{"id":117158,"date":"1952-01-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1952-01-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952"},"modified":"2019-03-04T02:06:56","modified_gmt":"2019-03-03T20:36:56","slug":"mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952","title":{"rendered":"Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Patna High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: AIR 1953 Pat 34<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: L Jha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: L Jha, Reuben<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>Lakshmikanta Jha, C.J.<\/p>\n<p> 1. This application in revision is by a landlady who obtained an order of eviction against one Ramdas under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act III of 1947). I think on merits the application must fail.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The petitioner, treating Ramdas as her<br \/>\ntenant from month to month in respect of a<br \/>\nbuilding, started a proceeding under Section 11(1)\n<\/p>\n<p>(a) of the Act for his eviction for non-payment<br \/>\nof rent. On 12-2-1947, a compromise petition<br \/>\nwas filed by the parties to the effect that the<br \/>\ntenant be allowed to remain in occupation till<br \/>\n13-11-1947, and that he would vacate the<br \/>\nhouse on 14-11-1947, failing which he may be<br \/>\nforcibly evicted. Ramdas did not vacate the<br \/>\nhouse on the specified date and thereupon on<br \/>\n19-12-1947, the petitioner filed a petition before<br \/>\nthe Controller for his eviction, and the Con<br \/>\ntroller having found that rent had not been<br \/>\npaid for the year 1947 ordered him to vacate<br \/>\nthe house by 2-5-1948, and put the petitioner<br \/>\nin possession. Ramdas, however, did not com<br \/>\nply with the order and thereupon under the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 17 of the Act the petitioner<br \/>\ncommenced an execution proceeding in the<br \/>\ncourt of the Munsif, 1st court, Gaya, seeking,<br \/>\nhis eviction. During the pendency of the peti<br \/>\ntioner&#8217;s application for execution, the opposite<br \/>\nparty, Satruhan, the son of Ramdas, filed a<br \/>\nsuit for declaration of his title and applied for<br \/>\na temporary injunction under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 1, and though an &#8216;ad interim&#8217; injunction<br \/>\nwas granted the order was vacated by the<br \/>\nlearned Munsif on 25-4-1949. On 26-4-1949.\n<\/p>\n<p>Satruhan preferred a claim in respect of the<br \/>\nhouse as a tenant from month to month un<br \/>\nder Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., in the execution<br \/>\nproceeding pending in the Munsiff&#8217;s Court and<br \/>\nalleged that Ramdas, his father, was not the<br \/>\ntenant thereof. The point for decision before<br \/>\nthe executing court was whether Satruhan was<br \/>\nin possession of the house in dispute on his own<br \/>\naccount. Both parties led evidence on this<br \/>\npoint, and the learned Munsif, on a considera<br \/>\ntion of the evidence, oral and documentary,<br \/>\nwas satisfied that Satruhan was in possession<br \/>\non his own account and not on account of his<br \/>\nfather, Ramdas. In deciding this question the<br \/>\nlearned Munsif did not act with material ir<br \/>\nregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction,<br \/>\nnor did he assume jurisdiction which he did<br \/>\nnot possess, because under Section 17 of the Act he<br \/>\nwas empowered to execute the order of the<br \/>\nController. Therefore, in the exercise of our<br \/>\nrevisional jurisdiction we cannot interfere with<br \/>\nthe order passed by him.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. It is, however, contended that the learned Munsif, while executing the order of the Controller under the provisions of the special enactment, had no power to entertain a claim preferred under the provisions of Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C. I do not think there is any substance in this contention. The Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947. which has been enacted to regulate the letting of buildings and the rent of such buildings to prevent unreasonable evictions of tenants therefrom, sets up a complete machinery for the investigation of those matters which fall within the jurisdiction of the Controller under the Act. Section 11 of the Act provides, &#8216;inter alia&#8217;, that a tenant from month to month may ba evicted from a building on an application by the landlord for non-payment of rent. In this particular case the petitioner did file an application for eviction of Ramdas on the ground that he was a tenant from month to month and that he did not pay rent regularly. The Controller passed an order on 19-12-1947, as already stated, asking Ramdas to vacate the house by a certain date.    His order is  final   (subject to an  appeal  to  the  Divisional  Commissioner   as provided in Section 18) and is executable as a civil court  decree under the  provisions of Section  17  of the Act.    But as the order of the Controller is to be executable as if it were a civil court decree,  the relevant  provisions  of  Order   21   of  the Code  relating to  execution     of     decrees   and orders     must     be     held     to     be     applicable in   the   absence   of   any  provision   in   the   Act barring the application thereof. . It was, therefore, in my opinion,  within the  power  of the Munsif as executing court to decide the claim preferred   by   Satruhan,   as   the    dispute   falls within the provisions of Order 21, Rule 58, as amended by this Court, which runs as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;58. (1) When  any  claim  is   preferred   to   any property,   the    subject-matter    of    execution proceedings, or any objection is made to the attachment  thereof,  on  the  ground that  the applicant has an interest therein which is not bound under the decree, or that such property is not liable to  attachment,  the  Court  shall proceed to investigate the claim or objection with the like power as regards the examination of the claimant or objector,  and. in  all other respects,  as if he was  a party to the suit :\n<\/p>\n<p> Provided that no such investigation shall be made where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed.\n<\/p>\n<p> (2) Where the property to which the claim or objection applies has been advertised for sale, the Court ordering the sale may in its discretion make an order postponing the delivery of the property after the sale pending the investigation of the claim or objection. And in no case shall the sale become absolute until the claim or objection has been decided.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> The remedy of the petitioner is to institute a suit under Order 21, Rule 63, to establish her case that Ramdas is her tenant or to treat Satruhan as her tenant and go back to the Controller to seek his eviction. In the absence of such a step the order of the learned Munsif is conclusive and Satruhan must be deemed to be the tenant under her in respect of the building. If the contention of the petitioner be right that the executing court cannot entertain an objection under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., it would be open to any landlord to start a collusive proceeding before the Controller treating a creature of his own as a tenant, and secure the eviction of a person who may be a &#8216;bona fide&#8217; tenant from month to month on his own account by executing the Controller&#8217;s order in the civil court. The Act, in my opinion, must be held to have avoided such a contingency by not barring the application of Order 21. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel must also fail.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. On consideration of the points raised before us, I am of the opinion that there is no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The application must, therefore, be dismissed, but, in the circumstances, without costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Reubkn,   J.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. I   agree  that  the  Munsif had  jurisdiction  to  enterlain  a  claim  under Order &#8216; 21. Rule 58, Civil P.  C. and  that the application must   be   dismissed   on   the   ground   that   the Munsif&#8217;s  order  is   within   his   jurisdiction.       I<\/p>\n<p>must  observe,  however,  that  on  the  merits  I am not at all happy about his judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Satruhan&#8217;s father entered into a compromise with the applicant permitting him to remain in the house till 13-11-1947. In his petition informing the House Controller about the compromise he described as his the timber lying in the house in question. Satruhan, who is apparently joint with his father, only appeared on the scene when his father failed to vacate the house in accordance with the compromise and when the landlady, having obtained an eviction order, tried to enforce it by execution in the Munsif&#8217;s Court.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Satruhan and his father are residents of Alipur in the jurisdiction of Tekari police station. The house in question is at Gaya. According to Satruhan&#8217;s story he took this house on rent when he was fifteen years old and has been carrying on the timber business in it since the last fourteen years. During this time he is on bad terms with his father. Yet his own witness deposes that whenever the father goes to Gaya he stays in the shop and that he has seen the father six to eight times paying rent for the shop.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. It was within the jurisdiction of the<br \/>\nMunsif to accept the story of Satruhan but he<br \/>\nshould have dealt &#8216;inter alia&#8217; with the facts I<br \/>\nhave mentioned and he ought to have given<br \/>\nfuller reasons for his decision than he has<br \/>\ndone.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Patna High Court Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952 Equivalent citations: AIR 1953 Pat 34 Author: L Jha Bench: L Jha, Reuben JUDGMENT Lakshmikanta Jha, C.J. 1. This application in revision is by a landlady who obtained an order of eviction against one Ramdas under the provisions of the Bihar Buildings [&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-117158","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>Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952 - 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\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952\" \/>\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=\"1952-01-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-03T20:36:56+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952\",\"datePublished\":\"1952-01-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-03T20:36:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952\"},\"wordCount\":1460,\"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\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952\",\"name\":\"Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1952-01-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-03T20:36:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952\"}]},{\"@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":"Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952 - 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\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1952-01-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-03T20:36:56+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952","datePublished":"1952-01-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-03T20:36:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952"},"wordCount":1460,"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\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952","name":"Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1952-01-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-03T20:36:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mt-tulsi-dei-vs-satruhan-singh-on-2-january-1952#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mt. Tulsi Dei vs Satruhan Singh on 2 January, 1952"}]},{"@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\/117158","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=117158"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117158\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117158"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117158"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117158"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}