{"id":101407,"date":"2007-09-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007"},"modified":"2017-01-09T04:00:16","modified_gmt":"2017-01-08T22:30:16","slug":"krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Katju<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: A.K. Mathur, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3713 of 2001\n\nPETITIONER:\nKrishnan\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBackiam &amp; Anr\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/09\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nA.K. Mathur &amp; Markandey Katju\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO.3713 OF 2001<\/p>\n<p>Markandey Katju, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.       This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the<br \/>\nMadras High Court dated 31.1.2000 in Second Appeal No.1927 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tWe have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe plaintiff-appellant Krishnan filed a suit for declaration and<br \/>\ninjunction against the respondent-defendant alleging that the property in<br \/>\ndispute had been earlier mortgaged to him on 30.9.1988 and then sold to him<br \/>\nby Ramayee (alias Lakshmi) by registered sale deed dated 25.9.1989 which<br \/>\nwas also rectified by another registered sale deed dated 10.9.1990.  It was<br \/>\nalleged in the suit that an attempt was being made to dispossess the plaintiff<br \/>\nand hence injunction may be granted in his favour.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tThe defendant filed a written statement in the suit in which it was<br \/>\ncontended that Ramayee had neither executed the registered mortgage deed<br \/>\ndated 30.9.1988, nor the registered sale deed dated 25.9.1989, nor the<br \/>\nrectification deed dated 10.9.1990.  It was alleged in the written statement<br \/>\nthat on the request of the owner of the land, Ramayee, the defendant is<br \/>\nassisting her in cultivating the said property under her instructions and<br \/>\nplaintiff has no right over the property.  It was alleged by the defendant-<br \/>\nrespondent that the mortgage deed dated 30.9.1988, sale deed dated<br \/>\n25.9.1989 and the rectification deed dated 10.9.1990 alleged to have been<br \/>\nexecuted by Ramayee, are in fact forged documents.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tThe trial court dismissed the suit, against which the plaintiff-appellant<br \/>\nfiled a first appeal in the court of subordinate Judge, Sivaganga, which was<br \/>\nallowed by the judgment dated 13.4.1999.  In this judgment the First<br \/>\nAppellate Court held :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It appears from the evidences of the<br \/>\nplaintiff&#8217;s witnesses that Lakshmi and Ramayee<br \/>\nare one and the same persons.  Once the plaintiff<br \/>\nproves his case through his witnesses, the burden<br \/>\nof proof shifts to the defendant.  It is for the<br \/>\ndefendant to prove that Exhibit-A4 sale deed is a<br \/>\nforged document or a created one.  The law does<br \/>\nnot require attestation of sale deed as a compulsory<br \/>\none.  Section 54 and 59 of Transfer of Properties<br \/>\ndo not speak about compulsory attestation.  When<br \/>\nlaw does not require compulsory attestation of a<br \/>\ndocument, such unattested document may be<br \/>\nproved as per the provisions of Indian Evidence<br \/>\nAct.  Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act has no<br \/>\napplication for sale deed.  Section 68 of the Indian<br \/>\nEvidence Act is applicable only to the cases where<br \/>\nthe documents are required to be attested in law.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThus, although the mortgage deed dated 30.9.1988, the sale deed<br \/>\ndated 25.9.1989 and the rectification deed dated 10.9.1990 are alleged to<br \/>\nhave been executed by Lakshmi, it has been found by the First Appellant<br \/>\nCourt that Lakshmi and Ramayee are one and the same person.  Since<br \/>\nadmittedly Ramayee was the owner of the property in dispute, the sale deed<br \/>\ndated 25.9.1989 alleged to have been executed by Lakshmi, Exhibit-A4, was<br \/>\nin fact executed by Ramayee, since Lakshmi and Ramayee are the same<br \/>\nperson.  Hence because of the sale deed, title to the property passed to the<br \/>\nplaintiff-appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tThe First Appellate Court also held that the burden of proving that the<br \/>\nsale deed Exhibit-A4 was a forged document on the defendant but he did not<br \/>\ndischarge his burden.  It was further held that the sale deed was proved by<br \/>\nPW3 as well as by PW1.  The First Appellate Court also held that the<br \/>\nplaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute and the sale deed dated<br \/>\n25.9.1989 was valid.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tAgainst the judgment of the First Appellate Court the defendant-<br \/>\nrespondent filed a second appeal before the High Court which has been<br \/>\nallowed.  This appeal by special leave has been filed against the said<br \/>\njudgment of the High Court dated 31.1.2000.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tA perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that the High<br \/>\nCourt formulated the following three questions as substantial questions of<br \/>\nlaw :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;1.\tWhether the Lower Appellate Court has not<br \/>\ncommitted an error of law in placing the<br \/>\nburden of proof upon the second appellant<br \/>\nabout the execution and registration of<br \/>\ndocuments under Exx.A-3 to A-5?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tWhether the Lower Appellate Court has not<br \/>\ncommitted an error of law in decreeing the<br \/>\nsuit when the respondent\/plaintiff has failed<br \/>\nto prove that the documents under Exx.A-3<br \/>\nto A-5 were executed and registered by the<br \/>\nsecond appellant? And<\/p>\n<p>3.\tWhether the Lower Appellate Court has not<br \/>\ncommitted an error of law in holding that the<br \/>\nrespondent is in possession and enjoyment<br \/>\nof the suit property in the absence of any<br \/>\nmaterials on record?\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tUnder the amended Section 100 CPC the High Court has to frame<br \/>\nsubstantial questions of law and can decide the second appeal only on those<br \/>\nquestions framed.  A perusal of the questions framed shows that no question<br \/>\nof law was framed as to whether the finding of fact of the First Appellate<br \/>\nCourt that Lakshmi and Ramayee are one and the same person, is based on<br \/>\nno evidence or is perverse.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tIt may be mentioned that the First Appellate Court under Section 96<br \/>\nCPC is the last court of facts.  The High Court in second appeal under<br \/>\nSection 100 CPC cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the<br \/>\nFirst Appellate Court under Section 96 CPC.  No doubt the findings of fact<br \/>\nof the First Appellate Court can be challenged in second appeal on the<br \/>\nground that the said findings are based on no evidence or are perverse, but<br \/>\neven in that case a question of law has to be formulated and framed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court to that effect.  In the present case no question was framed by the<br \/>\nHigh Court as to whether the finding of the First Appellate Court that<br \/>\nRamayee and Lakshmi are one and the same person, is a finding based on no<br \/>\nevidence or is perverse.  Hence the findings of the First Appellate Court that<br \/>\nRamayee and Lakshmi are one and the same person, could not have been<br \/>\ninterfered with by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\tA perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that the High<br \/>\nCourt has practically acted as a First Appellate Court and has re-appreciated<br \/>\nthe findings of fact of the learned Subordinate Judge which it could not<br \/>\nvalidly do in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tIn the circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High<br \/>\nCourt and restore the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 13.4.1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\tThe Appeal is allowed.  There is no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 2007 Author: M Katju Bench: A.K. Mathur, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3713 of 2001 PETITIONER: Krishnan RESPONDENT: Backiam &amp; Anr DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/09\/2007 BENCH: A.K. Mathur &amp; Markandey Katju JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL [&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-101407","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 2007 - 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\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-08T22:30:16+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-08T22:30:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1085,\"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\\\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-08T22:30:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 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":"Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 2007 - 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\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-08T22:30:16+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-08T22:30:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007"},"wordCount":1085,"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\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007","name":"Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-08T22:30:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-backiam-anr-on-11-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishnan vs Backiam &amp; Anr on 11 September, 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\/101407","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=101407"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/101407\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=101407"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=101407"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=101407"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}