{"id":30690,"date":"2007-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007"},"modified":"2017-05-06T16:08:23","modified_gmt":"2017-05-06T10:38:23","slug":"m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"M.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of … on 29 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
M.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of … on 29 January, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                   DATED:     29 .01.2007\n\n                            CORAM\n\n           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN\n\n               WRIT PETITION No.27573 of 2004\n\n                              \n\n1.M.L.Mathews\n2.Ms.Geetha Mathews\n3.M.I.Jacob\n   son of late M.I.Malloth\n   All rep by Power of Attorney\n   P.Dhanapal,\n   No.29, III Street,\n   Nehruji Nagar,\n   Arakkonam Town,\n   Vellore  District                        ...Petitioners\n\n\n                              Vs.\n\n\n1.The Inspector General of Registration\n No.100, Santhom Salai,\n Mylapore, Chennai - 28.\n\n2.The Joint Sub Registrar No-2,\n Arakonam\n\n3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n Ranipettai,\n Vellore.                                      ... Respondents\n\n\n\n                            * * *\n      The  Writ  Petition  filed under Article  226  of  the\nConstitution   of  India  praying  to  issue   a   Writ   of\nCertiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n                            * * *\n                              \n               For petitioner  : Mr.ARL.Sundaresan,\n                                 Senior Advocate\n               For respondents : Mr.C.Thirumaran\n                                 Government Advocate\n                                 For R1 to R3\n                                 Mr.V.Raghavachari -\n                                 For R4\n\n\n\n                        O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
       The  Writ  Petition has been filed  praying  for  the<\/p>\n
issuance  of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to  call  for<\/p>\n
the   records  relating  to  the  order,  dated  05.08.2004,<\/p>\n
Na.Ka.A4.4068\/2002   of  the  third  respondent    and   the<\/p>\n
memorandum  No.433\/2004,  dated 08.09.2004,  of  the  second<\/p>\n
respondent  and quash the same and consequently  direct  the<\/p>\n
second  respondent to register the sale deeds in respect  of<\/p>\n
the plots in S.No.161\/1, Keelkuppam Village, Arakonam Taluk.<\/p>\n
     2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well<\/p>\n
as for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     3.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the<\/p>\n
lands  of an extent of 7.09 acres situated at S.No.161\/1  in<\/p>\n
Keelkuppam Village, Arakkonam Taluk, was assigned in  favour<\/p>\n
of  one Rosikhan, son of Sivaramulu, in the year 1923, under<\/p>\n
DKT  492\/23, dated 28.12.1923. The said lands were  assigned<\/p>\n
to him as he was a landless poor person under Dharkast rules<\/p>\n
with  certain terms and conditions including that he  should<\/p>\n
not sell or mortgage the said lands for a period of 10 years<\/p>\n
from the date of assignment.   Following the assignment, the<\/p>\n
lands  were  being  cultivated  by  Rosikhan,  who  was   in<\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of the same.  In the year 1951,  he<\/p>\n
had  sold the lands to one Thaikhan under a registered  Sale<\/p>\n
Deed,    dated    15.02.1951,   under    Document    No.517.<\/p>\n
Subsequently, Thaikhan had sold the lands to Benjamin son of<\/p>\n
Maran  and  M.I.Jacob son of Mallath, by a  registered  Sale<\/p>\n
Deed,  dated 07.06.1956, under Document No.2170.   The  said<\/p>\n
Benjamin had released his rights over the lands in favour of<\/p>\n
Mathew under a release deed, dated 06.05.1988, and from  the<\/p>\n
date  of  the  release deed, the said  Mathew  has  been  in<\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment of the lands along with his brother<\/p>\n
Jacob.    It  has been further submitted that a joint  patta<\/p>\n
had  been granted in favour of Mathew and Jacob under  patta<\/p>\n
No.350.   The  names were also entered in  all  the  revenue<\/p>\n
records, including the Chitta and Adangal.  Subsequently,  a<\/p>\n
family  arrangement  had  taken place  by  which  Jacob  had<\/p>\n
settled  half of his share in the property to his  brother’s<\/p>\n
daughter  Geetha  Mathews, by a settlement    deed  ,  dated<\/p>\n
29.03.1989.   Thus, the first petitioner became entitled  to<\/p>\n
half  share  and  the  second  and  third  petitioners  were<\/p>\n
entitled  to  one  fourth  share each  in  the  property  in<\/p>\n
S.No.161\/3, to an extent of 7.09 acres.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4.   The petitioners, who are the owners of the  above<\/p>\n
mentioned lands, had executed a power of attorney in  favour<\/p>\n
of  one  P.Dhanapal, son of poongavanam, who has  filed  the<\/p>\n
affidavit in support of the present writ petition on  behalf<\/p>\n
of  the petitioners.  The said P.Dhanapal, with an intention<\/p>\n
to develop the lands, had formed a lay out and submitted the<\/p>\n
plan   for   approval  to  the  Block  Development  Officer,<\/p>\n
Arakonam,  on  02.05.2002.  The Block  Development  Officer,<\/p>\n
Arakonam,  by  a  letter,  dated  07.05.2002,  had  directed<\/p>\n
P.Dhanapal  to  approach  the  President  of  the  concerned<\/p>\n
Panchayat and he was also directed to execute a gift deed in<\/p>\n
favour  of the Panchayat for the areas earmarked as  road  ,<\/p>\n
park  and  public places etc., Accordingly,  P.Dhanapal  had<\/p>\n
executed  the  gift  deed in favour  of  the  Panchayat,  on<\/p>\n
09.05.2002.   Thereafter, the layout was approved and a  ‘No<\/p>\n
Objection Certificate’ was also granted, for the sale of the<\/p>\n
plots  by  the  President of the Panchayat,  on  03.07.2002.<\/p>\n
Thereafter,  six  plots were sold to several  persons,  from<\/p>\n
13.03.2002  to  13.12.2002.  While so, the third  respondent<\/p>\n
had  issued  a notice, dated 20.10.2003, alleging  that  the<\/p>\n
lands S.No.161\/1 were assigned to a Schedule Caste person by<\/p>\n
name Rosikhan and the sale in favour of persons belonging to<\/p>\n
the other communities was against the conditions under which<\/p>\n
the  original  assignment had been made. Hence,  the  second<\/p>\n
petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why her  sale<\/p>\n
deed  should  not  be canceled.  The second  petitioner  was<\/p>\n
given 15 days time to show cause stating that  if she failed<\/p>\n
to  do so, a final order would be passed. On receipt of  the<\/p>\n
said  notice,  a detailed reply was sent narrating  all  the<\/p>\n
facts  and pointing out that the sale was made only after  a<\/p>\n
period of 27 years and therefore, there was no violation  of<\/p>\n
the  conditions of the assignment, as alleged in the notice.<\/p>\n
It  was  also  stated  that the lay  out  was  approved  and<\/p>\n
transactions were also made in respect of the said lands and<\/p>\n
there  was no dispute in that regard.  Further, on a perusal<\/p>\n
of  the  records, it was clear that there was no conditional<\/p>\n
assignment of the lands in S.No.161\/1 said to have been made<\/p>\n
in  favour of Rosikhan.   Even though there were no  further<\/p>\n
communications  from  the  third  respondent,   the   second<\/p>\n
respondent  had  issued instructions to  the  Sub-Registrar,<\/p>\n
Arakonam, not to register the sale deeds in respect  of  the<\/p>\n
said  lands.   Therefore, the Sub-Registrar, Arakonam,   had<\/p>\n
refused  to register the Sale Deed and he had insisted  that<\/p>\n
those  who were purchasing house plots in S.No.161\/1  should<\/p>\n
produce   Adi-Dravidar  Community  Certificates   with   the<\/p>\n
intention of avoiding persons belonging to other communities<\/p>\n
from   purchasing   the  house  sites.    Accordingly,   the<\/p>\n
Tahsildar,  Arakonam, had issued a letter, dated 04.03.2003,<\/p>\n
to  the  second  respondent marking  a  copy  to  the  third<\/p>\n
respondent, directing them not to register any sale deed  to<\/p>\n
any  person not belonging to Adi-dravidar community and  had<\/p>\n
called for further clarifications in that regard.<\/p>\n
        5.A  writ  petition  filed  before  this  Court,  in<\/p>\n
W.P.No.27702  of  2003, was dismissed  by  an  order,  dated<\/p>\n
07.10.2003,  wherein it was stated that an interdepartmental<\/p>\n
communication cannot be challenged.  Thereafter, a  detailed<\/p>\n
representation  was sent to the first respondent  requesting<\/p>\n
him  to issue necessary instructions to the third respondent<\/p>\n
not to insist on the production of community certificates by<\/p>\n
the  intending  purchasers. It was also requested  that  the<\/p>\n
third  respondent  should be directed to register  the  sale<\/p>\n
deeds relating to the said lands.  Thereafter, 15 sale deeds<\/p>\n
were  registered by the second respondent  .  While  so,  on<\/p>\n
20.03.2004,  the  third  respondent  had  issued  a   notice<\/p>\n
referring  to  the  earlier notice,  dated  20.10.2003,  and<\/p>\n
without  referring to the reply issued to the  said  notice,<\/p>\n
stating  that  the  enjoyment of  the  lands  in  S.No.161\/1<\/p>\n
assigned  in  favour  of Rosikhan is  in  violation  of  the<\/p>\n
conditions of assignment. By the said notice, an enquiry was<\/p>\n
proposed  to  be  held. By a letter, dated  05.08.2004,  the<\/p>\n
third respondent had stated that the lands were assigned  in<\/p>\n
favour  of  the Rosikhan belonging to Adi-dravidar Community<\/p>\n
with  certain  conditions.  As per the said  conditions,  it<\/p>\n
should   not   be  sold  to  persons  belonging   to   other<\/p>\n
communities.     Further,   as   per   Government    Orders,<\/p>\n
agricultural  lands should not be converted into  lay  outs.<\/p>\n
Due  to  the violations of the conditions, steps were  being<\/p>\n
taken  to  cancel  the  assignment.   Further,  due  to  the<\/p>\n
impugned  order,  dated  05.08.2004,  passed  by  the  third<\/p>\n
respondent  in  Na.Ka.A4  4068 of 2002  and  the  Memorandum<\/p>\n
No.433   \/2004,  dated  08.09.2004,  issued  by  the  second<\/p>\n
respondent,  the petitioners were not able to  register  any<\/p>\n
sale deeds through their power of attorney P.Dhanapal.<\/p>\n
      6.The  learned  counsel appearing  on  behalf  of  the<\/p>\n
petitioners has placed reliance on an order of this court in<\/p>\n
R.Ramanathan  and  others Vs. The State of  Tamil  Nadu  and<\/p>\n
another  reported in 1997 MLJ 406, wherein it was held  that<\/p>\n
the  petitioners therein had purchased the lands in the year<\/p>\n
1973,  and  the pattas were also issued with regard  to  the<\/p>\n
said  lands  and  the  lands were  developed   by  investing<\/p>\n
substantial  money.   Therefore,  the  proceedings  by   the<\/p>\n
Government initiated in the year 1987, for resumption of the<\/p>\n
lands, were held to be barred by estoppel.<\/p>\n
     7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had<\/p>\n
relied  on  the decision of the Supreme Court  in  State  of<\/p>\n
Rajasthan   and  others Vs. Basant Nahata, reported  in  AIR<\/p>\n
2005  Supreme  Court  3401, where in it  has  been  held  as<\/p>\n
follows :-\n<\/p>\n
    “Public  policy is not capable of  being  given  a<\/p>\n
    precise  definition.  What is ‘opposed  to  public<\/p>\n
    policy’  would  be  a  matter depending  upon  the<\/p>\n
    nature  of the transaction.  The pleadings of  the<\/p>\n
    parties and the materials brought on record  would<\/p>\n
    be relevant so as to enable the Court to judge the<\/p>\n
    concept  as to what is for public good or  in  the<\/p>\n
    public  interest  or what would  be  injurious  or<\/p>\n
    harmful  to the public good or the public interest<\/p>\n
    at   the   relevant  point  of  time  as   contra-<\/p>\n
    distinguished  from  the policy  of  a  particular<\/p>\n
    Govt.  A  law dealing with the rights of a citizen<\/p>\n
    is required to be clear and unambiguous.  Doctrine<\/p>\n
    of  public  policy is contained  in  a  branch  of<\/p>\n
    common  law,  it  is governed by precedents.   The<\/p>\n
    principles have been crystallized under  different<\/p>\n
    heads and though it may be possible for the Courts<\/p>\n
    to  expound and apply them to different situations<\/p>\n
    but  it is trite that the said doctrine should not<\/p>\n
    be  taken  recourse to in ‘clear and incontestable<\/p>\n
    cases  of harm to the public though the heads  are<\/p>\n
    not  closed  and though theoretically  it  may  be<\/p>\n
    permissible to evolve a new head under exceptional<\/p>\n
    circumstances of a changing world.’<\/p>\n
    A  contract being ‘opposed to public policy’ is  a<\/p>\n
    defence under S.23 of the Indian Contract Act  and<\/p>\n
    the  Courts  while  deciding  the  validity  of  a<\/p>\n
    contract has to consider: a) Pleadings in terms of<\/p>\n
    O.6  Rule  1  of the Code of Civil Procedure.   b)<\/p>\n
    Statute governing the case c) Provisions of  Parts<\/p>\n
    III and IV of the Constitution of India. d) Expert<\/p>\n
    evidence,  if  any  e)  The materials  brought  on<\/p>\n
    record  of the case f) Other relevant factors,  if<\/p>\n
    any.   It  becomes  amply clear  that  it  is  not<\/p>\n
    possible to define public policy with precision at<\/p>\n
    any point of time.  It is not for the executive to<\/p>\n
    fill these grey areas as the said power rests with<\/p>\n
    judiciary.  Whenever interpretation of the concept<\/p>\n
    ‘public policy’ is required to be considered it is<\/p>\n
    for  the  judiciary to do so and in doing so  even<\/p>\n
    the  power of the judiciary is very limited.  Even<\/p>\n
    for the said purpose, the part dealing with public<\/p>\n
    policy in S.23 of the Contract Act is required  to<\/p>\n
    be  construed  in  conjunction  with  other  parts<\/p>\n
    thereof.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
However,after  discussing all the relevant  aspects  of  the<\/p>\n
case the Supreme Court had finally stated.<\/p>\n
    “so  far  as  amendments made by other States  are<\/p>\n
    concerned,  we are of the opinion that  any  order<\/p>\n
    passed by a Sub-registrar or Registrar refusing to<\/p>\n
    register  a  document pursuant to any notification<\/p>\n
    issued under Section 22-A of the Act would not  be<\/p>\n
    re-opened.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on<\/p>\n
behalf  of  the petitioners that Section 34 and  35  of  The<\/p>\n
Registration Act,1908 and Rule 55 of The Registration  Rules<\/p>\n
are relevant for the present case. They read as follows:-<\/p>\n
    Section   34.Enquiry  before  registration   by<\/p>\n
    registering  officer  –  (1)  Subject  to   the<\/p>\n
    provisions  contained  in  this  Part  and   in<\/p>\n
    Sections   41,43,45,69,75,77,88  and   89,   no<\/p>\n
    document  shall be registered under  this  Act,<\/p>\n
    unless  the  persons executing  such  document,<\/p>\n
    [and  in  the  case  of document  for  sale  of<\/p>\n
    property,  the  persons  claiming  under   that<\/p>\n
    document] or their representatives, assigns  or<\/p>\n
    agents  authorised as aforesaid, appear  before<\/p>\n
    the   registering  officer  within  the   time,<\/p>\n
    allowed   for   presentation   under   Sections<\/p>\n
    23,24,25 and 26:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Provided   that,  if  owing  to   urgent<\/p>\n
    necessity  or  unavoidable  accident  all  such<\/p>\n
    persons  do  not so appear, the  Registrar,  in<\/p>\n
    cases  where  the delay in appearing  does  not<\/p>\n
    exceed  four months, may direct that no payment<\/p>\n
    of  a  fine not exceeding ten times the  amount<\/p>\n
    of  the proper registration fee, in addition to<\/p>\n
    the  fine,  if any, payable under  Section  25,<\/p>\n
    the document may be registered.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (2)  Appearances under sub-section (1) may be simultaneous<\/p>\n
      or at different times.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(3)  The registering officer shall thereupon-\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  enquire whether or not such document was<\/p>\n
      executed  by the persons by whom it  purports<\/p>\n
      to have been executed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        (b)  satisfy himself as to the identity  of<\/p>\n
      the   persons   appearing  before   him   and<\/p>\n
      alleging   that   they  have   executed   the<\/p>\n
      document  [or  they  are claiming  under  the<\/p>\n
      document]; and<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
      (c) in the case of any person appearing as  a<\/p>\n
      representative,  assign  or  agent,   satisfy<\/p>\n
      himself  of  the right of such person  so  to<\/p>\n
      appear.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (4)  Any  application for a  direction  under<\/p>\n
      the  proviso to sub-section (1) may be lodged<\/p>\n
      with  a  Sub-Registrar, who  shall  forthwith<\/p>\n
      forward  it  to the Registrar to whom  he  is<\/p>\n
      subordinate.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (5)  Nothing  in  this  section  applies   to<\/p>\n
      copies of decrees or orders.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Section  35.Procedure on admission and  denial<\/p>\n
      of  execution respectively .- (1) (a)  If  all<\/p>\n
      the  persons  executing  the  document  appear<\/p>\n
      personally before the registering officer  and<\/p>\n
      are  personally  known to him,  or  if  he  be<\/p>\n
      otherwise  satisfied that they are the  person<\/p>\n
      they  represent themselves to be, and if  they<\/p>\n
      all admit the excution of the document, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    (b)  if in the case of any person appearing  by,  a<\/p>\n
    representative,    assign    or     agent,     such<\/p>\n
    representative,   assign  or   agent   admits   the<\/p>\n
    execution, or<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
    (c)  if the person executing the document is  dead,<\/p>\n
    and his representative or assign appears before the<\/p>\n
    registering officers and admits the execution,  the<\/p>\n
    registering officer shall register the document  as<\/p>\n
    directed in sections 58 to 61, inclusive.<\/p>\n
    (2)  The registering officer may, in order to satisfy<\/p>\n
      himself that the persons appearing before him are the<\/p>\n
      persons  they represent themselves to be, or for any other<\/p>\n
      purpose contemplated by this Act, examine any one present in<\/p>\n
      his office.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(3)   (a) If any person by whom the document purports to be
\nexecuted denies its execution, or\n<\/p>\n
      (b) If any such person appears to the registering<\/p>\n
      officer to be a minor, an idiot or a lunatic, or<\/p>\n
      (c)  If  any person by whom the document purports<\/p>\n
      to be executed is dead, and his representative or<\/p>\n
      assign denies its execution,<\/p>\n
           the  registering  officer  shall  refuse  to<\/p>\n
      register  the  document  as  to  the  persons  so<\/p>\n
      denying, appearing or dead; Provided that,  where<\/p>\n
      such officer is a Registrar, he shall follow  the<\/p>\n
      procedure prescribed in Part XII.\n<\/p>\n
       [ Provided further that the State Government may<\/p>\n
      by  notification in the Official Gazette, declare<\/p>\n
      that  any Sub-Registrar named in the notification<\/p>\n
      shall,  in respect of documents the execution  of<\/p>\n
      which is denied, be deemed to be a Registrar  for<\/p>\n
      the purpose of this sub-section and of Part XII.]<\/p>\n
            Rule 55.  It forms no part of a registering<\/p>\n
      officer’s duty to enquire into the validity of  a<\/p>\n
      document  brought to him for registration  or  to<\/p>\n
      attend  to any written or verbal protest  against<\/p>\n
      the  registration  of  a document  based  on  the<\/p>\n
      ground that the executing party had no right   to<\/p>\n
      execute the document; but he is bound to consider<\/p>\n
      objections  raised on any of the  grounds  stated<\/p>\n
      below :-\n<\/p>\n
      “(a)  that  the parties appearing  or  about  to<\/p>\n
      appear  before  him  are not  the  persons  they<\/p>\n
      profess to be;\n<\/p>\n
      (b) that the document is forged;\n<\/p>\n
      (c)    that   the   person   appearing   as    a<\/p>\n
      representative, assign or agent, has no right to<\/p>\n
      appear in that capacity;\n<\/p>\n
      (d) that the executing party is not really dead,<\/p>\n
      as   alleged   by   the   party   applying   for<\/p>\n
      registration; or<\/p>\n
      (e) that the executing party is a minor or an idiot or<\/p>\n
a lunatic.”\n<\/p>\n
    “Section  22-A.Documents registration of which  is<\/p>\n
    opposed   to  public  policy  –  (1)   The   State<\/p>\n
    Government may, by notification in the Tamil  Nadu<\/p>\n
    Government  Gazette, declare that the registration<\/p>\n
    of  any  document or class of documents is opposed<\/p>\n
    to public policy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (2)  Notwithstanding anything  contained  in  this<\/p>\n
    Act,  the  registering  officer  shall  refuse  to<\/p>\n
    register  any  document to  which  a  notification<\/p>\n
    issued under sub-section (1) is applicable.]<\/p>\n
     8.It is seen that  the impugned orders have been passed<\/p>\n
without  adverting to the powers vested in  the  Registering<\/p>\n
Authorities  under the Registration Act, 1908.  The  learned<\/p>\n
government  advocate  appearing on behalf of the respondents<\/p>\n
is  not  in  a  position to show that the powers  have  been<\/p>\n
exercised   by   the  Registering  Authorities     only   in<\/p>\n
accordance  with  the  Registration  Act,  1908,   and   the<\/p>\n
Registration rules framed thereunder, Futher it has also not<\/p>\n
been  shown  as  to how or for what reasons the  Registering<\/p>\n
Authority  has refused to register  the documents  submitted<\/p>\n
on  behalf of the petitioners. It is for the respondents  to<\/p>\n
show  that   such registration would be contrary  to  public<\/p>\n
policy  and would be in violation of the  provisions of  law<\/p>\n
applicable  to  the case. In the absence of such  violation,<\/p>\n
the  respondents  cannot  refuse to register  the  documents<\/p>\n
submitted on behalf of the petitioners.  Therefore, the writ<\/p>\n
petition is<\/p>\n
allowed, setting aside the impugned order, dated 05.08.2004,<\/p>\n
passed by the third respondent in Na.Ka.A4 4068\/2002 and the<\/p>\n
memorandum  No. 433\/2004, dated 08.09.2004,  issued  by  the<\/p>\n
second  respondent.  Consequently, the second respondent  is<\/p>\n
directed  to register the sale deeds submitted on behalf  of<\/p>\n
the   petitioners  in  respect  of  S.No.161\/1,   Keelkuppam<\/p>\n
Village, Arakonam Taluk,Vellore District.  No costs.<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. The Inspector General of Registration
\n No.100, Santhom Salai,
\n Mylapore, Chennai – 28.\n<\/p>\n
2. The Joint Sub Registrar No-2,
\n Arakonam<\/p>\n
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
\n Ranipettai,
\n Vellore.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court M.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of … on 29 January, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29 .01.2007 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN WRIT PETITION No.27573 of 2004 1.M.L.Mathews 2.Ms.Geetha Mathews 3.M.I.Jacob son of late M.I.Malloth All rep by Power of Attorney P.Dhanapal, No.29, III Street, Nehruji Nagar, […]<\/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-30690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of ... on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of ... on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-06T10:38:23+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of … on 29 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-06T10:38:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":2772,\"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\\\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007\",\"name\":\"M.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of ... on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-06T10:38:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of … on 29 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/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.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of ... on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of ... on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-06T10:38:23+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of … on 29 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-06T10:38:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007"},"wordCount":2772,"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\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007","name":"M.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of ... on 29 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-06T10:38:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-l-mathews-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-29-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.L.Mathews vs The Inspector General Of … on 29 January, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/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\/30690","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=30690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}