{"id":165455,"date":"2007-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007"},"modified":"2018-03-30T23:21:13","modified_gmt":"2018-03-30T17:51:13","slug":"the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"The Inspector General Of … vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Inspector General Of … vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDATED : 12\/12\/2007\n\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA\nAND\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU\n\n\nWRIT APPEAL No.307 OF 2005,\nWRIT APPEAL No.336 OF 2005\n\n\n1.The Inspector General of Registration,\n   Santhome,\n   Chennai-28.\n\n2.The Sub-Registrar,\n   Srirangam,\n   Trichy District.\t\t...\tAppellants in both appeals\n\n\nvs\n\n\n1.M.Gandhimathi\n2.M.Gayathri\n3.Varadharajan\n4.V.Poomathi\n5.Rathinam\n6.Parameswari\t\t\t...\tRespondents in both appeals.\n\n\nAppeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.\n\n\n!For appellants \t...\tMr.R.Janakiramulu,\n\t\t          \tSpl.Govt.Pleader.\n\n\n^For respondents \t...\tMr.K.S.Vamsidhar\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
S.PALANIVELU,J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appeals are filed against the common order, dated 08.12.2004, passed
\nby a learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.2723 and 2724 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The facts, which led to the filing of these appeals, are as follows:
\n\t2.1. The properties comprised in T.S.Nos.12 and 11\/2 sprawling to an
\nextent of Ac.4.47.1\/2 Cents and Ac.1.49 Cents respectively, situate in
\nVellithirumutham Village of Srirangam Taluk originally belonged to one Kasi
\nRamachari, who bequeathed the same and other properties for various charities,
\nby means of a registered Will on 06.04.1927.  Thereafter, two of his
\ndescendants, by name Krishnan and Rangarajan filed C.S.No.1544 of 1992 on the
\nOriginal Side of Principal Bench of this Court at Madras against three other
\ndescendants, namely, Ranganayaki, Jayalakshmi and Rajalakshmi, for the reliefs
\nof interpretation of the Will and for permitting them to sell the said
\nproperties, subject to the terms and conditions, to be imposed by the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.2. On 04.05.1993, this Court passed an order, permitting the plaintiffs
\nviz., Krishnan and Rangarajan, to sell the properties as per the procedure set
\nout by the Court and to deposit the sale proceeds. In pursuance of the
\ndirection, on the basis of the advertisements made by the plaintiffs, various
\npersons made offers to purchase the properties.  One Sundararaman offered to
\npurchase the properties by himself or by his nominees at a price of Rs.18.00
\nlakhs.  The properties were in the possession of a cultivating tenant.  The
\noffers obtained were placed before the Court and this Court on 29.04.2003,
\naccepting the offer made by Sundararaman, permitted the plaintiffs to sell the
\nproperties to him or his nominees.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.3. The present respondents were nominated by the above said
\nSundararaman, who purchased the properties under two sale deeds, dated
\n15.09.2003, but, the same were refused to be registered by the Sub-Registrar,
\nSrirangam.  Subsequently, though the documents were registered on 14.04.2004,
\nthe sale deeds were retained by the Registering Authority and they were not
\nreturned to the purchasers nor were they referred to the Collector, under
\nSection 47-A (3) of The Indian Stamp Act (in short, “the Act”). Hence, they
\nfiled Writ Petitions before this Court, to complete registration of the sale
\ndeeds and to return them back.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.4. This Court, by an order, dated 08.12.2004, granted the prayers sought
\nfor by the petitioners, directing the authority to complete registration and to
\nreturn the same to them, within a period of one month from the date of the
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.5 Hence, these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.6. When both these appeals had come up for admission before this Court
\non an earlier occasion on 11.08.2005, this Court disposed of the same, with a
\nfinding that there was no error in the ultimate direction issued by the learned
\nJudge directing return of the originals of the documents and that the
\nrespondents\/appellants were certainly entitled to make necessary endorsement on
\nthe documents relating to the pendency of the proceedings under Section 47-A of
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.7. Since the said order was passed in the absence of appearance of the
\ncounsel for the respondents herein, Review Application Nos.35 and 36 of 2007
\ncame to be filed and, on 26.09.2007, a Division Bench of this Court allowed both
\nthe applications, recalling the order passed on 11.08.2005, under an observation
\nthat the Writ Appeals were disposed of at the stage of admission, without
\nhearing the review applicants.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.8. Therefore, the appeals are again before this Court, for
\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. Much was said about the responsibility of the Registering Authority
\nunder Section 47-A (1) of the Act.   In order to have a thorough discussion in
\nthis matter, it is appropriate to extract the provisions under Section 47-A (1)
\n(2) and (3) of the Act, which read as under :\n<\/p>\n
“47-A. Instruments of conveyance etc., under-valued how to be dealt with.- (1)
\nIf the registering officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act,1908
\n(Central Act XVI of 1908) while registering any instrument of conveyance,
\nexchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement, has reason to believe
\nthat the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance,
\nexchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement, has not been truly set
\nforth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the
\nsame to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and
\nthe proper duty payable thereon.\n<\/p>\n
\t(2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall,
\nafter giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after
\nholding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this
\nAct, determine the market value of the property which is the subject matter of
\nconveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement and the duty
\nas aforesaid.  The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable
\nby the person liable to pay the duty.\n<\/p>\n
\t(3) The Collector may, suo motu or otherwise, within five years from the
\ndate of registration of any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of
\nbenami right or settlement not already referred to him under sub-section (1),
\ncall for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to
\nthe correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter
\nof conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement and the
\nduty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reason to believe
\nthat the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the
\ninstrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty as
\naforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (2).  The
\ndifference, if any in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable
\nto pay the duty.”\n<\/p>\n
\t4. The above said provisions have been enacted, to put a curb on the
\npractice of undervaluing the property, for the purpose of getting registration.
\nThe rationale behind Section 47-A is to neutralise the effect of under-valuation
\nof the property.  If the market value of the property has not been truly set
\nforth with an intention of fraudulently avoiding payment of stamp duty, the said
\nprovisions would come to play a vital role. Though the market value is a
\nfluctuating factor depending upon a variety of circumstances, yet, the
\nlegislature thought it fit to have a control over the stamp duty evaders, who,
\nunder the guise of an agreement, undervalue the property.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Having regard to the object of the Act, normally, the consideration
\nstated as the market value in a given instrument, brought for registration,
\nshould be taken as correct, unless the circumstances exist, which suggest
\nfraudulent evasion.  In this connection, the Registering Authority is expected
\nby law to get satisfied himself with the existing factor that the property is
\nunder-valued.  If in his opinion the market value furnished is not correct, a
\nstatutory duty is cast on him to register the instrument and send the same to
\nthe Collector, for determination of the market value.  It is also to be noted
\nthat Section 47-A does not confer any jurisdiction to the Registering Authority
\nto refuse registration, merely because the property is under-valued.  Further,
\nthe said provision does not authorise him to require the person concerned to pay
\nadditional stamp duty.  Registration of a document is a sine qua non, for
\nreferring it to the Collector. The law requires the Registering Authority, to
\nfurnish reasons for coming to a conclusion that the property is under-valued.
\nThe provision does not empower the Registering Authority to hold a roving
\nenquiry, for ascertaining the proper stamp duty, but, it expects him to find out
\nprima facie in his belief, whether the market value of the property is
\nimproperly brought down.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. With regard to the above said guidelines and procedures to be followed
\nby the Registering Authority, while the facts of the present case are
\nconsidered, the necessary corollary would be, the Registering Authority viz.,
\nthe Sub-Registrar, Srirangam, had miserably failed to observe them.  Without
\nassigning any reason, he had been retaining the documents, without registering
\nthem and, only after filing of the Writ Petitions, he proceeded to register the
\nsame on 14.04.2004.  The lethargic attitude and inaction on the part of the
\nRegistering Authority are to be highly deprecated .  Further, the date of
\nregistration is found in both the sale deeds, written on the reverse of the
\nthird papers of the respective sale deeds.  Below the said endorsement, another
\nnote is also found to the effect that a reference to the Deputy Collector
\n(Stamps) for determination of market value is pending.  Underneath the said
\nendorsement, the signature of Sub-Registrar, Srirangam, with date 06.03.2006 is
\nseen. The endorsement goes to the effect that the Sub-Registrar had already
\nreferred the matter to the Collector concerned, for determining the market
\nvalue.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the respondents is that
\nthough this Court, on earlier occasions, took a consistent view that the
\nRegistering Authority had no power to retain the documents anymore after
\nregistration, however, for a period of three weeks, in this case, the Sub-
\nRegistrar retained the documents for so many months, without referring the same
\nto the Collector and, hence, he has violated the procedure. Learned counsel for
\nthe respondents placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in M.Krishnan and
\nothers v.  The District Collector, Erode District, and<\/a> two others, 1998 (III)
\nCTC 366, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court, after holding discussions
\nunder the provisions of Section 47-A (1) (2) and (3), finally concluded that a
\nreference should be made immediately after registration or so sooner the
\nregistration is completed and, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of
\ncompletion of registration of the document, to refer the instrument to the
\nCollector, under Section 47-A (1), besides sending a communication to the
\nperson, who is liable to pay stamp duty on the instrument in question.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. As to the period allowable for retention of the document after
\nregistration by the Registering Authority for three weeks, there is no specific
\nstipulation in the statute. This Court had formed the said opinion, considering
\nthe factors and the legal obligations, which ought to be lawfully observed by
\nthe Registering Authority, for regulating the procedures.  It is also to be
\nborne in mind that the said view was accepted by a Division Bench of this Court
\nin The District Collector, Erode District, and others v. M.Ponnusamy, 2002 (2)
\nM.L.J.458, in the following terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t“30….. Therefore, the direction of the learned single Judge that
\nreference should be made immediately after registration or so sooner the
\nregistration is complete, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of
\ncompletion of registration of the document and refer the instrument to the
\nCollector under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.47-A of the said Act besides sending
\ncommunication to the person who is liable to pay the stamp duty on the
\ninstrument in question cannot be objected to.  In our view, this is a salutary
\ndirection to see that Sec.47-A (1) does not operate as an engine of oppression
\non the plea of under-valuation.”\n<\/p>\n
\t9. The above said legal position was holding the field hitherto.  However,
\nan identical matter was taken up for consideration by another learned single
\nJudge of this Court on a subsequent occasion and he thought it fit to refer the
\nmatter to a Division Bench, to decide the following questions :\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) Whether the Court, in exercising the power of judicial review, can fix
\na limitation for the exercise of a statutory duty under Section 47-A (1) of the
\nAct ?\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) Even if any guideline is introduced by a judgment, whether that can
\noperate as a valid rule so as to nullify any order made within a reasonable
\nperiod by the authorities, on allegations of undervaluation ?\n<\/p>\n
\t10. Accordingly, the matter was placed before a Division Bench, which, in
\nturn, referred the same to a Larger Bench.  Thereafter, the issue came up before
\na Full Bench of this Court.  After considering the settled legal principles and
\nalso following the authoritative judicial pronouncements on this gamut, the Full
\nBench, to which both of us were part of the quorum, by an order, dated
\n07.12.2007, in W.P.(MD) No.2732 of 2004 and other connected matters, formulated
\na legal principle, overruling the decisions in the cases of M.Krishnan and
\nM.Ponnusamy (cited supra),  that the Court cannot suggest a time frame to a
\nstatute and the registering authority is bound to perform his statutory
\nobligations within a reasonable time.  The conclusions of the Full Bench, in
\nthis regard, are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t“38. On a conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the matter and
\nfollowing the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, we answer the questions (i) and\n<\/p>\n
(ii) as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t(i) The Court cannot fix or suggest a time frame to a statute in the
\nnormal course, if the statute is silent with regard to it.\n<\/p>\n
\t(ii) No guideline, in this regard, shall be introduced by the Court.
\nHowever, it is mandatory on the part of the statutory authority, namely,
\nregistering officer, to perform his statutory obligations within a reasonable
\ntime, which should not be viewed as a one, that has deprived the rights of the
\nparties to the document, causing injustice.”\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The Full Bench was of the definite view that no statutory silence with
\nregard to prescription of time frame to perform a legal obligation shall be
\nsubstituted by an idea or a suggestion of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The Sub-Registrar, without any valid ground, was retaining the
\ndocuments in his office for quite a long time, unmindful of violating the
\nprocedure adumbrated under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act.  A
\nstatutory duty is cast on him to refer the document to the Collector within a
\nreasonable time, for ascertaining the exact market value.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. In the memorandum of appeal, the grounds would show that when the
\ndocuments were presented for registration on 16.09.2003, the second appellant
\nrequired certain documents viz., Patta Pass Book and Court Order and, upon their
\nproduction by the respondents on 14.04.2004, the documents were registered,
\nduring the pendency of the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. The second appellant, ignoring the procedure laid down under Sub-
\nsection (1) of Section 47-A, referred the matter to the District Registrar on
\n07.05.2004, for clarification, as to whether the judgment referred value could
\nbe taken into consideration as the market value.  In fact, he is not at all
\ncompetent to get any clarification, after registration.  Moreover, after
\nregistration, he has no power at all, to deal with the document in any manner.
\nInstead, he has to simply refer the same to the Collector, for the purpose of
\nascertaining correct market value. Even, the District Registrar had not advised
\nthe second appellant in a proper direction in this regard, who also, referred
\nthe matter to the first appellant, namely, Inspector General of Registration, on
\n07.06.2004. On such reference, the first appellant is stated to have directed
\nthe second appellant to register the documents and refer the same under Section
\n47-A (1).  But, both the second appellant and the District Registrar have not
\nfollowed the procedures laid down in Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, which
\npaved the way for an unreasonable delay in referring the matter to the
\nCollector, which leads to a conclusion that period of retention or the
\ninterregnum period between the date of registration and the date of referring
\nthe documents to the Collector is not a reasonable one.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. Whatever may be the procedures adopted by the appellants and the
\nDistrict Collector wrongly prior to referring the documents to the Collector,
\npresently, the matter is pending before the Collector for ascertaining correct
\nmarket value of the property. Therefore, the next course of action, to be taken
\nup by the Collector, has to be gone into.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. It is seen from the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar that the
\nreference for ascertaining the market value is pending with the Special Deputy
\nCollector (Stamps), which shows the Sub-Registrar has already referred the
\nmatter to the prescribed authority.  The sale deeds do not bear any particulars
\nas to the date of reference to the Collector.   The powers of the Collector in
\nthis regard are incorporated in Section 47-A (3), aforementioned.  It authorises
\nthe Collector to determine the market value of the property and to ascertain the
\nstamp duty thereon within five years from the date of registration of any
\ninstrument etc. He may exercise this power either suo motu or otherwise.
\nHowever, there is no scope for taking suo motu action in this matter.  But,
\nunder the term “otherwise”, either this Court can very well direct the Collector
\nto complete the procedure contemplated under Section 47-A (3) after observing
\nthe procedure narrated thereon or the Collector can give a quietus to the
\nreference made to him by the Registering Authority.  As adverted to supra, in
\nthis case, a reference has already been made to him.  A time limit of five years
\nhas been prescribed to enable the Collector to determine the market value of the
\nproperty, by following the procedure under Section 47-A (2).  The sale deeds
\nhave been registered on 14.04.2004 and, hence, the Collector has got five years’
\nperiod from the said date, to complete his statutory obligation, as per Sub-
\nsection (3) of Section 47-A.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. Before passing an order under Sub-section (2) of Section     47-A, the
\nCollector is under a statutory duty to hold an enquiry in the manner prescribed
\nand also give an opportunity to the parties and the Sub-Registrar, to project
\ntheir respective representations, on the issues of determination of market value
\nof the property and the stamp duty, payable thereon.  The Collector is also
\nrequired to disclose the evidence during the course of enquiry or otherwise and
\ngive an opportunity to both the parties, to support or controvert such evidence.
\nThe Collector, while exercising the quasi-judicial powers to determine the
\nproper market value of the subject matter of the documents, may either go
\nagainst the decision of the Registering Authority or the party presenting the
\ndocument.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. In the Writ Petitions, the respondents have prayed for a direction to
\nthe registering authority to complete the registration of the sale deeds and
\nreturn the same to them.  As far as the first part of the prayer is concerned,
\nregistration of the documents is already over.  As regards the other part of the
\nprayer, the matter is pending before the Deputy Collector (Stamps) and it is for
\nhim to come out with a conclusion as to the correct market value of the
\nproperties.  Therefore, the Writ Petitions with regard to the first part of the
\nprayer have become infructuous. As for the second part, namely, a direction to
\nreturn the documents, the following order is passed :\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), to whom the Sub-Registrar,
\nSrirangam, has made a reference on 06.03.2006 with reference to the document
\nNos.779 and 780 of 2004 on his file, is directed to determine the market value
\nof the properties and ascertain the correct stamp duty, payable on them, within
\nthe statutory period of five years from the date of registration viz.,
\n14.04.2004, after adopting the procedure contemplated under Section 47-A (2).
\nAlso, the second appellant is directed to furnish a copy of this order to the
\nSpecial Deputy Collector (Stamps), for compliance.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. With the above directions, these Writ Appeals are disposed of.  No
\ncosts.  Consequently, the connected W.A.M.P.Nos.400  and 448 of 2005 are closed.\n<\/p>\n
dixit<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Inspector General Of … vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 12\/12\/2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU WRIT APPEAL No.307 OF 2005, WRIT APPEAL No.336 OF 2005 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhome, Chennai-28. 2.The Sub-Registrar, […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-165455","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Inspector General Of ... vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007 - 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\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Inspector General Of ... vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-30T17:51:13+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\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Inspector General Of … vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-30T17:51:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3195,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007\",\"name\":\"The Inspector General Of ... vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-30T17:51:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Inspector General Of … vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"The Inspector General Of ... vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007 - 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\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Inspector General Of ... vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-30T17:51:13+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\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Inspector General Of … vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-30T17:51:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007"},"wordCount":3195,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007","name":"The Inspector General Of ... vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-30T17:51:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-inspector-general-of-vs-m-gandhimathi-on-12-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Inspector General Of … vs M.Gandhimathi on 12 December, 2007"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/165455","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=165455"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/165455\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=165455"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=165455"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=165455"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}