{"id":10059,"date":"2003-11-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003"},"modified":"2019-01-15T14:25:25","modified_gmt":"2019-01-15T08:55:25","slug":"k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003","title":{"rendered":"K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Ashok Bhan<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  7433 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nK. SIVARAMAIAH\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRUKMANI AMMAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nR.C. LAHOTI &amp; ASHOK BHAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2003 Supp(6) SCR 12<\/p>\n<p>The following Order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>The appellant and respondent are the owners of adjoining properties<br \/>\nsituated at lyyasamy Chetty Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5. Both the<br \/>\nproperties earlier belonged to M.M. Abdul Shukur Saheb. The appellant<br \/>\npurchased his property described as Door No. 5 (New Door No. 6) under sale<br \/>\ndeed dated 28th April, 1975. The property situated on the western side of<br \/>\nthe appellant&#8217;s property was purchased by the respondent under sale deed<br \/>\ndated 30th June, 1976. The respondent&#8217;s property is described as Door No. 4<br \/>\n(New Door No. 5). It appears that at the time of purchase by the appellant<br \/>\nhis property was double storeyed i.e. having a ground floor and the first<br \/>\nfloor. The appellant demolished the first floor of his building and re-<br \/>\nconstructed the first floor and second floor above. In the western wall of<br \/>\nhis property situated towards the respondent&#8217;s property the appellant<br \/>\nopened three windows in the first floor and three windows and one<br \/>\nventilator in the second floor at the time of construction of the above<br \/>\nsaid two floors as stated hereinabove. The respondent&#8217;s mother filed the<br \/>\nOriginal Suit No. 8206\/1976 against the appellant seeking a mandatory<br \/>\ninjunction directing the appellant to close all the windows and ventilator<br \/>\noverlooking the respondent&#8217;s property. The respondent&#8217;s mother also claimed<br \/>\ncompensation for the damage caused to his eastern wall in the process of<br \/>\nreconstruction by the appellant. According to the respondent&#8217;s mother, the<br \/>\nappellant had newly opened all windows and the ventilator overlooking the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s property through the windows and the ventilator and did not<br \/>\nhave any right to do so. The appellant pleaded, inter alia, that the first<br \/>\nfloor which existed prior to the new construction and which was demolished<br \/>\nalso had three windows overlooking the respondent&#8217;s property and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the respondent&#8217;s mother was not entitled to the mandatory<br \/>\ninjunction sought for. The learned Civil Judge who decided the civil suit<br \/>\nby the order dated 26th July, 1979 did not decide the question as to<br \/>\nwhether any easmentary right to light and air had accrued to the appellant.<br \/>\nHowever, the learned Civil Judge found that the windows in the pre-existing<br \/>\nfirst floor overlooking the respondent&#8217;s property did not exist for about<br \/>\n40 years as was urged by the appellant. The learned Civil Judge proceeded<br \/>\non the legal proposition that a neighbour was not entitled to mandatory<br \/>\ninjunction seeking closure of the other neighbour&#8217;s windows and ventilator<br \/>\nor any openings overlooking his property and it is always open for any one<br \/>\nto raise a wall on his own property and close the openings in the adjoining<br \/>\nproperty if the adjoining property owner had not perfected his right to<br \/>\nlight and air by prescription extended over 20 years of period. This<br \/>\njudgment has achieved a finality as it was not appealed against by either<br \/>\nparty.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the year 1989, the appellant filed a suit (O.S. No. 7359\/1989) against<br \/>\nthe respondent, the exact subject matter of the suit is not ascertained as<br \/>\ncopies of the pleadings in that suit are not available on record. However,<br \/>\nit appears that the windows and the ventilator overlooking the respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nproperty were the subject matter of controversy and the appellant was<br \/>\nseeking relief alleging the acquisition of prescriptive right. The suit<br \/>\ncame to be dismissed. The plaintiff preferred an appeal registered as FA<br \/>\n312\/ 1991. However, the appeal could not be decided on merits as the<br \/>\nappellant sought for withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh<br \/>\nsuit on the same cause of action. The Appellate Court permitted the suit to<br \/>\nbe withdrawn with liberty as prayed for and the appeal was dismissed as<br \/>\ninfructuous in view of the suit itself having been withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n<p>In view of the permission allowed by the Appellate Court in FA No.<br \/>\n312\/1991, the appellant filed a fresh Suit registered as OS No. 234\/1994.<br \/>\nThe appellant canvassed in his plaint, right for light and air through the<br \/>\nsix windows and the ventilator situated in the western wall of his property<br \/>\nhaving been acquired by way of prescription. He also sought for a<br \/>\npreventive injunction restraining the respondent from raising any<br \/>\nconstruction which would have the effect of blocking the openings in his<br \/>\nwestern wall. The suit was contested by the respondent by raising all<br \/>\npossible defences including the plea that the appellant&#8217;s suit was barred<br \/>\nby res judicata. It was submitted that in earlier two rounds of litigation<br \/>\nthe appellant has failed in establishing his right of easement and the same<br \/>\nright of easement is sought to be established in the present suit which<br \/>\nwould be barred by Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though all<br \/>\nthe issues were tried but the trial court dismissed the appellant&#8217;s suit<br \/>\nsolely on the finding that appellant&#8217;s suit was barred by res judicata.<br \/>\nThis finding of the trial court has been upheld in First Appeal and also in<br \/>\nSecond Appeal preferred by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>The short question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the<br \/>\nappellant&#8217;s suit filed in the year 1994 can be said to be barred by res<br \/>\njudicata. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are<br \/>\nsatisfied that the High Court and the two Courts below have committed an<br \/>\nerror of law in holding the suit filed by the appellant to be barred by res<br \/>\njudicata. In the present suit instituted in the year 1994, the appellant<br \/>\nshall have to establish the acquisition of prescription right of easement<br \/>\nunder Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 by reference to the date<br \/>\nof the institution of the suit. This issue did not and could not have<br \/>\narisen for decision either by way of ground of attack in the 1989 suit<br \/>\nfiled by the appellant or by way of defence in the 1976 suit filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s mother. Moreover, the 1976 suit filed by the respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\nmother was dismissed insofar as relief of injunction sought for by the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s mother against the appellant is concerned. It was an admitted<br \/>\ncase of the parties, as has been noted by the trial court also in its<br \/>\njudgment dated 4th August, 1979, that the openings in the western wall of<br \/>\nthe appellant had existed and yet respondent&#8217;s mother was held not entitled<br \/>\nto the grant of compensation because in the opinion of the trial court the<br \/>\nremedy of the respondent&#8217;s mother was not to seek an injunction against the<br \/>\nappellant but to raise a wall on her own property so as to block the<br \/>\nopenings in the wall of the appellant standing on his own property. By no<br \/>\nstretch of imagination the judgment dated 4th August, 1979 can constitute<br \/>\nres judicata for the purpose of the present situation.\n<\/p>\n<p>So far as the Original Suit No. 7359\/1989 is concerned, the findings<br \/>\nrecorded in the judgment therein could have constituted res judicata but<br \/>\nthe fact remains that the Appellate Court permitted the withdrawal of the<br \/>\nsuit and once the suit has been permitted to be withdrawn all the<br \/>\nproceedings taken therein including the judgment passed by the trial court<br \/>\nhave been wiped out. A judgment given in a suit which has been permitted to<br \/>\nbe withdrawn with the liberty of filing a fresh suit on the same cause of<br \/>\naction cannot constitute res judicata in a subsequent suit filed pursuant<br \/>\nto such permission of the Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>We are, therefore, of the opinion that the trial court ought to have<br \/>\nexamined the evidence, oral and documentary, on other issues as well and<br \/>\nrecorded findings thereon.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the trial court, the<br \/>\nFirst Appellate Court as also of the High Court are set aside. The case is<br \/>\nremanded to the trial court for hearing and decision afresh except on the<br \/>\nissue of res judicata which as we have already held does not arise for<br \/>\ndecision. The appeal stands disposed of in the above said terms. The trial<br \/>\ncourt shall notice the parties for appearance before it and then appoint a<br \/>\ndate for hearing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003 Bench: R.C. Lahoti, Ashok Bhan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 7433 of 1997 PETITIONER: K. SIVARAMAIAH RESPONDENT: RUKMANI AMMAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20\/11\/2003 BENCH: R.C. LAHOTI &amp; ASHOK BHAN JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2003 Supp(6) SCR 12 The following Order of the Court was delivered [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10059","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003 - 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\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-15T08:55:25+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\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-15T08:55:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1361,\"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\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003\",\"name\":\"K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-15T08:55:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003 - 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\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-15T08:55:25+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\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-15T08:55:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003"},"wordCount":1361,"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\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003","name":"K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-15T08:55:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-sivaramaiah-vs-rukmani-ammal-on-20-november-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Sivaramaiah vs Rukmani Ammal on 20 November, 2003"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/10059","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=10059"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10059\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10059"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10059"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10059"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}