{"id":123126,"date":"2008-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008"},"modified":"2015-10-25T22:17:52","modified_gmt":"2015-10-25T16:47:52","slug":"bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: R V Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n
                                               1\n\n                                                                    Reportable\n\n                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n              CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5798-5799 OF 2008\n         (Arising out of SLP ) Nos.23766-67 of 2005)\n\n\n\nBachhaj Nahar                                              ... Appellant\n\nVs.\n\nNilima Mandal & Anr.                                       ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
R. V. Raveendran J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      Leave    granted.    Heard        the     learned       counsel.       For<\/p>\n
convenience, the parties will be referred to also by their<\/p>\n
ranks in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
The facts<\/p>\n
2.    Respondents    1   and    2   (plaintiffs)      filed     a    suit   for<\/p>\n
declaration,      possession        and       injunction      (Title        suit<\/p>\n
no.133\/1982 on the file of Sadar Munsiff, Purnia) against<\/p>\n
the   appellant   (first       defendant)      and   Sujash    Kumar     Ghosh
\n                                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
(second defendant) in regard to the suit property. The suit<\/p>\n
property is a strip of land measuring East to West : 72<\/p>\n
feet and North to South : 1’3″ on the Western side and 10″<\/p>\n
on   the   Eastern    side    described   in   Schedule   `B’    to   the<\/p>\n
plaint. Plaintiffs claimed that the suit property was a<\/p>\n
part of the `A’ schedule property purchased by them under<\/p>\n
sale deed dated 29.12.1962. The reliefs sought in the said<\/p>\n
suit were :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(i)   declarations that (a) the plaintiffs are the absolute
\nowners in possession of the suit property; (b) the
\ndefendants do not have any right, title or interest or
\npossession in respect of suit property; and (c) the first
\ndefendant had illegally encroached and started construction
\nin the suit property;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) a direction to first defendant to deliver possession
\nof the suit property to plaintiffs after demolishing the
\nconstruction over the same; and<\/p>\n
(iii) a permanent injunction restraining            first   defendant
\nfrom interfering with the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.    The first defendant resisted the suit contending that<\/p>\n
he had purchased the property to the South of plaintiff’s<\/p>\n
property    from     second   defendant    under   sale   deed    dated<\/p>\n
5.5.1982 and the suit property actually formed part of his<\/p>\n
property. He contended that the plaintiffs had no right,<\/p>\n
title or interest in the suit property.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.    The trial court framed the following issues :
\n                                       3<\/span><\/p>\n
     (i)          Is the suit as framed maintainable?\n\n     (ii)         Have the plaintiffs got any cause of action to\n<\/pre>\n
                  file the suit as against these defendants?<\/p>\n
     (iii)        Is the suit barred by limitation and also on the
\n                  principle of waiver estoppel and acquiescence?<\/p>\n
     (iv)         Whether the description of the suit land is vague?<\/p>\n
     (v)          Whether the suit land is part and parcel of land
\n                  of the plaintiff purchased through registered
\n                  kewala or the suit land in exclusive possession
\n                  of Ishan Chand Ghosh, and after his death of
\n                  second defendant, and after purchase of first
\n                  defendant.\n<\/p>\n
     (vi)         Has first defendant encroached any portion of the
\n                  suit land?\n<\/p>\n
     (vii)        Whether the plaintiffs got title over the suit
\n                  land? Or were they    using the suit land under
\n                  express permission of the late Ishan Chand Ghosh
\n                  and his son?\n<\/p>\n
     (viii) To   what        relief        or     reliefs,    plaintiffs    are
\n            entitled?\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.           After considering the evidence, the trial court by<\/p>\n
judgment and decree dated 31.8.1987 decreed the suit in<\/p>\n
part.        It    held   that   the       suit    property    was   part   of<\/p>\n
plaintiffs’          property    and        that     first    defendant     had<\/p>\n
encroached over a part of it to an extent of 15 sq. ft. The<\/p>\n
trial court held that as first defendant had already put up<\/p>\n
his construction over the encroached portion and was using<\/p>\n
it, instead of directing him to deliver back possession
\n                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
thereof,       he    should    pay    Rs.100\/-        as     the    price         of    the<\/p>\n
encroached portion, to the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved,<\/p>\n
the    first       defendant     filed       an    appeal.       Plaintiffs          filed<\/p>\n
cross-objections. The first appellate court held that the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs had failed to prove that the suit property was<\/p>\n
part    of    their    property      purchased        under      sale     deed       dated<\/p>\n
29.12.1962 or that first defendant had encroached upon any<\/p>\n
portion       of    plaintiffs’      property;       and     that       the    evidence<\/p>\n
adduced       by    plaintiffs     established         that       the     Gali       (suit<\/p>\n
property) was earlier owned by Ishan Chand Ghosh and his<\/p>\n
sons    and    plaintiffs      were    only       using    the     said       Gali     with<\/p>\n
their     express       permission.          The     first       appellate           court<\/p>\n
therefore allowed the appeal filed by first defendant and<\/p>\n
dismissed the cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs by<\/p>\n
judgment dated 12.1.1989. As a consequence the suit of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.        Feeling      aggrieved,      the        plaintiffs       filed      a   second<\/p>\n
appeal before the High Court. The High Court by judgment<\/p>\n
dated 14.5.2004 allowed the second appeal. The High Court<\/p>\n
held that the plaintiffs had failed to make out title to<\/p>\n
the suit property. It however held that plaintiffs had made<\/p>\n
out a case for grant of relief based on easementary right<\/p>\n
of passage, in respect of the suit property, as they had
\n                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
claimed in the plaint that they and their vendor had been<\/p>\n
using the suit property, and the first defendant and DW6<\/p>\n
had admitted such user. The High Court was of the view that<\/p>\n
the case based on an easementary right could be considered<\/p>\n
even in the absence of any pleading or issue relating to an<\/p>\n
easementary right, as the evidence available was sufficient<\/p>\n
to make out easementary right over the suit property. The<\/p>\n
High     Court     therefore      granted     a    permanent      injunction<\/p>\n
restraining the first defendant from interfering with the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of the `right of passage’<\/p>\n
over the suit property (as also of the persons living on<\/p>\n
the northern side of the suit property). The High Court<\/p>\n
also observed that if there was any encroachment over the<\/p>\n
said passage by the first defendant, that will have to be<\/p>\n
got removed by the “process of law”. The High Court also<\/p>\n
issued a       permanent      injunction    restraining     the   plaintiffs<\/p>\n
from encroaching upon the suit property (passage) till the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs got a declaration of their title over the suit<\/p>\n
property by a competent court. The first defendant sought<\/p>\n
review    of     the   said     judgment.    The   review    petition    was<\/p>\n
dismissed by the High Court by order dated 9.12.2004.<\/p>\n
7.        The said judgment and order on review application,<\/p>\n
of the High Court, are challenged by the first defendant in
\n                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
these appeals by special leave. The Appellant contends that<\/p>\n
neither in law, nor on facts, the High Court could have<\/p>\n
granted the aforesaid reliefs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
8.      The High Court, in this case, in its obvious zeal to<\/p>\n
cut delay and hardship that may ensue by relegating the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs to one more round of litigation, has rendered a<\/p>\n
judgment which violates several fundamental rules of civil<\/p>\n
procedure. The rules breached are :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(i)     No amount of evidence can be looked              into, upon a
\nplea which was never put forward in the                  pleadings. A
\nquestion which did arise from the pleadings             and which was
\nnot the subject matter of an issue, cannot              be decided by
\nthe court.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)    A Court cannot make out a case not pleaded. The
\ncourt should confine its decision to the question raised in
\npleadings. Nor can it grant a relief which is not claimed
\nand which does not flow from the facts and the cause of
\naction alleged in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) A factual issue cannot be raised or considered for
\nthe first time in a second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Procedure Code is an elaborate codification of the<\/p>\n
principles   of   natural    justice    to     be   applied   to    civil<\/p>\n
litigation. The provisions are so elaborate that many a<\/p>\n
time,   fulfillment   of    the   procedural    requirements       of   the<\/p>\n
Code may itself contribute to delay. But any anxiety to cut<\/p>\n
the delay or further litigation, should not be a ground to
\n                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
float the settled fundamental rules of civil procedure. Be<\/p>\n
that as it may. We will briefly set out the reasons for the<\/p>\n
aforesaid conclusions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.        The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to<\/p>\n
ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues<\/p>\n
clearly    defined    and      to    prevent    cases    being     expanded    or<\/p>\n
grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is also to<\/p>\n
ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that<\/p>\n
are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have<\/p>\n
an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate<\/p>\n
to the issues before the court for its consideration. This<\/p>\n
Court has repeatedly held that the pleadings are meant to<\/p>\n
give to each side intimation of the case of the other so<\/p>\n
that it may be met, to enable courts to determine what is<\/p>\n
really at issue between the parties, and to prevent any<\/p>\n
deviation from the course which litigation on particular<\/p>\n
causes must take.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.       The   object      of      issues    is   to    identify       from   the<\/p>\n
pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by<\/p>\n
the   courts    so   as   to     enable      parties    to   let   in   evidence<\/p>\n
thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular<\/p>\n
claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the
\n                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
plaint,        the     court      cannot         focus    the    attention          of    the<\/p>\n
parties,        or its own attention on that claim or relief, by<\/p>\n
framing an appropriate issue. As a result the defendant<\/p>\n
does     not     get       an    opportunity         to    place          the   facts     and<\/p>\n
contentions          necessary         to    repudiate     or        challenge      such   a<\/p>\n
claim or relief.                Therefore, the court cannot, on finding<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by<\/p>\n
him, grant some other relief. The question before a court<\/p>\n
is not whether there is some material on the basis of which<\/p>\n
some relief can be granted. The question is whether any<\/p>\n
relief     can        be        granted,      when       the    defendant           had    no<\/p>\n
opportunity to show that the relief proposed by the court<\/p>\n
could    not     be     granted.        When      there    is        no    prayer    for   a<\/p>\n
particular       relief          and    no    pleadings         to    support       such    a<\/p>\n
relief, and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or<\/p>\n
oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants<\/p>\n
such a relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus<\/p>\n
it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is<\/p>\n
not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to<\/p>\n
grant any relief.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.       The High Court has ignored the aforesaid principles<\/p>\n
relating to the object and necessity of pleadings. Even<\/p>\n
though right of easement was not pleaded or claimed by the
\n                                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiffs, and even though parties were at issue only in<\/p>\n
regard to title and possession, it made out for the first<\/p>\n
time    in   second    appeal,   a   case    of   easement        and   granted<\/p>\n
relief based on an easementary right. For this purpose, it<\/p>\n
relied upon the following observations of this Court in<\/p>\n
Nedunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao<\/a> [AIR 1963 SC<\/p>\n
884]:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       “No doubt, no issue was framed, and the one, which was
\n       framed, could have been more elaborate, but since the
\n       parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and
\n       led all the evidence not only in support of their
\n       contentions but in refutation of those of the other
\n       side, it cannot be said that the absence of an issue
\n       was fatal to the case, or that there was that mistrial
\n       which vitiates proceedings. We are, therefore, of
\n       opinion that the suit could not be dismissed on this
\n       narrow ground, and also that there is no need for a
\n       remit, as the evidence which has been led in the case
\n       is sufficient to reach the right conclusion.”<\/p>\n
But    the   said    observations    were    made     in    the    context   of<\/p>\n
absence of      an    issue,   and   not    absence    of   pleadings.       The<\/p>\n
relevant principle relating to circumstances in which the<\/p>\n
deficiency in, or absence of, pleadings could be ignored,<\/p>\n
was    stated   by     a   Constitution      Bench    of    this    Court    in<\/p>\n
Bhagwati Prasad vs. Shri Chandramaul<\/a> – AIR 1966 SC 735 :<\/p>\n
       “If a plea is not specifically made and yet it is
\n       covered by an issue by implication, and the parties
\n       knew that the said plea was involved in the trial,
\n       then the mere fact that the plea was not expressly
\n       taken   in  the  pleadings  would  not   necessarily
\n                              10<\/span><\/p>\n
     disentitle a party from relying upon if it is
\n     satisfactorily proved by evidence. The general rule no
\n     doubt is that the relief should be founded on
\n     pleadings   made  by   the parties. But     where the
\n     substantial matter relating to the title of both
\n     parties to the suit was touched, tough indirectly or
\n     even obscurely in the issues, and evidence has been
\n     led about them then the argument that a particular
\n     matter was not expressly taken in the pleadings would
\n     be purely formal and technical and cannot succeed in
\n     every case. What the Court has to consider in dealing
\n     with such an objection is : did the parties know that
\n     the matter in question was involved in the trial, and
\n     did they lead evidence about it? If it appears that
\n     the parties did not know that the matter was in issue
\n     at the trial and one of them has had no opportunity to
\n     lead evidence in respect of it, that undoubtedly would
\n     be a different matter. To allow one party to rely upon
\n     a matter in respect of which the other party did not
\n     lead evidence and has had no opportunity to lead
\n     evidence, would introduce considerations of prejudice,
\n     and in doing justice to one party, the Court cannot do
\n     injustice to another.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                      (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n
The principle was reiterated by this Court in Ram Sarup<\/p>\n
Gupta (dead) by LRs., vs. Bishun Narain Inter College<\/a> [AIR<\/p>\n
1987 SC 1242]:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “It is well settled that in the absence of pleading,
\n     evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be
\n     considered. It is also equally settled that no party
\n     should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and
\n     that all necessary and material facts should be
\n     pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by
\n     it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable
\n     the adversary party to know the case it has to meet.
\n     In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that
\n     the party should state the essential material facts so
\n     that other party may not be taken by surprise. The
\n     pleadings    however   should   receive    a   liberal
\n     construction, no pedantic approach should be adopted
\n     to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities.
\n     Sometimes, pleadings are expressed in words which may
\n     not expressly make out a case in accordance with
\n                                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
      strict interpretation of law, in such a case it is the
\n      duty of the court to ascertain the substance if the
\n      pleadings to determine the question. It is not
\n      desirable to place undue emphasis on form, instead the
\n      substance of the pleadings should be considered.
\n      Whenever the question about lack of pleading is raised
\n      the enquiry should not be so much about the form of
\n      pleadings, instead the court must find out whether in
\n      substance the parties knew the case and the issues
\n      upon which they went to trial. Once it is found that
\n      in spite of deficiency in the pleadings, parties knew
\n      the case and they proceeded to trial on those issue by
\n      producing evidence, in that event it would not be open
\n      to a party to raise the question of absence of
\n      pleadings in appeal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         [emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
12.   It is thus clear that a case not specifically pleaded<\/p>\n
can be considered by the court only where the pleadings in<\/p>\n
substance,       though    not     in    specific         terms,     contains      the<\/p>\n
necessary averments to make out a particular case and the<\/p>\n
issues framed also generally cover the question involved<\/p>\n
and the parties proceed on the basis that such case was at<\/p>\n
issue     and     had     led     evidence          thereon.       As     the    very<\/p>\n
requirements indicate, this should be only in exceptional<\/p>\n
cases where the court is fully satisfied that the pleadings<\/p>\n
and     issues    generally       cover       the    case    subsequently          put<\/p>\n
forward and that the parties being conscious of the issue,<\/p>\n
had led evidence on such issue. But where the court is not<\/p>\n
satisfied       that    such    case    was   at    issue,     the      question    of<\/p>\n
resorting to the exception to the general rule does not<\/p>\n
arise.    The     principles      laid       down    in      Bhagwati           Prasad
\n                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
and   Ram   Sarup   Gupta   (supra)   referred   to      above   and<\/p>\n
several     other   decisions   of    this       Court     following<\/p>\n
the same cannot be construed as diluting the well settled
\n                                        13<\/span><\/p>\n
principle     that      without     pleadings        and     issues,       evidence<\/p>\n
cannot be considered to make out a new case which is not<\/p>\n
pleaded. Another aspect to be noticed, is that the court<\/p>\n
can consider such a case not specifically pleaded, only<\/p>\n
when one of the parties raises the same at the stage of<\/p>\n
arguments by contending that the pleadings and issues are<\/p>\n
sufficient      to    make   out   a    particular         case    and    that     the<\/p>\n
parties proceeded on that basis and had led evidence on<\/p>\n
that    case.        Where    neither        party   puts         forth     such    a<\/p>\n
contention, the court cannot obviously make out such a case<\/p>\n
not pleaded, suo moto.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
13.    A perusal of the plaint clearly shows that entire case<\/p>\n
of the plaintiffs was that they were the owners of the suit<\/p>\n
property and that the first defendant had encroached upon<\/p>\n
it. The plaintiffs had not pleaded, even as an alternative<\/p>\n
case, that they were entitled to an easementary right of<\/p>\n
passage over the schedule property. The facts to be pleaded<\/p>\n
and proved for establishing title are different from the<\/p>\n
facts that are to be pleaded and proved for making out an<\/p>\n
easementary     right.       A   suit   for    declaration         of     title    and<\/p>\n
possession relates to the existence and establishment of<\/p>\n
natural rights which inhere in a person by virtue of his<\/p>\n
ownership of a property.                On the other hand, a suit for
\n                                            14<\/span><\/p>\n
enforcement of an easementary right, relates to a right<\/p>\n
possessed by a dominant owner\/occupier over a property not<\/p>\n
his    own,    having      the     effect        of    restricting          the   natural<\/p>\n
rights of the owner\/occupier of such property.<\/p>\n
14.    Easements may relate to a right of way, a right to<\/p>\n
light and air, right to draw water, right to support, right<\/p>\n
to have overhanging eaves, right of drainage, right to a<\/p>\n
water course etc. Easements can be acquired by different<\/p>\n
ways    and    are    of    different        kinds,         that     is,    easement    by<\/p>\n
grant,    easement         of    necessity,        easement          by    prescription,<\/p>\n
etc. A dominant owner seeking any declaratory or injunctive<\/p>\n
relief relating to an easementary right shall have plead<\/p>\n
and prove the nature of easement, manner of acquisition of<\/p>\n
the easementary right, and the manner of disturbance or<\/p>\n
obstruction         to     the     easementary              right.        The   pleadings<\/p>\n
necessary      to    establish         an   easement         by    prescription,       are<\/p>\n
different      from      the      pleadings           and    proof        necessary    for<\/p>\n
easement of necessity or easement by grant. In regard to an<\/p>\n
easement      by     prescription,          the       plaintiff       is    required    to<\/p>\n
plead    and       prove        that   he    was       in     peaceful,         open   and<\/p>\n
uninterrupted enjoyment of the right for a period of twenty<\/p>\n
years (ending within two years next before the institution
\n                                       15<\/span><\/p>\n
of the suit). He should also plead and prove that the right<\/p>\n
claimed was enjoyed independent of any agreement with the<\/p>\n
owner of the property over which the right is claimed, as<\/p>\n
any user with the express permission of the owner will be a<\/p>\n
licence and not an easement. For claiming an easement of<\/p>\n
necessity, the plaintiff has to plead that his dominant<\/p>\n
tenement       and     defendant’s         servient       tenement      originally<\/p>\n
constituted       a    single     tenement    and     the    ownership      thereof<\/p>\n
vested    in    the        same   person    and    that     there    has    been   a<\/p>\n
severance       of         such   ownership        and    that      without       the<\/p>\n
easementary right claimed, the dominant tenement cannot be<\/p>\n
used. We may also note that the pleadings necessary for<\/p>\n
establishing a right of passage is different from a right<\/p>\n
of drainage or right to support of a roof or right to water<\/p>\n
course. We have referred to these aspects only to show that<\/p>\n
a court cannot assume or infer a case of easementary right,<\/p>\n
by referring to a stray sentence here and a stray sentence<\/p>\n
there in the pleading or evidence.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.   A   right       of    easement   can    be    declared     only      when   the<\/p>\n
servient owner is a party to the suit. But nowhere in the<\/p>\n
plaint, the plaintiffs allege, and nowhere in the judgment,<\/p>\n
the High Court holds, that the first or second defendant is<\/p>\n
the owner of the suit property. While concluding that the
\n                                           16<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiffs were not the owners of the suit property, the<\/p>\n
High    Court       has    held    that    they        have    a     better      right      as<\/p>\n
compared      to     the    first       defendant       and        has    also   reserved<\/p>\n
liberty to the plaintiffs to get their title established in<\/p>\n
a    competent       court.       This    means    that        the       court   did     not<\/p>\n
recognize      the    first       defendant       as    the     owner      of    the    suit<\/p>\n
property. If the High Court was of the view that defendants<\/p>\n
were not the owners of the suit property, it could not have<\/p>\n
granted declaration of easementary right as no such relief<\/p>\n
could be granted unless the servient owner is impleaded as<\/p>\n
a defendant. It is also ununderstandable as to how while<\/p>\n
declaring that plaintiffs have only an easementary right<\/p>\n
over the suit property, the court can reserve a right to<\/p>\n
the    plaintiffs          to   establish       their         title       thereto      by    a<\/p>\n
separate suit, when deciding a second appeal arising from a<\/p>\n
suit by the plaintiffs for declaration of title. Nor is it<\/p>\n
understandable how the High Court could hold that the apart<\/p>\n
from plaintiffs, other persons living adjacent to and north<\/p>\n
of    the    suit    property       were    entitled          to    use    the    same      as<\/p>\n
passage, when they are not parties, and when they have not<\/p>\n
sought such a relief.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16.    The    observation          of     the     High        Court       that    when       a<\/p>\n
plaintiff sets forth the facts and makes a prayer for a
\n                                         17<\/span><\/p>\n
particular relief in the suit, he is merely suggesting what<\/p>\n
the relief should be, and that it is for the court, as a<\/p>\n
matter of law, to decide upon the relief that should be<\/p>\n
granted,     is    not     sound.        Such         an     observation       may   be<\/p>\n
appropriate with reference to a writ proceeding. It may<\/p>\n
even   be   appropriate        in   a    civil        suit       while   proposing   to<\/p>\n
grant as relief, a lesser or smaller version of what is<\/p>\n
claimed. But the said observation is misconceived if it is<\/p>\n
meant to hold that a civil court may grant any relief it<\/p>\n
deems fit, ignoring the prayer. It is fundamental that in a<\/p>\n
civil suit, relief to be granted can be only with reference<\/p>\n
to the prayers made in the pleadings. That apart, in civil<\/p>\n
suits, grant of relief is circumscribed by various factors<\/p>\n
like court fee, limitation, parties to the suits, as also<\/p>\n
grounds     barring       relief,        like     res        judicata,        estoppel,<\/p>\n
acquiescence, non-joinder of causes of action or parties<\/p>\n
etc., which require pleading and proof. Therefore, it would<\/p>\n
be hazardous to hold that in a civil suit whatever be the<\/p>\n
relief that       is    prayed,     the       court        can   on   examination    of<\/p>\n
facts grant any relief as it thinks fit. In a suit for<\/p>\n
recovery of Rs.one lakh, the court cannot grant a decree<\/p>\n
for Rs. Ten lakhs. In a suit for recovery possession of<\/p>\n
property    `A’,       court   cannot         grant    possession        of    property<\/p>\n
`B’.   In   a   suit     praying        for    permanent          injunction,    court
\n                                         18<\/span><\/p>\n
grant     a      relief      of    declaration         or     possession.            The<\/p>\n
jurisdiction to grant relief in a civil                           suit necessarily<\/p>\n
depends on the pleadings, prayer, court fee paid, evidence<\/p>\n
let in, etc.<\/p>\n
17.    In the absence of a claim by plaintiffs based on an<\/p>\n
easementary       right,     the    first     defendant       did    not      have   an<\/p>\n
opportunity        to     demonstrate      that      the    plaintiffs        had    no<\/p>\n
easementary       right.     In    the     absence     of    pleadings        and     an<\/p>\n
opportunity to the first defendant to deny such claim, the<\/p>\n
High Court could not have converted a suit for title into a<\/p>\n
suit for enforcement of an easementary right. The first<\/p>\n
appellate        court     had    recorded      a    finding        of    fact     that<\/p>\n
plaintiffs had not made out title. The High Court in second<\/p>\n
appeal did not disturb the said finding. As no question of<\/p>\n
law arose for consideration, the High Court ought to have<\/p>\n
dismissed the second appeal. Even if the High Court felt<\/p>\n
that a case for easement was made out, at best liberty<\/p>\n
could     have    been     reserved      to    the    plaintiffs         to   file    a<\/p>\n
separate suit for easement. But the High court could not,<\/p>\n
in    a   second        appeal,    while      rejecting      the     plea     of     the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs       that     they    were   owners      of     the    suit    property,<\/p>\n
grant the relief of injunction in regard to an easementary
\n                                             19<\/span><\/p>\n
right by assuming that they had an easementary right to use<\/p>\n
the schedule property as a passage.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.    We accordingly allow these appeals and set aside the<\/p>\n
judgment      and     order       of       the    High        Court              and           restore                 the<\/p>\n
judgment      of     the   first       appellate            court.                Parties                 to        bear<\/p>\n
respective costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19.    The    learned        counsel         for     respondents                           –        plaintiffs<\/p>\n
submitted that the parties have been litigating for more<\/p>\n
than quarter of a century over a small strip; and that<\/p>\n
without      prejudice          to    their       rights,             if         some            arrangement<\/p>\n
could be arrived at whereby the plaintiffs                                                 are permitted<\/p>\n
to have at least a `pakka nala’ for passage of effluents<\/p>\n
from   their       property,          it    may    put       an         end          to        the          dispute<\/p>\n
between the two neighbours. All that we can observe is that<\/p>\n
it    is    always    open       to    the       parties           to        get          any          issue              or<\/p>\n
dispute      settled       by    mediation         or       by        direct                negotiations.<\/p>\n
This       observation          should       not    however                    be          construed                      as<\/p>\n
recognition of any right in plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ……………………………………………………………..J
\n                                                                                [R. V. Raveendran]
\n             20<\/span><\/p>\n
                  ……………………………………………………………………J
\n                              [Lokeshwar Singh Panta]
\nNew Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
23.9.2008<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008 Author: R V Raveendran Bench: R.V. Raveendran, Lokeshwar Singh Panta 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5798-5799 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP ) Nos.23766-67 of 2005) Bachhaj Nahar … Appellant Vs. Nilima […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123126","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 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\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-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=\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-25T16:47:52+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-25T16:47:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":4061,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-25T16:47:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 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":"Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 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\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-25T16:47:52+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-25T16:47:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008"},"wordCount":4061,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008","name":"Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-25T16:47:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bachhaj-nahar-vs-nilima-mandal-ors-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 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\/123126","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=123126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}