{"id":52829,"date":"1966-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1966-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966"},"modified":"2016-08-22T07:36:19","modified_gmt":"2016-08-22T02:06:19","slug":"s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966","title":{"rendered":"S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 814, \t\t 1967 SCR (1) 950<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nS.   S. RAJALINGA RAJA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MADRAS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n26\/10\/1966\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1967 AIR  814\t\t  1967 SCR  (1) 950\n\n\nACT:\nMadras Plantations Agricultural Income Tax Act (5 of 1955),-\n\"Agricultural Income\"-Whether agricultural produce is itself\nincome.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   appellant\t owned\ta  cardamom  plantation.   For\t the\nassessment  year  1957-58, he submitted a return  under\t the\nMadras\tPlantations Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955.\t The\nAgricultural  Income-tax Officer did not accept the  return,\nand  'added  to the income the value of stocks\tof  cardamom\nsold  in the accounting year.  The High Court  in  revision,\nconfirmed the assessment made by the Department.\nIn  appeal  to this Court, it was contended  that:  (1)\t the\nagricultural produce itself was income and became charged to\ntax  under the Act when it was received and not when it\t was\nsold, used or consumed, and therefore, the High Court  ought\nto  have  directed determination of the\t produce  which\t was\nactually derived from agriculture in the year of account and\nought to have brought to tax only that quantity and excluded\nthe  value  of the rest of the produce received\t in  earlier\nyears,\tfrom  taxation;\t and  (2) from\tthe  fact  that\t the\nappellant applied to compound the tax for the earlier years,\nit  must be inferred that the produce which was sold by\t him\nin  the\t year  of account had already suffered\ttax  in\t the\nearlier years.\nHELD : (1) Merely because the produce of the plantation\t was\nreceived  in the earlier years, income derived from sale  of\nthat produce in the year of account was not exempt from\t tax\nunder the Act in that year. [953 B]\nSection\t  3  of\t the  Act  read\t with  the   definition\t  of\n\"agricultural  income\"\tcharges to tax the  monetary  return\neither\tas rent or revenue or agricultural produce from\t the\nplantation.   The  expression \"income\" in  its\tnormal\tcon-\nnotation  does\tnot  mean mere production or  receipt  of  a\ncommodity which may be converted into money.  Income  arises\nwhen  the commodity is disposed of by sale,  consumption  or\nuse in the manufacture or other processes carried on by\t the\nassessee qua that commodity.  It is not necessary,  however,\nfor  income  to\t accrue\t that there must  be  a\t sale  of  a\ncommodity  :  consumption  or  use of  a  commodity  in\t the\nbusiness  of  the assessee from which the  assessee  obtains\nbenefit\t of  the  commodity may be deemed to  give  rise  to\nincome. [952 G-H; 953 A-B]\nDooars Tea Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Agricultural  Income-<\/a>\ntax, West Bengal, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 157, referred to.\n(2)  It\t had  to be proved by evidence that  the  crop\tsold\nrelated\t to the years in respect of which the  assessee\t had\napplied to compound the tax, but there was no such evidence.\n[954 F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 979 and 980
\nof 1965.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders  dated
\nNovember  12,  1962 and January 1, 1964 of the\tMadras\tHigh
\nCourt
\n\t\t\t    951<\/span>
\nin  Tax Case Nos. 19 of 1961 and S.C. Petition No,.. 142  of
\n1963 respectively.\n<\/p>\n
S.   Swaminathan  and R. Gopalakrishnan, for  the  appellant
\n(in, both the appeals).\n<\/p>\n
P.   Ram Reddy and A. V. Rangam, for the respondent (in both
\nthe appeals).\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah,\tJ.  S.\tS.Rajalinga  Raja-hereinafter  called\t‘the
\nappellant’–owns   acardamom  plantation  on  a\t  fifty-acre
\nestate.\n<\/p>\n
For the assessment year 1957-58 he submitted a return  under
\nthe Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act 5 of 1955
\ndisclosing a net income of Rs. 5,250\/- from the plantation..
\nOn  enquiry the Agricultural Income-tax Officer learnt\tthat
\nthe  appellant had sold stocks of cardamom of the  value  of
\nRs.  58,375-9-9\t between April 1, 1956 and March  31,  1957.
\nThe appellant explained that those sales represented not the
\nproduce\t of the year of account, but accumulated  stocks  of
\nthe past 3 to 4 years.\tThat explanation was rejected by the
\nAgricultural   Income-tax   Officer   and   after   allowing
\nexpenditure estimated at the rate of Rs. 120\/- per acre, the
\nbalance\t was brought to, tax, and a penalty of\tRs.  3,000\/-
\nwas  levied under s. 20(1) (c) of the  Act.  The  order\t was
\nconfirmed in appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner,
\nboth  as to the levy of tax and penalty.  But the  Appellate
\nTribunal  was  of the view that the  average  production  of
\ncardamom  per  acre was 40 lbs. and that if  the  stocks  of
\ncardamom,  sold in the year of assessment be  attributed  to
\nproduction of the year, the yield would approximately be 134
\nlbs.  per  acre.  Holding that. an estimate of 40  lbs.\t per
\nacre  would  be\t a  “fair  estimate”  and  that\t an  average
\nexpenditure  of\t Rs. 145\/- per acre should be  allowed,\t the
\nTribunal  directed that the assessment be modified, and\t the
\norder imposing penalty be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
The State of Madras then applied to the High Court of Madras
\nin revision.  The High Court was of the view that a part  of
\nthe  stock  of\tcardamom sold in the year,  though  not\t the
\nwhole, was probably accumulated stock out of previous year’s
\nproduction,  but since the appellant did not lay before\t the
\ntaxing\tauthorities reliable evidence, his  explanation\t was
\nrightly\t  rejected.   The  High\t Court\talso  rejected\t the
\ncontention  of the appellant that the income from sales\t of’
\ncardamom stock of previous years was not taxable in the year
\nof’  account because it had been subjected to tax  in  those
\nprevious. years under orders compounding the tax under s. 65
\nof the Act.  The High Court accordingly allowed the petition
\nand  restored the assessment made by the  Department.\tWith
\nspecial leave, the 1 appellant has appealed to this Court.
\nIt  is claimed by the appellant in the first  instance\tthat
\nunder  the  Act, agricultural produce itself is\t income\t and
\nbecomes charged to,
\n952<\/span>
\ntax under the Madras Plantations Agricultural Income-tax Act
\n1955, when it is received, and not when it is sold, used  or
\nconsumed.  Relying upon this premise it was urged that\teven
\non the view expressed by them the learned Judges of the High
\nCourt  ought to have directed determination of\tthe  produce
\nwhich was actually derived from agriculture in the year\t of.
\naccount, and ought to have brought to tax only that quantity
\nand  excluded the value of the rest from taxation under\t the
\nAct.   Section 3 of the Act imposes the charge of  tax\tupon
\nthe total agricultural income of the previous year of  every
\nperson,\t and  by s. 4 the total agricultural income  of\t any
\nprevious  year\tof  any person\tcomprises  all\tagricultural
\nincome\tderived\t from  a plantation  within  the  State\t and
\nreceived within or without the State.  ‘Agricultural income’
\nis  defined (insofar as the definition is relevant in  these
\nappeals) as meaning:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “(1)  any\t rent  or  revenue  derived  from  a
\n\t      plantation;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   any\t   in-,am-,   derived\tfrom\tsuch\n\t      plantation in the State :by-\n\t      (i)   agriculture; o-\n<\/pre>\n
\t      (ii)  the\t performance  by  a  cultivator\t  or
\n\t      receiver\tof  rent  in-kind  of  any   process
\n\t      ordinarily   employed  by\t a   cultivator\t  or
\n\t      receiver of rent-in-kind to render the produce
\n\t      raised  or received by him fit to be taken  to
\n\t      market; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) the sale by a cultivator or receiver  of
\n\t      rent-in kind of the produce raised or received
\n\t      by  him,\tin respect of which no\tprocess\t has
\n\t      been  performed  other than a process  of\t the
\n\t      nature described in paragraph (ii):
\n\t      Explanation 1.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Explanation 2.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
Prima  facie, s. 3 of the  Act read with the  definition  of
\n‘agricultural  income’ charges to  tax the  monetary  return
\neither\tas rent or revenue or agricultural produce from\t the
\nplantation.    The   expression\t “income”  in\tits   normal
\nconnotation  does not mean mere production or receipt  of  a
\ncommodity which may be converted into money.  Income  arises
\nwhen  the commodity is disposed of by sale,  consumption  or
\nuse in the manufacture or other processes carried on by\t the
\nassessee  qua that commodity.  There is no reason  to  think
\nthat  the  expression  “income” in the\tAct  has  any  other
\nconnotation.   A tax on income whether agricultural or\tnon-
\nagricultural is, unless the Act provides otherwise, a tax on
\nmonetary  return-actual ,or notional.  Section 4 of the\t Act
\nsupports that view, for in the
\n953<\/span>
\ntotal  agricultural  income is\tcomprised  all\tagricultural
\nincome.\t derived from a plantation in the State.  It is\t not
\nnecessary, however, for income to accrue that there must  be
\na sale of a commodity: consumption or use of a commodity  in
\nthe business of the assessee from which the assessee obtains
\nbenefit\t of  the  commodity may be deemed to  give  rise  to
\nincome.\t  Therefore,  merely  because  the  produce  of\t his
\nplantation was received in the earlier years, assuming\tthat
\nthe  appellant’s case is true, income derived from  sale  of
\nthat  produce in the year of account is not exempt from\t tax
\nunder the Act, in that year.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel for the appellant strongly relied upon a judgment of
\nthis  Court  in\t Dooars Tea Co.\t Ltd.,\tv.  Commissioner  of
\nAgricultural’  Income-tax,  West Bengal<\/a>(1)  a  case  decided
\nunder the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act 4 of 1944.\t  It
\nwas  held in interpreting the definition of s. 2(1)  (b)  of\n<\/p>\n
-the  Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1944, which is  in
\nsubstantially the same language as the definition under\t the
\nAct-that  it was not predicated of the agricultural’  income
\nthat  it must be sold and profit or gain received from\tsuch
\nsale  before  it  can  be  included  in\t the  definition  of
\nagricultural  income. In Dooars Tea Co. Ltd. case  (1),\t the
\nappellant   grew  bamboos,  thatching  grass  and  fuel\t  by
\nagricultural  operations and utilized the products  for\t the
\npurpose\t of its tea business.  The claim of  the  Income-tax
\nauthorities to tax the value of the produce was resisted  on
\nthe  plea that the produce was not sold.  In rejecting\tthat
\nplea, the Court observed at p. 13:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In  terms the clause [s. 2(1) (b)]  takes  in
\n\t      income  derived  from  agricultural  land\t  by
\n\t      agriculture;  and as we have  already  pointed
\n\t      out  giving  the material\t words\ttheir  plain
\n\t      grammatical  meaning  there is no\t doubt\tthat
\n\t      agricultural produce constitutes income  under
\n\t      this clause.  Is there anything in the context
\n\t      which requires the introduction of the concept
\n\t      of   sale\t in  interpreting  this\t clause\t  as
\n\t      suggested\t by the appellant?  In\tour  opinion
\n\t      this   question  must  be\t answered   in\t the
\n\t      negative.\t Not only is there no indication  in
\n\t      the context which would justify the  importing
\n\t      of the concept of sale in the relevant clause,
\n\t      but  as we have just indicated the  indication
\n\t      provided\tby clauses (ii) and (iii) is all  to
\n\t      the contrary.  What this clause seems  clearly
\n\t      to have in view is agricultural produce itself
\n\t      which has been used by the assessee.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
But  these observations do not, in our judgment, imply\tthat
\nagricultural  produce when received by a person carrying  on
\nagricultural  operations becomes income in his\thands.\t The
\nCourt  in  that case was concerned to deal  with  a  limited
\nquestion whether a
\n(1) [1962] 3 S.C.R. 157; 44 I.T.R. 6.\n<\/p>\n
7Sup.C.I.\/66-16
\n954<\/span>
\nperson\twho  has  raised  agricultural\tproduce\t instead  of
\nselling it uses that produce for his own business, can he be
\nsaid to have earned agricultural income?  The Court in\tthat
\ncase held that he would be deemed to be earning income.\t The
\ndecision   is  authority  for  the  proposition\t  that\t for
\nagricultural income to arise, it is not predicated that\t the
\nagricultural  produce  must be sold:  user  of\tagricultural
\nproduce for the purpose of the business of the assessee\t may
\ngive rise to agricultural income.\n<\/p>\n
The  decision  in  State of Kerala and Anr  v.\tBhavani\t Tea
\nProduce<\/a>\t -Co.\tLtd.(1)\t on which  reliance  was  placed  by
\ncounsel for the appellant has, in our judgment, no relevance
\nwhatever  in  this case.  In Bhavani Tea  Produce  Company’s
\ncase (1) the assessee was required under s. 25 of the Coffee
\nAct,  1942,  to\t deliver the coffee produced by\t it  to\t the
\nCoffee\tBoard and the question which fell to  be  determined
\nwas  whether such delivery constituted sale by operation  of
\nlaw as a result of which the assessee ceased to be the owner
\nof the coffee, the moment it handed over the produce to\t the
\nCoffee\tBoard.\t This  Court held that\tunder  the  relevant
\nprovisions  of\tthe Act as soon as the\tproducer  of  coffee
\nhanded over the produce to the Coffee Board, it ceased to be
\nthe  owner and income accrued to him at that point of  time.
\nThat  case  does not lay down the  proposition\tthat  income
\naccrues\t to  a producer of agricultural produce\t before\t the
\ndate of disposal, use or sale.\n<\/p>\n
The  second  argument raised by the appellant  has  also  no
\nsubstance.  For the years 1955-56 and 1956-57 the  appellant
\ndid  not submit returns of income, but applied\tto  compound
\nthe tax under s. 65 of the Act, and paid the tax  determined
\nat the rates specified in Part 11 of the Act.  Therefrom  it
\ncannot be inferred that the produce which was sold by him in
\nthe  year  of  account to which\t these\tappeals\t relate\t had
\nsuffered tax in the earlier years.  It has to be proved that
\nthe  crop  sold by the appellant related to  the  years\t -in
\nrespect of which he had applied to compound the tax; and  on
\nthat part of the case there is no evidence.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeals  therefore fail and are dismissed\twith  costs.
\nThere will be one hearing fee.\n<\/p>\n
V.  I P.S.
\n\t\t\t     Appeals dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1966] 2 S.C.R. 92: 59 I.T.R 254
\n955<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966 Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 814, 1967 SCR (1) 950 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: S. S. RAJALINGA RAJA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADRAS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/10\/1966 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52829","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nS. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966 - 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\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966\" \/>\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=\"1966-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-22T02:06:19+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966\",\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-22T02:06:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966\"},\"wordCount\":1738,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966\",\"name\":\"S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1966-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-22T02:06:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966\"}]},{\"@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":"S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966 - 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\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1966-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-22T02:06:19+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966","datePublished":"1966-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-22T02:06:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966"},"wordCount":1738,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966","name":"S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1966-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-22T02:06:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-s-rajalinga-raja-vs-state-of-madras-on-26-october-1966#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. S. Rajalinga Raja vs State Of Madras on 26 October, 1966"}]},{"@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\/52829","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=52829"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52829\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52829"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52829"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52829"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}