{"id":157992,"date":"2008-02-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008"},"modified":"2017-05-30T19:09:42","modified_gmt":"2017-05-30T13:39:42","slug":"smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP No. 2341 of 2002()\n\n\n1. SMT.ALAMMA CHACKO,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. I.T.H. & COMPANY, C.C.NO.46\/9635,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (AUDIT),\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM.\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.M.KURIAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN\n\n Dated :22\/02\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                                  K.T.SANKARAN, J.\n\n                          --------------------------------------------\n\n                            C.R.P. NO.  2341 OF 2002 G\n\n                          --------------------------------------------\n\n                           Dated this the 22nd  February, 2008\n\n\n                                         O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
        The   petitioners   challenge   in   this   Revision   the   judgment   dated<\/p>\n
5.9.2002  in  C.M.A.No.20  of   2000,   on  the   file   of   the  Court   of  the   District<\/p>\n
Judge of Ernakulam, by which the court below allowed the appeal in part<\/p>\n
and set aside the order dated 10.1.2000 passed by the District Registrar<\/p>\n
(Audit),   Ernakulam   under   Section   45(B)   of   the   Kerala   Stamp   Act.     The<\/p>\n
grievance   of   the   petitioners   is   that   the   appeal   filed   by   them   was   not<\/p>\n
allowed in full by the court below.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        2.     The   second   petitioner   is   a   registered   firm,   namely,   I.T.H.   &<\/p>\n
Company.  The partnership runs hotel business under the name and style<\/p>\n
“International   Hotel”   at   Ernakulam.     The   first   petitioner   is   one   of   the<\/p>\n
partners of the second petitioner firm.   The contention of the petitioners,<\/p>\n
inter   alia,   are   the   following:     Late   K.C.Chacko,   husband   of   the   first<\/p>\n
petitioner,   was   carrying   on   the   hotel   business   as   a  proprietary  concern.<\/p>\n
On   1.4.1966,   a   partnership   was   formed   in   which   K.C.Chacko   and   two<\/p>\n
other persons were partners.  The property in question, namely, 72 cents<\/p>\n
of land in Sy.No.412\/3 of Ernakulam Village, was brought in as the capital<\/p>\n
of K.C.Chacko in the firm.  That property was acquired by K.C.Chacko as<\/p>\n
per   sale   deed   Nos.326\/1959   and   2645\/1963,   Sub   Registrar’s   Office,<\/p>\n
C.R.P. NO.2341 OF 2002<\/p>\n
                                                ::  2  ::\n<\/p>\n
\nErnakulam.   The other two partners contributed cash as their capital.   All<\/p>\n
the three persons were having equal shares in the net profit and loss of<\/p>\n
the   firm.     Since   1.4.1966   the   firm   became   the   owner   of   the   property   in<\/p>\n
question.     Improvements   were   made   and   buildings   were   constructed   in<\/p>\n
the property investing the funds of the firm.  The jenm right of the property<\/p>\n
was purchased   by  the   firm   from   the  Jenmi  in  the  year  1996.    Basic   tax<\/p>\n
was being paid by the firm in the firm name.   The property ceased to be<\/p>\n
the property of K.C.Chacko and it became the property of the firm.<\/p>\n
        3.   K.C.Chacko died on 3.12.1978.   The firm was reconstituted on<\/p>\n
14.12.1978.   The first petitioner was taken in as a partner.   In 1998, the<\/p>\n
legal heirs of K.C.Chacko partitioned the properties as per partition deed<\/p>\n
No.5246 of 1998, Sub Registrar’s Office, Puthencruz.   The nominal right<\/p>\n
of K.C.Chacko in the property in question was allotted to the share of the<\/p>\n
first   petitioner,   widow   of   K.C.Chacko.     The   nominal   right   of   the   first<\/p>\n
petitioner was transferred by gift deed No.2850 of 1999, valuing the same<\/p>\n
at Rs.One lakh.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        4.   It is stated that the first respondent, District Registrar, issued a<\/p>\n
notice   dated   4.8.1999   to   the   first   petitioner   under   Rule   4   of   the   Kerala<\/p>\n
Stamp   (Prevention   of   Undervaluation   of   Instruments)   Rules,   1968,<\/p>\n
wherein it was stated that the proper stamp duty would be Rs.13,36,500\/-<\/p>\n
C.R.P. NO.2341 OF 2002<\/p>\n
                                             ::  3  ::\n<\/p>\n
\nand   that   a   registration   fee   of   Rs.1,98,000\/-   would   be   payable.<\/p>\n
Objections were filed by the first petitioner.  It is alleged that without<\/p>\n
considering the objections, the first respondent issued a provisional<\/p>\n
order under Section 45(B) of the Kerala Stamp Act.  In the said order<\/p>\n
value of the property was fixed at Rs.15,66,05,000\/- and the stamp<\/p>\n
duty   and   registration   fee   payable   were   shown   as   Rs.2,11,28,175\/-<\/p>\n
and   Rs.31,30,100\/-   respectively.    Objections   were   filed   by   the   first<\/p>\n
petitioner.     The   first   respondent   passed   an   order   dated   10.1.2000<\/p>\n
confirming   the   provisional   order.     The   order   dated   10.1.2000   was<\/p>\n
challenged by the petitioners in C.M.A.No.20 of 2000, on the file of<\/p>\n
the District Court, Ernakulam.       Learned District Judge disposed of<\/p>\n
the   appeal   by   judgment   dated   5.9.2000   setting   aside   the   order<\/p>\n
passed by the District Registrar and directing the District Registrar to<\/p>\n
pass a fresh provisional order in accordance with law and in the light<\/p>\n
of   the   observations   contained   in   the   judgment.     The   judgment<\/p>\n
rendered by the court below is under challenge in this Revision.<\/p>\n
        5.     Learned   District   Judge   rejected   the   contention   raised   by<\/p>\n
the   petitioners   that   there   is   no   market   value   at   all   for   the   right<\/p>\n
transferred under the gift deed No.2850\/1999.  The court below held<\/p>\n
that even the petitioners had accepted that there is market value for<\/p>\n
C.R.P. NO.2341 OF 2002<\/p>\n
                                              ::  4  ::\n<\/p>\n
\nthe property and it was assessed at Rs.One lakh.  Therefore, it was<\/p>\n
held that there is no merit in the contention raised by the petitioners<\/p>\n
that there is no market value at all for the right transferred under the<\/p>\n
gift deed.  The court below also rejected the contention raised by the<\/p>\n
learned Government Pleader that gift deed in question is not a bona<\/p>\n
fide   one.     It   was   also   held   that   the   property   in   question   was   the<\/p>\n
contribution   of   late   K.C.Chacko   as   his   capital   in   the   firm.     It   was<\/p>\n
further   held   that   for   the   gift   deed,   stamp   duty   had   to   be   paid   ad<\/p>\n
valorem on the value of the property transferred.  It was held that the<\/p>\n
value of the property was not correctly ascertained.  The court below<\/p>\n
held that the District Registrar had not followed the procedure under<\/p>\n
Rules 4 and 5 of the Kerala Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of<\/p>\n
Instruments)   Rules,   1968   and  that   it   is  impossible   to   ascertain   the<\/p>\n
basis on which the District Registrar came to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
value   of   the   right   transferred   under   the   gift   deed   was<\/p>\n
Rs.15,66,05,000\/-.     On   these   findings,   the   order   passed   by   the<\/p>\n
District Registrar was set aside and he was directed to pass a fresh<\/p>\n
provisional order in accordance with Rule 5.    The District Registrar<\/p>\n
was directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to make their<\/p>\n
submissions against the provisional order and to pass a considered<\/p>\n
C.R.P. NO.2341 OF 2002<\/p>\n
                                              ::  5  ::\n<\/p>\n
\norder under Section 45(B) of the Kerala Stamp Act.<\/p>\n
      6.  The contentions raised by the petitioners are the following:<\/p>\n
a)    There is no undervaluation.\n\n\nb)    There   is   no   conveyance\/transfer   of   the   property   as   per   the\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
      document  in  question  and   what  is transferred   is only  the   nominal<\/p>\n
      jenm right.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
c)    The property was already owned by the partnership and it was in<\/p>\n
      the possession of the firm.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
d)    The   value   was   correctly   shown   in   the   document.     In   the<\/p>\n
      proceedings   under   Section   33,   it   was   found   that   the   value   was<\/p>\n
      correctly   stated   in   the   document   and,   therefore,   a   different<\/p>\n
      conclusion is not possible thereafter.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
e)    After 1.4.1966, K.C.Chacko had no ownership or possession over<\/p>\n
      the property under Section 14 of the Indian Partnership Act.   The<\/p>\n
      court   below   was   not   right   in   holding   that   the   first   petitioner   had<\/p>\n
      rights in the partnership property including the property in question.<\/p>\n
      What   was   gifted   was   only   the   right   which   remained   with   late<\/p>\n
      K.C.Chacko.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
f)    At  the   time   of   transfer,   the   transferor,   namely,   the   first   petitioner,<\/p>\n
      had no title or right over the property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
g)    The instrument is not a conveyance.\n\n\nC.R.P. NO.2341 OF 2002\n\n\n\n                                              ::  6  ::\n\n\nh)      On retirement, a partner ceased to have any right or interest in the\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
        property and his right is only to recover what is due on settlement<\/p>\n
        of accounts.  Therefore, at the time when the document in question<\/p>\n
        was executed,  the first petitioner  had no  right or interest  over  the<\/p>\n
        property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
i)      What was sought to be transferred was the nominal right of the first<\/p>\n
        petitioner, her name being there in the Revenue records and other<\/p>\n
        official records, so as to make the assignee’s name to be entered<\/p>\n
        in the official records.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
j)      The court below should have allowed the appeal in its entirety and<\/p>\n
        should   have   set   aside   the   entire   proceedings   of   the   District<\/p>\n
        Registrar.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        7.     The   learned   Government   Pleader,   on   the   other   hand,<\/p>\n
contended   that   the  order   passed   by  the  District   Registrar is   a  legal  and<\/p>\n
proper   one.     It   was   also   submitted   by   the   learned   Government   Pleader<\/p>\n
that   the   finding   of   the   court   below   that   the   landed   property   was<\/p>\n
contributed as the capital of the firm by K.C.Chacko is not correct on the<\/p>\n
face   of   the   partnership   deed.     He   also   submitted   that   the   document   in<\/p>\n
question   is   not   a   bona   fide   transaction   and   that   stamp   duty   and<\/p>\n
registration   fee   are   payable   on   the   market   value   of   the   property.     On<\/p>\n
dissolution of the firm, the property of the partnership would vest in all the<\/p>\n
C.R.P. NO.2341 OF 2002<\/p>\n
                                                ::  7  ::\n<\/p>\n
\npartners of the firm and a partner can assign his rights in the firm to any<\/p>\n
one.    However, the  transferee  is not entitled  to be  a  partner  in the firm.<\/p>\n
On a transfer so made by a partner in the property of the firm, the value of<\/p>\n
such interest transferred shall be the market value of his due share for the<\/p>\n
purpose   of   stamp   duty   and   registration   fee.     The   property   was<\/p>\n
undervalued to evade payment of stamp duty and registration fee.<\/p>\n
        8.  After carefully considering the contentions raised by the parties,<\/p>\n
the  order and judgment,  as well as the records of  the  case,  I am of  the<\/p>\n
view that the direction issued by the learned District Judge to consider the<\/p>\n
matter afresh was only legal and proper.   I agree with the reasoning and<\/p>\n
conclusion made by the learned District Judge that there was infraction of<\/p>\n
Rules  4 and   5  and   that   the   procedure  was not   properly  followed  by  the<\/p>\n
District   Registrar.     However,   I   am   of   the   view   that   the   learned   District<\/p>\n
Judge   should   have   directed   the   District   Registrar   to   consider   all   the<\/p>\n
contentions   raised   by   both   the   parties   afresh.     Whether   the   property   in<\/p>\n
question   became   the   partnership   property,   whether   the   value   shown   in<\/p>\n
the document is legal and proper, whether the transaction is  genuine and<\/p>\n
whether   only   the   nominal   rights   were   transferred   as   contended   by   the<\/p>\n
petitioners are all matters forming a series of circumstances which should<\/p>\n
be considered while deciding the case.   I am of the view that the learned<\/p>\n
District Judge need not have arrived at a finding that the property was not<\/p>\n
C.R.P. NO.2341 OF 2002<\/p>\n
                                                  ::  8  ::\n<\/p>\n
\nproperly valued in the document and that the property was transferred to<\/p>\n
the firm as capital of late K.C.Chacko.   These findings are also vacated.<\/p>\n
The   entire   case   is   remanded   for   fresh   consideration   by   the   District<\/p>\n
Registrar.     The   District   Registrar   shall   consider   all   the   objections   and<\/p>\n
contentions   raised   by   both   the   parties   and   dispose   of   the   case   afresh.<\/p>\n
The District Registrar shall pass  a reasoned  order touching  upon all the<\/p>\n
contentions raised by both the parties.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        In  the  result,  the  Civil Revision  Petition is allowed  in  part  and the<\/p>\n
judgment   impugned   is   set   aside   in   so   far   as   it  relates   to   the   concluded<\/p>\n
findings   rendered   by   the   learned   District   Judge   except   those   which   are<\/p>\n
confirmed   as   per   this   order.     It   is   made   clear   that   the   finding   that   the<\/p>\n
District Registrar had not complied with the procedural formalities and that<\/p>\n
there   was   no   proper   disposal   of   the   case   by   the   District   Registrar   is<\/p>\n
confirmed.  The direction to pass a fresh provisional order as indicated in<\/p>\n
paragraph   10   of   the   judgment   impugned   and   the   other   directions   in<\/p>\n
paragraph 10, are also confirmed.  The District Registrar shall dispose of<\/p>\n
the matter afresh in the manner indicated above.  No order as to costs.<\/p>\n
                                                                          (K.T.SANKARAN)<\/p>\n
                                                                                  Judge<\/p>\n
ahz\/<\/p>\n
        K.T.SANKARAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
——————————————-<\/p>\n
——————————————-<\/p>\n
 C.R.P.NO. 2341 OF 2002 G<\/p>\n
              O R D E R<\/p>\n
       22nd February,  2008<\/p>\n
——————————————-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP No. 2341 of 2002() 1. SMT.ALAMMA CHACKO, … Petitioner 2. I.T.H. & COMPANY, C.C.NO.46\/9635, Vs 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (AUDIT), … Respondent 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM. For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KURIAN For Respondent […]<\/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-157992","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008 - 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\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-30T13:39:42+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-30T13:39:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1801,\"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\\\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-30T13:39:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008 - 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\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-30T13:39:42+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008","datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-30T13:39:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008"},"wordCount":1801,"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\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008","name":"Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-02-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-30T13:39:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-alamma-chacko-vs-the-district-registrar-audit-on-22-february-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt.Alamma Chacko vs The District Registrar (Audit) on 22 February, 2008"}]},{"@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\/157992","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=157992"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157992\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157992"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}