{"id":103212,"date":"2009-10-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-01T12:08:17","modified_gmt":"2018-04-01T06:38:17","slug":"h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"H Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
H Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.G.Sabhahit<\/div>\n
T312'\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE fDAY OF OCTOBER \n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. 3uSTI_CE.\\_\/.6. _E3}V\ufb01\\\"E*3\"i'++';13\\i';vii'IV\"l'   \n\nR.P. No.734';_20:)'5R.\n_In  \n\nR.S.A. i'-Jo'.'4_12\/2003 .\n\nBETWEEN:   \n\nH. Hanumanthappa,  .\nS\/o late Hanumanthai\u00e9ah' \n\nHanumanthappa,  L\n\nAged about 62\u00bbyearS,_~- .  '\n\nR\/0 HirehafIi..v'%\u00ab!.l_a'ge, \n\nChal|akere4_.Ta|u;k';  . _   _\n\nChitraduriga D'isVt'r'i'C'-L    RETITIONER.\n\n( BY :'SRI--. RA\/_\"jA~:A'PR'Aee{A*SH,-ADv., )\nAND V  .. .\n\n1,,4_\u00a7H{T.H1PPAIAV_H9 V\n310' LATEVVT.HANUMRNTHAPPA,\n\nV.% 'A,GED'A.BC.) UT 68 YEARS,\n   =R_\/A AEGAAAEHISNAGAR,\n\" ._CHAL'LA \n\nCRITRAQURRGA DISTRICT ~ 577 522\n\n2.T;RAMANANDA,\n\n*  A S.\/__0 H: THIPPAIAH,\n RAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,\n R\"\/A GANDHINAGAR,\nECHALLAKERE,\n CHITRADURGA DISTRICT--577 522\n\n3. T. NAGARAJA,\nS\/O H. THIPPAIAH,\n\n\n\nAGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,\nR\/A GANDHINAGAR,\n\nCHALLAKERE, \nCHITRADURGA DISTRICT --- 577 522 (35909 NEE N79\n\n(BY M\/s. SUBBA RAO AND (:0, AND SRI D.v.__\u00a7\u00a7ArI':;V:I.I:__Vj:  \nREDDY, ADv., FOR R1 TO R3)   R-  1\nTHIS REVIEW PETITION TTLED. \u00ab1U'.AiD.:E'RV':O_RDE'R\"A7 Y \n\nRULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING FOR:\"RE\\;?_IE~'JV #\/\nJUDGEMENT AND DECREE.'iD-ATEDV\"2,7:10.20:05; APIASSJEDCAIAIR\u00bb\nRSA. N0.412\/2003 ON THE'i\"EI:'_L'iE OF 1\"'H_EV\"a;a--{OE\\\u00a7:TEBLE HIGH\nCOURT OF :<ARNATAs<A_, BAAAi'GA!.;_jORER.I__  '0\n\nTHIS PETITIOAi_*  HEARD AND\nRESERVED _A.N:L;) "_~COifIIN\u00a7Ci_:'t.\u00abiONVA"F(3-R   RRONOU NCEMENT OF\nORDER Ti_ri\u00ab1E$*v.i:)\/3\u00a7fi(,*j._S'z\u00a2.\u00a7iji_AtiiITIJIQMADE THE FOLLOWING:--\n\nORDER\n<\/pre>\n
 _ This””i?evie\\Ar  is fiied under Section 114 read<\/p>\n
  ijlfd\u00e9ij XL\\’\/II”R\u00e9I|e 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,<\/p>\n
   review of the order passed by this Court<\/p>\n
:’ia$R.s..A}: U,Ra.412\/2003 dated 27.10.2005, wherein this<\/p>\n
 C0ur’i:..V_t_A*Cas a||Owed,the appeal in part and has set aside the<\/p>\n
 ‘\u00a7i4dA’gement and decree passed by the first appeilate Court: —<\/p>\n
U ___5COurt of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dri.), Chailakere, in RA.<\/p>\n
NO.110\/2002 dated 27.01.2003, decreeing the suit of the<\/p>\n
i5>V9><\/p>\n
\u00ab-\n<\/p>\n
43;\u00bb
\npiaintiff in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule
\nproperty is confirmed and the judgement and.–decree<\/p>\n
passed by the first appeliate Court decreeing..’t–h’e-j’s*ti.i’t.. of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff in respect of item No.1 of
\nproperty is set aside and the judgement and:4d:er:’r_ee pTass’ed ii’ <\/p>\n
by the trial Court dismissing the__  ofthe..p.ia”in’tiffV”\u00a7.nV<\/p>\n
respect of item No.1 of t–.F1:’e’~~._y5uitV.scheduieR’p’ro’perty <\/p>\n
restored, with no ordergas to”‘cois_ts ii’.-.._t_he app’eai”.V4<\/p>\n
2. It is averreci\u00bb.ih~ the”rey\u00abievir”p,et.ition fiied by the
\nrespondent  that the review
\npetitioner’ head\u00bbrria\u00e9d,gg’or..s”.r\u00ab..Noi’.118\/1988 on the file of the
\nCivii Jirdge-,VV  on 07.07.1988 against the<\/p>\n
res%.pon*dentsV”i1erein ‘seeking for a decree for partition and<\/p>\n
.’ :p.o_sseissio–ri\ufb01*of_ haif share in the suit scheduie properties.<\/p>\n
  .was transferred and numbered as 05.\n<\/p>\n
 on the fiie of the Prl. Munsiff, Chitradurga.<\/p>\n
  * Thereafter, the suit was transferred to the Court of the Prl.
\n‘7-:CivAi’l 3udge (Jr. Dn.), Chailakere and numbered as 05.<\/p>\n
“‘ii\\io.1678\/1994. It is averred that the piaintiff (review<\/p>\n
petitioner) and the first defendant (first respondent) are<\/p>\n
\\sJ><\/p>\n
44’.\u00bb
\nbrothers and defendants 2 and 3 (respondents 2 and 3)
\nare the sons of the first defendant. It is the case-__of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff that himseif and the defendants cor:’sVti’tu:t.e’d,, a<\/p>\n
Hindu undivided famiiy and the suit schedufe,rproipert_i’esV<\/p>\n
were purchased by the father ‘”‘and, b’.r’otheru’j <\/p>\n
(Giddappa) of the -plaintiff under’a-A.’_fregistered., <\/p>\n
dated 28.05.1952. TheVe!.d’e.r, brothe’r–._of_, t’ne””‘pI’aintiff,’f<\/p>\n
namely, Giddappa died’ duringi..t,_h–eV’\\,’.e_ar i965 eyen before
\nhis marriage. The  the manger of
\nthe Hindu joiiitjyfiamiiyf. the plaintiff that
\nthe suit :ah_re'{,the’ joint famiiy properties
\nand the  sha re in the suit properties.\n<\/p>\n
 “It is  in the review petition that<\/p>\n
the1su~it vva”‘5~.._,.?:eVsist:ed by the defendants (respondents<\/p>\n
.A1’hereinjf.by”*fii_ing written statement. They admitted the<\/p>\n
 2relationas”i%i.p’;i;=.Wihe first defendant, apart from other things,<\/p>\n
rn’ain|y:A.Co”ratended that the suit item No.1 property had<\/p>\n
‘beyenvv\ufb02imortgaged by his father and elder brother —<\/p>\n
‘AA’–:C\u00a7idAdappa in favour of one Virupanna and Virupanna had<\/p>\n
“filed 0.53. No.350\/1960 for recovery of the amount and the<\/p>\n
-: 5 ;,
\nsaid suit had been decreed on 15.09.1966 and that he had
\npaid the decretai amount of Rs.1600\/– in Ex. No.425_{_1972.<\/p>\n
It was furthet contended that: the father otj’:t–hfe._tirst<\/p>\n
defendant had borrowed a sum of  <\/p>\n
Thippeswamy on 19.08.1951 and-“had. .pi*onote;VV’<\/p>\n
Thippeswamy had filed o.s. E\\i0.138(‘3:’,’.’A.A_199:569y”vyl’i–icti..<\/p>\n
be decreed and item No.1V\u00bbo.t:”‘t~he stjit.xschyedtiI”eiV”p’ropjerties’V<\/p>\n
had been sold in e)<ecutionii*of*–the_.saiddecree in Ex.
\nl\\io.719\/1960 and "t'iie_teattge'r};  of the suit
\nschedule   by him from
\nThippeswarny_\u00abi._Vtitiatjetgf saie deed dated
\n father for name sake as he
\nwas in <\/p>\n
 trial Court, by its judgement and decree<\/p>\n
Rdatediid'1\u00a7i.';iro8e;g:1is98, dismissed the suit holding that the first<\/p>\n
deufendantxx had contributed for purchase of the suit<\/p>\n
 A'sch.edtiie properties to his father and therefore, the suit<\/p>\n
Arscheduie properties are the self acquired properties of the<\/p>\n
9' Vi\ufb02first defendant and the plaintiff cannot ciaim any share in<\/p>\n
the said properties. Being aggrieved by the said<\/p>\n
tt\ufb01<\/p>\n
~'. 6 H
\njudgement and decree, the plaintiff fiied FLA. l\\io.110\/2002<\/p>\n
on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Challakere, The<\/p>\n
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), by his judgement <\/p>\n
dated 27.01.2003, reversed the finding oft<\/p>\n
and decreed the suit as prayed.-fo":'\u00bb.—.'Le-'arne'di~VICivVi'ii.,}iL.icfg.e,VVf <\/p>\n
on appreciation of the oral andliidyoczimlentayy .,evvi.,de.h'ce"'l'o.n<\/p>\n
record, has held that thereyyais, absoliiteiyl' rio'"'~.ev'i'de'nce on<\/p>\n
record to come to tvlTi,e..vC0f'l'Cl'ii.'si.'C_).f1'VVt'l*].E.lt the'fi.rs.t'\u00a7deferidarit
\nhad contributed any  to purchase the
\nsuit sched"u,:.:e;:   by him.\n<\/p>\n
ACCOFCI5i’|Eil”i\/i\ufb02~–.,fAii0?V’.,__ “*3P’i;i_<'1'lii'\u00a7ite_"Court reversed the
\njudgierraentnoa"i:.aji-..:dec'reAe'apassed by the trial Court and
\ngranted"?dlelcrelelsgforjillpartition and possession of the<\/p>\n
p,l.ajnVtiff' s halfsh\ufb02arei in the suit schedule properties. Being<\/p>\n
.0  the said judgement and decree passed by the<\/p>\n
V"'a'p;p__e'i*l;,a'te Court, the defendants filed R.S.A.<\/p>\n
 before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
“.233 This Court by judgement dated 27.10.2005,<\/p>\n
  set aside the judgement and decree passed by the first<\/p>\n
__5appellate Court and has restored the decree of the trial<\/p>\n
Lea;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
–I7I~
\nCourt in respect of item No.1 of the suit scheduie<\/p>\n
properties. Being aggrieved by the said finding, thcureyiew<\/p>\n
petition is filed by the plaintiff (revie_\\_r\u00a7i””‘i\ufb01e\ufb01tioneir)<\/p>\n
contending that: the specific contentio-n,.A)_:foyfV’the <\/p>\n
defendant throughout has beenT_tha:t..4iterri-ioNo;1.4o’f”tihVe..,siiit ‘<\/p>\n
schedule properties had been purchased <\/p>\n
own earnings in the nameury his fat-he:r”v’as’:fhe was in
\nGovernment service’     not a joint
\nfamily property and vit…vya:s  property; the
\nfirst  .tal<\u00e9n"uD_.:_the':'pieaww:that the Durchase of
\nitem   Pff0l5'erties was made by him
\nberiami -in  father; after coming into force
\nof the 'aenagnii  (Prohibition) Act, 1988<\/p>\n
(hereirsafterure-fer_red, to as 'the Act' ), it is not opera to the<\/p>\n
i ;'i'i.r_st dAeAferrda.nt to take up the plea of benami. Section 4(2)<\/p>\n
if2o'f-.yithVe'AVA'ict"prohibits any defence based on any right in<\/p>\n
re\u00e9spect ofllany property held benami, whether against the<\/p>\n
 " piersoyn in whose name the property is held or against any_<\/p>\n
ti'-Zolthier person and in view of the same, the defence put<\/p>\n
H forward by the first defendant that the purchase was made<\/p>\n
by him in the name of his father is totaliy prohibited. It<\/p>\n
Lu\/E.\n<\/p>\n
~28?\n<\/p>\n
is further contended by the ptaintiff (review petitioner)<\/p>\n
that; Sections 3, 5 and 8 of the Act came into force with<\/p>\n
effect from 05.09.1988 when the Act received -ti’ief”a:s’sent<\/p>\n
of the President and the remaining <\/p>\n
Section 4 of the Act are deemed’~to–.hav’_emco’i*n’e4 i.nt.oji\u00ab.fo’r..CeV’.. <\/p>\n
with effect from 19.05.1988 and Si-\u00e9ct’iVon00″4_:(2\u00abj.yVof’:the:::A.ct<\/p>\n
nuliifies the defenses based.,o”n,_any.”rightin’-,re’s;p’e’ct”of any 0<\/p>\n
property heid benami whether .a’ggai”n.st the’perso’En in whose
\nname the property “4wa_s*  the person in
\nwhose name,tjhe_propertyi;wa’sV:jhieid ijfagainst any other<\/p>\n
person in'”ar.yisui-t,”cia.i__rn.._or” a-\u00abc’tio_ri by or on behaif of a<\/p>\n
person ciaimiiwj’-.t:oi  ‘reai owner of the said property.<\/p>\n
Once a””p._ropVert’=,( is.’ to have been held benami, the<\/p>\n
o’wnerdeprived of such a defence against the<\/p>\n
real<\/p>\n
\u00bb :V’p.ersovn=.in.:wh__ose name the property is heid or any other<\/p>\n
H 2 Aperso’n’.\u00e9V”_”_~i_n’yiew of the same, it is clear that it is not open<\/p>\n
to'”t.he_fi’rs.t defendant to raise the piea of benami in the<\/p>\n
 “suit and the suit has been filed on 07.07.1988 after<\/p>\n
0″‘-Zcoiming into force of Section 4 of the Act. it is further<\/p>\n
H averred that the provisions of the Act have not been<\/p>\n
considered by this Court whiie disposing of R.S.A. on<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
\u00ab.9\u00bb
\n27.10.2005 and wherefore, petition is fiied for review of<\/p>\n
the order passed by this Court in R.S.A. No.41}.\/2003<\/p>\n
dated 27.10.2005.\n<\/p>\n
3. I have heard the iearned counsei a~p.pea__riri’g_fdr<\/p>\n
the review petitioner (respondent in  <\/p>\n
the iearned counsei appearing for; *t_he’A=.responduen}:s’<\/p>\n
(appeiiants in RSA.412\/200.3)’,<\/p>\n
4. Learned __counsei_._iappearing “for the review<\/p>\n
petitioner (respondentiin  submitted that<\/p>\n
the review .peti’tione\u00bbr'”seeks review of the order passed by
\nthis Court on 27.i’o..2rjo_,5’in RSA No.412\/2003, in so far as<\/p>\n
itdjeiates toV”th.i:s Court setting aside the judgement and<\/p>\n
. :V’d.eci’e:e’A\u00ab.passe_d in RA. No.110\/2002 dated 27.01.2003 in<\/p>\n
 ~.Ar’e-spe”cta7of  No.1 of the suit scheduie properties and<\/p>\n
re4stoi–5i:ng””the judgement and decree passed by the trial<\/p>\n
1 ” Courtiiidismissing the suit of the piaintiff in respect of item<\/p>\n
 of the suit scheduie properties. The contention that it<\/p>\n
“was not open to the first defendant to take up the plea<\/p>\n
that he had purchased item No.1 of the suit scheduie<\/p>\n
kiss’<\/p>\n
\u00a310?\n<\/p>\n
properties in his father’s name benami, has not been
\nconsidered by this Court and the said contention was<\/p>\n
materiai for the decision of the case as the deCision_”oVf””this<\/p>\n
Court would have been otherwise if the vco’nteindt’i”on’v.’<\/p>\n
regarding the prohibition contained  <\/p>\n
applying the same to the facts      <\/p>\n
5. Learned counsel a’ppea.ring”‘t’orf:th:e respondents
\n(appeilants in RSA.4-J..2;’2Of)3}Vi_is’u’bmAi.tt~ed that there is no
\nerror or iiiegaiity as t.o.–caii for :re\\’r.i’evii”‘Vio\u00bbf- the order passed<\/p>\n
by this Court  iii’6.4j’2\/2’eb’3i”‘ion 27.10.2005 and
\nail the : Co.nt’evri’t.io’iiiis’\u00b0~.:a’i’se’d’i in the appeal have been
\nconsider’ed”by  and the review petition is without<\/p>\n
 rnerit arid’i–\u00e9s_i’i_ab.*e to be dismissed.
\n‘   have given carefui consideration to the<\/p>\n
 the iearned counsei appearing for the<\/p>\n
parties  scrutinized the materiai on record.
\n.. 7} The materiai on record wouid cieariy show that<\/p>\n
2  t’h”e_triVai Court had dismissed the suit of the piaintiff in O.S.<\/p>\n
awe<\/p>\n
\u00bb: 11:–\n<\/p>\n
No.1678\/1994 seeking for half share in respect of two
\nitems of the suit scheduie properties by metes and bounds.<\/p>\n
Item No.1 is the Eand bearing Sy. No.62\/1 0f”rElijrehally<\/p>\n
village, Thalak Hobli, Challakere Taluk, meas.;ii*=ino::\u00a7E\u00a7”<\/p>\n
04 Guntas and item’i\\lo.2 is the..h\u00bbouse  and’ <\/p>\n
demand register i\\lo.160\/258 si:t\u00abuat’ef”i’ri 1H~iteheiig;\u00a5\u00a7zii.i5ge,<\/p>\n
Thalak Hobli, Challakereff-Tia-~l.tik, A’bo__unded.: “aS”‘”~pe:r the’<\/p>\n
description given in the sch-edu\ufb02ie t–o__the”pEva.i.nt…:\u00a7 It is the
\ncase of the plaintiff  No.1 are
\nbrothers. _Tfhe_\\_\/  iianumanthappa.\n<\/p>\n
Defendari-t’si”2.__V5a.n’d  defendant No.1.
\nGiddappa.  Hanumanthappa and brother of
\nthe pa.-;.;nt;{%rraadfi;e,t.[d.erendant died in 1965. The suit<\/p>\n
sc\u00abii::edu~ie proioer\ufb01es are the properties belonging to<\/p>\n
i V1’riant.i.n’iaprith’appa, the father of the plaintiff and the first<\/p>\n
“‘–defen’daint.. they are joint famiiy properties and<\/p>\n
w.he.reVfore”,: the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit<\/p>\n
 ” sehedtiie properties. It is the further case of the piaintiff<\/p>\n
fitgthhait the names of the plaintiff and the first defendant have<\/p>\n
N been entered in ali the revenue records and the said<\/p>\n
properties are in the joint possession of the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
\\;_\/3’.\n<\/p>\n
-: 12 :-<\/span>
\nthe first defendant and they have got equal share in the<\/p>\n
suit schedule properties. The defendants with a mala fide<\/p>\n
intention, have partitioned the suit schedule prorp’ertie:9_by<\/p>\n
means of partition deed dated 23.11.1987 arid <\/p>\n
not binding upon the plaintiff.  – _ ._ V,\n<\/p>\n
8. The defendants resi\u00a3;ted:_,the s_ui”t_i)y’f.ii~i.ng,rh?e<\/p>\n
written statement denying the,__aver’mVent madveixin4_thelT;pi.aint”i.<\/p>\n
that the suit scheduie provpiertles are-the joint family
\nproperties. Relationsh_i’p ar.\ufb01ongVi”th,e-.,,lp”art_ies was admitted.
\nThe fact that the fath,et,:of.,th_e plai”nti’ff\u00bb.’ja-ri’d the defendant<\/p>\n
and :t..hei:r’ e.ider’f-.p’ro.t’h’e.f2.._(‘Giddappa had purchased suit
\nschedule”,i_tem Vixioiil ‘property under registered sale deed<\/p>\n
 i’~28.0u7.’1.f,ii\u00a72 ‘was admitted. However, it was<\/p>\n
i V:VconVte_rid\u00abed,:that the father of the plaintiff and defendant<\/p>\n
  amount and had mortgaged the said<\/p>\n
property in favour of Virupanna and since the amount was<\/p>\n
 “no.t_ repaid, Virupanna filed the suit against the father of<\/p>\n
htheiiplairitiff and the first defendant. The said suit was<\/p>\n
if “ldecreed arid the first defendant had paid the decretai<\/p>\n
amount of Rs.1600\/– in Ex. No.425\/1972. It is further<\/p>\n
–;13;i
\naverred that the father of the plaintiff and the first<\/p>\n
defendant had borrowed amount from Thippeswanfiy and<\/p>\n
since the amount was not repaid, Thippeswamy'”fii’ed*–suit<\/p>\n
against the father of the plaintiff and the <\/p>\n
and in execution, the suit scheduieitem  was ‘ . <\/p>\n
sold in favour of Thippeswamy. :”The._’_’fi”rst <\/p>\n
his own earning, purchased_,_v’th_e suit__sc:hed,ul”e;”iteriij No.”.i~’<\/p>\n
property from ThiDP\u00a73warp.~,;.u:u’~nd’e..r. the” –registered sale
\ndeed dated  was purchased
\nin the l1ai’3’ie.vO’I\u00a3::}il.S father  \u00ab\u00e9ioyernment service.
\nItem  is not at all the
\n  the seif–acquired property of
\nthe f\u00e9rst’d_’efe,nd’an.t;V.’.T’he”_;spiaintiff is not entitled to any share<\/p>\n
 ‘suit sohediule ‘properties.\n<\/p>\n
V”  .._The Trial Court framed appropriate issues. On<\/p>\n
 th.e_i.~piaEntiff, the piaintiff examined himself as<\/p>\n
Wt\/.1:_ar1d’,j’..i1e also examined PWs.2 and 3 and got marked<\/p>\n
 AA \ufb01xs..’Pv1.\u00ab:’to P37. On behalf of the defendants, defendant<\/p>\n
  “\u00a7\\i_o:51 was examined as Di\/v.1 and he aiso examined DWs.2<\/p>\n
gito 4 and got marked Exs.D: to D29. The trial Court, by<\/p>\n
-1141-<\/span>
\njudgement and decree dated 14.08.1998, dismissed the
\nsuit of the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the said<\/p>\n
judgement and decree, the plaintiff preferr’e.d}_:’R,’A.<\/p>\n
No.110\/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge <\/p>\n
Challakere. The first appellate Ce-u_rt andf” <\/p>\n
decree dated 27.01.2003, held that :t’_’_he’l’p|ai.nvt’iff’g is<\/p>\n
to share in both the suit sclhed-.u_ie pr0pertiesy_Aa’s’the:”e was’<\/p>\n
no severance of status ‘thgen.’j’oi~n,tg famiiy and
\nExs.D15 and D16 V-~4’=iettersf{–“;.veiret;_ helpful to the
\ndefendants tosluljstaritEa’te:V:their:iiConlteijihon that there was
\nseverance.  theifa joint family and
\naccoridingiyy.Viifaiioyved'”‘V–A:.:li\u00a2-e’ “appeal by reversing the
\njudgemfer\ufb01and’dfeegreeigelelesed by the trial Court dated<\/p>\n
14..00.1~998.  ~f<\/p>\n
  aggrieved by the above said judgement<\/p>\n
and ad’-eVcr’e’e passed by the first appeilate Court, the<\/p>\n
  “defendants preferred R.S.A. No.412\/2003 on the fiie of this<\/p>\n
“V\ufb01ourt, which was admitted on 22.08.2003 for<\/p>\n
1′ “consideration of the following substantial question of law:<\/p>\n
kt}<\/p>\n
-1152-<\/span><\/p>\n
” Whether the appeliate Court committed
\nerror in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to
\nhalf share in the suit property and thatvVtij:e’\u00bb..
\nAppeliate Court was not justified in
\naside the judgement and decree of is
\nCourt in that regard ?”  if .\n<\/p>\n
This Court after considering the ;t:oii’:i_eii*.t’iorr\u00bbs orjitrig\u00e9 .i”e–ar\ufb01ed<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the ‘pa’r~t.i..es, p’asse.d_ a.de_tai.ied–‘order’<\/p>\n
on 27.10.2005, wherein thAe…:\u00e9iAp.pea_lgA ha.s”\u00abbeen_\ufb01\u00a7ali0wed in
\npart and the  by the first
\nappellate Cou_rtV__in  27.01.2003
\n respect of item No.2 of
\nthe  been confirmed and the
\njudgemeritand’d._ecr,ee’~:–‘passed by the first appellate Court<\/p>\n
theAsuit.–\u00abof’the plaintiff in respect of item No.1 of<\/p>\n
V =tAhe_s’u.i:_t”schedule properties has been set aside and the<\/p>\n
.’j=4’d%gemeVpt_a:’nd decree passed by the trial Court dismissing<\/p>\n
the  of the plaintiff in respect of item No.1 of the suit<\/p>\n
 .Vsc’h\u00abedule properties has been restored. This Court while<\/p>\n
Vlgarriving at the said finding, held that item No.1 of the suit<\/p>\n
schedule properties was soid in execution of the decree<\/p>\n
passed in the suit filed by one Thippeswamy and the<\/p>\n
\\,.)i<\/p>\n
w:16;w<\/p>\n
father of the plaintiff and first defendant was not keeping
\nwell and he had no income of his own and the said item<\/p>\n
No.1 —- landed property was purchased L:-in’de_’r*\u00ab_;”‘t,he<\/p>\n
registered saie deed on 29.01.1962 out of trie <\/p>\n
the first defendant and the piaintiff\u00bbvfa.i4ledIuto1co’ritl’i’b’uiteg.ahyf <\/p>\n
amount, which fact is admitted  <\/p>\n
wherefore, item No.1 of th1e.,:_suVi%t SC.h3\u00a7iU!.\u20acJVD:|’C5:{1\u00e9l’t’lB\u00e9’> hadr<\/p>\n
ceased to be the joint famggiily-Vlliproperty a\ufb01ndv..it..i\u00a7s the self
\nacquired property of  held by the
\ntrial Court ant]? the  was not at all
\njustified in” However, the
\nsubstiaT_lC’e”  of the defendants that the
\npropertyVV”w.as,V the first defendant benami in<\/p>\n
th.e-ipnarne of ‘hi’s.fa__i_:_gh,er as he was in Government service,<\/p>\n
i has’ no_t\u00ab.be.en considered by this Court while reversing the<\/p>\n
  first appellate Court and restoring the<\/p>\n
jud”gerhen’t\ufb01.and decree passed by the trial Court in so far<\/p>\n
1′ na’s–..it relates to item No.1 of the suit schedule properties.<\/p>\n
Atjitllis clear from the defence taken by the first defendant in<\/p>\n
V “the written statement as also the evidence adduced before<\/p>\n
the trial Court that the substance of the defence taken by<\/p>\n
K);\n<\/p>\n
\u00bb: 17 :-\n<\/p>\n
the first defendant that he had purchased item No.1 of the
\nsuit scheduie properties behami out of his earnings,___in the<\/p>\n
name of his father as he was in Government ser’v”i.de\u00abi._i’~Tifhe<\/p>\n
question as to whether the said transaction;-.
\nunder the provisions of the….B4enami'”‘fi’an’sa’ctio.hs”i
\n(Prohibition) Act, in view of the :’p\u00abroi{{is*ions’~o_f’ S’ectio_i’i.?i;1\u00bbi.of<\/p>\n
the Act has a materiai b’ea’ri.ng on  ‘as to’<\/p>\n
whether such defence that.”‘the’u._first”defendant had
\npurchased item No.i’V:’pfsti’it’:_.:’.sc\u00bbh_edu|e properties
\nbenami in the::’n.a’me:’.’bf”  be taken. The
\neffect of    defence taken by
\nthe first’–  of item No.1 of the suit
\nschedule’\u00bb.proppert_i.es_c’a:ri_’d44acceptance or otherwise of the<\/p>\n
Cv{3FijI\u20ac’_’Vi’iiA’Cii’)|’i of ‘t”i%\u20ac…’.?5.\u00bbrned counsel appearing for the review<\/p>\n
‘ ;Vp’e.tVitio_vn’er\u00abfpviaintiff) in that regard, wouid have reievant<\/p>\n
“5.ea’rin’gif-‘ojn’c’oth’Ve decision to be arrived at in the Reguiar<\/p>\n
s\u00e9aqriidip Appeal l\\io.412\/2003. Therefore, : hold that the<\/p>\n
2 iicorderiiipassed by this Court dated 27.1o.2oo5 in R.S.A.
\nA”‘\u00a7i\\i’o”.412\/2003 suffers from error apparent on the face of<\/p>\n
H the order for non–consideration of the material contention<\/p>\n
about the applicability of the provisions of the Behami<\/p>\n
WA<\/p>\n
‘  with faw. A.\n<\/p>\n
H182-\n<\/p>\n
Transactions (prohibition) Act and the effect___of the<\/p>\n
provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 8 of the A_’ct.i:’jofn”–Vthe<\/p>\n
defence taken by the first defendant in <\/p>\n
No.1 of the suit schedule prope_rti.e.s.’ Acco’rd:ii’.rigiy,.’_’_I\u00bb_ <\/p>\n
that the judgement and decree’:.\u00abpas_’sefd <\/p>\n
R.S.A. No.412\/2003 dated__V:”2.7.10A.’2():0S_i’s_’i’ia’b\u00abie. “to be<\/p>\n
recalied and the appear is epntit’i’ed”‘t_o be heiaprdlafresh and
\ndisposed of, and pass <\/p>\n
The Rev.i:ew_  judgement and
\ndecree  No.412\/2003 dated
\n27.1ej.i’2o0s}’s__V  No.412\/2003 is restored
\nto  R.S.A. No.412\/2003 shalt be<\/p>\n
posted fo4r’fi_na!..’hea’rin\u00a7. for fresh disposal in accordance<\/p>\n
Sd\/*
\nEUBGE<\/p>\n
 Surriaf<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court H Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 2009 Author: V.G.Sabhahit T312′ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE fDAY OF OCTOBER BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. 3uSTI_CE.\\_\/.6. _E3}V\ufb01\\”E*3″i’++’;13\\i’;vii’IV”l’ R.P. No.734′;_20:)’5R. _In R.S.A. i’-Jo’.’4_12\/2003 . BETWEEN: H. Hanumanthappa, . S\/o late Hanumanthai\u00e9ah’ Hanumanthappa, L Aged about 62\u00bbyearS,_~- . ‘ […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103212","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nH Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 2009 - 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\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"H Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-01T06:38:17+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"H Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-01T06:38:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3321,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009\",\"name\":\"H Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-01T06:38:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"H Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 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:\/\/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":"H Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 2009 - 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\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"H Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-01T06:38:17+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"H Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-01T06:38:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009"},"wordCount":3321,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009","name":"H Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-01T06:38:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/h-hanumanthappa-vs-h-thippaiah-on-1-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"H Hanumanthappa vs H Thippaiah on 1 October, 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:\/\/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\/103212","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=103212"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103212\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103212"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103212"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103212"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}