{"id":125693,"date":"2007-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007"},"modified":"2016-09-25T16:57:37","modified_gmt":"2016-09-25T11:27:37","slug":"subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007","title":{"rendered":"Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Kapadia<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, S. H. Kapadia<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1584 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nSubhodkumar &amp; Ors\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/01\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. Arijit Pasayat &amp; S. H. Kapadia\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>KAPADIA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe short question which arises for consideration in<br \/>\nthis civil appeal is : whether on the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case the lower appellate court was<br \/>\nright in holding that the issue of legal necessity even if<br \/>\ndecided in favour of defendant nos.1 to 5 (appellants<br \/>\nherein) was not a &#8220;fact in issue&#8221; and was therefore not a<br \/>\nrelevant fact in a suit for possession.<br \/>\n\tThe facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLand admeasuring 12 acres 16 gunthas in Survey<br \/>\nNo.218 situated within Chikhli Municipal Limits, District<br \/>\nBuldhana, was owned by Nimbaji and his family members.<br \/>\nIt was an ancestral property.  Nimbaji had five sons.  One of<br \/>\nhis sons was Panditrao (defendant no.6).  Nimbaji and his<br \/>\nfour sons excluding Panditrao agreed to sell 9 acres 16<br \/>\ngunthas out of the above ancestral lands to the plaintiffs<br \/>\n(respondent nos.1 to 4 herein).  The agreement was reduced<br \/>\nto writing.  It was registered on 18.3.75.  It was followed by<br \/>\na conveyance dated 31.3.75.  Panditrao was neither a party<br \/>\nto the writing agreement nor to the sale deed.  He did not<br \/>\nconsent.  He protested against the transaction.  Panditrao<br \/>\nhad entered into an agreement with defendant nos.1 to 5<br \/>\non 5.11.74.  It was an unregistered agreement.  It was<br \/>\nfollowed by a conveyance executed by Panditrao in favour of<br \/>\ndefendant nos.1 to 5 on 29.3.75.  The transaction between<br \/>\nPanditrao and defendant nos.1 to 5 was confined to an area<br \/>\nadmeasuring 2 acres and 2 gunthas of land out of 9 acres<br \/>\nand 16 gunthas purchased by the plaintiffs.  In the suit,<br \/>\ndefendant nos.1 to 5 claimed southern portion to be in<br \/>\ntheir possession.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPlaintiffs contended that the agreement executed by<br \/>\nPanditrao in favour of defendant nos.1 to 5 dated 5.11.74<br \/>\nwas a fabricated antedated document, engineered to defeat<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs&#8217; agreement with Nimbaji (karta) dated 18.3.75<br \/>\nunder which plaintiffs were put in possession of the land<br \/>\nadmeasuring 9 acres and 16 gunthas on 18.3.75 and,<br \/>\ntherefore, though the defendants&#8217; conveyance dated 29.3.75<br \/>\nis before the conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs dated<br \/>\n31.3.75 the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the<br \/>\nwhole land admeasuring 9 acres and 16 gunthas.<br \/>\nAccordingly suit for possession was filed by the plaintiffs on<br \/>\nthe basis of the conveyance deed dated 31.3.75.  The<br \/>\nplaintiffs, however, did not seek formal cancellation of the<br \/>\nconveyance executed by Panditrao in favour of defendant<br \/>\nnos.1 to 5 dated 29.3.75.\n<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, defendant nos.1 to 5 contended<br \/>\nthat their agreement dated 5.11.74 was genuine and first in<br \/>\npoint of time; that they had valid title to the land<br \/>\nadmeasuring 2 acres and 2 gunthas and that they were not<br \/>\naware of the agreement executed by Nimbaji in favour of<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs dated 18.3.75.  The said defendant nos.1 to 5<br \/>\nfurther contended that the sale dated 31.3.75 by Nimbaji<br \/>\nand the four coparceners was not for legal necessity and<br \/>\nwas, therefore, not binding on the sons of Nimbaji including<br \/>\nPanditrao and consequently the conveyance executed by<br \/>\nPanditrao in favour of defendant nos.1 to 5 dated 29.3.75<br \/>\nwas good in law as Panditrao was a coparcener who had<br \/>\ntransferred his undivided share to defendant nos.1 to 5 in<br \/>\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tConsidering all the evidence on record and after<br \/>\nhearing both sides, the trial court held that the agreement<br \/>\nexecuted by Panditrao in favour of defendant nos.1 to 5 on<br \/>\n5.11.74 was fabricated and antedated; that there was no<br \/>\npartition between Panditrao and his brothers and Nimbaji<br \/>\nas alleged by defendant nos.1 to 5; and that the transaction<br \/>\nbetween Nimbaji and the plaintiffs was for legal necessity.<br \/>\nConsequently, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs upholding conveyance dated 31.3.75 executed<br \/>\nby Nimbaji in favour of the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAggrieved by the aforestated decision, defendant nos.1<br \/>\nto 5 went in appeal to the Additional District Judge,<br \/>\nBuldhana, vide Regular Civil Appeal No.82 of 1986.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBy judgment and order dated 12.3.1990 the lower<br \/>\nappellate court came to the conclusion, inter alia, that the<br \/>\ntransaction between Nimbaji and the plaintiffs was not for<br \/>\nlegal necessity; that in a suit for possession based on the<br \/>\nconveyance executed by the karta and four coparceners the<br \/>\nissue of legal necessity was redundant as Nimbaji and his<br \/>\nfour sons had consented to the transfer of their undivided<br \/>\nshare in the lands admeasuring 9 acres and 16 gunthas in<br \/>\nfavour of the plaintiffs; and that the issue of legal necessity<br \/>\nwas irrelevant as it did not create any right in favour of<br \/>\ndefendant nos.1 to 5.  It was further held that agreement<br \/>\ndated 5.11.74 executed by Panditrao in favour of defendant<br \/>\nnos.1 to 5 was antedated and that defendant nos.1 to 5<br \/>\nwere not the bona fide purchasers for value without notice.<br \/>\nThe lower appellate court further held that in any event<br \/>\nsince the conveyance was executed by Nimbaji with his four<br \/>\nsons in favour of the plaintiffs pursuant to which the<br \/>\nplaintiffs were put in possession of the land admeasuring 9<br \/>\nacres 16 gunthas the issue of legal necessity became<br \/>\nirrelevant.  The lower appellate court also came to the<br \/>\nconclusion that the plaintiffs were forcibly dispossessed<br \/>\nand, therefore, they were entitled to possession even if they<br \/>\nfailed to prove their title.\n<\/p>\n<p> \tAggrieved by the aforestated judgment, defendant<br \/>\nnos.1 to 5 carried the matter in second appeal to the High<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBy impugned judgment dated 24.3.03, the High Court<br \/>\ncame to the conclusion that the transaction in favour of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs executed by Nimbaji and his four sons was on<br \/>\naccount of legal necessity; that the plaintiffs had<br \/>\nestablished their need by way of marriage and educational<br \/>\nexpenses; that the plaintiffs had proved the legal necessity;<br \/>\nthat the law requires that the need should be established<br \/>\nand it was not necessary to consider whether the<br \/>\nconsideration received by Nimbaji and his four sons<br \/>\nexceeded their need and accordingly it was held that the<br \/>\ntrial court was right in coming to the conclusion that the<br \/>\nconveyance executed by Nimbaji in favour of the plaintiffs<br \/>\ndated 31.3.75, was for legal necessity.  In the result, all the<br \/>\nthree courts decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs for<br \/>\ndifferent reasons.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMr. V.A. Mohta, learned senior counsel appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf of defendant nos.1 to 5 (appellants herein),<br \/>\nsubmitted that the lower appellate court had rightly held<br \/>\nthat there was no legal necessity for Nimbaji and his four<br \/>\nsons to execute the conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs on<br \/>\n31.3.75.  It was urged that the lower appellate court was<br \/>\npleased to give the above finding as a court on facts.<br \/>\nLearned counsel urged that on this finding alone the lower<br \/>\nappellate court should have dismissed the suit of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs for possession and mesne profits.  Learned<br \/>\ncounsel submitted that conveyance dated 31.3.75 was<br \/>\nexecuted by the Karta and his four sons in favour of the<br \/>\nplaintiffs without consent of Panditrao and without legal<br \/>\nnecessity.  Learned counsel submitted that Panditrao was<br \/>\nalso coparcener and entitled to a share in the property who<br \/>\nneither consented nor signed the conveyance in favour of<br \/>\nthe plaintiffs and who on the contrary had entered into a<br \/>\nconveyance on 29.3.75 in favour of defendant nos.1 to 5 in<br \/>\nrespect of his undivided share and since Panditrao had sold<br \/>\n2 acres and 2 gunthas of land out of 9 acres and 16<br \/>\ngunthas earlier in point of time Nimbaji could not have sold<br \/>\nthe same land twice over.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe do not find any merit in the above civil appeal.<br \/>\nEven assuming for the sake of argument that the<br \/>\nconveyance dated 31.3.75 executed by Nimbaji and his four<br \/>\nsons was not for legal necessity even then the defendants&#8217;<br \/>\nposition cannot improve.  Nimbaji was the Karta of the<br \/>\nHindu Undivided Family.  Lands admeasuring 9 acres and<br \/>\n16 gunthas was an ancestral property of Nimbaji.  Nimbaji<br \/>\nhad five sons.  Nimbaji and his four sons agreed to sell<br \/>\ntheir ancestral lands to the plaintiffs.  Agreement was<br \/>\nreduced into writing.  Agreement was registered.<br \/>\nAgreement was followed by a conveyance.  Conveyance was<br \/>\nfollowed by possession given to the plaintiffs who claim to<br \/>\nbe forcibly dispossessed.  Defendant nos.1 to 5 failed to<br \/>\ninstitute proceedings for general partition.  The primary<br \/>\nstep of defendant nos.1 to 5 was to sue for partition.  They<br \/>\nfailed to take any steps in this regard.  No consequential<br \/>\nrelief was claimed by them for partition and for<br \/>\ndemarcation for their share.  The plaintiffs had instituted<br \/>\nthe suit for possession on the ground that they were<br \/>\nforcibly dispossessed by defendant nos.1 to 5.  Since the<br \/>\nKarta of Hindu Undivided Family with his four sons had<br \/>\nexecuted the conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs, the suit<br \/>\nfiled by the plaintiffs for possession cannot be dismissed on<br \/>\nthe ground of lack of legal necessity.  A karta has power to<br \/>\nalienate for value the joint family property either for<br \/>\nnecessity or for benefit of the estate.  He can alienate with<br \/>\nthe consent of all the coparceners of the family.  When he<br \/>\nalienates for legal necessity he alienates an interest which<br \/>\nis larger than his undivided interest.  When the Karta,<br \/>\nhowever, conveys by way of imprudent transaction, the<br \/>\nalienation is voidable to the extent of the undivided share of<br \/>\nthe non-consenting coparcener which in the present case<br \/>\nwas Panditrao.  In the present case, Panditrao did not sue<br \/>\nfor partition.  He did not ask for demarcation of his share.<br \/>\nDefendant nos.1 to 5 who claim through Panditrao seek<br \/>\npossession of a specific portion of the land to be<br \/>\ndemarcated without filing a suit for partition by metes and<br \/>\nbounds.  The conveyance by Nimbaji and his four sons is<br \/>\nnot disputed by the said coparceners.  The conveyance<br \/>\nexecuted by Nimbaji and others is true which is different<br \/>\nfrom saying that it is an imprudent transaction.  Once it is<br \/>\nfound that the conveyance executed by Nimbaji and others<br \/>\nis true under which the plaintiffs were put in possession<br \/>\nand later on disposed, in the suit for possession, in such an<br \/>\nevent, the issue of legal necessity becomes irrelevant.  A<br \/>\nmere declaration that transaction was imprudent or was<br \/>\nnot for legal necessity in such a suit cannot give any right<br \/>\nto defendant nos.1 to 5 to get the demarcated portion of 2<br \/>\nacres 2 gunthas of land on the southern side without the<br \/>\nsaid defendants taking appropriate proceedings in<br \/>\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the case of Sunil Kumar and another v. Ram<br \/>\nParkash and others ___ AIR 1988 SC 576, this Court has<br \/>\nheld that the right to obstruct alienation is different from<br \/>\nthe right to challenge the alienation.  The coparcener has a<br \/>\nright to challenge the alienation.  However, he has no right<br \/>\nto interfere in the act of management of the joint family<br \/>\naffairs.  In this connection, the following observations in<br \/>\nparas 21 to 26 of this Court are relevant to be noted:<br \/>\n&#8220;21. \tIn a Hindu family, the karta or manager<br \/>\noccupies a unique position. It is not as if<br \/>\nanybody could become manager of a joint<br \/>\nHindu family. &#8220;As a general rule, the father of a<br \/>\nfamily, if alive, and in his absence the senior<br \/>\nmember of the family, is alone entitled to<br \/>\nmanage the joint family property.&#8221; The<br \/>\nmanager occupies a position superior to other<br \/>\nmembers. He has greater rights and duties. He<br \/>\nmust look after the family interest. He is<br \/>\nentitled to possession of the entire joint estate.<br \/>\nHe is also entitled to manage the family<br \/>\nproperties. In other words, the actual<br \/>\npossession and management of the joint family<br \/>\nproperty must vest in him. He may consult the<br \/>\nmembers of the family and if necessary take<br \/>\ntheir consent to his action but he is not<br \/>\nanswerable to every one of them.\n<\/p>\n<p>22.\tThe legal position of karta or manager<br \/>\nhas been succinctly summarised in the<br \/>\nMAYNE&#8217;S Hindu Law (12th Ed. Para 318) thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>318. Manager&#8217;s Legal position  &#8220;The<br \/>\nposition of a karta or manager is sui generis:<br \/>\nthe relation between him and the other<br \/>\nmembers of the family is not that of principal<br \/>\nand agent, or of partners, it is more like that of<br \/>\na trustee and cestui que trust. But the<br \/>\nfiduciary relationship does not involve all the<br \/>\nduties which are imposed upon trustees.\n<\/p>\n<p>23. \tThe managing member or karta has not<br \/>\nonly the power to manage but also power to<br \/>\nalienate joint family property. The alienation<br \/>\nmay be either for family necessity or for the<br \/>\nbenefit of the estate. Such alienation would<br \/>\nbind the interests of all the undivided<br \/>\nmembers of the family whether they are adults<br \/>\nor minors. The oft quoted decision in this<br \/>\naspect, is that of the Privy Council in<br \/>\nHanuman Parshad v. M.T. Babooee (1956) 6<br \/>\nMoo Ind. App. 393. There it was observed at p.<br \/>\n423: (1) &#8220;The power of the manager for an<br \/>\ninfant heir to charge an estate not his own is,<br \/>\nunder the Hindu law, a limited and qualified<br \/>\npower. It can only be exercised rightly in case<br \/>\nof need, or for the benefit of the estate.&#8221; This<br \/>\ncase was that of a mother, managing as<br \/>\nguardian for an infant heir. A father who<br \/>\nhappens to be the manager of an undivided<br \/>\nHindu family certainly has greater powers to<br \/>\nwhich I will refer a little later. Any other<br \/>\nmanager however, is not having anything less<br \/>\nthan those stated in the said case. Therefore, it<br \/>\nhas been repeatedly held that the principles<br \/>\nlaid down in that case apply equally to a father<br \/>\nor other coparcener who manages the joint<br \/>\nfamily estate.\n<\/p>\n<p>Remedies against alienations:\n<\/p>\n<p>24. \tAlthough the power of disposition of joint<br \/>\nfamily property has been conceded to the<br \/>\nmanager of joint Hindu family for the reasons<br \/>\naforesaid, the law raises no presumption as to<br \/>\nthe validity of his transactions. His acts could<br \/>\nbe questioned in the Court of law. The other<br \/>\nmembers of the family have a right to have the<br \/>\ntransaction declared void, if not justified.<br \/>\nWhen an alienation is challenged as being<br \/>\nunjustified or illegal it would be for the alienee<br \/>\nto prove that there was legal necessity in fact<br \/>\nor that he made proper and bona fide enquiry<br \/>\nas to the existence of such necessity. It would<br \/>\nbe for the alienee to prove that he did all that<br \/>\nwas reasonable to satisfy himself as to the<br \/>\nexistence of such necessity. If the alienation is<br \/>\nfound to be unjustified, then it would be<br \/>\ndeclared void. Such alienations would be void<br \/>\nexcept to the extent of manager&#8217;s share in<br \/>\nMadras, Bombay and Central Provinces. The<br \/>\npurchaser could get only the manager&#8217;s share.<br \/>\nBut in other provinces, the purchaser would<br \/>\nnot get even that much. The entire alienation<br \/>\nwould be void. [Mayne&#8217;s Hindu Law 11th ed.<br \/>\npara 396].\n<\/p>\n<p>25. \tIn the light of these principles, I may now<br \/>\nexamine the correctness of the contentions<br \/>\nurged in this appeal. The submissions of Mr.<br \/>\nH.N.Salve, as I understand, proceeded firstly<br \/>\non the premise that a coparcener has as much<br \/>\ninterest as that of karta in the coparcenary<br \/>\nproperty. Second, the right of coparcener in<br \/>\nrespect of his share in the ancestral property<br \/>\nwould remain unimpaired, if the alienation is<br \/>\nnot for legal necessity or for the benefit of the<br \/>\nestate. When these two rights are preserved to<br \/>\na coparcener, why should he not prevent the<br \/>\nkarta from dissipating the ancestral property<br \/>\nby moving the Court? Why should he vainly<br \/>\nwait till the purchaser gets title to the<br \/>\nproperty? This appears to be the line of<br \/>\nreasoning adopted by the learned Counsel.\n<\/p>\n<p>26. \tI do not think that these submissions are<br \/>\nsound. It is true that a coparcener takes by<br \/>\nbirth an interest in the ancestral property, but<br \/>\nhe is not entitled to separate possession of the<br \/>\ncoparcenary estate. His rights are not<br \/>\nindependent of the control of the karta. It<br \/>\nwould be for the karta to consider the actual<br \/>\npressure on the joint family estate. It would be<br \/>\nfor him to forsee the danger to be averted. And<br \/>\nit would be for him to examine as to how best<br \/>\nthe joint family estate could be beneficially put<br \/>\ninto use to subserve the interests of the family.<br \/>\nA coparcener cannot interfere in these acts of<br \/>\nmanagement. Apart from that, a father-karta<br \/>\nin addition to the aforesaid powers of<br \/>\nalienation has also the special power to sell or<br \/>\nmortgage ancestral property to discharge his<br \/>\nantecedent debt which is not tainted with<br \/>\nimmorality. If there is no such need or benefit,<br \/>\nthe purchaser takes risk and the right and<br \/>\ninterest of coparcener will remain unimpaired<br \/>\nin the alienated property. No doubt the law<br \/>\nconfers a right on the coparcener to challenge<br \/>\nthe alienation made by karta, but that right is<br \/>\nnot inclusive of the right to obstruct alienation.<br \/>\nNor the right to obstruct alienation could be<br \/>\nconsidered as incidental to the right to<br \/>\nchallenge the alienation. These are two distinct<br \/>\nrights. One is the right to claim a share in the<br \/>\njoint family estate free from unnecessary and<br \/>\nunwanted encumbrance. The other is a right to<br \/>\ninterfere with the act of management of the<br \/>\njoint family affairs. The coparcener cannot<br \/>\nclaim the latter right and indeed, he is not<br \/>\nentitled for it. Therefore, he cannot move the<br \/>\ncourt to grant relief by injunction restraining<br \/>\nthe karta from alienating the coparcenary<br \/>\nproperty.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/94289\/\">Sidheshwar Mukherjee v.<br \/>\nBhubneshwar Prasad Narain Singh and others<\/a>  ___ AIR<br \/>\n1953 SC 487, this Court vide paras 9 and 11 has held as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;9. It is true that under the Mitakshara law, as<br \/>\nit is administered in the State of Bihar, no<br \/>\ncoparcener can alienate, even for valuable<br \/>\nconsideration, his undivided interest in the<br \/>\njoint property without the consent of his<br \/>\ncoparceners; but although a coparcener is<br \/>\nincompetent to alienate voluntarily his<br \/>\nundivided coparcenary interest, it is open to<br \/>\nthe creditor, who has obtained a decree<br \/>\nagainst him personally, to attach and put up<br \/>\nto sale this undivided interest, and after<br \/>\npurchase to have the interest separated by a<br \/>\nsuit for partition.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  &#8216;Civil Appeals Nos.54 and 55 of 1951&#8217;.<br \/>\nComing now to the Money Appeals, the point<br \/>\nfor consideration is a short one.  The suits out<br \/>\nof which these appeals arise were instituted by<br \/>\nthe plaintiff in the partition suit against the<br \/>\nfirst party defendants for recovery of his 4<br \/>\nannas share of the income or profits of the<br \/>\nproperties specified in the schedules to the<br \/>\nplaints and which were included admittedly in<br \/>\nhis purchase, on the allegation that the<br \/>\ndefendants first party appropriated the entire<br \/>\nprofits to themselves and refused to give the<br \/>\nplaintiff his legitimate share.  The High Court<br \/>\nhas held that this claim of the plaintiff must<br \/>\nfail.  All that he purchased at the execution<br \/>\nsale was the undivided interest of the<br \/>\ncoparceners in the joint property.  He did not<br \/>\nacquire title to any defined share in the<br \/>\nproperty &amp; was not entitled to joint possession<br \/>\nfrom the date of his purchase.  He could work<br \/>\nout his rights only by a suit for partition and<br \/>\nhis right to possession would date from the<br \/>\nperiod when a specific allotment was made in<br \/>\nhis favour.  In our opinion, this is the right<br \/>\nview to take and Mr. Daphtary, who appeared<br \/>\nin support of the appeals, could not satisfy us<br \/>\nthat in law his client was entitled to joint<br \/>\npossession on and from the date of purchase.<br \/>\nThe result is that these appeals are dismissed<br \/>\nwith costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/331896\/\">Balmukand v. Kamla Wati and<br \/>\nothers<\/a> ___ AIR 1964 SC 1385, this Court has held that in<br \/>\nexceptional circumstances the Court will uphold the<br \/>\nalienation of a part of a joint family property by a Karta.<br \/>\nWe quote hereinbelow para 7 of the said judgment in this<br \/>\nregard:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;7. The next case is Sital Prasad Singh v.<br \/>\nAjablal Mander, I.L.R. 18 Pat. 306 : (AIR 1939<br \/>\nPat. 370). That was a case in which one of the<br \/>\nquestions which arose for consideration was<br \/>\nthe power of a manager to alienate part of the<br \/>\njoint family property for the acquisition of new<br \/>\nproperty. In that case also the test applied to<br \/>\nthe transaction entered into by a manager of a<br \/>\njoint Hindu family was held to be the same,<br \/>\nthat is, whether the transaction was one into<br \/>\nwhich a prudent owner would enter in the<br \/>\nordinary course of management in order to<br \/>\nbenefit the estate. Following the view taken in<br \/>\nthe Allahabad case the learned Judges also<br \/>\nheld that the expression &#8220;benefit of the estate&#8221;<br \/>\nhas a wider meaning than mere compelling<br \/>\nnecessity and is not limited to transactions of<br \/>\na purely defensive nature. In the course of his<br \/>\njudgment Harries C.J. observed at p. 311 (of<br \/>\nI.L.R. Pat.) : (at p.372 of AIR) :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230;&#8230;. the karta of a joint Hindu<br \/>\nfamily being merely a manager and<br \/>\nnot an absolute owner, the Hindu<br \/>\nlaw has, like other systems of law,<br \/>\nplaced certain limitations upon his<br \/>\npower to alienate property which is<br \/>\nowned by the joint family. The<br \/>\nHindu law givers, however, could<br \/>\nnot have intended to impose any<br \/>\nsuch restriction on his power as<br \/>\nwould virtually disqualify him from<br \/>\ndoing anything to improve the<br \/>\nconditions of the family. The only<br \/>\nreasonable limitation which can be<br \/>\nimposed on the karta is that he<br \/>\nmust act with prudence, and<br \/>\nprudence implies caution as well as<br \/>\nforesight and excludes hasty,<br \/>\nreckless and arbitrary conduct.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>After observing that the transaction entered<br \/>\ninto by a manager should not be of a<br \/>\nspeculative nature the learned Chief Justice<br \/>\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;In exceptional circumstances,<br \/>\nhowever, the court will uphold the<br \/>\nalienation of a part of the joint<br \/>\nfamily property by a karta for the<br \/>\nacquisition of new property as, for<br \/>\nexample, where all the adult<br \/>\nmembers of the joint family with the<br \/>\nknowledge available to them and<br \/>\npossessing all the necessary<br \/>\ninformation about the means and<br \/>\nrequirements of the family are<br \/>\nconvinced that the proposed<br \/>\npurchase of the new property is for<br \/>\nthe benefit of the estate.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>                              (emphasis supplied)<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the present case, Nimbaji and his four sons have<br \/>\nconveyed, in any event, their undivided share in the land<br \/>\nadmeasuring 9 acres 16 gunthas to the plaintiffs.<br \/>\nDefendant nos.1 to 5 are seeking a certain specific portion<br \/>\nout of the total area of 9 acres 16 gunthas to be allotted to<br \/>\nthem coming from the share of Panditrao.  However, neither<br \/>\nPanditrao nor their successors-in-title, namely, defendant<br \/>\nnos.1 to 5 (appellants herein) instituted a suit for partition.<br \/>\nIn the circumstances, the lower appellate court was right in<br \/>\nholding that legal necessity in the present suit for<br \/>\npossession was not a &#8220;fact in issue&#8221;.  All the courts below<br \/>\ndecreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.  However, it is<br \/>\nnot in dispute that Panditrao was the non-consenting<br \/>\ncoparcener; that he had objected to the transaction by<br \/>\nNimbaji right from inception; that in the suit plaintiffs did<br \/>\nnot seek cancellation of the sale deed by Panditrao and,<br \/>\ntherefore, it will be open to the appellants herein to take<br \/>\nappropriate proceedings in accordance with law for specific<br \/>\ndemarcation of the undivided share of Panditrao.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSubject to what is stated above, the present civil<br \/>\nappeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007 Author: Kapadia Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, S. H. Kapadia CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1584 of 2004 PETITIONER: Subhodkumar &amp; Ors RESPONDENT: Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/01\/2007 BENCH: Dr. Arijit Pasayat &amp; S. H. Kapadia [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-125693","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007 - 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\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-25T11:27:37+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-25T11:27:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007\"},\"wordCount\":3769,\"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\\\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007\",\"name\":\"Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-25T11:27:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007 - 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\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-25T11:27:37+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007","datePublished":"2007-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-25T11:27:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007"},"wordCount":3769,"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\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007","name":"Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-25T11:27:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/subhodkumar-ors-vs-bhagwant-namdeorao-mehetre-ors-on-25-january-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Subhodkumar &amp; Ors vs Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre &amp; Ors on 25 January, 2007"}]},{"@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\/125693","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=125693"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125693\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125693"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}