{"id":10724,"date":"2008-08-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008"},"modified":"2015-07-20T16:39:44","modified_gmt":"2015-07-20T11:09:44","slug":"shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Shrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Shrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: D.G. Karnik<\/div>\n
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n\n                  SECOND APPEAL NO. 570 OF 2006\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n     1. Shrikrishna S\/o Panditrao\n        Bahirath,\n        Age : 26 years,\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n        Occu. : Agriculture,\n        R\/o Kausadi, Taluka : Jintur,\n        District : Parbhani\n\n     2. Baliram S\/o Panditrao Bahirath,\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n        Age : 28 years,\n        Occupation : Agriculutre,\n        R\/o Kausadi, Taluka : Jintur,\n        District : Parbhani                  .. Appellants\n                                      (Ori. Deft. 1 and 2)\n\n\n\n\n                              \n         VERSUS\n                   \n     1. Angad S\/o Shivaji Bahirath,\n        Aged : 11 years, Minor\n\n     2. Dnyandeo S\/o Shivaji Bahirath,\n                  \n        Aged : 9 years, Minor\n\n     3. Seema D\/o Shivaji Bahirath,\n        Aged : 15 years, Minor\n\n       All respondents (Original\n      \n\n\n       Plaintiffs 1 to 3) are minors\n       and under guardianship of\n   \n\n\n\n       real mother respondent no.4\n       i.e. Gangubai w\/o Shivaji\n       Bahirath, R\/o Kausadi,\n       Taluka : Jintur\n\n\n\n\n\n     4. Gangubai W\/o Shivaji Bahirath,\n        Aged : 28 years,\n        Occupation : Agriculture and\n        Household,\n        R\/o Kausadi, Taluka : Jintur,\n        District : Parbhani\n\n\n\n\n\n     5. Shivaji S\/o Vithalrao Bahirath,\n        Aged : 32 years,\n        Occu.: Agriculture,\n        R\/o Kausadi, Taluka : Jintur,\n        District : Parbhani                .. Respondents\n                                      (Nos. 1 to 4 -original\n                                       Plaintiffs and No.5-\n\n\n\n\n                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 13:42:22 :::\n                                                         original Deft. no.3)\n\n\n\n     Ms. Rajshree N. Reddy h\/f. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar for the\n     Appellants\n\n     Mr. R.K. Ashtekar for the Respondents 1 to 4\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                 \n                                                        \n                                          CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                          DATE   : 19.08.2008<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT:-\n<\/p>\n
     1.                This      appeal   is      directed        against           the<\/p>\n
     judgment<\/p>\n
     District
\n                       and<\/p>\n
                       Judge,<\/p>\n
                              order   dated 7.2.2006<\/p>\n
                                  Parbhani dismissing
\n                                                              passed<\/p>\n
                                                                Regular
\n                                                                             by     the<\/p>\n
                                                                                Civil<\/p>\n
     Appeal no.           60 of 2003 filed by the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     2.                Respondents    1    and    2     are     the      sons       and<\/p>\n
     respondent          no.3 is unmarried daughter of                 respondent<\/p>\n
     no.5.           Respondent no.4 is the wife of respondent no.5<\/p>\n
     and        mother       of respondents 1 to 3.           By a     sale       deed<\/p>\n
     dated            8.3.1996    respondent     no.5         sold     the        suit<\/p>\n
     agricultural land to the appellants.                     The respondents<\/p>\n
     1     to        4 filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit                      no.\n<\/p>\n
     124        of     2000    challenging the        alienation,          and      for<\/p>\n
     partition of the suit property alleging that the suit<\/p>\n
     property          was    a joint family property of               which        the<\/p>\n
     respondent          no.5 was only a karta and he had no right<\/p>\n
     to     sell the suit property.              Appellants contested the<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                              (3)<\/span><\/p>\n
     suit     contending       that      the sale was made              for      legal<\/p>\n
     necessity.         The trial Court decreed the suit holding<\/p>\n
     that     the legal necessity was not proved and that the<\/p>\n
     respondents        1    to    4     had 1\/5th share            each      in     the<\/p>\n
     property     and       passed       a    decree     for     partition           and<\/p>\n
     separate possession of their share.                      The appeal filed<\/p>\n
     by     appellants-purchasers was dismissed by the                           lower<\/p>\n
     appellate Court.          Aggrieved appellants are in appeal.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n     3.           Learned         counsel          for        the       appellants\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     submitted     that the sale of the suit property was for\n\n     legal     necessity.\n                         ig        She       submitted that there              was      a\n\n     recital     in the sale deed that the sale was                         effected\n                       \n     for repayment of the loan of a bank.                      The trial Court\n\n     ought     to have held that there was a legal                        necessity\n\n     for the sale.          Mere recital in the sale deed which is\n      \n\n\n     executed     just few years prior to the suit about                             the\n   \n\n\n\n     existence     of legal necessity is not the proof of the\n\n     legal     necessity.         The recital of legal necessity                      in\n\n\n\n\n\n     the     sale deed can at best be used to corroborate any\n\n     substantive        evidence       of legal necessity adduced                     by\n\n     the     parties.       The weight of the recitals in the sale\n\n     deed     may increase as time passes and other                         evidence\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     of legal necessity vanishes in oblivion by passage of<\/p>\n
     time.      But     that      is     not the case          here.        For      the<\/p>\n
     purpose     of     proving        that the        respondent         no.5       was<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                            (4)<\/span><\/p>\n
     indebted        to     bank the appellants could                 have         easily<\/p>\n
     examined        an     officer of the bank to prove                    the      debt<\/p>\n
     and\/or        produced      the extract of the loan account                       of<\/p>\n
     the respondent no.5 duly certified under the Banker’s<\/p>\n
     Books     Evidence Act.          None of these things was                     done.\n<\/p>\n
     The     burden        of    proving     the necessity            was      on     the<\/p>\n
     appellants           which they have failed to discharge.                        The<\/p>\n
     Courts have accordingly held that the appellants have<\/p>\n
     not     proved the legal necessity.                 The said finding of<\/p>\n
     fact     is     a     possible    finding           of    fact      based         on<\/p>\n
     appreciation           of evidence and not open for                   challenge<\/p>\n
     in the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     4.             Learned       counsel        for the       appellants           then<\/p>\n
     submitted        that the suit was not for partition of the<\/p>\n
     whole     of        the suit property inasmuch as                  the        family<\/p>\n
     owned     one        more    property       which     was      sold       by     the<\/p>\n
     respondent in the year 1988 and that was not included<\/p>\n
     in     the suit for partition.               Respondent nos.              1 to      3<\/p>\n
     who     are minors, were not borne in the year 1988 when<\/p>\n
     the     previous alienation was made.                    They got share in<\/p>\n
     the     joint family property on their birth.                         They       had<\/p>\n
     no share in the property which was alienated prior to<\/p>\n
     their     birth in the year 1988.               Sale made in the year<\/p>\n
     1988     was     made by respondent no.5 as sole                      surviving<\/p>\n
     coparcener           and    therefore       respondents 1 to              4     have<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:22 :::<\/span>
\n                                     (5)<\/span><\/p>\n
     rightly    not     included that property in the suit                for<\/p>\n
     partition.        In the circumstances the contention that<\/p>\n
     as     the properties sold by the respondent no.5 in the<\/p>\n
     year    1988      were not included in the suit, it            was      a<\/p>\n
     suit      for      partial   partition   and     as     such         not<\/p>\n
     maintainable has no merit.\n<\/p>\n
     5.           No    other point was urged.      No question            of<\/p>\n
     law,    much less a substantial question of law, arises<\/p>\n
     in this appeal.       The appeal is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                          (D.G. KARNIK),
\n                                              JUDGE<\/p>\n
     arp\/1988\/570<\/p>\n
                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 13:42:22 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Shrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008 Bench: D.G. Karnik IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 570 OF 2006 1. Shrikrishna S\/o Panditrao Bahirath, Age : 26 years, Occu. : Agriculture, R\/o Kausadi, Taluka : Jintur, District : Parbhani 2. Baliram S\/o Panditrao Bahirath, […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10724","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008 - 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\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-20T11:09:44+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-20T11:09:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":539,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Shrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-20T11:09:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Shrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008 - 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\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-20T11:09:44+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-20T11:09:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008"},"wordCount":539,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008","name":"Shrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-20T11:09:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shrikrishna-vs-angad-on-19-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shrikrishna vs Angad on 19 August, 2008"}]},{"@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\/10724","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=10724"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10724\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10724"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10724"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10724"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}