{"id":105291,"date":"1953-01-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1953-01-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953"},"modified":"2016-01-11T11:22:22","modified_gmt":"2016-01-11T05:52:22","slug":"lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953","title":{"rendered":"Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Patna High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: AIR 1953 Pat 193, 1953 (1) BLJR 135<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Ramaswami<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Ramaswami, S Prosad<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  Ramaswami, J.   <\/p>\n<p> 1. The question at issue in this appeal is whether the judgment-debtor 11, who is appellant, can invoke the principle of marshalling and ask that properties 1, 2 and 5 which he had purchased in a court sale in execution of a money decree should be sold by the decree-holder in the last instance.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. It appears that the mortgage decree was passed with respect to 9 items of properties. On 23-8-1952 the appellant prayed for an order from the Court that properties other than those purchased by him should be sold in execution of the decree. The application was summarily rejected. But on 27-8-1952 he made a second application asking for the same relief. The learned Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties held that Section 56, T. P. Act, had no application to a purchase at an auction sale.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. On behalf of the appellant Mr. P.R. Das has challenged the correctness of this order. It was argued by the learned counsel that though Section 56, T. P. Act, does not in terms apply to the present case the principle of the section can be properly invoked by the appellant. It was argued by the learned counsel that Section 56 does not purport to codify the law in India on this point nor can it be held to be exhaustive of the equitable relief that could be granted by the Court in a case where there is a purchaser of the mortgaged property in a court sale. Section 56, T. P. Act, is as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>   &#8220;If the owner of two or more properties mortgages them to one person and then sells one or more of the properties to another person, the buyer is, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, entitled to have the mortgage-debt satisfied out of the property or properties not sold to him, so far as the same will extend, but not so as to prejudice the rights of the mortgagee or persons claiming under him or of any other person who has for consideration acquired an interest in any of the properties&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Upon a proper interpretation of the section it is manifest that it covers only the case of voluntary sale and that it cannot apply to a person who purchases the mortgaged properties in execution of a money decree. But the provisions of the section are not exhaustive. The preamble to the Transfer of Property Act states &#8220;whereas it is expedient to define and amend certain parts of the law relating to transfer of property by act of parties.&#8221; The Act does not, therefore, consolidate the law nor does it profess to be complete code dealing with transfer of property. It purports to do no more than to define and amend certain parts of the law relating to transfer of property. But there is nothing to indicate that the legislature intended to deal exhaustively with the subject matter of transfer of property. If an auction purchaser at a court sale, therefore, makes out a proper case, the Court may in its discretion apply the principle of marshalling on a consideration of the particular equities involved.\n<\/p>\n<p> It was argued by Mr. P.R. Das that the appellant in the present case is entitled to invoke the principle of marshalling. The argument is based upon the decision &#8216;in &#8212; &#8216;Mt. Nowa Koowar v. Sheikh Abdool Ruheem&#8217;, 1864 WR 374 (Cal) (A) in which it was held by Jackson J. that if a third party had obtained a decree for money due from a mortgagor the sale would not release that estate from the mortgage but it would force upon the plaintiff to take measures in the first instance to recover amount due to him from the remaining estates included in his mortgage-deed, and that, if any balance remained after he had realised all he could from these two remaining estates, he could then return to the third estate to recover the balance. The doctrine so laid down in this case has been modified in subsequent authorities. For instance, in &#8211;&#8216;Rodh Mal v. Ram Harakh&#8217;, 7 All 711 (B) the doctrine was applied only in case of a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice, of a portion of property the whole of which was subject to a prior mortgage.\n<\/p>\n<p> The principle was laid down in similar terms in &#8212; &#8216;Khirodhar Singh v. Gajadhar Lal&#8217;, AIR 1925 Pat 484 (C) in which a certain portion of the property was purchased subsequent to the execution of the mortgage and in the executing Court the subsequent purchaser applied that the items purchased by him should be sold in execution of the mortgage decree only if the other items were insufficient. It was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the question turned on the form of the contract between the vendor and the purchaser, namely, whether the property was sold subject to the encumbrance or not. Upon the evidence adduced in the case it appeared that the sale was made subject to the mortgage and the Bench, therefore, held that there was no ground for interfering with the rights of the mortgagee to sell the property in any order be pleased. This opinion was cited with approval by the Calcutta High Court in &#8212; &#8216;Nobin Chandra v. Debendra Sen&#8217;, AIR 1927 Cal 522 (D),  <\/p>\n<p> The real position is that in a case of this description there are two conflicting principles, the first being the principle that the mortgagee is entitled to have his dues satisfied out of the mortgaged properties in any manner he<br \/>\nchooses and the other principle being that the<br \/>\npurchaser for value without notice of the<br \/>\nmortgaged property ought not to suffer any<br \/>\ndetriment due to any mistake or lack of bona<br \/>\nfides on the part of the mortgagor. It is a<br \/>\nquestion of adjustment of equities upon the<br \/>\nparticular facts of each case. It was conceded<br \/>\nby Mr. P.R. Das that the appellant would be<br \/>\nentitled to marshalling of securities only if he<br \/>\nmakes out a case that he was a bona fide purchaser for value of the property without notice of the prior mortgage. But the difficulty<br \/>\nin the path of the appellant is that no such<br \/>\ncase was made out in the application he had<br \/>\nfiled before the learned Subordinate Judge. It<br \/>\nis not alleged by the appellant in his application before, the Subordinate Judge that he had<br \/>\npurchased not merely the equity of redemption but the entire property or that he was<br \/>\nnot aware of the mortgage and had paid full<br \/>\nvalue of items 1, 2 and 5 included in the mort<br \/>\ngage decree. It was submitted by Mr. P.R. Das<br \/>\nthat the matter should be remanded to the<br \/>\nlearned Subordinate Judge for investigation of<br \/>\nthe question whether the appellant was a bona<br \/>\nfide purchaser for value and whether he had<br \/>\npaid the purchase price not knowing that there<br \/>\nwas a previous mortgage on the properties. In<br \/>\nthe absence of any averment made by the appellant on this point it is not possible to hold that<br \/>\nthere are any equities to which the appellant<br \/>\nis entitled in this case and upon the basis of<br \/>\nwhich he can ask the executing Court to apply the principle of marshalling in his favour.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. In our opinion the learned Subordinate<br \/>\nJudge rightly dismissed the application filed<br \/>\nby the appellant and this appeal must be accordingly dismissed with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Patna High Court Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953 Equivalent citations: AIR 1953 Pat 193, 1953 (1) BLJR 135 Author: Ramaswami Bench: Ramaswami, S Prosad JUDGMENT Ramaswami, J. 1. The question at issue in this appeal is whether the judgment-debtor 11, who is appellant, can invoke the principle of marshalling and ask that [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105291","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953 - 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\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953\" \/>\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=\"1953-01-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-11T05:52:22+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953\",\"datePublished\":\"1953-01-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-11T05:52:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953\"},\"wordCount\":1248,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953\",\"name\":\"Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1953-01-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-11T05:52:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953\"}]},{\"@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":"Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953 - 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\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1953-01-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-11T05:52:22+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953","datePublished":"1953-01-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-11T05:52:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953"},"wordCount":1248,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953","name":"Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1953-01-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-11T05:52:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/lachhminarayan-vs-janmaijai-mahton-on-2-january-1953#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Lachhminarayan vs Janmaijai Mahton on 2 January, 1953"}]},{"@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\/105291","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=105291"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105291\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}