{"id":271824,"date":"2006-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006"},"modified":"2017-01-07T12:37:48","modified_gmt":"2017-01-07T07:07:48","slug":"the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 2006<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 13\/07\/2006  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA       \nAND  \nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN         \n\nL.P.A. No. 170 of 2002\n\n\nThe Commissioner  \nH.R.and C.E.  A  Department \nMadras 34                       ..Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nSri Bhagavanandhar and \n Sri Dhayanandhar Matalayam  \n Pudupalayam, Cuddalore  \n represented by its\n hereditary trustee\n G.Arunachalam                  ..Respondent\n\n        Prayer:  L.P.A against the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2001 passed\nby this court in A.S.  No.608 of 1995.\n\n!For Appellant  :  Mr.V.Srikanth\n                   AGP\n\n^For Respondent :  No Appearance  \n\n:JUDGMENT   \n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">             (The judgment of the Court was made by P.K.  MISRA, J)<\/p>\n<p>                The Commissioner, Hindu  Religious  and  Charitable  Endowment<br \/>\nDepartment  has  filed  this  appeal  under the Letters Patent challenging the<br \/>\norder passed by the learned single Judge  in  A.S.No.608  of  1995  dated  1.8<br \/>\n.2001, under the following circumstances :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">        The  respondent  had  filed  O.A.No.169  of  1996  before  the  Deputy<br \/>\nCommissioner, Hindu Religious &amp; Charitable  Endowment  Board  for  declaration<br \/>\nunder  Section  63(a)  of  the  Tamil  Nadu  Hindu  Religious  and  <a href=\"\/doc\/495092\/\" id=\"a_1\">Charitable<br \/>\nEndowments Act<\/a>,1959, hereinafter referred to as the  Act,  that  the  disputed<br \/>\ninstitution is  not  a  religious  institution.    It was also prayed that the<br \/>\ntrustee was holding office as  a  hereditary  trustee  as  contemplated  under<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/495092\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 63(b)<\/a>  of the Act.  The Deputy Commissioner found that the institution<br \/>\nis a religious institution and declared the present respondent  as  hereditary<br \/>\ntrustee.   Such  order  was challenged before the Commissioner in AP.No.214 of<br \/>\n1977, but the said appeal was rejected by the Commissioner.    Thereafter,  as<br \/>\ncontemplated  under  <a href=\"\/doc\/495092\/\" id=\"a_2\">section 70<\/a> of the Act, the respondent filed O.S.No.633 of<br \/>\n1979  before  the  Subordinate  Judge  for  declaration  that  the   plaintiff<br \/>\ninstitution  is  not  a religious institution as defined under the Act and for<br \/>\nsetting aside the order of the Commissioner, HR &amp; CE passed in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">                2.  The main assertion made in such suit  was  to  the  effect<br \/>\nthat the present hereditary trustees paternal grandfather was a great devotee<br \/>\nof  two  saints, namely, Sri Bhagavandhas Swamigal and Sri Dhayanada Swamigal,<br \/>\nand after such saints attained nirvana, their mortal remains were interned and<br \/>\nstructures have been put up by  such  paternal  grandfather  of  the  trustee.<br \/>\nRegular poojas   were  held  in  the  samdahis.    These  samadhis  are  being<br \/>\nadministered by the male  descendants  of  the  founder  trustee  as  per  the<br \/>\ninstructions  and  the  present  trustee has been recognised as the hereditary<br \/>\ntrustee.  It was further alleged that originally only Bali Peetams were  put<br \/>\nup over the samadhis and there were no idols, but about 15 years before filing<br \/>\nof the  suit,  idols  have  been  placed  near Bali Peetams.  It was further<br \/>\nstated that the institution was not a Hindu religious institution since it  is<br \/>\nopen  to  members of all religious and people of all religions are entitled to<br \/>\nworship and in fact worshipping.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">                3.  A written statement was filed on  behalf  of  the  present<br \/>\nappellant,  wherein it was contended that the suit institution was a religious<br \/>\ninstitution and has been rightly found as such by the Deputy Commissioner  and<br \/>\nthe Commissioner.    It was further stated that since notice as required under<br \/>\nSection 80 C.P.C., has not been issued, the suit was liable to be dismissed on<br \/>\nthat ground.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">                4.  The  trial  court  found  that  the  origin  of  the  suit<br \/>\ninstitution  has  been  from samadhis of two swamigals and even though certain<br \/>\nidols have been placed near the samadhis in recent times, it  cannot  be  said<br \/>\nthat  suit  institution  was a religious institution as defined under the Act.<br \/>\nFor the aforesaid purpose, the Subordinate Judge relied  upon  a  decision  of<br \/>\nthis Court   reported   in   1977  (I)  MLJ  125  (SOUNDHARA  AMMAL  v.    THE<br \/>\nTIRUCHIRAPALLI MAVATTAM MAHASURULI ALAYA BAKTHARGAL MADYA  SANGAM),  which  in<br \/>\nits turn had relied upon an earlier decision of this Court reported in 1955(I)<br \/>\nMLJ 60 (BODENDRASWAMI MUTT v.  PRESIDENT, H.R.  &amp; C.E.  BOARD), wherein it has<br \/>\nbeen  indicated  that mere presence of idols of Gods and recognised deities in<br \/>\nthe matam round the samadhi  would  not  bring  such  institution  within  the<br \/>\ndefinition  of  the  temple  and such samadhi cannot be considered as a public<br \/>\ntemple.  On the  basis  of  such  conclusion,  the  trial  court  decreed  the<br \/>\nplaintiffs  suit  with a declaration that the institution was not a religious<br \/>\ninstitution as defined under the Act.  Such decision  was  challenged  by  the<br \/>\nEndowment  Commissioner  before  the learned single Judge, wherein the learned<br \/>\nsingle Judge by relying upon the decision reported in 1977(I) MLJ  125  (cited<br \/>\nsupra)  confirmed  the finding of the learned single Judge, giving rise to the<br \/>\npresent appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">                5.  In the present appeal, inspite  of  notice,  there  is  no<br \/>\nappearance on behalf of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">                6.   Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted<br \/>\nthat even though as per the definition at the time of decision of the suit and<br \/>\nthe appeal the institution might not have been a religious  institution  under<br \/>\nthe  Act,  in  view of the subsequent change in law, the decision of the trial<br \/>\ncourt is required to be modified.  It has  been  submitted  by  him  that  the<br \/>\ndefinition  of religious institution has undergone a change by virtue of the<br \/>\namendment effected by <a href=\"\/doc\/195458\/\" id=\"a_3\">Tamil Nadu Act<\/a> 10 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">                7.  <a href=\"\/doc\/495092\/\" id=\"a_4\">Before the Act<\/a> was amended as per  Act  10  of  2003,  the<br \/>\ndefinition of religious institution as per <a href=\"\/doc\/908804\/\" id=\"a_5\">Section 6(18)<\/a> was as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">        religious institution means a math, temple or specific endowment.<br \/>\nHowever, by amendment the definition is as follows :-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">        6(18)  religious  institution  means  a  math,  temple  or  specific<br \/>\nendowment and includes,-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">        (i) a samadhi or brindhavan; or<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">        (ii) any other institution established or maintained for  a  religious<br \/>\npurpose.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">        Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">        (1)  samadhi means a place where the mortal remains of a guru, sadhu<br \/>\nor saint is interned and used as a place of public religious worship;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">        (2) brindhavan means a place established or maintained in memory  of<br \/>\na  guru,  sadhu  or saint and used as a place of public religious worship, but<br \/>\ndoes not include samadhi;<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">                8.  Relying upon the aforesaid changed definition, the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant submits that in view of such  changes  in  law,  the<br \/>\njudgment  of  the  Civil  Court is required to be modified and the institution<br \/>\ncould be considered as religious institution.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\">                9.  A perusal of the definition as per the  amended  provision<br \/>\nmakes it  is  clear  that  religious  institution  includes a samadhi.  Such<br \/>\namendment, which came into force on 12.6.2003, leaves no room for doubt that a<br \/>\nsamadhi would also come under religious institution.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">                10.  Next question is whether the suit, which was filed  at  a<br \/>\ntime  when  such  amendment was not in force can be disposed of by taking into<br \/>\naccount such change in law.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">                11.  In the present case, there is no dispute that worship  of<br \/>\nthe samadhi  was  being  done  by  the  members of the general public.  In the<br \/>\nabsence of any such dispute and in view of the  amended  provision,  since  no<br \/>\nother  factual  dispute  needs  to be resolved, there can be no doubt that the<br \/>\ninstitution would be now considered as religious institution as contemplated<br \/>\nin <a href=\"\/doc\/908804\/\" id=\"a_6\">Section 6(18)<\/a> of Act 10 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">                12.  Since the decisions relied upon by the  trial  court  and<br \/>\nthe learned single Judge were based upon the definition existing prior to such<br \/>\namendment,  it  must be taken that the effect of such decisions has been taken<br \/>\naway by the amendment effected under Act 10 of 2003.  From  the  statement  of<br \/>\nobjects  and  reasons  of the amending Act, it is obvious that the legislature<br \/>\nintended to  include  the  places  of  samadhi  and  brindhavan  as  religious<br \/>\ninstitutions to bring them under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable<br \/>\nEndowment Department.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">                13.   Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the appellant has also<br \/>\nsubmitted that there is no  satisfactory  evidence  to  the  effect  that  the<br \/>\ntrustee was  a  hereditary trustee.  However, such contention of the appellant<br \/>\ncannot be accepted.  Apart from the fact that in the proceedings under Section<br \/>\n63(b) the  Deputy  Commissioner  has  recognised  the  trustee  as  hereditary<br \/>\ntrustee,  the  materials on record, which have been referred to in the present<br \/>\nproceedings,  clearly  indicate  that  the  trustee  was  holding  the  office<br \/>\nhereditarily  and,  therefore,  such  contention  of  the  appellant cannot be<br \/>\naccepted.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">                14.  In such view of the matter, the decree of the trial court<br \/>\nas confirmed in appeal is required to be clarified.  It is therefore  declared<br \/>\nthat  the  institution can be considered as religious institution within the<br \/>\nmeaning of <a href=\"\/doc\/908804\/\" id=\"a_7\">Section 6(18)<\/a> with effect from the date on which <a href=\"\/doc\/195458\/\" id=\"a_8\">Tamil Nadu Act<\/a>  10<br \/>\nof 2003  came into force.  However, it is further declared that the trustee of<br \/>\nthe institution is a hereditary trustee and such recognition  as  per  <a href=\"\/doc\/195458\/\" id=\"a_9\">Section<br \/>\n63(b)<\/a> remains untested.    The  appeal  is accordingly allowed in part.  There<br \/>\nwould be no order as to costs so far as the present appeal is concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">dpk\/vsl<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">1.  The Sub Assistant Registrar,<br \/>\n    High Court, Madras 104.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_24\">2.  The Subordinate Judge,<br \/>\n    Cuddalore (with records)<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_25\">3.  The Record Keeper,<br \/>\n    V.R.  Section,<br \/>\n    High Court,<br \/>\n    Madras 104.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_26\">\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 13\/07\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRA AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN L.P.A. No. 170 of 2002 The Commissioner H.R.and C.E. A Department Madras 34 ..Appellant -Vs- Sri Bhagavanandhar and [&hellip;]<\/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-271824","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-07T07:07:48+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=\"7 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-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-07T07:07:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1383,\"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-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-07T07:07:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 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":"The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-07T07:07:48+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-07T07:07:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006"},"wordCount":1383,"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-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006","name":"The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-07T07:07:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-vs-sri-bhagavanandhar-and-on-13-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner vs Sri Bhagavanandhar And on 13 July, 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\/271824","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=271824"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271824\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}