{"id":118014,"date":"2010-06-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010"},"modified":"2018-05-04T07:02:51","modified_gmt":"2018-05-04T01:32:51","slug":"mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 7 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 7 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 27081 of 2009(E)\n\n\n1. MARIYAMMA GEORGE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. ANTONY JOSEPH,\n3. K.K.JOSEPH,\n4. JOSEPH CHAMAKALA,\n5. K.J.ABRAHAM,\n6. JOY KOTTATHIL,\n7. ADV. K.A.PRASAD,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE AYARKUNNAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE\n\n3. THE PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN\n\n Dated :07\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                                                                 C.R.\n                    K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.\n                        ---------------------------\n                   W.P.(C) No. 27081 OF 2009\n                         --------------------------\n               Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioners are members of the Board of Directors of<\/p>\n
Ayarkunnam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, the second respondent<\/p>\n
herein, who along with four others had assumed office on<\/p>\n
3.12.2004. One of the members of the Board of Directors, viz., Shri.<\/p>\n
O.K.Ramankutty is no more.         Three other members who do not<\/p>\n
support the petitioners, have got themselves impleaded as<\/p>\n
additional respondents 4 to 6 in this writ petition. The term of office<\/p>\n
of the committee comprising of the petitioners has expired on<\/p>\n
2.12.2009. As per resolution No: 1308 dated 18.9.2009, the Board<\/p>\n
of Directors had resolved to conduct a fresh election to the Board on<\/p>\n
29.11.2009. The said resolution is Ext.P1. However, no action was<\/p>\n
taken for the conduct of the election thereafter.<\/p>\n
      2.   On 25.8.2008, an organisation called the Sahakarana<\/p>\n
Janadhipathya Samrakshana Munnani, Ayarkunnam unit had filed a<\/p>\n
petition before the first respondent Joint Registrar alleging<\/p>\n
corruption, nepotism and maladministration against the Board of<\/p>\n
Directors. On the basis of the said complaint, the first respondent<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
directed the conduct of an enquiry against the committee under<\/p>\n
Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,1969 (the ‘Act’<\/p>\n
for short). Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted and the report of<\/p>\n
the said enquiry is Ext.P2. On the basis of the said enquiry, the first<\/p>\n
respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioners under<\/p>\n
Section 65 of the Act seeking their explanation for the alleged<\/p>\n
irregularities in Ext.P2 report. The said show cause notice is Ext.P3.<\/p>\n
In response to the show cause notice, the petitioners submitted<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 explanation to the first respondent. Thereafter, a personal<\/p>\n
hearing was also conducted on 19.9.2009. Though the petitioners<\/p>\n
were under the impression that their explanations would be accepted<\/p>\n
by the first respondent, as per Ext.P5 proceedings, the Board of<\/p>\n
Directors were superseded and the third respondent has been<\/p>\n
appointed as the Administrator of the Society.      According to the<\/p>\n
petitioners, even before a copy of Ext.P5 was served on the<\/p>\n
petitioners, the third respondent had assumed office. The petitioners<\/p>\n
challenge Ext.P5 proceedings as being violative of the provisions of<\/p>\n
Sections 32 and 65 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The first respondent has filed counter affidavit justifying the<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
impugned order Ext.P5. A separate counter affidavit has been filed<\/p>\n
on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 also justifying the impugned<\/p>\n
proceedings. Additional respondents 4 to 6 are also supporting the<\/p>\n
respondents, as is evident from the statements in the affidavit filed in<\/p>\n
support of their impleading petition I.A. No.12236\/2009.<\/p>\n
      4. The gist of the contentions of the respondents is that the<\/p>\n
petitioners, who constitute the majority in the Board of Directors,<\/p>\n
were guilty of various acts of maladministration and misutilisation of<\/p>\n
the funds of the society. According to them, the allegations against<\/p>\n
the petitioners listed in Ext.P2 report constitute very serious acts of<\/p>\n
misfeasance and malfeasance that justify the action that is initiated<\/p>\n
against them.     It is contended that in view of the gravity of the<\/p>\n
charges against the petitioners, which are all proved, urgent and<\/p>\n
drastic action was necessitated. In the compelling circumstances,<\/p>\n
the first respondent had issued Ext.P5 which is absolutely justified<\/p>\n
and is in compliance with the relevant provisions of law that are<\/p>\n
applicable. Therefore, they pray for a dismissal of the writ petition.<\/p>\n
      5. I have heard Shri. George Poonthottam who appears for the<\/p>\n
petitioners, the learned senior Govt. Pleader Shri. Mohammed<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
Hashim who appears for the first respondent, Adv. P.C.Sasidharan<\/p>\n
who appears for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri. B. Krishnamani who<\/p>\n
appears for additional respondents 4 to 6.\n<\/p>\n
      6. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the impugned<\/p>\n
proceedings Ext.P5 are absolutely unsustainable and liable to be set<\/p>\n
aside for the reason that they have been issued in gross violation of<\/p>\n
the mandatory provisions that are required to be complied with before<\/p>\n
the issue of such proceedings by Sections 65 and 32 of the Act.<\/p>\n
Regarding the factual allegations raised against the petitioners, the<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioners reiterates the explanation submitted as per<\/p>\n
Ext.P4.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    Adv. P.C.Sasidharan referred to the gravity of the<\/p>\n
allegations raised against the petitioners to point out that loans have<\/p>\n
been granted by them without proper documents or security, that an<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.6.5 lakhs was deposited in the name of the Secretary<\/p>\n
instead of depositing the same in the name of the Bank. When the<\/p>\n
Secretary died, the amount was taken away by his wife. It is also<\/p>\n
pointed out that the bank is running at a loss of Rs.26 lakhs at<\/p>\n
present. According to the counsel, Section 65(6) empowers the first<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent to initiate action under Section 32 of the Act. Therefore,<\/p>\n
action was initiated under Section 32.         Since Section 32(3)<\/p>\n
empowers the first respondent to dispense with the opportunity for<\/p>\n
being heard, it is submitted that such an opportunity was dispensed<\/p>\n
with. It is also pointed out that the general body of the society had<\/p>\n
not met since the year 2006 and that non-convening of the general<\/p>\n
body is one of the grounds for superseding the Committee.<\/p>\n
      8. Adv. Krishnamani submits that additional respondents 4 to 6<\/p>\n
had resigned from the committee on 24.8.2009. Since no action was<\/p>\n
taken on their resignation letters by the President, they had<\/p>\n
complained to the Joint Registrar on 5.9.2009.      According to the<\/p>\n
counsel, though they were part of the Board of Directors, they were<\/p>\n
not responsible for any of the alleged misdeeds for the reason that<\/p>\n
they had resigned from the committee. He relies on the decision of<\/p>\n
this Court in State of Kerala v. Sudarsanan<\/a> {1997(2) KLT 522} to<\/p>\n
submit that action under Section 32 could be initiated by the<\/p>\n
Registrar even without taking resort to the provisions under Section<\/p>\n
65 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are not liable to<\/p>\n
be set aside. He also refers to the seriousness of the allegations<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
levelled against the petitioners to submit that the supersession was<\/p>\n
perfectly justified. It is also the contention of the counsel for<\/p>\n
respondents 4 to 6 that the first respondent had formed an objective<\/p>\n
opinion on the basis of the various allegations against the petitioners<\/p>\n
to which he has referred to in Ext.P5.\n<\/p>\n
      9. In reply, the counsel for the petitioners points out that the<\/p>\n
Secretary of the Society, who has sworn to the counter affidavit in<\/p>\n
this case, is a person who is also liable along with the petitioners in<\/p>\n
view of Rule 47 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. It<\/p>\n
is also pointed out that in Ext.P5 the first respondent has dispensed<\/p>\n
with only the consultation that is contemplated under Section 32(2)<\/p>\n
and that there is no reason stated for not following the procedure<\/p>\n
mandated by Section 32(1) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      10.   The power of enquiry by the Registrar is conferred by<\/p>\n
Section 65 of the Act. In the present case, the action of the Registrar<\/p>\n
has been initiated pursuant to a complaint by an outside<\/p>\n
organisation. Pursuant to the complaint, an enquiry was ordered by<\/p>\n
the first respondent and the report of the enquiry is Ext.P2. Section<\/p>\n
65(4) stipulates that where an enquiry made under the section<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
reveals only minor defects which in the opinion of the Registrar can<\/p>\n
be remedied by the society, he shall communicate the result of the<\/p>\n
enquiry to the society and he shall direct the society or its officers to<\/p>\n
take such action within the time specified therein to rectify the<\/p>\n
defects disclosed by such enquiry. Sub Section (6) provides that if<\/p>\n
the Registrar on completion of the enquiry finds that there is a major<\/p>\n
defect in the constitution or working or financial condition of the<\/p>\n
society, he may initiate action in accordance with the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 32.     Therefore, the Registrar on receipt of the report of<\/p>\n
enquiry has to first enter a finding as to whether the report of enquiry<\/p>\n
reveals only a minor defect or whether there is a major defect in the<\/p>\n
constitution, working or financial condition of the society.      Where<\/p>\n
there are only minor defects, the Registrar is empowered to direct the<\/p>\n
society to rectify the defects. Whereas, in the case of major defects,<\/p>\n
he may initiate proceedings in accordance with the provisions of<\/p>\n
Section 32. Therefore, a finding that the report of enquiry reveals a<\/p>\n
major defect in the constitution or working or financial condition of the<\/p>\n
society is a pre-condition for the initiation of action under Section 32<\/p>\n
of the Act. The Joint Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                     8<\/span><\/p>\n
is empowered to initiate proceedings in terms of Section 65 of the<\/p>\n
Act, as done in the present case.\n<\/p>\n
      11. The question as to what is the correct procedure to be<\/p>\n
followed while initiating proceedings under Section 65 of the Act has<\/p>\n
been considered by this Court in the decision reported in Kandalloor<\/p>\n
Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar<\/a> {2008<\/p>\n
(4) KLT 856}.       In paragraph 9 of the said decision, Thottathil<\/p>\n
B.Radhakrishnan, J. has summarised the procedure to be followed<\/p>\n
in the following words:-\n<\/p>\n
              “To arrive at the procedure to be followed, the<\/p>\n
        officer exercising the powers of the Registrar under<\/p>\n
        S.65 has necessarily to conclude whether the<\/p>\n
        enquiry reveals only minor defects or whether there<\/p>\n
        is major defect in the constitution or working or<\/p>\n
        financial   condition    of    the   society.       The<\/p>\n
        consequences of the views that the Registrar may<\/p>\n
        have, following the enquiry under S.65(5), could be<\/p>\n
        drastic; having regard to S.68 and other provisions.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        The legislative authorization in sub-section(6) of<\/p>\n
        S.65 that the Registrar may initiate action in<\/p>\n
        accordance with the provisions of S.32 is regulated<\/p>\n
        by the jurisdictional fact that the said officer reaches<\/p>\n
        a finding that there is major defect in either among<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
       the three aspects, namely, constitution, working and<\/p>\n
       financial condition of the society. On completion of<\/p>\n
       enquiry under sub-section (5) of S.65, the Registrar<\/p>\n
       will get the authority to initiate action in accordance<\/p>\n
       with the provisions of S.32 on the basis of that<\/p>\n
       enquiry, only when the Registrar, on completion of<\/p>\n
       the enquiry, finds that there is such major defect.<\/p>\n
       That provision in S.65(6), in contradistinction to<\/p>\n
       sub-section (1)     of S.32, would show that the<\/p>\n
       grounds available for action under S.65(6) would be<\/p>\n
       beyond even those in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-\n<\/p>\n
       section (1) of S.32. All that the last limb of sub-<\/p>\n
       section (6) of S.65 provides is that the action under<\/p>\n
       that sub-section shall be in accordance with the<\/p>\n
       provisions of S.32. Therefore, to initiate action for<\/p>\n
       supersession on the basis of findings in an enquiry<\/p>\n
       under S.65(5), the Registrar has to definitely reach<\/p>\n
       at a finding that there are major defects in the<\/p>\n
       constitution or working or financial condition of the<\/p>\n
       society.   Having commenced proceedings under<\/p>\n
       S.65, the Registrar cannot abdicate, or defer, the<\/p>\n
       function of arriving at a conclusion for himself<\/p>\n
       following the enquiry under S.65 and then, with the<\/p>\n
       materials gathered in the inquiry under S.65, move<\/p>\n
       on to S.32(1) of the Act. If that was permissible in<\/p>\n
       terms of the legislative intention, there was no<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                   10<\/span><\/p>\n
        necessity for sub-section (6) to use the words<\/p>\n
        “major defect” when such terms are not available in<\/p>\n
        S.32(1).”\n<\/p>\n
      I do not find any reasons to take a different view of the matter.<\/p>\n
      12. While initiating further action under Section 32 of the Act,<\/p>\n
the procedure contemplated by Section 32 would have to be<\/p>\n
complied with. As per Section 32(1), the Registrar has to be satisfied<\/p>\n
that the committee of the society was guilty of persistent default or<\/p>\n
negligence in the performance of the duties imposed on it by the Act,<\/p>\n
or disobedience of the lawful orders or directions issued under the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act and the Rules or any of the other circumstances<\/p>\n
enumerated therein. After having satisfied himself of the fact that the<\/p>\n
circumstances justifying supersession of the committee were in<\/p>\n
existence, he has to give an opportunity to the committee to state its<\/p>\n
objections and thereafter he can remove the committee from office<\/p>\n
and appoint a new committee in its place. Therefore, the question to<\/p>\n
be decided in the present case is whether the first respondent has<\/p>\n
complied with the above conditions before issuing Ext.P5 order.<\/p>\n
      13. As noticed above, Ext.P2 is the report of the enquiry under<\/p>\n
Section 65 of the Act. It is true that various findings regarding the<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
allegations against the petitioners have been reported in Ext.P2.<\/p>\n
Therefore, Ext.P3 notice was issued to the petitioners directing them<\/p>\n
to submit their explanation and to attend a personal hearing on<\/p>\n
19.9.2006. Ext.P3 notice does not contain any finding regarding the<\/p>\n
nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioners or their<\/p>\n
sustainability. Ext.P3 merely states that the irregularities mentioned<\/p>\n
therein have been found in the enquiry report under Section 65 of the<\/p>\n
Act. Therefore, the members of the Board of Directors have been<\/p>\n
directed to submit their explanations, if any, on 19.9.2009.       An<\/p>\n
opportunity to explain matters in person has also been granted as<\/p>\n
per Ext.P3.\n<\/p>\n
      14. Pursuant to Ext.P3, Ext.P4 explanation has been submitted<\/p>\n
by the petitioners.    Ext.P5 shows that they were also personally<\/p>\n
heard on 19.9.2009.      Thereafter, Ext.P5 proceedings have been<\/p>\n
issued, without following any other procedure. The Board has been<\/p>\n
superseded as per Ext.P5 and a part-time administrator has been<\/p>\n
appointed for the Society.\n<\/p>\n
      15. It is clear from the above that the first respondent has not<\/p>\n
complied with the requirements of Section 65(6) or Section 32(1) of<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
the Act. As per Section 65(6), the first respondent had to enter a<\/p>\n
finding that there was a “major defect” in the constitution or working<\/p>\n
or financial condition of the Society. In the present case, no such<\/p>\n
finding has been entered by the first respondent.        Once such a<\/p>\n
finding is entered, the first respondent has the power to initiate action<\/p>\n
in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 of the Act. Section<\/p>\n
32 of the Act provides that where the Registrar is “satisfied” after an<\/p>\n
enqiry by himself or through his subordinates or on a report of the<\/p>\n
financing bank or the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau of the<\/p>\n
Government or the Vigilance officer or otherwise, that the committee<\/p>\n
of a Society is guilty of one of the acts contemplated by Clauses (a)<\/p>\n
to (d) of sub-section (1) thereof, he could proceed to take action<\/p>\n
under the said provision. In such cases, the Registrar is duty bound<\/p>\n
to give the committee an opportunity to state its objections, if any. It<\/p>\n
is only thereafter that the Registrar has the power to pass an order<\/p>\n
superseding the committee. No doubt sub-section (3) of Section 32<\/p>\n
confers power on the Registrar to dispense with the opportunity<\/p>\n
contemplated by sub-section (1) and the consultation contemplated<\/p>\n
by sub-section (2) where the Registrar is of the opinion that it is not<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                   13<\/span><\/p>\n
reasonably practicable to do so. In the present case, though Ext.P5<\/p>\n
contains a statement dispensing with the consultation contemplated<\/p>\n
by Section 32(3), there is no similar statement dispensing with an<\/p>\n
opportunity under Section 32(1). In other words, Ext.P5 does not<\/p>\n
contain any finding that the irregularities found by Ext.P2 report<\/p>\n
constitute a “major defect’ as contemplated by Section 65(6) of the<\/p>\n
Act. Such a finding is important for the reason that the procedure to<\/p>\n
be followed in the case of “minor defect” is as laid down in sub-<\/p>\n
section (4) whereas it is only in cases where a major defect is found<\/p>\n
that the procedure under Section 65(6) of the Act is to be adopted.<\/p>\n
Even when the Registrar is of the opinion that there is a “major<\/p>\n
defect” in the constitution or working or financial condition of a<\/p>\n
Society, he has to proceed under Section 32. It is clear from Ext.P5<\/p>\n
that in the present case the procedure contemplated by Section 65(6)<\/p>\n
as well as Section 32(1) have not been complied with.<\/p>\n
      16. Though the learned senior Government Pleader as well as<\/p>\n
the counsel for the contesting respondents have vehemently argued<\/p>\n
that a close reading of Exts.P3 and P5 would show that the first<\/p>\n
respondent has applied his mind to the findings in Ext.P2 and that he<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
had formed an opinion regarding the said findings, they are not<\/p>\n
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of either Section 65(6) or<\/p>\n
Section 32(1) of the Act which are mandatory. The finding regarding<\/p>\n
a “major defect” and the “satisfaction” contemplated by Section 32(1)<\/p>\n
of the Act have to be objectively arrived at and specifically entered. It<\/p>\n
is clear from the wording of the provisions referred to above that the<\/p>\n
legislature in its wisdom has conferred the drastic power of<\/p>\n
supersession on the Registrar, hedged in by sufficient procedural<\/p>\n
safeguards aimed at ensuring that the power was not misused.<\/p>\n
When the statute provides that the exercise of a power shall be only<\/p>\n
in accordance with the procedure stipulated in the provision, it follows<\/p>\n
that the said power is not capable of being exercised in any other<\/p>\n
manner.\n<\/p>\n
      17. The learned senior Government Pleader as well as the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the respondents were at considerable strain to<\/p>\n
point out that the allegations levelled against the petitioners, by their<\/p>\n
very nature are grave and serious. Therefore, it was not necessary<\/p>\n
for the first respondent to specifically categorise the said irregularities<\/p>\n
as “major defects”. Even without such a categorisation, the gravity of<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                                  15<\/span><\/p>\n
the defects was evident and clear in the present case. However, it is<\/p>\n
a specific finding that there was “major defect” that is contemplated<\/p>\n
by Section 65(6). When the provision specifically provides that the<\/p>\n
action of the authority shall be preceded by a finding regarding the<\/p>\n
existence of a “major defect”, a finding regarding the said<\/p>\n
jurisdictional fact is necessary for initiating further action under<\/p>\n
Section 32(1) of the Act. In the present case, since there is neither<\/p>\n
such a finding nor compliance with Section 32(1), Ext.P5 cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained.\n<\/p>\n
      For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5<\/p>\n
is quashed. It is made clear that the setting aside of Ext.P5 would<\/p>\n
not preclude the first respondent from initiating appropriate action<\/p>\n
afresh, on Ext.P2 report in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
                                              K.SURENDRA MOHAN
\n                                                          (JUDGE )<\/p>\n
vps<\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                      16<\/span><\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                      17<\/span><\/p>\n
W.P.C. No.27081\/09
\n                      18<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 7 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 27081 of 2009(E) 1. MARIYAMMA GEORGE, … Petitioner 2. ANTONY JOSEPH, 3. K.K.JOSEPH, 4. JOSEPH CHAMAKALA, 5. K.J.ABRAHAM, 6. JOY KOTTATHIL, 7. ADV. K.A.PRASAD, Vs 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118014","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-04T01:32:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 7 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-04T01:32:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3016,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Mariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-04T01:32:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 7 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-04T01:32:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 7 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-04T01:32:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010"},"wordCount":3016,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010","name":"Mariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 7 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-04T01:32:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mariyamma-george-vs-the-joint-registrar-of-on-7-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mariyamma George vs The Joint Registrar Of … on 7 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118014","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118014"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118014\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118014"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118014"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118014"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}