{"id":235375,"date":"2006-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006"},"modified":"2017-05-06T21:03:56","modified_gmt":"2017-05-06T15:33:56","slug":"ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 07\/04\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM             \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM          \n\nAND  \n\nTHE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA        \n\nC.R.P.No.3092 OF 1996   \n\nM\/s.Sakthi & Co.,\nthrough its\nPartner Veeranan....                    Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nShree Desigachary      ..              Respondent\n\n\n                Revision  against  the  judgment  dated  30.07.1996  made   in\nR.C.A.No.136    of    1994   on   the   file   of   Rent   Control   Appellate\nAuthority-cumPrincipal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, as against the order  dated\n30.09.1994   made   in   R.C.O.P.No.131   of   1993   on   the  file  of  Rent\nController-cumDistrict Munsif, Madurai.\n\n!For petitioner :  Mr.V.Sitharanjandas\n\n^For respondent:Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan   \n\n:O R D E R \n<\/pre>\n
M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM,J.\n<\/p>\n
        Which is the criterion that has to be taken into account by  the  Rent
\nController  for  fixing  the  fair  rent i.e., whether the guideline value, as
\ncontained in the revenue records, or, the market value, as per the sale  deeds
\nexecuted at the relevant point of time ?\n<\/p>\n
        The above is the question, posed before this Full Bench.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                2.  Facts :<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                “(i)  The  landlord,  respondent  herein,  filed  a  petition,
\nnamely, R.  C.O.P.No.131 of 1993 before the Rent Controller under Section 4 of
\nthe Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act,1960, for fixing the  fair
\nrent  at  the rate of Rs.5,850\/- per month, on the ground that the contractual
\nrent of Rs.425\/- per month is not sufficient.\n<\/p>\n
                (ii)  The  tenant,  petitioner  herein,  resisted   the   said
\npetition, contending that the contractual rent of Rs.425\/- per month itself is
\nsufficient  and  the  claim  of  the  landlord  for  fixing  the  fair rent at
\nRs.5,850\/- per month is on the higher side.\n<\/p>\n
                (iii) The Rent Controller, during the course of trial,  called
\nfor  the  guideline  value  from  the Sub-Registrar’s Office and the valuation
\nregister from the Municipality, and, on  the  basis  of  the  reports  of  the
\nAdvocate Commissioner and the Chartered Engineer and also taking the guideline
\nvalue  at  Rs.250\/-  per  square  feet,  fixed  the  fair  rent at the rate of
\nRs.2,642\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n
                (iv) The tenant\/petitioner, challenging the said  fixation  of
\nfair  rent,  filed  R.C.A.No.136  of  1994  before  the Rent Control Appellate
\nAuthority.\n<\/p>\n
                (v) After hearing  the  counsel  for  the  parties,  the  Rent
\nControl  Appellate  Authority, by the judgment dated 30.07.1996, dismissed the
\nappeal, confirming the findings of the Rent Controller  and  fixing  the  fair
\nrent at Rs.2,642\/- per month.\n<\/p>\n
                (vi)  Assailing the orders of both the Rent Controller and the
\nRent Control Appellate Authority, this Civil Revision Petition has been  filed
\nby the petitioner\/tenant before this Court.”\n<\/p>\n
                3.   The  main  point, that has been urged before Justice K.P.
\nSivasubramaniam, a learned single Judge of this Court (as he then was), by the
\nlearned counsel for the petitioner\/tenant,  is,  that  the  authorities  below
\nshould   not   have   accepted   the   guideline   value,  maintained  by  the
\nSub-Registrar’s  Office,  or,  the  valuation  register,  maintained  by   the
\nMunicipality,  as  the  basis  for fixation of fair rent, and they should have
\nfixed the fair rent only on the  basis  of  the  market  value  of  the  land,
\nconsidering the sale deeds executed by the parties, with reference to the land
\nsituated in the area, at the relevant point of time.\n<\/p>\n
                4.    On   the   other   hand,   learned   counsel   for   the
\nrespondent\/landlord, in justification of the orders impugned, brought  to  the
\nnotice of the learned single Judge a decision reported in 1995 T.L.N.J.226 (N.
\nSulaiman v.    R.Ravichandran),  rendered  by Justice M.Srinivasan (as he then
\nwas), wherein it was held that the guideline value could be taken as the basis
\nfor fixation of land value.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  On the side of tenant, a decision reported in 1997 (3) LAW
\nWEEKLY 193 (Srinivasa Gounder v.   K.Venkatesan),<\/a>  rendered  by  Justice  S.S.
\nSubramani  (as he then was), giving a contrary view, was brought to the notice
\nof the learned single Judge, to  the  effect  that  the  guideline  value,  as
\nmaintained  by  the  Sub-Registrar’s Office, cannot be accepted for fixing the
\nfair rent and the market value of the property and the value, as per the  sale
\ndeeds  executed  at  the  relevant point of time, alone would have to be taken
\ninto consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  In view of the above conflicting decisions,  Justice  K.P.
\nSivasubramaniam  directed  the  Registry  to  post  the matter before a Larger
\nBench, after getting orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice, as the issue  is  to
\nbe decided  by a Larger Bench.  The relevant portions of the observations made
\nin the reference by Justice K.P.Sivasubramaniam are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “2.  In this context, I have come  across  at  least  two  conflicting
\njudgments.  In  1995  T.L.N.J.226  (N.SULAIMAN  Vs.   R.RAVICHANDRAN), Justice
\nM.Srinivasan as he then was), had held that the guideline value adopted by the
\nregistering authorities would be acceptable basis for fixing fair rent in  the
\nabsence of  other  materials.   After referring to the judgment of the Supreme
\nCourt reported in 1995 (1) SCC 717, wherein the Supreme Court  had  held  that
\nthe valuation register maintained by the municipality could not be relied upon
\nfor  the  purpose  of  fixing  market  value  under  Section  23  (1)  of Land
\nAcquisition Act, the learned Judge went further to observe that  the  judgment
\ncould  not  have  any bearing on the present case under Section 4 of the Tamil
\nNadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  Subramani,J.  in his judgment reported in 1997 (3) Law Weekly  193
\n(SRINIVASA GOUNDER  V.    K.VENKATESAN)<\/a>  had  held that the guideline value as
\nmaintained by the Sub-Registrar’s Office cannot be accepted as correct for the
\npurpose of ascertaining the market value of the property.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  Therefore, there are two conflicting decisions which require to be
\nresolved.  Having regard to the fact that in  many  Civil  Revision  Petitions
\nbefore  this  Court  as well as several similar proceedings before the various
\nAuthorities  under  the  Rent  Control  Act,  the  same   issue   arises   for
\nconsideration,  it  would  be  desirable  to  have  the  issue resolved at the
\nearliest, by a larger Bench.  Therefore, the office is directed to  place  the
\npapers  before My Lord the Honourable the Chief Justice for reference before a
\nLarger Bench.”\n<\/p>\n
That is how the matter has been referred to this Full Bench, for deciding  the
\nissue in question.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   Let  us  now quote the relevant observations from the two
\nconflicting decisions, one reported in 1995 T.L.N.J.226  (N.Sulaiman  v.    R.
\nRavichandran),  rendered  by  Justice  M.Srinivasan, and the other reported in
\n1997 (3) LAW WEEKLY 193 (Srinivasa Gounder  v.    K.Venkatesan),<\/a>  rendered  by
\nJustice S.S.Subramani :\n<\/p>\n
                (i) In  1995  T.L.N.J.226  (N.Sulaiman  v.    R.Ravichandran),
\nJustice M.  Srinivasan<\/a> held as under :\n<\/p>\n
        “The first contention urged by learned  counsel  is  that  the  market
\nvalue  of  the  site  has  been  erroneously  fixed by the Rent Controller and
\naffirmed by the Appellate Authority  on  the  basis  of  the  guideline  value
\nadopted by  the  registering  authorities.   According to learned counsel, the
\nguideline value should not have been adopted at all.  It is contended that the
\nsaid value is only for the purpose of collecting stamp duty on  documents  and
\nit  cannot  be  considered to be the market value of the property in question.
\nReliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Offi
\ncer, Eluru & Others v.  Jasti Rohini and Another (1955 (1) Supreme Court Cases\n<\/p>\n
717).  The case is one under the Land Acquisition Act.  The Supreme Court held
\nthat the basic valuation register maintained by the Municipality on the  basis
\nof  a  notification  issued  by the Government under Sec.47-A of the Stamp Act
\ncould not be relied upon for the purpose of fixing the  market  value  of  the
\nland under  Sec.23  (1) of the Land Acquisition Act.  The judgment cannot have
\nany bearing in the present case where we are concerned with Sec.4 of  the  Act
\nunder which fair rent for the building is fixed.”\n<\/p>\n
                (ii)  In  1997  (3)  LAW  WEEKLY  193  (Srinivasa  Gounder  v.
\nK.Venkatesan), Justice S.S.Subramani<\/a> observed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “9.  A Division Bench of  our  High  Court  has  also  held  that  for
\ndetermination  of  market value for the purpose of fixation of fair rent under
\nthe Tamil Nadu Rent  Control  Act  also,  the  same  principle  applies.    In
\nparagraph 30  of  the  judgment,  reported  in  1996-2-L.W.658 (K.  Ramanathan
\n(died) and others v.  B.K.Nalini Jayanthi), it has been held by the Bench that
\nthe evidence must be by examining the persons connected with the sale deed  or
\nthe transactions.  In that case, even though registration copies of sale deeds
\nwere  produced  to  determine the market value, their Lordships held that they
\nwere not sufficient and persons connected  with  those  transactions  have  to
\nprove the  contents also.  I had an occasion to consider a similar case in the
\ndecision reported in 1996-2-L.W.637 (Rahmath Fathima, T.H.S.   v.    T.K.Kader
\nMohideen),<\/a>   where  I  held  that  for  determination  of  the  market  value,
\ntransaction between a willing purchaser and a willing seller will have  to  be
\nconsidered,  and  I  also  held that the value fixed by the Government for the
\npurpose of stamp duty has no relevance.  In paragraph 17 of  the  judgment,  I
\nhave said thus :-\n<\/p>\n
        “….The Government fixes the value only for the purpose of Stamp Duty
\ni.e., for the purpose of its revenue.  The value is fixed for the locality and
\nnot for  a particular survey number.  The market value for a particular survey
\nnumber is the result of a bargain between the parties.  That is a matter to be
\nproved by evidence.  Judicial notice cannot be taken regarding  the  value  of
\nthe property on the basis of a value fixed by the Government.”\n<\/p>\n
        10.   Since  the  Appellate Authority has relied upon only the hearsay
\nevidence of P.W.1, and that too on the basis of the information ascertained by
\nhim from the Sub-Registrar’s Office where registers have  been  kept  for  the
\npurpose of determining stamp duty, the same cannot be accepted as correct.”\n<\/p>\n
                8.   On  a reading of the above observations, it is clear that
\nJustice S.S.Subramani decided the issue in two cases, namely, 1996-2-L.W.6  37
\n(Rahmath Fathima, T.H.S.   v.  T.K.Kader Mohideen) and<\/a> 1997 (3) LAW WEEKLY 193
\n(Srinivasa Gounder v.   K.Venkatesan),<\/a>  holding,  that  for  determination  of
\nmarket  value,  transaction  between  a willing purchaser and a willing seller
\nwill have to be considered and the guideline  value,  which  is  intended  for
\nassessing the stamp duty, has no relevance.  These two decisions were rendered
\nby  Justice S.S.Subramani, on the strength of the decision of a Division Bench
\nof this Court reported in 1996-2-L.W.658 (K.Ramanathan (died)  and  others  v.
\nB.K.Nalini  Jayanthi)  and  on  the  decision of the Supreme Court reported in
\n(1996) 3 SCC 1 24 (U.P.Jal Nigam v.  Kalra Properties (P.) Ltd.).<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
                9.  Justice M.Srinivasan distinguished the earlier decision of
\nthe Supreme  Court  reported  in  1995  (1)  Supreme  Court  Cases  717  (Land
\nAcquisition Officer,  Eluru  &  Others  v.  Jasti Rohini and Another),<\/a> stating
\nthat the opinion given by the Supreme Court  that  the  value  fixed  for  the
\npurpose  of  collecting stamp duty cannot be considered to be the market value
\nwould not apply to the present case, as the Supreme Court did  not  deal  with
\nthe  Rent  Control Act and, on the other hand, it had dealt with only the Land
\nAcquisition Act.    However,  the  decision  reported  in   1995   T.L.N.J.226
\n(N.Sulaiman v.    R.Ravichandran),  rendered  by Justice M.Srinivasan, was not
\nbrought to  the  notice  of  Justice  S.S.Subramani.    Thus,  there  are  two
\nconflicting decisions.\n<\/p>\n
                10.   In  the above situation, we have to decide as to whether
\nthe guideline value, as contained in the  revenue  records  or  the  municipal
\nrecords,  or, the market value, as per the sale deeds executed at the relevant
\npoint of time, has to be taken into consideration, for fixing the fair rent.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  Let us now refer to various judgments, relied upon by the
\nlearned counsel for the parties :\n<\/p>\n
                (i) In (1994) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 595 (JAWAJEE NAGNATHAM  v.
\nREVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER), the Supreme Court<\/a> held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “5.   The question, therefore, is whether the Basic Valuation Register
\nis evidence to determine the  market  value.    This  Court  in  Special  Land
\nAcquisition Officer  v.   T.Adhinarayan Setty (AIR<\/a> 1959 SC 429) in paragraph 9
\nheld that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act  is
\nto  ascertain  the  market  value  of the land at the date of the notification
\nunder Section 4(1).  The methods of valuation may be (1)  opinion  of  experts
\n(2)  the  price  paid  within  a  reasonable time in bona fide transactions of
\npurchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and
\npossessing similar advantages; and (3) a  number  of  years  purchase  of  the
\nactual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired.  Same was the
\nview in Tribeni  Devi  v.    Collector  of  Ranchi<\/a> ((1972) 1 SCC 480).  It was
\nreiterated in catena of decisions, vide, Periyar and Pareekanni  Rubbers  Ltd.
\nv.  State  of Kerala<\/a> ((1991) 4 SCC 195).  Therefore, it is settled law that in
\ndetermining the market value, the Court has to take into account either one or
\nthe other three methods to determine market value of the lands appropriate  on
\nthe facts  of  a  given  case  to  determine the market value.  Generally, the
\nsecond method of valuation is accepted as the best.  The question,  therefore,
\nis whether the Basic Valuation Register would form foundation to determine the
\nmarket value….    It  is, therefore, clear that the Basic Valuation Register
\nprepared and maintained for the  purpose  of  collecting  stamp  duty  has  no
\nstatutory base  or force.  It cannot form a foundation to determine the market
\nvalue mentioned thereunder in instrument brought for registration.    Equally,
\nit  would not be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the
\nAct, of the lands acquired in that area or town or the locality or  the  taluk
\netc.   Evidence  of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent
\nvendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing  same
\nor  similar  advantageous  features  would  furnish  basis to determine market
\nvalue….”\n<\/p>\n
                (ii) In (1995) 1 SUPREME COURT  CASES  717  (LAND  ACQUISITION
\nOFFICER, ELURU  AND  OTHERS  v.   JASTI ROHINI AND ANOTHER), the Supreme Court<\/a>
\nobserved as under :\n<\/p>\n
        “7.  The reasonable method  to  determine  the  market  value  of  the
\nacquired  land  is  on  the  evidence  of  transactions  of bona fide sales of
\nacquired land, but not on evidence of sales of such land  got  up  having  had
\nknowledge  of  the  proposed  acquisition, the former would furnish reasonable
\nbasis to determine the compensation.  In its absence, bona fide sales but  not
\nmanipulated  sales  of  the  lands  in  the neighbourhood possessed of same or
\nsimilar quality and having the  same  or  similar  advantages  would  give  an
\nunerring  assurance  to  the  court to determine just and proper compensation.
\nSuch sales must not only be proved but also be  bona  fide  transactions  etc.
\nThese  factors must be established as a fact by examining either the vendor or
\nthe vendee.  Marking of certified copies of sale deeds are not proof of either
\nthe contents or the circumstances in which it came to be executed.  Bona  fide
\nsale  or series of sales or small pieces of land do not furnish the sole basis
\nto determine market value.  Bona fide sales may furnish evidence of the market
\nconditions for consideration.  Fixation of market value on the  basis  of  the
\nbasic valuation register is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable.”\n<\/p>\n
                (iii) In  1995  (II)  CTC  492  (G.LOGANATHAN  v.   S.CHENNIYA
\nCHETTIAR),<\/a> this Court held as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “5.  The Supreme Court and other Courts,  including  our  High  Court,
\nhave  held  that  the  guideline value is not the market value and it would be
\ndangerous to value the property according to the guideline value because there
\nis no guarantee or truth or correctness of the data  given  in  the  guideline
\nvalue.  In  Naganatham  v.    Revenue  Divisional  Officer, Adilabad (AIR 1983
\nA.P.155), the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the fixation  of  market
\nvalue  cannot  be  made  on  the  basis of the value noted in the market value
\nregister maintained by the Government and the Court has to take  into  account
\nthe  price  which  a  selling  (sic willing) purchaser is prepared to pay to a
\nwilling vendor.  This view has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same
\ncase, which was later taken before the Supreme Court in Jawajee Naganatham  v.
\nRevenue Divisional  Officer  (1994  (4)  S.C.C.595).    In a recent case, Land
\nAcquisition Officer v.  Jasti Rohini<\/a> (1995 (1) S.C.C.717), the  Supreme  Court
\nhas  observed  that  valuation register on the basis of the notification under
\nSection 47-A of the Stamp Act is for collection of Revenue and  it  cannot  be
\nthe basis  for  determination  of  the market value of the land.  In this case
\nalso, the Supreme Court has observed that the price which the  willing  seller
\nexpects from  the  willing  purchaser is the market price.  This Court also in
\nCollector, Nilgiris v.  M\/s.Mahavir Plantations Pte.Ltd.    (AIR<\/a>  1982  Madras\n<\/p>\n
138)  has held that to adopt figures prepared in the valuation guideline would
\nbe dangerous because they offer no guarantee of the truth  or  correctness  of
\ndata.  The Delhi High Court in Inder Prasad v.  Union of India (AIR<\/a> 1985 Delhi\n<\/p>\n
304)  also  has  repeated  the  same expression that the price which a willing
\nseller might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser is the  test
\nto  determine  the  market  value  and  it  cannot  be based on the opinion or
\ninformation given  by  the  Government.    Therefore,  from  these  chain   of
\ndecisions,  it  is  made  clear, that the guideline value cannot be the market
\nvalue of the property as the guideline value is intended for the collection of
\nthe Revenue.  As the market value alone is the criteria to value the suit  and
\nin  this case there is no contra evidence on the defendant’s side to show that
\nthe property covered under Ex.A.1 is more that (sic than) the value  given  in
\nthe sale  deed,  as held in Varadarajulu v.  Venkatakrishnan (1959) (1) M.L.J.
\n(Notes of cases 9), the valuation given in the sale deed has to  be  accepted.
\nAs a  matter  of  fact, the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Ammal v.  Madhavakrishnan
\n(AIR<\/a> 1978 S.C.1607) would point out that  the  question  of  court  fee  is  a
\nperipheral  issue and when there is reasonable doubt, benefit must be given to
\nthe party, who pleads for the lesser court fee.”\n<\/p>\n
                (iv) In 1996 (II) CTC 60 (U.P.JAL NIGAM,  LUCKNOW  v.    KALRA
\nPROPERTIES (P) LTD.), the Supreme Court<\/a> would hold as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “6.   The  finding  of  the  Court that the concession that the market
\nvalue determined by the Collector on the basis of  basic  valuation  would  be
\nproperly applied, is obviously illegal.  Shri Gopal Subramaniam contended that
\nthe  Government  of  U.P.had  issued  three  different circulars accepting the
\nposition that the basic valuation would form basis for  determination  of  the
\ncompensation  under  Section  23  (1)  and that, therefore, the High Court was
\nright in accepting the valuation made by the Collector and in directing to pay
\nthe compensation on that basis.  After the judgment in  Nagnatham  case,  1994
\n(4)  SCC  595,  the  Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in State of
\nU.P.  v.  Shau Singh, 1995 (1) H.V.D.191, had held that the  rates  fixed  for
\nthe  collection of stamp duty cannot be relied upon to determine market value.
\nTherefore, the instructions issued by the Government for determination of  the
\nmarket value  on the basis of basic valuation register were held illegal.  The
\nCollector, therefore, was obviously  wrong  in  determining  the  compensation
\nunder  Section  23  (1)  on the basis of prevailing rates in 1992 as per basic
\nvaluation circulars.”\n<\/p>\n
                (v) In 2004 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI) 377 (R.SAI  BHARATHI  v.
\nJ.   JAYALALITHA AND OTHERS), the Apex Court,<\/a> in paragraphs 22 and 24, held as
\nfollows :\n<\/p>\n
        “22.  The guideline value has relevance only in the context of Section
\n47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (as amended by T.N.Act 24 of 1967) which provides
\nfor dealing with  instruments  of  conveyance  which  are  undervalued.    The
\nguideline  value  is  a  rate  fixed  by  authorities  under the Stamp Act for
\npurposes of determining the true market value of the property disclosed in  an
\ninstrument requiring payment of stamp duty.  Thus the guideline value fixed is
\nnot final  but  only  a prima facie rate prevailing in an area.  It is open to
\nthe registering authority as well as the person seeking registration to  prove
\nthe actual  market  value  of  property.    The  authorities cannot regard the
\nguideline valuation as the last word on the subject of  market  value.    This
\nposition  is  clear  in  the  explanation  to Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (
\nPrevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules,1968.  The said Explanation
\nreads as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        “Explanation.- The ‘guidelines register’ supplied to the  officers  is
\nintended  merely  to  assist them to ascertain prima facie, whether the market
\nvalue has been truly set forth in the instruments.  The entries  made  therein
\nregarding  the  value  of  properties cannot be a substitute for market price.
\nSuch entries will not foreclose the enquiry of  the  Collector  under  Section
\n47-A  of  the  Act  or  fetter  the discretion of the authorities concerned to
\nsatisfy themselves on the reasonableness or otherwise of the  value  expressed
\nin the documents.”\n<\/p>\n
        24.   This  scheme  of  the  enactment  and the Rules contemplate that
\nguideline value will only afford a prima facie basis to ascertain the true  or
\ncorrect  market value, undue emphasis on the guideline value without reference
\nto the setting in which it  is  to  be  viewed  will  obscure  the  issue  for
\nconsideration.  It is clear, therefore, that guideline value is not sacrosanct
\nas  urged  on behalf of the appellants, but only a factor to be taken note of,
\nif at all available in respect of an area in which  the  property  transferred
\nlies.   In any event, therefore, if for the purpose of the Stamp Act guideline
\nvalue alone is not a factor to determine the value of property, its worth will
\nnot be any higher in the  context  of  assessing  the  true  market  value  of
\nproperties  in  question  to ascertain whether the transaction has resulted in
\nany offence so as to give a pecuniary advantage to one party or the other.”\n<\/p>\n
                (vi) In (2005) 12 SUPREME COURT CASES  59  (RANVIR  SINGH  AND
\nANOTHER v.  UNION OF INDIA), the Supreme Court<\/a> observed as under :\n<\/p>\n
        “31.   Furthermore,  it is well settled that the sale deeds pertaining
\nto the portion of lands which are subject to acquisition  would  be  the  most
\nrelevant  piece  of  evidence  for  assessing the market value of the acquired
\nlands.”\n<\/p>\n
                12.  We have gone through the above judgments,  cited  by  the
\ncounsel for the parties.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   At  the  outset,  it  shall be stated that the guideline
\nvalue, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, is  a  value  determined  for  the
\npurpose of  collecting stamp duty.  The Basic Valuation Register is maintained
\nby the revenue authorities, on the basis of the  notification  issued  by  the
\nGovernment under  Section  47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.  The same is meant to
\nbe a guide for collection of revenue and the stamp duty.   It  is  mainly  for
\ncollection of  stamp duty for registration of an instrument.  The Notification
\nunder Section 47-A, which is meant to be a guide for  collection  of  revenue,
\ncannot form basis for determination of the market value.  The Government fixes
\nthe  value,  as  indicated above, only for the purpose of stamp duty i.e., for
\nthe purpose of its revenue.  The value is fixed for the locality and not for a
\nparticular survey number.  The market value for a particular survey number  is
\nthe result  of  a  bargain between the parties.  On the other hand, as pointed
\nout by the Supreme Court, the market value is the value, as described  in  the
\nsale deed.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   The  methods  of  valuation  for ascertaining the market
\nvalue, as suggested in the above decisions, are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        (1) Opinion of experts<\/p>\n
        (2) The price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide  transactions
\nof  purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired
\nand possessing similar advantages.    Evidence  of  bona  fide  sales  between
\nwilling  prudent  vendor  and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated
\nnear about that land possessing same or similar  advantageous  features  would
\nfurnish basis to determine market value.\n<\/p>\n
        (3)   A  number  of  years  purchase  of  the  actual  or  immediately
\nprospective profits of the lands acquired.\n<\/p>\n
                15.  It is a settled  law,  as  laid  down  in  the  judgments
\nreferred to above, that in determining the market value, the Court has to take
\ninto  account  either one or the other three methods to determine market value
\nof the lands appropriate on the facts of a  given  case.    According  to  the
\nSupreme  Court,  generally, the second method of valuation is accepted, as the
\nbest.  This method would furnish the  evidence  of  bona  fide  sales  between
\nwilling  prudent  vendor  and prudent vendee of the lands acquired or situated
\nnear about that land possessing same or similar advantageous  features,  which
\nwould enable the Court to determine the market value correctly.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  In view of the above ratio decidendi fixed by the Supreme
\nCourt,  the  fixation  of  market  value  on  the  basis of guideline value or
\nvaluation register, summoned from Sub-Registrar’s Office and the Engineer,  is
\nillegal and unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
                17.  The view expressed by Justice S.S.Subramani, in our view,
\nis  correct,  as  it  is  in  consonance  with the principles laid down by the
\nSupreme Court.  The other view expressed by Justice Srinivasan is not correct,
\nas the methods suggested by the Supreme Court  for  fixing  the  market  value
\nwould not include the consideration of guideline value and valuation register.
\nSo, in our opinion, the said view is wrong.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  Therefore, our conclusions are as follows :\n<\/p>\n
        (1)  The  guideline  value, contained in the Basic Valuation Register,
\nmaintained by the Revenue Department or the Municipality for  the  purpose  of
\ncollecting stamp  duty,  has  no  statutory  base  or force.  It cannot form a
\nfoundation to determine the market value mentioned  thereunder  in  instrument
\nbrought for registration.\n<\/p>\n
        (2)  Evidence  of  bona  fide sales between willing prudent vendor and
\nprudent vendee of  the  lands  acquired  or  situated  near  about  that  land
\npossessing  same  or  similar  advantageous  features  would  furnish basis to
\ndetermine the market value.  In this case, the guideline value alone has  been
\nconsidered, which, in our view, is illegal.\n<\/p>\n
        (3)  The  Rent Controller and the Rent Control Appellate Authority, in
\nthe present  case,  are  not  right  in  relying  upon  the  guideline  value,
\nmaintained by the Revenue Department, for arriving at a fair rent, to be fixed
\nunder Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act,1960.\n<\/p>\n
                19.   In  view  of  the  above  settled  position  of  law and
\nconclusions, both the counsel for the parties  would  now  agree  for  setting
\naside  the  orders  impugned  and for remanding the matter for fixing the fair
\nrent in respect of the property during the relevant point of  time  to  follow
\nthe methods as mentioned above, after allowing the parties to adduce evidence.\n<\/p>\n
                20.   Therefore,  it would be appropriate to remand the matter
\nto the Rent Controller, after setting aside the orders impugned, and to  allow
\nthe parties to adduce evidence, to help the Rent Controller in arriving at the
\nmarket  value,  on  the  basis  of the evidence of bona fide sales between the
\nvendor and the vendee of the lands situated near about  that  land  possessing
\nsame or similar advantageous features during the relevant point of time; which
\nis, accordingly, ordered.\n<\/p>\n
                21.   While  the  reference  was  made  for  Larger Bench, the
\nlearned single Judge directed the tenant\/revision petitioner to pay a  sum  of
\nRs.1 ,500\/- per month commencing from the month of April,2000, towards monthly
\nrent  directly  to  the  landlord  during  the  pendency of the above revision
\npetition, which shall be adjusted after final adjudication.\n<\/p>\n
                22.  We make it  clear  that  the  said  interim  order  shall
\ncontinue till the disposal of the matter by the Rent Controller.\n<\/p>\n
                23.   Since  the  R.C.O.P.is  of  the  year  1993 and, by now,
\nthirteen years’ period has elapsed, the Rent Controller is directed to dispose
\nof the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt  of  copy
\nof this order.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  Civil  Revision  Petition is disposed of accordingly.  No
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
dixit<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Rent Control Appellate Authority\n<\/p>\n
-cum-Principal Subordinate Judge,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Rent Controller\n<\/p>\n
-cum-District Munsif,
\nMadurai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07\/04\/2006 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AR.RAMALINGAM AND THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE K.SUGUNA C.R.P.No.3092 OF 1996 M\/s.Sakthi & Co., through its Partner Veeranan…. Petitioner -Vs- Shree Desigachary .. Respondent Revision against […]<\/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-235375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006 - 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\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-06T15:33:56+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-06T15:33:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4580,\"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\\\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-06T15:33:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006 - 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\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-06T15:33:56+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006","datePublished":"2006-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-06T15:33:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006"},"wordCount":4580,"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\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006","name":"M\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-06T15:33:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sakthi-co-vs-shree-desigachary-on-7-april-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Sakthi & Co vs Shree Desigachary on 7 April, 2006"}]},{"@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\/235375","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=235375"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/235375\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=235375"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=235375"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=235375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}