{"id":107039,"date":"2010-11-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-07T20:11:22","modified_gmt":"2016-05-07T14:41:22","slug":"janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"Janaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Janaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 464 of 1996()\n\n\n\n1. JANAKI AMMA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. PADMINI AMMA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :29\/11\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                  S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n                 -----------------------------------------\n                       S.A NO. 464 OF 1996\n                 ----------------------------------------\n         Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010.\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The defendants in O.S.No.93 of 1988 on the file of Munsiff<\/p>\n
Magistrate Of Mannartghat are the appellants. Suit is one for<\/p>\n
declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction.           Concurrent<\/p>\n
decision rendered by the courts below allowing the plaintiffs a<\/p>\n
decree of injunction, that alone, negativing the other reliefs<\/p>\n
canvassed, restraining the defendants from interfering with their<\/p>\n
possession and enjoyment over the suit property, is impeached<\/p>\n
in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The disputes canvassed in the present appeal lies within<\/p>\n
the narrow compass. Before adverting to the question emerging<\/p>\n
for consideration it may be appropriate to state the facts in a<\/p>\n
nutshell. Plaintiffs in the suit are the children of one Nani Amma<\/p>\n
to whom the suit property comprising a building was alloted as<\/p>\n
her share in the partition effected among the members of the<\/p>\n
family under Ext.A1 partition deed. Over the building situate in<\/p>\n
the property some conditions were imposed in the partition deed,<\/p>\n
by which she was bound to pay Rs.2,000\/- each as part of the<\/p>\n
owelty to her three brothers within a period of 1= years from<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 partition deed.       A charge was also created over the<\/p>\n
S.A NO. 464 OF 1996               2<\/span><\/p>\n
building in respect of the owelty amount fixed as payable to the<\/p>\n
brothers. Yet another condition was also imposed that if payment<\/p>\n
of the owelty as fixed is not paid after the expiry of the period of<\/p>\n
1= years then the brothers would also become co-owners of the<\/p>\n
building. The defendants in the suit are the two brothers and the<\/p>\n
widow and children of the other brother, who had already passed<\/p>\n
away. Suit was filed for a declaration that no charge subsisted<\/p>\n
over the suit property and for a perpetual prohibitory injunction to<\/p>\n
restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession and<\/p>\n
enjoyment over the property. The defendants resisted the suit<\/p>\n
claim contending that they have become co-owners of the house<\/p>\n
situated in the plaint schedule property on default of payment of<\/p>\n
owelty amount within the time fixed under Ext.A1 deed. So much<\/p>\n
so, according to the defendants, the declaration and also<\/p>\n
injunction applied for cannot be granted.\n<\/p>\n
       3. On the materials placed which consisted of PW1 and A1 to<\/p>\n
A6 for the plaintiffs and DW1 for the defendants, the trial court<\/p>\n
concluded that as the period barring the right of the defendants<\/p>\n
to claim the owelty amount, on the date of institution, having not<\/p>\n
been expired, plaintiffs are not entitled to the declaration<\/p>\n
canvassed in the suit. However, their claim for injunction as<\/p>\n
S.A NO. 464 OF 1996               3<\/span><\/p>\n
against the defendants was allowed as it was found that the<\/p>\n
Clause incorporated in Ext.A1 partition deed that on default in<\/p>\n
payment of owelty, the brothers of Nani Amma would become co-<\/p>\n
owners of the property cannot be recognized under law as it is<\/p>\n
repugnant to the title already vested in favour of Nani Amma over<\/p>\n
the house but, subject to the charge created for payment of the<\/p>\n
owelty.      Defendants alone impeached the correctness of the<\/p>\n
decision rendered by the trial court to the extent they were<\/p>\n
aggrieved by the decree of permanent perpetual injunction<\/p>\n
granted in favour of the plaintiff. The lower appellate court after<\/p>\n
re-appreciating the materials concurring with the finding rendered<\/p>\n
by the trial court upheld the decree of injunction granted to the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved the defendants have preferred this<\/p>\n
appeal.\n<\/p>\n
       4. The short question raised for consideration is whether<\/p>\n
both the courts below erred in granting a decree of injunction to<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs where the main relief canvassed in their suit for<\/p>\n
declaration has been found against and negatived. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellants urged before me that when the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs were found ineligible to have the declaration sought for,<\/p>\n
then, the necessary consequence must follow that they are<\/p>\n
S.A NO. 464 OF 1996                4<\/span><\/p>\n
incompetent to claim a decree of injunction against the<\/p>\n
defendants. Perusing the records of the case including judgments<\/p>\n
rendered by the courts below, I finds no merit in the submission<\/p>\n
made by the learned counsel.         The decree of injunction was<\/p>\n
claimed in the suit not as a consequential relief to the declaration<\/p>\n
canvased for. May be on the date of suit the right of the<\/p>\n
defendants to enforce the charge for claiming the owelty payable<\/p>\n
to them in respect of the        building  situated in the property<\/p>\n
continued to be available. It is also noticed that in fact they had<\/p>\n
preferred another suit much earlier, for partition, presumably for<\/p>\n
enforcing the second Clause under Ext.A1 partition deed when<\/p>\n
payment of the owelty was not effected within the period fixed.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellants is unable to say the fate of<\/p>\n
the suit for partition so filed by the defendants. Whatever be the<\/p>\n
stage of that suit for partition, even assuming it is pending, it<\/p>\n
goes without saying that the decision rendered in the present suit<\/p>\n
that the term incorporated in Ext.A1 which enable the brothers to<\/p>\n
claim status of co-owners over the house on default of the<\/p>\n
payment of owelty can no longer survive for consideration as the<\/p>\n
issue relating to the same decided in the present case would<\/p>\n
constitute res judicata barring them in prosecuting such claim.<\/p>\n
S.A NO. 464 OF 1996               5<\/span><\/p>\n
Now the only question remaining for consideration is whether<\/p>\n
those persons, the brothers or their successors in interest, (the<\/p>\n
defendants herein) could enforce the owelty fixed and payable to<\/p>\n
them under Ext.A1 partition deed. Though as on the date of such<\/p>\n
claim was not barred, till date as that claim had not been raised it<\/p>\n
has become barred. This court cannot be oblivious as to what<\/p>\n
transpired during the pendency of the suit in       moulding      the<\/p>\n
reliefs, which otherwise would result in passing of inconsistent<\/p>\n
decrees. The claim of the defendants to enforce the charge has<\/p>\n
now become barred is also a matter to be taken note of to<\/p>\n
conclude that the decree of injunction granted in favour of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff as against the defendants by the trial courts concurrently<\/p>\n
does not warrant interference at all. Even otherwise also, on the<\/p>\n
facts involved in the case, assuming that the charge is still<\/p>\n
enforcible for the reason that any claim made thereby by the<\/p>\n
defendants is still pending consideration before the court, still, the<\/p>\n
entitlement of the plaintiff to sustain the decree of injunction<\/p>\n
applied for against the defendants need not be doubted. Plaintiff<\/p>\n
need only show their apprehension with their legal right to seek<\/p>\n
the decree of injunction against another when there is a threat or<\/p>\n
invasion to such legal right to claim that equitable relief from the<\/p>\n
S.A NO. 464 OF 1996               6<\/span><\/p>\n
court. On the facts presented in the case where the defendants<\/p>\n
admittedly had instituted a suit for partition claiming that they<\/p>\n
are co-owners of the property relying on the clause referred to<\/p>\n
above in Ext.A1 partition deed, which has been found to be not<\/p>\n
legally unsustainable, the apprehension raised by the plaintiff for<\/p>\n
the discretionary relief of injunction establishing their title over<\/p>\n
the suit property, is sufficient to grant that relief. The decree so<\/p>\n
granted by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court is<\/p>\n
proper and correct.\n<\/p>\n
       There is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed directing<\/p>\n
both sides to suffer their costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\n                             S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE.\n<\/p>\n
Mns<\/p>\n
                                                            \/\/true copy\/\/<\/p>\n
                                                            P.A. To Judge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Janaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 464 of 1996() 1. JANAKI AMMA … Petitioner Vs 1. PADMINI AMMA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.A.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.ANIL SIVARAMAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN Dated […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-107039","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJanaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010 - 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\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Janaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-07T14:41:22+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\\\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Janaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-07T14:41:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1234,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010\",\"name\":\"Janaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-07T14:41:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Janaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Janaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010 - 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\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Janaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-07T14:41:22+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\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Janaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-07T14:41:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010"},"wordCount":1234,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010","name":"Janaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-07T14:41:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/janaki-amma-vs-padmini-amma-on-29-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Janaki Amma vs Padmini Amma on 29 November, 2010"}]},{"@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\/107039","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=107039"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/107039\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=107039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=107039"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=107039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}