PWs.2 & 3, independent witnesses were deposed in the marriage of the first plaintiff and the said Manokaran. After the perusal of the entire depositions and the documents, the lower appellate court has arrived at a conclusion that there was a marital status between first plaintiff and said Manokaran and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the legalheirs of the said Manokaran.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs further submitted that though the alienation in 1964 is in favour of the second defendant, till filing of suit, the defendants are not able to establish that the property is a separate property of the second defendant. Admittedly, all the suit properties were enjoyed as a common property. In the absence of any material to show that the second defendant enjoyed the property as separate property, the claim of adverse possession in respect of suit property does not arise. On perusal of the material records, it is seen that the first defendant is the father of the joint family and second defendant is the son of first defendant and first plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of the first defendant and wife of the Manokaran and plaintiffs 2 & 3 are daughter and son of Manoharan respectively. Prior to filing of the suit, Muniammal passed away leaving behind the defendants 2 to 4 and Manokaran as her legal heir. Subsequently, the first defendant also passed away leaving behind the defendants 2 to 4 as legal heirs to succeed the estate of first defendant.
13. With regard to the properties claimed by the plaintiffs, the document Ex.A6/Exchange deed is sufficient to establish that Manokaran is a co-parcener in the joint family property which is exchanged to Jayakanthammal, in which Manokaran appeared as a co-parcener in the joint family. It would show that Manokaran has s share in the joint family property. The claim of first defendant property covered under Ex.A5 is only sham and nominal. The first defendant has sold the property in favour of the second defendant, the then minor. At the time of alienation, the second defendant was a eleven years old boy and there is no explanation how the co-parcener purchased the family property.
14. In view of above, the lower appellate court has arrived at a conclusion that the first plaintiff is the wife of the said Manokaran and other plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Manokaran. Accordingly, the plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the Joint Family property. The well considered decision need not be interfered with and there is no substantial questions of law arises for consideration.
15.The core issue involved in this case is whether the marital status of first plaintiff with Manokaran is established before the lower court or not. In order to prove the marital status between the first plaintiff and Manokaran, temple receipt was marked as Ex.A1. On perusal of Ex.A1, name of the Manokaran was shown as bridegroom and the first plaintiff was shown as bride. Further, the family ration card has also produced in order to substantiate the marital status of the first plaintiff and Manokaran, in which, family members were shown as plaintiffs and karta name is shown as Manokaran. Apart from the above, the birth certificate of the second plaintiff is marked as Ex.A3, in which, the second plaintiff's father name is Manokaran. Apart from the above, the independent witnesses viz., Pws.2 & 3 were deposed. The relevant portion of depositions of PW2 and PW3 are as follows:
PW2: vd; Ch; vGnkL thjp vjph; thjpfisj; bjhpa[k;/ thjpa[k; vd; Ch; jhd;/ 1. 2 vjph;thjpfSk; vd; Ch; jhd;/ Kjy; vjph;thjpf;F 2 kfd; 2 kfs;/ 2.3.4 vjphphjpfs; jtpu ,we;j kndhfud; Kjy; vjph;thjpapd; kfd;/ PW3: vd; Ch; vGnkL/ Kjy; vjph;thjpia vdf;F bjhpa[k;/ thjpfSk; bjhpa[k;/ Kjy; vjh;thjpf;F kndhfud; vd;W xU kfd; ,U;jhh;/ mtUf;F jpUkzk; MdJ/ mtuJ kidtp jhd; Kjy; thjp rnuhrh/ mth;fSf;F jpUkzk; jpUte;jpg[uj;jpy; ele;jJ/ jpUkzj;jpy; ehd; fye;j bfhz;nld;/ jpUkzj;jpw;F rnuhrh cwtpdh;fs; te;jpUe;jhh;fs;/ Kjy; tjph;thjpapd; cwtpdh;fs; tutpy;iy/ rnuhrh trjpahd FLk;gk; ,y;iy vd;gjhy; jpUkzj;ij Kjy; vjph;thjp tPl;oy; vjph;j;jhh;fs; mth;fs; ,e;j jpUkzj;jpw;F tutpy;iy/ ,e;j jpUkzk; Iah; itj;J ke;jpu';fs; Xjp ele;jJ/ mf;fpdp tsh;f;fg;gl;lJ/ kndhfud; rnuhrh fGj;jpy; jhyp fl;o mf;fpdp tyk; te;jhh;fs;/ jf;f Kiwapy; ifahsg;gl;ld/ khiyfs; khw;wpf; bfhs;sg;gl;ld/ jpUkzk; Koe;jt[ld; rnuhrhtpd; bgw;nwhh;fs; tPl;oy; te;J j';fpdhh;fs;/
16. On perusal of the depositions of the independent witnesses, it is seen that they perfectly deposed that the marriage was solemnised in a temple and they were participated in the marriage and confirmed seven steps which was performed as per the Hindu Customs and the bride and bridegroom came around the fire by completing Saptapathy. Even the defendants are not able to extract any adverse remarks in the cross-examination. Accordingly, based on the documents and independent witnesses, this court has arrived at a fair conclusion that there was a marital status in between the first plaintiff and Manokaran.
17. On perusal of the above said Exs.A1 to A3 and the depositions of independent witnesses, this court found that there was marital status between the first plaintiff and Manokaran and other plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the said Manokaran. A decision was relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in respect of the proof of the marital status in between the parties. Even on perusal of the decisions cited above, it is seen that there is an independent witnesses deposing their marital status and the marriage was confirmed by the independent witnesses. Even in the decision reported in 1989 (2) LW 197, in the case of Mohan & Another Vs. Santha Bai Ammal and Others, the Division Bench of this Court has held that in the absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the marital status of the persons, mere oral evidence on this aspect does not inspire confidence and the same is not an acceptable one. However, in the present case, two independent witnesses were examined and they probabalise the event happened in the temple and confirmed the marriage between the first plaintiff and Manokaran.
18. Apart from the independent witnesses, the document also disclosed that there was a marital status between the first plaintiff and Manokaran.
19. In view of the above discussion, it is clearly established that there is a marital status between the first plaintiff and Manokaran and other plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the said Manokaran.
20. With regard to the other issue in respect of the plaintiffs share in the joint family property and in order to establish the plaintiffs case, the plaintiffs have marked five documents from Exs.A.5 to A.10. Ex.A5 is the release sale deed executed by first defendant in favour of the second defendant in the year, 1962. Though the above said sale deed was executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant, on receipt of a sum of Rs.1,800/- as sale consideration, it is also an admitted fact that at the time of sale, the second defendant was a minor and hence, that sale deed was purchased by her aunt in his name for the well being of the second defendant. However, the said statement is not available in the sale deed which simply says that the first defendant conveyed the property in favour of the second defendant for a consideration of Rs.1,800/-.
21. On contrary, the said Manganayaki's daughter was examined as DW2. She asserted that she or her mother do not have property and she is doing only coolie work. In view of the above, it is clear that the first defendant executing a sale deed in favour of the second defendant, is only sham and nominal. Apart from the above, one of the items of A5 was conveyed through exchange deed in favour of Jayakanthammal under Ex.A6 which clearly disclosed that the said Manokaran name was entered as co-parcener and his name was also appeared in the exchange deed.
22. After obtaining the properties through exchange deed (Ex.A5), he is in exclusive possession of the properties and all those properties were enjoyed by the first defendant and second defendant is not able to establish that all the properties were enjoyed by him independently. In the absence of any material, I do not find any error in the findings of the lower appellate court that the property is the joint family property and the plaintiffs are entitled to claim respective shares in the suit schedule properties. In view of the above, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the first plaintiff and against the appellants.
In the result, the second appeal is dismissed and the order of the lower appellate court is confirmed and the suit is decreed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
06.03.2018
gv
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
To
1. The Principal District Court,
Cuddalore.
2. The Sub Court,
Panruti.
Copy to:
The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court, Madras.
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
gv
S.A.No.127 of 2000
06.03.2018