Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Appeal No. 416 of 1918.

Attorney(S)

Messrs. T. R. Ramachandra Aiyar, T. R. Krishnaswamy Aiyar and N. A. Krishna Aiyar for the Appellant.
Mr. C. V. Ananthakrishna Aiyar for the Respondent.

Judges

Sir John Wallis, C.J
Krishnan, J.

Acts

provisions of Sect. 49 of the Registration Act;
Sect. 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act,
Sect. 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act
Sect. 49 of the Registration Act.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Partition Suit (District Court of Tinnevelly; Appeal)

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a decree of the District Judge of Tinnevelly in a partition suit brought by the 1st plaintiff (now deceased) against the defendant, who was the son of the plaintiff's deceased brother. After repeated adjournments, at the hearing the defendant's vakil stated he had no instructions. The plaintiff's evidence was recorded and his pleader heard; the case was then closed and judgment reserved. The defendant later applied to the District Court for an opportunity to be heard and for "such other orders" as were appropriate; that application was rejected by the District Judge. The appellate Bench declined to interfere with that exercise of discretion, finding the defendant remiss in failing to instruct his vakil in time and in failing to take effective steps to communicate with his vakil.

The principal legal controversy on appeal concerned the admissibility in evidence of two partition deeds — Exhibits AY and AZ — on the ground that they were not registered (or not registered in British India) and thus purportedly fell within the scope of Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and were therefore subject to the penal and evidentiary consequences of Section 49 of that Act.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the District Court erred in refusing to allow the defendant an opportunity to adduce evidence and to argue his case after the plaintiff's evidence had been recorded and the defendant's vakil had said he had no instructions.
Whether Exhibits AY and AZ are inadmissible in evidence for want of registration because they are instruments which "purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title or interest to, or in immoveable property" within the meaning of Section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and therefore attract the consequence under Section 49 that they shall not be received in evidence of any transaction affecting such immoveable property.
Whether certain plaint properties relied on by the plaintiff are ancestral (joint family) properties or self-acquisitions of the elder brother (i.e., whether the defendant had discharged the burden of proving self-acquisition).

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant / Appellant's Arguments

The defendant contended that he had not been given an opportunity by the Lower Court to adduce his evidence and to argue his case; he sought leave to be heard before disposal of the suit.
With respect to the deeds, the defendant argued that Exhibits AY and AZ either fell within the exception in Clause (5) of sub-section (2) of Section 17 (i.e., they merely created a right to obtain another document) or, in any event, were not admissible in British India because Ex. AY was not registered and Ex. AZ was registered only in Travancore (invoking Section 49 of the Registration Act and territorial operation).
The defendant alleged that most of the plaint properties were self-acquisitions of his father Krishna Aiyar funded by sums given to the father absolutely by the mother; thus these properties were not ancestral.
He relied on certain admissions in Ex. AZ (a document) that some properties were the father's self-acquisitions.

Plaintiff / Respondent's Contentions

The plaintiff's counter-affidavit stated (and the fact was not denied) that the defendant's vakil had sent the defendant two registered notices which the defendant ignored; the plaintiff relied on Exhibits AY and AZ as evidence of a completed partition and prayed for a decree on their strength declaring particular properties to be allotted to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff also advanced evidence (including proof of Exs. AY and AZ by Sankaranarayana Aiyar, the plaintiff's maternal uncle) and sought possession and mesne profits in respect of immoveable properties which were alleged to have been allotted under those deeds.
The plaintiff did not appear to rely on evidence taken on commission in the appeal (and the defendant was not represented at a stage), and proceeded on the strength of the deeds in the plaint.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Appovier v. Rama Subba Aiyan (referred to as "Appuvier's case")	Illustrates that a partition deed which effects a division in status (not merely by metes and bounds) severs joint tenancy in immoveables and converts it into tenancy-in-common, thereby extinguishing one set of rights and creating another — bringing such deeds within the class of instruments contemplated by Section 17(1)(b).	The Court relied on this principle to hold that Exhibits AY and AZ, which effect division in status with respect to immoveables, fall within Section 17(1)(b) and therefore require registration (subject to statutory exceptions which the Court considered and rejected for these documents).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The opinion contains two primary lines of reasoning: (1) the procedural question concerning the defendant's request to be heard; and (2) the substantive question concerning the admissibility of Exs. AY and AZ and the character of the properties.

Procedural discretion: The Bench declined to interfere with the District Judge's refusal to recall the case or to permit the defendant to adduce further evidence or be heard after the plaintiff's evidence was closed. Both the Chief Justice and Krishnan, J. found the defendant "grossly remiss": the defendant had ignored two registered notices from his vakil, sent only a telegram to a remote agent the day before the hearing, and failed to communicate directly with his vakil (despite alleging illness). Given the defendant's negligence in instructing counsel, the Court concluded it would encourage similar remissness if it intervened to relieve him of the consequences.

Interpretation of Exhibits AY and AZ against Section 17(1)(b): The Court examined the language of Ex. AY and Ex. AZ and applied the statutory test in Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act (and the textual exception in Clause (5) of sub-section (2)). The Court's analysis was as follows:

It is well-established that a partition deed that effects a division of status (and not merely by metes and bounds) and involves immoveable property falls within Section 17(1)(b) and requires registration; the opinion cites Appovier's case to articulate this principle.
Ex. AY: Although it contains a provision stating that a registered partition deed should be executed "as soon as possible" and that "till then this itself shall be in force," the Court found that the document, by its express terms ("From this day forward each party shall enjoy the properties ..."), purported to effect a completed partition and to extinguish and create rights immediately. Therefore it did more than "merely create a right to obtain another document" (the Clause (5) exception) — it effected a division of status and so required registration; being unregistered, it was inadmissible as evidence of partition in respect of immoveables in British Territory.
Ex. AZ: Executed about a month later and registered in Travancore, Ex. AZ was regarded by the Chief Justice as a substitution for Ex. AY but also as one that purported to effect a division in status and to create and extinguish rights in ancestral immoveable properties. The Court held that, as regards immoveable properties in British India, Ex. AZ too fell within Section 17(1)(b) and required registration in British India. Further, insofar as Ex. AZ purported to transfer the elder brother's self-acquisitions in British India to the younger brother, it was inadmissible under Section 17 and was inoperative under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Operation of Section 49 (penal/evidentiary consequences): The Court reviewed Section 49 of the Registration Act and held that non-registration not only prevents the document from affecting immoveable property comprised in it but also precludes its reception in evidence "of any transaction affecting such property." The Court acknowledged this prohibition is not absolutely barred in all contexts, but where a party relies on a document as evidence of a completed partition (as the plaintiff did in his pleadings and prayer), Section 49 bars the document's reception for that purpose in relation to immoveable properties in British Territory.

Territorial effect and admissibility: The Court distinguished between the territorial operation of the Registration Act and the effect of Ex. AZ: Ex. AZ, though registered in Travancore, was not registered in Tinnevelly (British India). Consequently Ex. AZ could not be admitted as evidencing partition of immoveables in British India. However, Ex. AZ remained admissible as evidence in respect of the Travancore properties (since the Registration Act did not apply to Travancore), and could therefore be used to show what properties in Travancore had been allotted to each brother.

Effect on the suit and burden of proof on self-acquisition: Because the deeds could not be relied upon in British Territory as evidence of a completed partition, and because there was otherwise no legal evidence of a prior partition between the brothers, the Court treated the suit as one for a general partition between co-parceners. The plaintiff, having failed to prove the allegation that specific properties had already been allotted to him, could instead claim his ordinary coparcenary share. Regarding the defendant's plea that many properties were self-acquisitions funded by the mother, the Court noted the onus lay on the defendant to prove self-acquisition; he adduced no independent evidence on this point, and the documents produced contained inconsistent admissions (Ex. AZ admitting some self-acquisitions, Ex. AY shortly before admitting divisibility). Given these inconsistencies and lack of proof, the Court held that the properties must be treated as ancestral and included in the partition.

Rule as to jeshtabhagam (elder brother's extra share): The Court observed that the old practice of giving an extra share (jeshtabhagam) to the eldest brother is obsolete and cannot be enforced; equality of shares between brothers is the rule. Consequently the plaintiff (2nd plaintiff referred to in the judgment) is entitled to an equal share with the defendant in all joint family properties, wherever situated.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court ordered that the decree of the Lower Court be set aside. (DISPOSED OF insofar as the lower decree is concerned — the decree is set aside and the matter remanded.)

Direct consequences and required actions on remand:

Exhibits AY and AZ are excluded from consideration as evidence of a prior partition in respect of immoveable properties situated in British Territory because they fell within Section 17(1)(b) and were not registered in British India as required; the consequence under Section 49 is applied.
Ex. AZ may be admitted and relied upon with respect to the Travancore properties (the Registration Act did not apply there), and will be used to show what was allotted in Travancore when adjusting shares for properties in British Territory.
The suit is to be treated as a general partition action between co-parceners; the plaintiff is entitled to half the joint family properties (equal shares), and the Court below is directed to ascertain which properties in British Territory should be allotted to the plaintiff and to pass a fresh preliminary decree according to law.
The defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the disputed properties were self-acquisitions; accordingly, the properties are to be treated as ancestral and included in the partition.
Findings on issues Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the Lower Court were affirmed.
All costs, including costs of the appeal, were to be provided for in the fresh decree to be passed on remand.

The opinion does not purport to establish a new legal principle beyond application of existing provisions of the Registration Act and established authority on partition deeds; it applies those principles to the facts and documents before the Court and remands for fresh factual determination and decree consistent with this judgment.

S. S. Decree set aside.

Show full summary ...

Rajangamier v. Rajangam Ayyar

JUDGMENT

The Chief Justice — This is an appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Tinnevelly in a partition suit, brought by the 1st plaintiff, now deceased, against the defendant, the son of his deceased brother. When the case came on, after repeated adjournments, the defendant's vakil stated that he had no instructions; and, after the plaintiff's evidence had been recorded and his pleader heard, the case was closed and judgment reserved. The defendant afterwards applied to the Court to hear arguments on his side before disposing of the case and to pass such other orders, as were just and proper in the circumstances of the case. The District Judge rejected his application and we are not prepared to interfere with his order. The defendant had been grossly remiss. It is stated in the plaintiff's counter-affidavit and not denied that the defendant's vakil had sent him two registered notices to which the defendant paid no attention. All that he did was on the day before the hearing to send a telegram to an agent at Palamcottah, five miles from the Court house, asking one Sankaranarayana, who, he says, was his agent to remit Rs. 150 to the vakil soon. As regards the allegation in his affidavit that he was taken ill at Kumbakonam, there appears, as the District Judge has observed, to be no valid reason why he should not have wired directly to his vakil. The defendant was inexcusably remiss, and it would operate as an encouragement to similar remissness in others, if we were to interfere to save him from the consequences.

The main question argued before us in the appeal was whether two partition deeds Ex. AY and AZ were inadmissible in evidence, for want of registration, as intruments “which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title or interest to, or in immoveable property,” within the meaning of Sect. 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

It has been held consistently in this Court that a partition deed which effects a division in status only and not by metes and bounds comes within these words, where the joint family property includes immoveables. It has the effect in Lord Westbury's words in Appuvier's case [Appovier v. Rama Subba Aiyan] of severing the joint tenancy in such immoveables and converting it into a tenancy in common, and thus in the very language of the section operates to extinguish one set of rights in the immoveable properties and to create another set in their place.

In the present case Ex. AY, the earlier deed which provides for an immediate division requires to be registered, unless it can be brought within Cl. (5) of sub-sect. (2) of the same section, which excepts any document not itself creating etc., any right, title or interest in immoveable property, but merely creating a right to obtain another document, which will, when executed, create etc., any such right, title, or interest.

Now Ex. AY does provide that “a partition deed in the terms mentioned herein shall be executed and registered in the Registration Offices of this place (Trivandram) as well as Tinnevelly, as soon as possible” and so far comes within the exception; but, to come within the exception, it must not itself create, declare, assign, limit; or extinguish any right, title, or interest, in immoveable property. We have only to refer to the terms of Ex. AY, to see that it effects a separation or division in status, as from the date of execution. “From this day forward each party shall enjoy the properties in the schedule allotted to his share.” Further it provides that till the execution of the registered deed “this itself shall be in force.” In my opinion Ex. AY is clearly inadmissible as coming within cl. (b) of sub-sect. 1 and not within the exception in sub-sect. (2). Cl. (5). Ex. AY allotted properties valued at Rs. 72,500 to each brother and additional properties valued at Rs. 48,200 to the elder brother by way of jeshta bhagham or elder brother's share. Ex. AZ which was executed about a month later and registered in Travancore apparently in substitution for Ex, AY allotted the same properties to the two brothers but on a different basis. It begins with an enumeration of the joint family properties, which included only some of the scheduled properties and recited that all the remaining properties in the schedules were the self-acquisition of the elder brother Krishnayyar and in his possession and sole control. It goes on “having regard to the fact that our father had no other sons, besides us and as we have been holding and managing our ancestral properties without division and as belonging to our undivided family and as it has been found inconvenient to us to continue in future, and as we have decided to divide and live separately (literally after deciding to live separately) all the properties herein-before mentioned have been included in schedules A and B to this deed; and taking into consideration brotherly affection, as Subramania Aiyar is the only brother of Krishnier and as we have been holding our ancestral properties without division and as belonging to an undivided family, out of all the properties hereto-fore mentioned, those contained in Schedule B have been given up and made over to the second party to this deed, (Subramania Aiyar) as from the 1st of this month”. Ex. AZ then goes on to provide, as regards the lands in Tinnevelly, which consist of properties “belonging to us jointly and to Krishna Aiyar exclusively” a partition deed in respect of the share allotted to each should be immediately registered, in the respective sub-registry offices of the British Territory, in accordance with the terms of the Yadast, executed by us on the 24th Dhanu last (Ex. AY) and in accordance with the Shares specified in the schedules to this partition deed.

Ex. AZ in my opinion was not executed in pursuance of but in substitution for, Ex. AY, which dealt with all the scheduled properties as ancestral, whereas according to the recitals in Ex. AZ, the bulk of them were the self-acquisitions of the elder brother and in his possession and sole control, at the date of the execution. Equally with Ex, AY, it purports within the meaning of Sect. 17 (1) (b) to effect a division in status affecting all the ancestral properties, both in Travancore and Tinnevelly and equally with Ex. AY, it creates and extinguishes rights in such ancestral immoveable properties, whether it be registered or not, and is consequently inadmissible even as regards such properties. As regards the self-acquisitions of the elder brother in British India, which it purports to give to the younger brother, it is all so clearly inadmissible, under Sect. 17 (a) as well as, inoperative under Sect. 123 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Exs. AY and AZ were proved by Sankaranarayana Aiyar the plaintiff's maternal uncle. The plaintiff does not appear to have relied on the evidence taken on commission and the defendant was not represented. The judgment really proceeded on Exs. AY and AZ. which I have held to be inadmissible as evidence of partition. The defendant admits in his written statement that there was a nucleus of ancestral property but pleads that, except the properties set out in schedules A and B to his written statement, all the plaint properties were acquired by his father Krishna Aiyar, the elder brother, with the aid of funds derived from his mother. He alleges that his mother had enormous sums of money of her own, which she gave to her elder son Krishna Aiyar and that it was with this money, that Krishna Aiyar acquired the plaint properties which are not admitted to be ancestral. This has not been proved and the plaint properties must therefore be held to be ancestral. I concur in the order proposed by my learned brother.

Krishnan, J.—The first contention of the defendant-appellant in this appeal is that the Lower Court was wrong in not giving him an opportunity to adduce his evidence and to argue his case. I agree with the learned Chief Justice that no sufficient ground has been made out to justify us, in interfering with the discretion of the Lower Court in this matter. The defendant's failure to instruct his vakil in time, though the case had been posted for hearing and adjourned more than once and though he had received two registered letters from his vakil, warning him, was clearly a piece of negligence on his part. In leaving it to the last moment to instruct his vakil, he took the risk of being unable to do so in time and he must bear the consequences of his failure. Even at the last moment he failed to telegraph to his vakil and it shows his remissness in the matter. In his petition I. A. No. 655 of 1918 to the Lower Court, his main prayer was only that “the Court should be pleased to hear the arguments on his side, before disposing of the suit”. His arguments have now been fully heard by us and he has no reason to complain about it. We must therefore over-rule this contention and proceed to consider the appeal on record as it stands.

The next contention urged by him is that Exs. AY and AZ are inadmissible in evidence, because of Sect. 49 of the Registration Act. As Ex. AY was not registered at all and Ex. AZ was registered only in Travancore, he urges that they could not be used, as evidence of any transaction affecting immoveable property in British India, as has been done by the Lower Court. It cannot be denied that treated as deeds of partition of immoveable property in British India, they will fall within Sect. 17 (1) (b) of the Registration Act and require to be registered. But the learned Vakil for the respondent contends that they fall within Cl. 5, sub-sect. 2 (old clause p) of that section and therefore Cl. 1 (b) does not apply to them at all. To decide this question, we must turn to the language of the documents. Taking Ex. AY first, it calls itself a partition and says: “the property mentioned in Schedule I is allotted to Krishna Aiyar's share and that in Schedule 2 is allotted to Subramania Aiyar's share. From this day forward, each party shall separately enjoy the properties in the schedule allotted to his share”. Then after providing for certain income and for certain arrears of rent to be separately collected and enjoyed, it goes on to say; “a partition deed in the terms mentioned herein should be executed and registered in the registration offices of this place (Travancore) and Tinnevelly; till then this itself should be in force. It then says each party shall enjoy the moveables in his possession and provides that each shall have no concern with the debts of the other. The two schedules give the list of immoveable properties allotted to the share of each brother and they include lands in British India. From its language it seems clear that the parties intended to treat it in itself as the partition deed, at any rate till a fresh deed of partition was executed and registered in further assurance thereof. The document says in express terms that it was to continue in force till then. I cannot accede to the argument that that clause really means that it was to continue in force, only as an agreement to divide hereafter; for, it contradicts the language used in the first part of the deed. It seems to me that it means that it was to remain in force as evidence of a completed partition and that it was intended to take effect as such on the day it was executed. I therefore agree with the learned Chief Justice that it cannot be brought within the scope of Cl. 5 as it cannot be said to have “merely created a right to obtain another document etc”. It did more than that, as it purported by its express language to extinguish the rights of each brother in the properties in the schedule allotted to the other brother and created further rights in himself in those allotted to him. I have not considered any of the authorities cited on Cl. 5, as in my opinion the language of the document before us leaves no scope for any argument on that point.

Ex. AZ stands on much the same footing. Though it has been registered in Travancore no attempt was made to get it registered in Tinnevelly. There are two schedules attached to the document which include the properties in British Territory as well. As regards plaintiff's father the document says “out of these, (that is the properties treated as joint family properties divisible between the two brothers). Properties according to Schedule B have been relinquished in favour of executant No. 2 from the 1st of this month. Transfers of assessment are to be made in respect of properties set apart for each share, pattahs obtained, assessment paid and properties are to be enjoyed for ever and in hereditary succession, with all kinds of liberties and rights.’ It also provides for separate possession and enjoyment of rights of the properties allotted to each brother and there is further an express statement that executant No. 1 shall have no right or liability over the properties in Schedule B. The above language applies equally to the properties in British Territory mentioned in the schedules, with the properties in Travancore, and if registered in British India, it would have been a valid partition deed with reference to them as well. The language of the document thus makes it fall within cl. (b) of Sect. 17 and though there is a reference in it that a partition deed for the Tinnevelly properties should be registered in British India, it cannot be treated as falling within Cl. 5 any more than Ex. AY could be.

I therefore agree with the learned Chief justice that both Exs. AY and AZ required registration, so far as they refer to immoveable properties in British Territory. The penalty attached by Sect. 49 of the Registration Act to non-registration of a document which requires registration is not only that it shall not affect any immoveable. property comprised in it, but also that it shall not be received in evidence “of any transaction affecting such property.” No doubt the prohibition against admissibility in evidence is not an absolute one, but only so far as the documents are used as evidence of such a transaction as above described. In the present suit the plaintiff after setting out the documents in the plaint prayed for a decree on their strength for a declaration that the properties mentioned in the plaint Schedule 1 to 6 fell to the plaintiff's share and that they belonged to him absolutely and asked for the delivery of possession of those if Schedules 1, 4 and 6 which are the immoveable properties included in Schedule 1 of Exs. AY and Schedule B of Ex. AZ, with past mesne profits calculated from the date, when the properties were stated to be divided in those deeds. These prayers show clearly that the plaintiff was relying on these documents as evidence of a completed partition. He no doubt asks for a rgistered partition deed also in his prayer in the plaint, but it is not with reference to these properties alone that he does so, but with reference to others also, which are asked to be divided by Court for the first time and delivered possession of to him. The suit is not in my opinion framed as one for specific performance of an agreement. In fact in his plaint the plaintiff has repudiated the alleged agreement in part, and he cannot seek specific performance of a part alone. It is thus clear that the documents were relied on by the plaintiff and were admitted by the lower Court as evidence of a transaction affecting the immoveable properties included in them. This is against the provisions of Sect. 49 of the Registration Act; and we must exclude them from consideration, as evidence of a prior partition. Apart from the document there is no legal evidence of any partition, between the brothers Krishna Aiyar and Subbramania Aiyar. The suit must therefore be dealt with as one for a general partition, between two co-parceners; it is in reality a suit for such a partition with an allegation that some of the properties included in the plaint were already allotted to plaintiff's share. As he has failed to prove that allegation he must be allowed to fall back on his general right to a share in the joint family properties, as a coparcener. In dividing the joint family properties in British Territory, the Court will of course take into consideration the joint family properties in Tranvancore, which were divided and allotted by Ex. AY to each brother for adjusting the plaintiff's share in the properties in Tinnevelly. Ex. AZ is admissible in evidence with reference to the Travancore properties, as our Registration Act does not apply to that country and it can be relied on to show what properties in that State were allotted to each brother.

The old practice of giving the eldest brother and manager of a joint Hindu family an extra share, as jeshtabhagam, on partition, has now become quite obsolete and cannot be legally enforced, equality of shares between brothers being now the rule. That being so, 2nd plaintiff is entitled to an equal share with the defendant in all joint family properties, wherever situate.

The next question is what are those joint family properties which are liable to be divided. Plaintiff claimed all the properties belonging to the brothers of Subramania Aiyar and Krishna Aiyar to be joint family properties; but defendant asserted that only the properties in Schedules A and B of his written statement were so joint and that the rest were his father Krishna Aiyar's self-acquisitions, as properties purchased from moneys given to him absolutely by his mother. But having admitted the possession by his father of a nucleus of ancestral property, the onus was on the defendent to prove that any of the family properties were his father's self acquisition. He has adduced no evidence himself on this point; but Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar for him has relied on the 1st plaintiffs admission in Ex. AZ before us, that some of the properties are Krishna Aiyar's self-acquisitions. That document, is no doubt, admissable in evidence to prove the admission and there is, no doubt, such an admission in it. But there is an equally clear admission to the contrary by the defendant's father Krishna Ayar in Ex. AY executed a short time before Ex. AZ, that all the properties were divisible between the brothers. I do not think therefore that any value can be attached to either of these admissions as evidence. The result then is that we must hold that none of the properties belonging to the brothers is proved to be a self-acquisition and they must therefore all be treated as ancestral properties and included in the partition.

The findings on issues Nos. 8, 9 and 10 were not challenged before us and must be confirmed.

In the result, the decree of the Lower Court must be set aside and the case remanded to that Court to ascertain what properties in British Territory should be allotted to the plain tiff, to give him his half share in the whole of the joint family properties and in the light of the observations above made to pass a fresh preliminary decree according to law. All costs including the costs of this appeal should be provided for in that decree.

S. S.Decree set aside.

Rajangamier v. Rajangam Ayyar

Judgment Summary — Partition Suit (District Court of Tinnevelly; Appeal)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant / Appellant's Arguments

Plaintiff / Respondent's Contentions

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Rajangamier v. Rajangam Ayyar

Comments

We use cookies to improve your experience