{"id":185462,"date":"2002-04-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002"},"modified":"2016-11-20T23:53:29","modified_gmt":"2016-11-20T18:23:29","slug":"r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATE : 05\/04\/2002 \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN             \n\nW.P. NO. 23097 OF 2001 and W.P. NOS. 7908, 9909 TO 9913      \n& 10626 OF 2002 and W.P.M.P. NOS. 33998 of 2001 & 10823,     \n13427 TO 13431 & 14334 OF 2002    \n\nW.P. NO. 23097 OF 2001   \n\nR. Sukumaran                                            .. Petitioner\n\n- Vs -\n\n1. State of Tamil Nadu\n   rep. By its Secretary to Govt.\n   Revenue Department \n   Fort. St. George, Madras  9.\n\n2. The Inspector General of Registration\n   Santhome High Road  \n   Chennai  4.\n\n3. The Sub Registrar\n   Kodambakkam   \n   Chennai  24.                                        .. Respondents<\/pre>\n
W.P. NO. 7908 OF 2002   <\/p>\n
Padma Sarangapani Educational
\nSociety, rep. by Secretary
\nJayakrishnan, Chennai  49.                     .. Petitioner<\/p>\n
– Vs –\n<\/p>\n
1. Inspector General of Registration
\n   120, Santhome High Road
\n   Chennai  28.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Sub Registrar, Konnur
\n   Chennai  49.\n<\/p>\n
3. The Special Deputy Collector
\n   (Stamp Duty), Collector’s Office
\n   Singaravelar Buildings
\n   Chennai  1.                                 .. Respondents<\/p>\n
AND  <\/p>\n
1. K.C.M. Lawrence                      .. Petitioner in WP 9909\/02\n<\/p>\n
2. V.T. Subramanian                     .. Petitioner in WP 9910\/02\n<\/p>\n
3. S.R. Uma                             .. Petitioner in WP 9911\/02\n<\/p>\n
4. Malathi                              .. Petitioner in WP 9912\/02\n<\/p>\n
5. Smt. Komal Pillai            .. Petitioner in WP 9913\/02\n<\/p>\n
6. P. Jayapal                           .. Petitioner in WP 10626\/02<\/p>\n
– Vs –\n<\/p>\n
1. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board
\n   rep. by its Manager
\n   Marketing Services
\n   Aringnar Anna Nagar Division
\n   2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar
\n   Chennai  40.<\/p>\n
\n\n2. The Sub-Registrar\n   Sub-Registrar's Office               .. Respondents in\n   Anna Nagar                                   WP Nos. 9909 to 9913\/02  \n   Chennai  40.                                & WP No. 10626\/02\n\n<\/pre>\n
        Petition filed under Article 226 of  The  Constitution  of  India
\npraying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus as stated therein.
\n!               For Petitioners :  Mr.K.Jeyakumar in WP 23097\/01
\n                                        Mr.R.Balakrishnan in
\n                                        WP No.7908\/2002
\n                                        Mr.V.K.Rajagopalan in
\n                                        WP 9909 to 9913\/02 & 10626\/02
\n                For Respondents :  Mr.  N.R.Chandran, AG
\n:COMMON ORDER\n<\/p>\n
1.  In  W.P.    No.23097 of 2001, the petitioner prays for the issue of a
\nWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the
\nproceedings of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No.  231\/200 1 dated
\n2.8.2001 and quash the same and consequently direct  the  3rd  respondent
\nherein to return the sale deed to the petitioner herein, which is pending
\nin P.  No.1319 of 1996 on the file of the 3rd respondent.\n<\/p>\n
2.  In  W.P.    No.7908  of 2002, the petitioner prays for the issue of a
\nWrit of Mandamus directing the respondents to return the sale deed  dated
\n8.6.2001  executed  by  the  Tamil  Nadu  Housing  Board in favour of the
\npetitioner herein and registered  on  25.7.2001  under  Document  No.2446
\n\/2001 at the office of the 2nd respondent.\n<\/p>\n
3.  In W.P.    No.  9909 of 2002, the petitioner prays for the issue of a
\nWrit of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent  to  release  the  document
\npending on  the  file  of  the 2nd respondent vide Document No.  P\/146\/20
\n01\/S.R.O., Anna Nagar, Chennai-40, dated 4.7.2001 without demanding stamp
\nduty for the building cost as per G.O.  Ms.   No.231  Housing  and  Urban
\nDevelopment Department dated 27.3.2001.\n<\/p>\n
4.  In W.P.    No.  9910 of 2002, the petitioner prays for the issue of a
\nWrit of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent  to  release  the  document
\npending on  the  file  of  the 2nd respondent vide Document No.  P\/138\/20
\n01\/S.R.O., Anna Nagar,  Chennai-40,  dated  21.6.2001  without  demanding
\nstamp duty for  the  building  cost  as per G.O.  Ms.  No.231 Housing and
\nUrban Development Department dated 27.3.2001.\n<\/p>\n
5.  In W.P.  No.  9911 of 2002, the petitioner prays for the issue  of  a
\nWrit  of  Mandamus  directing  the 2nd respondent to release the document
\npending on the file of the 2nd respondent vide  Document  No.    P\/147\/20
\n01\/S.R.O.,  Anna  Nagar,  Chennai-40,  dated  21.6.2001 without demanding
\nstamp duty for the building cost as per G.O.  Ms.    No.231  Housing  and
\nUrban Development Department dated 27.3.2001.\n<\/p>\n
6.  In W.P.    No.  9912 of 2002, the petitioner prays for the issue of a
\nWrit of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent  to  release  the  document
\npending on  the  file  of  the 2nd respondent vide Document No.  P\/137\/20
\n01\/S.R.O., Anna Nagar,  Chennai-40,  dated  19.6.2001  without  demanding
\nstamp duty for  the  building  cost  as per G.O.  Ms.  No.231 Housing and
\nUrban Development Department dated 27.3.2001.\n<\/p>\n
7.  In W.P.  No.  9913 of 2002, the petitioner prays for the issue  of  a
\nWrit  of  Mandamus  directing  the 2nd respondent to release the document
\npending on the file of the 2nd respondent vide  Document  No.    P\/136\/20<\/p>\n
01\/S.R.O.,  Anna  Nagar,  Chennai-40,  dated  19.6.2001 without demanding
\nstamp duty for the building cost as per G.O.  Ms.    No.231  Housing  and
\nUrban Development Department dated 27.3.2001.\n<\/p>\n
8.  In W.P.   No.  10626 of 2002, the petitioner prays for the issue of a
\nWrit of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent  to  release  the  document
\npending on  the  file  of  the  2nd respondent vide Document No.  P\/127\/2
\n001\/S.R.O., Anna Nagar,  Chennai-40,  dated  8.6.2001  without  demanding
\nstamp duty for  the  building  cost  as per G.O.  Ms.  No.231 Housing and
\nUrban Development Department dated 27.3.2001.\n<\/p>\n
9.  In  all  these  writ  petitions,  this  Court  directed  the  learned
\nGovernment Advocate  to  take  notice.    This  Court  also requested the
\nlearned  Advocate  General  to  make  his   submissions   after   getting
\ninstructions as innumerable petitions identical in nature are being filed
\non a  day  to day basis.  Further, despite a binding pronouncement by two
\nDivision Benches of this Court, the Registrars in the State in  disregard
\nto  the  pronouncements  have been withholding the documents executed and
\npresented by the Housing Board in favour of the allottees either plot  or
\nflat, as the case may be and they insist for payment of stamp duty on the
\nbasis  of  value  as  assessed by them as on the date of execution of the
\nsale deed.\n<\/p>\n
10.  The learned  Advocate  General  took  instructions  from  the  State
\nGovernment  as well as the Inspector General of Registration and made his
\nsubmissions in all the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
11.  All the writ petitions could be disposed of  together  by  a  common
\norder  since  the  relief  prayed  for  are identical and the contentions
\nadvanced are also identical.\n<\/p>\n
12.  Heard Mr.K.Jeyakumar, learned counsel appearing for  the  petitioner
\nin W.P.    No.23097 of 2001, Mr.R.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing
\nfor the petitioner in W.P.    No.7908\/2002,  Mr.V.K.Rajagopalan,  learned
\ncounsel appearing  for  the  petitioner in W.P.  Nos.9909 to 9913 of 2002
\nand 10626 of 2002 and Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General appearing
\nfor all the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
13.  The petitioner in each of the writ petition is an allottee of a plot
\nor flat by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board under  various  housing  schemes.
\nIn  terms  of  the  allotment  letter,  the lease-cum-sale agreement were
\nexecuted several years back and the petitioner\/allottee has  been  paying
\nmonthly instalments  to  the  Housing Board over a decade.  On payment of
\nthe entire sale consideration as fixed by the Tamil  Nadu  State  Housing
\nBoard  in instalments, the Housing Board executed the sale deed conveying
\nthe plot\/flat to the allottee as per the earlier allotment letter as well
\nas lease-cum-sale agreement  and  presented  the  same  for  registration
\nbefore the  concerned  Sub-Registrar  having jurisdiction.  The concerned
\nSub-Registrars have taken the stand that even for such deed of conveyance
\nexecuted by the Housing Board, stamp duty is  payable  not  on  the  sale
\nconsideration  recited  or  actually  paid by the allottee to the Housing
\nBoard, but according to the prevailing market value on the  date  of  the
\ninstrument or guideline value as fixed by the Registering Authority or as
\nmay be  fixed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamp Duty).  This means a
\nhuge gap and difference in the stamp duty payable by the transferee  from
\nthe  Housing  Board  on  the instrument executed by the Housing Board and
\npresented for registration..\n<\/p>\n
14.  The point raised herein is  covered  by  the  pronouncement  of  the
\nearlier Division  Bench in S.P.PADMAVATHI VS.  STATE OF TAMIL NADU, ETC.,
\nreported in 1997 (2) LW 579 as well as two other reported pronouncements.\n<\/p>\n
15.  The points raised in these writ petitions are covered by a  Division
\nBench judgment  of this Court in THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS VS.  T.
\nTHULASI LAKSHMI & ANOTHER in W.A.  Nos.  1467 and 1468 of 1998, to  which
\nI was a party.\n<\/p>\n
16.  The Division  Bench  in  W.A.    Nos.   1467 and 1468 of 1998, while
\nfollowing a reported decision in S.P.PADMAVATHI VS.  STATE OF TAMIL NADU,
\nETC., reported in 1997 (2) LW 579, held thus :-
\n“i) The matter is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this  Court  in
\nS.P.PADMAVATHI VS.    STATE  OF TAMIL NADU, ETC., reported in 1997 (2) LW\n<\/p>\n
579.  Nothing has been pointed out to take a different  view  from  that.
\nWe are unable to add to the said decision.\n<\/p>\n
ii)  It  was secondly contended that the market value of the property has
\nbeen taken into consideration on the date of agreement of sale.    It  is
\nwell settled  that  registration  relates  back to the date of sale.  The
\nHousing Board has constructed the house and handed over  the  same  under
\nhire purchase  agreement.  When the conditions of hire purchase agreement
\nare complied with, the properties have to be transferred to the hirer, we
\nfind no ground to assess the market value for the purpose of registration
\non the date of the actual transfer of the property, as it is well settled
\nthat at the time of agreement itself the parties have agreed to the price
\nor sale consideration.  There is no legislation or settled legal position
\nwhich has been pointed out by the counsel for the  State  that  they  can
\ncharge  stamp  duty on market value as on the date of the registration of
\nthe document when there is no material on record to show that there was a
\nconcealment or suppression of the parties have agreed to a  different  or
\nhigher consideration that then is recited in the market value.  Otherwise
\ntoo,  it  is  a  transfer  from a Government institution to an individual
\nbased on hire purchase agreement.  We see no ground to interfere with the
\norder of the Hon’ble single Judge.  Accordingly,  the  writ  appeals  are
\ndismissed.  No costs.  Consequently, CMPs., are dismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
17.   The  above  two  Division Bench judgments have reached finality and
\nthey have not been challenged either by the State Government  or  by  the
\nRegistrar or  by  the  Inspector  General  of  Registration.    The legal
\nposition as laid down by the Division Benches as far  as  this  State  is
\nconcerned is  well settled and it is binding on everyone.  Thereafter, it
\nis rather extraordinary  for  the  Registering  Authorities  or  for  the
\nconcerned  Special  Deputy  Collector  (Stamp  Duty) to assess the market
\nvalue and insist for payment of stamp duty on the basis of  market  value
\nthat prevails on the date of presentation of the documents.\n<\/p>\n
18.   It is nobody’s case that the transferee has paid consideration more
\nthan what has been recited in the deed  of  conveyance  executed  by  the
\nHousing Board.   It is beyond one’s comprehension that the Housing Board,
\na statutory body, would receive excess amount than what has been actually
\npaid and recited as sale consideration in the deed of conveyance executed
\nby it in favour of the allottee.  It may be that  in  the  lease-cum-sale
\nagreement,  while depositing a substantial portion, the remaining portion
\nwas agreed to be paid in instalments so that the allottee could acquire a
\nhouse from the Housing Board by making payments in easy instalments, with
\nlow rate of interest.  Therefore, without contradiction it could be taken
\nthat what has been agreed to between the Housing Board and  the  allottee
\nis the actual consideration agreed and paid as sale consideration for the
\nconveyance and not a pie more.\n<\/p>\n
19.  In M.    PONNUSAMY  & 42 OTHERS VS.  THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR & OTHERS
\nreported in 1999 (2) LW 231, while examining the scope  of  Section  47A,
\nthis Court held thus :-\n<\/p>\n
“39)  The language of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is very clear.
\nThe condition precedent for making a reference is, there must  be  reason
\nfor  the  Registering  Authority  to believe that the market value of the
\nproperty has not been truly set  forth  in  the  document  presented  for
\nregistration.   Hence,  it  follows  that  the  reasons must be recorded,
\nhowever short it may be.  It is the duty of the Registering Authority  to
\nrecord reasons for his belief that true market value has not been set out
\nin the document, complete registration and thereafter refer the matter to
\nthe  Collector  for determination of the market value of the property and
\nthe proper duty payable thereon.\n<\/p>\n
40) In terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp  Act,
\non  receipt  of  a reference under Sub-Section (1) of Section 47-A of the
\nsaid act, the Collector shall determine the market value  and  the  stamp
\nduty payable  on  the  instruments.    Before  making  a reference, it is
\nincumbent on the part of the Registering  Authority  to  record  reasons,
\ncomplete  the  registration and thereafter, he has to make a reference to
\nthe Collector under Sub-Section (1) of Section 47-A of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
41)  It  is  essential  to  point  out  that  before  registration,   the
\nRegistering  Authority  has to record that he has reasons to believe that
\nthe value of the property has not been duly set forth in the  instrument.
\nOnly  after  recording  such  reasons,  the  Registering Authority has to
\ncomplete registration of the instrument in question and thereafter alone,
\nhe could refer the same to the Collector under Sub-Section (1) of Section
\n47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.  Such is not the case  of  the  respondents
\nherein.\n<\/p>\n
42)  To  this extent, the functions of the Registering Authority is quasi
\njudicial in nature and he has to come to a  conclusion  that  the  market
\nvalue  of  the  property  dealt under the document had not been truly set
\nforth and after completion of registration, he could  make  a  reference.
\nAtleast  some reasons should be recorded and immediately after completion
\nof registration or sooner thereafter, a reference has to  be  made  under
\nSub-Section (1) of Section 47-A of the said Act.
\n* * *\n<\/p>\n
51)  What is required under Sub-Section (1) of Section 47-A of the Indian
\nStamp Act is that the Registering Authority  had  come  to  a  conclusion
\nbefore  registration  that  the market value of the property, dealt under
\nthe instrument of conveyance or release, has  been  under-valued  and  he
\nshould  have  entertained  reasonable belief in this respect and also, he
\nshould have recorded such a rea son.  Immediately  after  recording  such
\nreason,  he  has  to  complete  the registration and thereafter refer the
\ninstruments to the Collector in terms of Sub-Section (1) of Section  47-A
\nof the  Indian  Stamp Act.  Only in respect of the instruments which have
\nnot been referred to for adjudication to the Collector under  Sub-Section
\n(1)  of  Section  47-A  of  the said Act, the Collector could exercise or
\ninvoke suo motu powers conferred on him under Sub-Section (3) of  Section
\n47-A and had a reference been made under Section 47-A (1) of the said Act
\nit,  would  have  been  answered  either way by the Collector, then it is
\nobvious that the Collector cannot exercise suo motu powers  in  terms  of
\nSub-Section (3) of Section 47-A of the said Act.”\n<\/p>\n
20.   The  said decision by this Court has been confirmed by the Division
\nBench in THE  DISTRICT  COLLECTOR,  ERODE  DISTRICT  &  OTHERS  VS.    M.
\nPONNUSAMY reported in 2001 (2) MLJ 458, The Division Bench held thus :-
\n“xiii)  If  the  document  presented  sets forth the market value and all
\nother facts necessary truly, the document has to be registered.  To  find
\nout  whether  the  market  value  has  been  correctly  furnished  in the
\ninstrument  or  not,  Sub-rules  (3)  and  (4)  enable  the   registering
\nauthority,  to  enquire  whether  the  market  value  has  been correctly
\nfurnished in the instrument or not.  If the registering authority, on the
\nbasis of the enquiry, has reason to believe that the market value of  the
\nproperty has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may refer the
\nmatter  to  the  Collector  for determination of the market value of such
\nproperty.  But, even here, before referring the matter, he  shall  do  so
\nonly after registering the said instrument.\n<\/p>\n
xiv)  Thus,  it  could be seen that if the document is registered without
\nany doubt as to the under valuation of the document,  or  any  reasonable
\nbelief  as  to the true value set forth in the instrument, and once it is
\nregistered, there is no further  scope  for  holding  the  enquiry  after
\nregistration  regarding  the  value  of  the  property for the purpose of
\nreference.  Therefore, necessarily before registering the  document,  the
\nRegistering  Officer is entitled either to accept the valuation or refuse
\nto accept the valuation.  If he accepts the valuation, he has to register
\nthe document; if he does not accept the valuation also, he shall register
\nthe document and then refer the same to the Collector.   Therefore,  once
\nthe  document is registered, it pre-supposes that the Registering Officer
\nis satisfied about the valuation or it could be that he was not satisfied
\nabout the valuation, but followed it by a reference  after  registration.
\nTherefore, the argument of the learned Special Government Pleader is that
\neven  after  registration, he can go on with the enquiry on the valuation
\nof the property, as has been done in this case.  But how long ?   In  the
\nreply to the legal notice, the third appellant, after one year and eleven
\nmonths,  has  stated  that he is awaiting the report of the valuation for
\nthe purpose of reference.  Thus, there is a clear violation of Sec.  47-A
\nof the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
21.  While reiterating the said legal powition, it has to be pointed  out
\nhere  and  now,  no  discretion  at  all  is available to the Registering
\nAuthority to entertain any doubt about the payment of  consideration  for
\nthe  deed  of  conveyance  or  transfer  when  is  being  executed by the
\nstatutory body like Housing Board and the Registrar has to  register  the
\nsame  without  raising any query as to the consideration recited or paid.
\nAbsolutely there could be no reason at all for the  Registrar  either  to
\ndoubt  the  consideration  actually  paid and recited in the sale deed or
\ndeed of conveyance as may be executed by the Housing Board in  favour  of
\nthe allottee.    Merely  because there has been an increase in the market
\nvalue due to the passage of time, it cannot be assumed that  the  Housing
\nBoard  has  received consideration more than what has been recited in the
\ndocument.  The over anxious Registrar, who is also conscious  to  collect
\nmore  revenue cannot have any inkling or reason, doubt or to believe that
\nthere is under-valuation or evasion of stamp duty.  Therefore, it has  to
\nbe held that absolutely the Registrar cannot have any ground or reason or
\nrhyme or basis or reason whatsoever to doubt about the consideration paid
\nby the  transferee to the Housing Board, the transferor.  The same is the
\nlegal position even in respect of commercial plot\/flat as well and  there
\ncould   be   no  difference  in  that  behalf  nor  there  could  be  any
\ndiscrimination.\n<\/p>\n
22.  In the circumstances, while following the two earlier Division Bench
\njudgment in THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS VS.  T.  THULASI  LAKSHMI  &
\nANOTHER in W.A.    Nos.    1467  and  1468 of 1998 and S.P.PADMAVATHI VS.
\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU, ETC., reported in 1997 (2) LW 579, as  well  as  the
\njudgment  of the Division Bench in THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERODE DISTRICT
\n& OTHERS VS.  M.  PONNUSAMY reported in 2001 (2) MLJ 458, all these  writ
\npetitions are  allowed.   This Court further directs that within ten days
\nfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order or production of a  copy
\nof this order, the respective Registrars shall see that the documents are
\nreleased without insisting for further payment of stamp duty even if such
\ninstruments  have  already  been referred to the Special Deputy Collector
\n(Stamp Duty) for the purpose of valuation\/verification.\n<\/p>\n
23.  The Inspector  General  of  Registration  is  directed  to  issue  a
\ncircular  in  this respect within ten days from the date of communication
\nof this order to all the Registrars in the  State.    Besides  making  it
\nclear  that  any  delay  or  deviation in this respect by the Registering
\nAuthorities will  be  viewed  very  seriously  and  all  the  Registering
\nOfficers  are  expected  to  follow  the law laid down by the High Court.
\nSuch  a  direction  has  to  be  issued   since   inspite   of   repeated
\npronouncements  of  this  Court,  the  Registrars  have  acted with scant
\nrespect, such a conduct is highly reprehensible.\n<\/p>\n
24.  This is a fit  case  where  costs  should  be  awarded  against  the
\nconcerned Registrars,  besides  contempt  proceedings.    However, in the
\nlight of the fair stand taken by the learned Advocate General, this Court
\nis not awarding costs and not initiating contempt  action.    These  writ
\npetitions are  allowed,  but  without  costs.    Consequently,  connected
\nW.M.P.s are closed.\n<\/p>\n
054\\2002
\nIndex Yes\/No
\nInternet Yes\/No
\nGLN <\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary to Govt.\n<\/p>\n
Govt.  of Tamil Nadu
\nRevenue Department
\nFort.  St.  George, Madras  9.\n<\/p>\n
2.  Inspector General of Registration
\n120, Santhome High Road
\nChennai  28.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Sub Registrar, Konnur
\nChennai  49.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Special Deputy Collector
\n(Stamp Duty), Collector’s Office
\nSingaravelar Buildings
\nChennai  1.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Manager
\nThe Tamil Nadu Housing Board
\nMarketing Services
\nAringnar Anna Nagar Division
\n2nd Avenue, Anna Nagar
\nChennai  40.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Sub-Registrar
\nSub-Registrar’s Office
\nAnna Nagar
\nChennai  40.\n<\/p>\n
7.  The Inspector General of Registration
\nSanthome High Road
\nChennai  4.\n<\/p>\n
8.  The Sub Registrar
\nKodambakkam
\nChennai  24.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                E.\n<\/p>\n
PADMANABHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
ORDER IN
\nW.P.  NO.23097 OF 2001
\nW.P.  NOS.7908, 9909
\nTO 9913 & 10626 OF 2002   <\/p>\n
054\\2002<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 05\/04\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE E. PADMANABHAN W.P. NO. 23097 OF 2001 and W.P. NOS. 7908, 9909 TO 9913 & 10626 OF 2002 and W.P.M.P. NOS. 33998 of 2001 & […]<\/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-185462","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nR. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002 - 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\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-20T18:23:29+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-20T18:23:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3368,\"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\\\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002\",\"name\":\"R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-20T18:23:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002 - 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\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-20T18:23:29+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-20T18:23:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002"},"wordCount":3368,"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\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002","name":"R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-20T18:23:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/r-sukumaran-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-5-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002"}]},{"@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\/185462","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=185462"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185462\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185462"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185462"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185462"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}