{"id":47230,"date":"2009-09-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-20T22:12:37","modified_gmt":"2016-01-20T16:42:37","slug":"sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 3 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 3 September, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 03\/09\/2009\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM\n\nW.P.(MD)No.8647 of 2009\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\nSankareswari\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nvs\n\n1.The Inspector General of Registration,\n Santhom High Road,\n Chennai-4.\n\n2.The Special Sub Collector (Stamps),\n Office of the District Collector Campus,\n Madurai-625 020.\n\n3.The Sub Registrar,\n Kallimandhayam,\n Oddanchathiram Taluk,\n Dindigul District.\t\t        \t... Respondents\n\n\nPRAYER\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the\nrecords relating to the proceedings in SR No.659\/9\/E dated 12.06.2009 in respect\nof the sale deed document Number 451 dated 29.04.2009 of the second respondent\nand quash the same and consequently, direct the second and third respondents to\nreturn the document without insisting for additional stamp duty.\n\n!For Petitioner    ... Mr.S.Siva Thilakar\n^For Respondents   ... Mr.Pala Ramasamy\n\t\t       Spl.Government Pleader\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe prayer in the writ petition is to quash the proceedings dated<br \/>\n12.06.2009 issued by the second respondent demanding deficit stamp duty from the<br \/>\npetitioner in respect of a sale deed, which was registered on 29.04.2009 as<br \/>\ndocument number 451\/2009 on the file of the second respondent and for a further<br \/>\ndirection to the respondents to return the document without insisting on the<br \/>\nadditional stamp duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. The case of the petitioner is that he filed a suit for specific<br \/>\nperformance against M.Sakthivel and others in O.S.No.15 of 2007 on the file of<br \/>\nSub Court, Palani, which was decreed by a judgment and decree  dated 25.04.2007<br \/>\nand thereafter, the petitioner filed an execution petition in E.P.No.15 of 2007<br \/>\nfor execution of the sale deed. After depositing the sale consideration as per<br \/>\nthe decree, the sale deed was registered and the same was presented for<br \/>\nregistration before the third respondent and the petitioner had paid the<br \/>\nappropriate stamp duty as per the consideration reflected in the document. The<br \/>\nSub Collector (Stamps) issued notice in Form No.I dated 12.06.2009 stating that<br \/>\nthe document is undervalued and made a demand for additional stamp duty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. One of the grounds raised in the writ petition is that the impugned<br \/>\ncommunication demanding deficit stamp duty is illegal, since the sale deed was<br \/>\nregistered pursuant to the decree granted by a civil Court in a suit for<br \/>\nspecific performance and the instrument cannot be stated to be undervalued.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t4. The said issue has already been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court<br \/>\nin a decision reported in 2008(1) CTC 60 <a href=\"\/doc\/273146\/\">(State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain<br \/>\nJewellers),<\/a> wherein the Honourable Supreme Court held in paragraph 10 as<br \/>\nfollows;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;It may be mentioned that there is a difference between an agreement to<br \/>\nsell and a sale. Stamp duty on a sale has to be assessed on the market value of<br \/>\nthe property at the time of the sale, and not at the time of the prior agreement<br \/>\nto sell, nor at the time of filing of the Suit. This is evident from Section 17<br \/>\nof the Act. It is true that as per Section 3, the instrument is to be registered<br \/>\non the basis of the valuation disclosed therein. But Section 47-A of the<br \/>\nRajasthan (Amendment) Stamp Duty Act contemplates that in case it is found that<br \/>\nproperties are under valued then it is open for the Collector (Stamps) to assess<br \/>\nthe correct market value. Therefore, in the present case when the Registering<br \/>\nAuthority found that valuation of the property was not correct as mentioned in<br \/>\nthe instrument, it sent the document to the Collector for ascertaining the<br \/>\ncorrect market value of the property. The expression &#8220;execution&#8221; read with<br \/>\nSection 17 leaves no manner of doubt that the current valuation is to be seen<br \/>\nwhen the instrument is sought to be registered. The stamp Act is in the nature<br \/>\nof a taxing statute, and a taxing statute is not dependant on any contingency.<br \/>\nSince the word &#8220;execution&#8221; read with Section 17 clearly says that the instrument<br \/>\nhas to be seen at the time when it is sought to be registered and in that if it<br \/>\nis found that the instrument has been undervalued then it is open for the<br \/>\nRegistering Authority to enquiry into its correct market value. The learned<br \/>\nSingle Judge as well as the Division Bench in the present case had taken into<br \/>\nconsideration that the agreement to sell was entered into but it was not<br \/>\nexecuted. Therefore, the incumbent had to file a Suit for seeking a decree for<br \/>\nexecution of the agreement and that took a long time. Therefore, the Courts<br \/>\nbelow concluded that the valuation which was in the instrument should be taken<br \/>\ninto account. In out opinion this is not a correct approach. Even the valuation<br \/>\nat the time of the decree is also not relevant. What is relevant in fact is the<br \/>\nactual valuation of the property at the time of the sale. The crucial expression<br \/>\nused in Section 17 is &#8220;at the time of execution&#8221;. Therefore, the market value of<br \/>\nthe instrument has to be seen at the time of the execution of the sale deed, and<br \/>\nnot at the time when agreement to sale was entered into. An agreement to sell is<br \/>\nnot a sale. An agreement to sell becomes a sale after both the parties signed<br \/>\nthe sale deed. A taxing statute is not contingent on the inconvenience of the<br \/>\nparties. It is needless to emphasize that a taxing statute has to be construed<br \/>\nstrictly and considerations of hardship or equity have not role to play in its<br \/>\nconstruction. VISCOUNT SIMON quoted with approval a passage from ROWLATT, J.<br \/>\nexpressing the principle in the following words<br \/>\n\t&#8220;In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is<br \/>\nno room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no<br \/>\npresumption as to tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One<br \/>\ncan only look fairly at the language used.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, the<br \/>\ncontentions raised by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. It is to be noted that in the impugned order, the petitioner has been<br \/>\ngranted 21 days time to submit his objection to the notice in Form I, this<br \/>\nperiod was already expired. Therefore, I deem it proper that the petitioner<br \/>\nshall be entitled to submit his objection to the impugned notice. Further the<br \/>\npetitioner has also sought for release of the document.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t7. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with the<br \/>\nfollowing directions:-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\ti) The petitioner shall submit his objection to the impugned notice,<br \/>\nwithin a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order<br \/>\nand thereafter, the second respondent shall consider the same and pass orders in<br \/>\naccordance with law and as per the Provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the<br \/>\nRules framed thereunder;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(ii) The third respondent shall return the document registered as document<br \/>\nNo.451\/2009, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of<br \/>\nthis order with an endorsement stating that the reference under Section 47(A)(1)<br \/>\nis pending;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iii) The third respondent shall also make necessary entries in the<br \/>\nregisters showing the pendency of the proceedings under Section 47(A)(1) so as<br \/>\nto reflect the same in the encumbrance certificates in the interest of<br \/>\npurchasers;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iv) Pending the final order to be passed under Section 47(A)(1), there<br \/>\nshall be a charge over the property in favour of the Government as per Section<br \/>\n47(A)(4) of the Act; and<\/p>\n<p>\t(v) After completion of the entire proceedings under Section 47(A)<br \/>\nincluding the appellate remedy available under the same, the petitioner shall<br \/>\npay the amount which is arrived at ultimately and after such payment on<br \/>\nproduction of the original sale deed, the third respondent shall make necessary<br \/>\nendorsements stating that the entire amount due as per Section 47(A) has been<br \/>\npaid and there is no amount due under the Indian Stamps Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.\n<\/p>\n<p>JIKR<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.The Inspector General of Registration,<br \/>\n Santhom High Road,<br \/>\n Chennai-4.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.The Special Sub Collector (Stamps),<br \/>\n Office of the District Collector Campus,<br \/>\n Madurai-625 020.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.The Sub Registrar,<br \/>\n Kallimandhayam,<br \/>\n Oddanchathiram Taluk,<br \/>\n Dindigul District.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 3 September, 2009 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03\/09\/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.(MD)No.8647 of 2009 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009 Sankareswari &#8230; Petitioner vs 1.The Inspector General of Registration, Santhom High Road, Chennai-4. 2.The Special Sub Collector (Stamps), Office [&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-47230","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>Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of ... on 3 September, 2009 - 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\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of ... on 3 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-20T16:42:37+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\\\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 3 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-20T16:42:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1230,\"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\\\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of ... on 3 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-20T16:42:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 3 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of ... on 3 September, 2009 - 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\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of ... on 3 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-20T16:42:37+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\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 3 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-20T16:42:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009"},"wordCount":1230,"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\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009","name":"Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of ... on 3 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-20T16:42:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sankareswari-vs-the-inspector-general-of-on-3-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sankareswari vs The Inspector General Of &#8230; on 3 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/47230","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=47230"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47230\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47230"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47230"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47230"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}