{"id":129024,"date":"2004-09-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004"},"modified":"2018-10-09T09:37:26","modified_gmt":"2018-10-09T04:07:26","slug":"the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"The Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nOP No. 3787 of 1999(A)\n\n\n1. THE BR. MANAGER,ETATTUPETTA BR.KSFE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE MEENACHIL CO.OP. AGRL. & RURAL\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\nCoram\n\n Dated :     15\/09\/2004\n O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
.PL 58
\n.TM 3
\n.BM 3
\n……..L….T…..T……………T…….T…….T…….T….J
\n          (M.RAMACHANDRAN, J)@@
\n         jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA\n<\/p>\n
         —————————-@@
\n        j<\/p>\n
         O.P.NO.3787 OF 1999-A@@
\n        j<\/p>\n
         —————————-@@
\n        j
\n         Dated this the 15th day of September, 2004@@
\n        jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n         @@
\n        j
\n         JUDGMENT@@
\n        jEEEEEEEE
\n((HDR 0
\n\t[OP 3787\/1999]\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t-:#:-\n<\/p>\n
))
\n.HE 1
\n.SP 2
\n.JY<\/p>\n
        \t\tBy order dated 28-12-1998 (Ext.P8), the  Joint
\n        Registrar  of  Co-operative  Societies,  Kottayam  (third
\n        respondent herein) had overruled the  objections  of  the
\n        petitioner  in  the  matter  of confirmation of sale of a
\n        landed property, admeasuring 2 acres and 98 cents of land
\n        with a building in  Sy.No.341\/4  of  Thalapalam  Village.
\n        This  was  purported  to  be  in exercise of powers under
\n        section  21(3)   of   the   Kerala   State   Co-operative
\n        Agricultural Development Banks Act, 1984 (Act 20 of 1984)
\n        [herein after  referred  to  as  Act  20  of  1984].  The@@
\n         AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        application  was   at   the   instance   of   the   first
\n        respondent–The  Meenachil Co-operative Agricultural and
\n        Rural Development  Bank  Ltd.    The  objector  was   the
\n        petitioner–Kerala  State  Financial Enterprises Limited,
\n        represented by its Branch Manager, who had a  claim  that
\n        the  property had been already mortgaged to them prior to
\n        the  encumbrance  created  in   favour   of   the   first
\n        respondent–Bank.   4th  Respondent  was the owner of the
\n        properties, at the time  when  the  properties  had  been
\n        mortgaged  in favour of the petitioner, in the year 1994,
\n        by deposit of title deeds, as security in respect of Kuri
\n        transactions.  Original Petition  has  been  filed  inter
\n        alia challenging the above order.\n<\/p>\n
        \t2.\tRespondents  4  and  5 had been subscribers to
\n        two Kuries  in  Chitty  No.2\/94  and  had  been  assigned
\n        Chittal Nos.30  and 25 respectively.  When the Kuries got
\n        prized, as required for the release of the prize  amount,
\n        an   equitable   mortgage  in  respect  of  the  property
\n        concerned had been created on 04-07-1994  and  the  title
\n        deeds  in  respect  of  the above land had been deposited
\n        with the petitioner-company.  This is no where disputed.\n<\/p>\n
        \t3.\tThere  was  default in the future remittances.
\n        The  dues  were  quantified  as   Rs.4,00,030\/-   as   on
\n        14-02-1997.    Being   a  notified  establishment,  under
\n        section 71 of the Revenue Recovery Act, a requisition had
\n        been  made  to  the  District  Collector,  Kottayam   for
\n        initiating action for recovering the amounts due from the
\n        said respondents.      The   petitioner   refers  to  the
\n        certificates  issued  by  the  District  Collector  dated
\n        22-02-1997 and  24-02-1997.    A  demand  notice prior to
\n        attachment had been duly  issued  on  12-03-1997  by  the
\n        Special  Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Ernakulam, and properties
\n        were attached on 27-01-1998.\n<\/p>\n
        \t4.\tIt is stated that while these  steps  were  in
\n        progress,  a  public  notice had come to the knowledge of
\n        the petitioner, published by the first  respondent–Bank.
\n        The  4th  respondent was therein shown as a defaulter and
\n        the   sale   notification    included    properties    as
\n        aforementioned, as  to  be  sold  on  11-02-1998.   It is
\n        further submitted that in spite of objections,  the  sale
\n        proceedings  were  carried  on  and  since  there were no
\n        bidders   forthcoming,   the   first    respondent–Bank
\n        themselves had purchased the properties in auction.  Such
\n        action  under  the  provisions of Act 20 of 1984 required
\n        confirmation by the notified authority.  Objections  were
\n        filed  before  the Joint Registrar, in the above context,
\n        by the Kerala State Financial Enterprises.   However,  he
\n        was not prepared to see eye to eye with the claims of the
\n        petitioner.   The  order  passed  was  to  the  following
\n        effect:\n<\/p>\n
……………L..T……………T…….T…….T……J
\n.SP 1<\/p>\n
               “Whereas no application  with  deposit  has
\n               been  made under sub-section (1) of Section
\n               21 of the said Act  and  whereas  the  Sale
\n               Officer  has  duly applied to make an order
\n               confirming the sale, in exercise of  powers
\n               confirmed  to  me  under sub-section (3) of
\n               Section 21 of the said Act.  I am  inclined
\n               to  confirm the sale of property of 2 acres
\n               and 98 cents in Survey 341\/4  (Re-Sy.238\/3)
\n               of  Thalapalam  Village  which  was sold in
\n               public  auction  by   the   Sale   Officer,
\n               Meenachil   Co-operative  Agricultural  and
\n               Rural Development Bank, Pala on 11-02-1998,
\n               and the sale shall become absolute and  the
\n               property  shall be deemed to have vested in
\n               the purchasers,   viz.      the   Meenachil
\n               Cooperative  Agricultural  Development Bank
\n               Ltd.No.K.197, Pala from the date  and  time
\n               of sale.”\n<\/p>\n
……..L…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….J
\n.SP 2<\/p>\n
        Want   of   deposit  of  the  amounts  specified  in  the
\n        proclamation of sale was thus pointed out as a reason for
\n        not acting upon the objections.\n<\/p>\n
        \t5.\tIn the  present  Original  Petition,  the
\n        above  order  is  challenged  as also all the proceedings
\n        leading thereto.  A declaration also has been sought  for
\n        to  the  effect  that  the  sale  conducted  ignoring the
\n        mortgage given in favour of the petitioner is illegal and
\n        void.\n<\/p>\n
        \t6.\tSri.Antony  Dominic,  on  behalf  of  the
\n        petitioner, submits that the  first  respondent–Bank  as
\n        also  the  Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (3rd
\n        respondent) were in error to overrule the  objections  of
\n        the  petitioner,  whereby  valid  and legal rights of the
\n        petitioner  have  been   practically   set   at   naught.
\n        According to him, even if the Bank was proceeding under a
\n        special   enactment,  rejection  of  the  claims  of  the
\n        petitioner  could  not  at  all  have   been   justified.
\n        Infirmities  touching  the  root  of  the transaction had
\n        weakened the claims of the Bank, to the advantage of  the
\n        petitioner.   The  executive  powers  of the Governmental
\n        authorities have been exercised without full  application
\n        of mind and overlooking the provisions of the statute and
\n        objections raised.\n<\/p>\n
        \t7.\tWhen the initial sale had been  notified,
\n        the  first respondent–Bank had divulged certain further
\n        details to the petitioner, so as to assert  the  position
\n        that always they were in the driver’s seat.  According to
\n        them,  Smt.Rosamma  George, Muthupunnackal, Plassanal had
\n        taken three loans from  the  first  respondent–Bank  as
\n        K.M.S.E3\/95-96   for   Rs.50,000\/-;   PLMS  E5\/95-96  for
\n        Rs.20,000\/- and RHE  88\/94-95  for  Rs.3,00,000\/-.    The
\n        properties, referred to in the notice, namely 2 acres and
\n        98  cents  in  her  name  and  possession,  were shown as
\n        security, and it was  only  after  executing  appropriate
\n        Gehans (Nos.G.54\/95, G.64\/95 and H.39\/95) that loans were
\n        sanctioned and  paid.    She  had  done so along with her
\n        husband Sri.M.K.George, who was the  transferor  and  the
\n        title was   impeccable.      Sri.M.K.George  is  the  4th
\n        respondent and Smt.Rosamma George (his wife) is  the  6th
\n        respondent herein.    It  has presently come up that some
\n        time  during  1995  Sri.George  had,  by   a   registered
\n        document,  transferred  the  properties  in favour of his
\n        wife, which facilitated her to subject the properties  to
\n        encumbrance for  money  received.    The  loans  had been
\n        received   and   the   default   compelled   the    first
\n        respondent-Bank to resort to coercive proceedings.  These
\n        were the basic facts, which have to be adverted to, while
\n        disposing of this Original Petition.\n<\/p>\n
        \t8.\tBy  the  counter  affidavit  filed by the
\n        first respondent–Bank, claims  that  they  had  entered
\n        into  financial  transactions with Rosamma George, in the
\n        normal course of business, and all precautionary measures
\n        had been taken and in view of the  insulating  provisions
\n        for  safeguarding  the transactions under Act 20 of 1984.
\n        Ext.P8 was impeccably valid, and the petitioner could not
\n        have agitated any legally sustainable claims.   Reference
\n        had  been  made by the learned counsel to Sections 10, 12
\n        and 21 of Act 20 of 1984.  Also, it  was  a  case,  where
\n        notices prescribed under section 12 of the Act in respect
\n        of the transactions had been duly served with the Village
\n        Officer,   Thalapalam   on   07-04-1995,  03-06-1995  and
\n        12-07-1995 [Exts.R1(a) to R1(c)].  Therefore, when  legal
\n        formalities, religiously had been complied with, and when
\n        there  was  default  on the side of the loanees, it would
\n        have been possible for them to put the properties on sale
\n        without intervention of the Court.  After the sale,  only
\n        on  deposit  of  the  amounts  due,  it  would  have been
\n        possible for an objector  to  get  the  sale  set  aside.
\n        Since   the   application   filed  before  the  competent
\n        authority was defective, no interference could have  been
\n        permissible.   It  had  been  pointed  out  that when the
\n        property was put to sale on 11-02-1998, Bank had bid  the
\n        property for an amount of Rs.4,35,000\/and such sale alone
\n        has been confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
        \t9.\tSri.Antony   Dominic   submits  that  the
\n        provisions of Act 20 of 1984 normally would have come  to
\n        secure  the  interest  of the institutions like the first
\n        respondent, but in the present case, the basic defects in
\n        the transactions exposed them to risks, as  the  property
\n        was already  under  equitable  mortgage  to  them.  At no
\n        point of  time,  Bank  had  any  valid  rights  over  the
\n        properties.   Appropriation  steps  by them as per Ext.P8
\n        were therefore  inconsequential  and  the  right  of  the
\n        petitioner was indefeasible.  We may examine the issue in
\n        the aforesaid background.\n<\/p>\n
        \t10.\tSince  reliance  has  been  placed by the
\n        Bank on Section 12(2) of the  Kerala  State  Co-operative
\n        Agricultural  Development  Banks Act, the provision could
\n        be extracted herein below:\n<\/p>\n
………….L..T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J
\n.SP 1
\n             “(2)  Notwithstanding anything contained in any
\n             law for  the  time  being  in  force,  a  Gehan
\n             created  or  mortgage or hypothecation executed
\n             in favour of the Agricultural Development  Bank
\n             or  a  primary  bank shall take precedence over
\n             any attachment or equitable mortgage  over  the
\n             properties,   where,  after  publication  of  a
\n             notice in the prescribed  form,  the  claim  or
\n             interest  under  such  attachment  or equitable
\n             mortgage has not been  notified  to  such  bank
\n             within the time prescribed in the said notice.”\n<\/p>\n
……..L…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….J
\n.SP 2<\/p>\n
        Thus, it is submitted  that  if  at  all  the  petitioner
\n        initially  had any claims, so long as they did not put up
\n        any such claims of  equitable  mortgage  to  them,  after
\n        Exts.R1(a)  to  R1(c),  the  legal  effect  was that such
\n        claims automatically became subordinate to  their  rights
\n        over the  property.    Therefore,  the  petitioner had no
\n        enforceable  legal   rights   and   any   claims   become
\n        subservient to the rights of the Bank.\n<\/p>\n
        \t11.\tAs defined under section 2(e) of the Act,
\n        a Gehan is a special charge on properties  in  favour  of
\n        the lending  Bank.    By a mere declaration in writing by
\n        the borrowers for securing payment of money  advanced  or
\n        to  be  advanced  by  way  of  loan, it will have all the
\n        characteristics of a valid mortgage.   Security  of  such
\n        loan is ensured by the Act.  A loan under section 9(3) of
\n        the  Act  is recoverable by the Bank concerned in case of
\n        default of payment in the same  manner  as  if  they  are
\n        arrears of public revenue due on land.  Charge on movable
\n        or  immovable  property is ensured by expressly reserving
\n        in  favour  of  the  Bank  a  right   of   sale   without
\n        intervention of  Court, in case of default.  (see Section
\n        10(1) of  the  Act).     It   is   also   provided   that
\n        notwithstanding  anything  contained  in the Registration
\n        Act, or any other law for the time  being  in  force,  it
\n        shall  not be necessary to register any Gehan or mortgage
\n        or hypothecation created or executed  in  favour  of  the
\n        Agricultural Development Bank or a primary bank, provided
\n        the Agricultural Development Bank or the primary bank, as
\n        the  case  may  be,  sends  a  copy of the declaration or
\n        instrument, whereby such documents, including  Gehan  had
\n        created  to the Registering Officer of the area concerned
\n        within stipulated  time.    The  Registering  Officer  is
\n        expected  to  file a copy thereof in Book No.1 kept under
\n        the Registration Act and thereupon it is deemed to create
\n        an interest in the property.  The Bank had complied  with
\n        these formalities.\n<\/p>\n
        \t12.\tThe  argument of the respondent therefore
\n        was that in view of section 12(2)  of  the  Act  and  the
\n        publication  of  notice,  the proceedings for sale became
\n        unimpeachable.  The further submission was that the  sale
\n        could  have  been annulled only as provided under section
\n        21 of the Act and since there was no deposit coming  from
\n        the  petitioner,  which  was  a  precondition,  no rights
\n        remained to be adjudicated.  Act 20 of 1984 was  intended
\n        to  facilitate  a  more efficient working of Co-operative
\n        Agricultural Development Banks  in  the  State,  and  the
\n        special  provisions  as  above were incorporated so as to
\n        ensure  that  the  transactions  entered  into   by   the
\n        institution  were fully protected and recovery steps were
\n        flawlessly efficient.\n<\/p>\n
        \t13.\tHowever,  on  an   examination   of   the
\n        attending    circumstances,   as   highlighted   by   the
\n        petitioner,  it  is  evident  that  notwithstanding   the
\n        watertight   provisions   in   the   Act,  certain  basic
\n        irregularities have effectively undermined the rights  of
\n        the  Bank  of  an  opportunity  to  assert  the rights as
\n        against the claims of the petitioner.  Even though in the
\n        counter  affidavit,  the  Bank  claimed  that  they  were
\n        convinced  that  the applicant for the loan had valid and
\n        marketable title  over  the  properties  proposed  to  be
\n        mortgaged,  and that the same is absolutely encumbered as
\n        on 15-03-1995 and that there was no third party  interest
\n        over  the  properties,  the facts appear to be otherwise.
\n        The dates of availing of  the  three  loans  respectively
\n        were  20th  of April 1995, 7th June 1995 and 15th of July
\n        1995.  But  well  before  that  the  4th  respondent  had
\n        encumbered  the  property  concerned  in  favour  of  the
\n        petitioner, in the year 1994.   The  title  deed  of  the
\n        properties,  as  could be seen from the counter affidavit
\n        filed by the Bank, is having registration No.74\/95 of the
\n        Sub Registrar’s Office, Erattupetta.  The loans had  been
\n        applied for by Smt.Rosamma George (6th respondent), after
\n        she got  the  rights  by the said transaction.  It is but
\n        evident   that   the   4th   respondent–husband    after
\n        encumbering the properties in favour of the petitioner in
\n        the year 1994 had transferred the properties in favour of
\n        his wife  in  the year 1995.  Such a transfer, during the
\n        subsistence of the encumbrance, could  not  have  validly
\n        conferred  any  rights  on  the  6th  respondent  to  the
\n        detriment of  the  petitioner.      Perhaps   the   first
\n        respondent–Bank  had  bona  fide  intended to enter into
\n        transactions, but a lacuna was in fact there.    The  6th
\n        respondent  presented the documents and applied for loan,
\n        misrepresenting the bank that she  was  having  ownership
\n        and  title  over  the  properties,  which  she  never had
\n        legally acquired.  Therefore, the contention of the  Bank
\n        that   there  was  proper  scrutiny  or  that  there  was
\n        marketable title enjoyed by the 6th respondent is without
\n        basis.  This erodes the substratum of their stand.\n<\/p>\n
        \t14.\tBecause, if that be the case, the notices
\n        sent to the Village Officer  [Exts.R1(a)  to  R1(c)],  as
\n        envisaged  by  section  12  of  Act  20  of 1984, did not
\n        thereby create any further rights than the bank  received
\n        from the mortgage arrangement.  The rights were defective
\n        and unenforceable.  The notices, though purported to have
\n        been  made under section 12(2) of the Act, were incapable
\n        of creating any right because  of  the  inherent  defect.
\n        Even though the petitioner had overlooked\/omitted to make
\n        an  objection  against  Exts.R1(a) to R1(c), that did not
\n        place them under any special disability,  since  the  6th
\n        respondent’s  surrender was in respect of properties over
\n        which she had no legal rights.    The  exhibits  produced
\n        indicated  that Rosamma George was party to a Gehan about
\n        which notice was published in the Village  Office.    The
\n        petitioner  had  no  relation or transaction with Rosamma
\n        George and were not expected to  be  alerted  because  of
\n        such notice, even though the property had been described.
\n        It  became  inconsequential  as  far  as the petitioner’s
\n        rights were concerned.  Resultantly,  situation  is  that
\n        the  bank  had  attempted  to enforce the Gehan which was
\n        unenforceable.  The  rituals  of  publication,  sale  and
\n        consequent  confirmation  was  not  sufficient  enough to
\n        clothe them with any specific advantage to the  detriment
\n        of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        \t15.\tUnder   section  11  of  the  Act,  every
\n        persons who applies for a loan from a  primary  bank  was
\n        expected to make a declaration that the property on which
\n        Gehan  is  created as security in the loan transaction is
\n        free from encumbrances.  Section 11(3)  provides  that  a
\n        person  who makes a false declaration shall be punishable
\n        with imprisonment.    Also  it  is  not  as  if  such   a
\n        contingency  of  fraud  is  overlooked by Act 20 of 1984.
\n        Section  11(2)  of  the  Act  speaks   of   the   remedy.
\n        Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  any law for the
\n        time being in force,  where  a  declaration  given  by  a
\n        loanee  is false or defective, the Bank will have a first
\n        charge on all other movable and immovable  properties  of
\n        the applicant, and all such properties shall be deemed to
\n        have   been   included   in   the   Gehan,   mortgage  or
\n        hypothecation created or executed  by  the  applicant  as
\n        security for  the  loan granted.  Theoretically, at least
\n        it may be possible for the Bank to  proceed  against  the
\n        4th respondent or the 6th respondent, at their option, in
\n        case they want to enforce their claims.\n<\/p>\n
        \t16.\tIt  is  beyond  dispute  that mortgage by
\n        deposit of title deeds is  a  valid  procedure,  accepted
\n        under  the  Transfer  of  Property  Act,  for creating an
\n        encumbrance.  Under section 58(a) of the Act, a  mortgage
\n        is a transfer of interest in specific immovable property.
\n        This  may  be  for the purpose of securing the payment of
\n        money advanced or to be advanced by way of a  loan.    It
\n        includes  an existing or future debt over the performance
\n        of an  engagement  which  may  give  right  to  pecuniary
\n        liability.   It is undisputable that in respect of a Kuri
\n        transaction the  petitioner  had  entered  into  such  an
\n        arrangement.  The law recognizes a mortgage by deposit of
\n        title deeds.    When a person delivers to the creditor or
\n        the agent, document of title to immovable  property  with
\n        intend to create a security thereon, the transaction is a
\n        mortgage by deposit of title deeds (Section 58 (f) of the
\n        Transfer of  Property Act).  The petitioner claims that a
\n        mortgage deed as envisaged under  section  2(17)  of  the
\n        Indian Stamps Act is in existence.  A mortgager therefore
\n        is  disabled  from  further encumbering the properties in
\n        any case without the junction of mortgagee.  It can  well
\n        be presumed that a liability is automatically attached to
\n        the property and it is a burden imposed upon the land and
\n        the interest in the land, by the owner of the land.\n<\/p>\n
        \t17.\tAdvertence   may  also  be  made  to  the
\n        dictionary meaning of the term  `mortgage’,  see  Black’s
\n        Law Dictionary,  7th  Edition,  by Bryan A.Garner.  It is
\n        described as a conveyance of title to  property  that  is
\n        given  as  security  for  the  payment  of  a debt or the
\n        performance of a duty and  that  will  become  void  upon
\n        payment or performance according to the stipulated terms.
\n        It  is  also  “a lien against property that is granted to
\n        secure an  obligation  (such  as  a  debt)  and  that  is
\n        extinguished  upon  payment  or  performance according to
\n        stipulated terms.    Thus,  the  mortgage  presupposes  a
\n        (notional) conveyance of title as such, though on limited
\n        terms  and  the  mortgager may continue the occupation of
\n        the property.\n<\/p>\n
        \t18.\tWhile    dealing    with    creation   of
\n        encumbrances, which did not amount to  sale,  as  pointed
\n        out  by  Leonard  A.Jones  in  “A  treatise on the Law or
\n        Mortgages”, the chief distinction between a mortgage  and
\n        a  pledge  is  that  by  a  mortgage the general title is
\n        transferred to the mortgagee, subject to be re-vested  by
\n        performance  of  the  condition;  while  by  a pledge the
\n        pledgor retains the general title in himself,  and  parts
\n        with the  possession  for  a  special  purpose.    It can
\n        therefore be stated that by  a  mortgage,  the  title  is
\n        presumed  as  transferred;  by  a  pledge, the possession
\n        alone is parted with.  Therefore, if this Court does  not
\n        step   in,   that  may  result  in  an  illegality  being
\n        perpetuated.\n<\/p>\n
        \t19.\tThe inescapable conclusion  is  that  the
\n        safeguards  taken  by  the  first respondent–Bank, while
\n        advancing the loan to the 4th and 6th  respondents,  were
\n        inadequate.   Their  bravado  by itself fails to bring in
\n        dividends, though in the first round they got a technical
\n        victory.   Though  there  was  appearance  on  behalf  of
\n        respondents 4 and 6, they had not chosen to divulge their
\n        stand vis-a-vis  the  transactions.    The  loan had been
\n        obtained by the  6th  respondent  for  investing  in  the
\n        property  itself, for a building, and it is not for me to
\n        fathom  the  reasons  which  prompted  them  on  such  an
\n        adventure.  A fraud apparently has to be ruled out, but I
\n        am not certain.\n<\/p>\n
        \t20.\tI find that while adjudicating the claims
\n        of  the  petitioner,  the  Joint  Registrar had not taken
\n        notice of all  legal  aspects,  which  should  have  come
\n        within the  scope  of  his  enquiry.    The  notification
\n        followed by auction and confirmation, as  could  be  seen
\n        from  Exts.P1,  P3  and  P8,  in so far as the properties
\n        mortgaged to the first respondent–Bank are  declared  as
\n        invalid and  irregular.  They have not legally interfered
\n        with or unsettled the rights of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        \t21.\tA  contention  had  been  raised  by  the
\n        learned  counsel  for the first respondent–Bank that the
\n        Original  Petition  is  not   maintainable,   since   the
\n        petitioner’s  right would have been only an appeal to the
\n        Government under section  83(1)(j)  of  the  Co-operative
\n        Societies Act.  However, since the matter was pending for
\n        long,  at this point of time, I do not think it is proper
\n        for me to relegate the parties to  such  course,  as  the
\n        delay  may  adversely  affect the claims, obligations and
\n        rights of two institutions, as well as  private  parties.
\n        Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the objection.\n<\/p>\n
        \t22.\tDuring the pendency of these proceedings,
\n        by  Ext.R1(e)  the  Deputy  Collector  (RR)  had  put the
\n        properties  concerned   for   sale   on   29-04-2003   in
\n        continuation  of the proceedings initiated at the request
\n        of the petitioner.  It will be open for the petitioner to
\n        get on with Ext.R1(e) proceedings.  The first  respondent
\n        too  will  be  entitled  to  take  independent  steps for
\n        safeguarding their interests.\n<\/p>\n
        \t23.\tNotwithstanding this judgment, it will be
\n        open  to  the  parties  to negotiate among themselves and
\n        come to agreed settlements.  The properties appear to  be
\n        valuable, and the effort always should be to generate the
\n        maximum price, to benefit, if possible the 4th respondent
\n        also.   I  may  refer  to the observations of the Supreme
\n        Court  in  this  regard,   made   in   M\/s.S.J.S.Business@@
\n                                               EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
\n        Enterprises (P) Ltd.   v.  State of Bihar & Ors.[2004 (5)@@
\n        EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE       EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
\n        Supreme 485], which explicitly lays down the  principles,
\n        in paragraph 17, as following for guidance:\n<\/p>\n
……………L…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T.J
\n.SP 1<\/p>\n
               \t“17.  We are of the view  that  the
\n               sale  effected in favour of respondent No.6
\n               cannot be sustained.  It is axiomatic  that
\n               the  statutory  powers  vested in the State
\n               Financial  Corporation  under   the   State
\n               Financial    Corporation   Act,   must   be
\n               exercised bona fide.  The presumption  that
\n               public   officials   will  discharge  their
\n               duties honestly and in accordance with  the
\n               law   may   be   rebutted  by  establishing
\n               circumstances which reasonably  probabalize
\n               the abuse  of that power.  In such event it
\n               is for the concerned officer to explain the
\n               circumstances which are set up against him.
\n               If  there  is   no   credible   explanation
\n               forthcoming  the  Court can assume that the
\n               impugned   action   was   improper    [See:\n<\/p>\n
               M\/s.Pannalal Binjraj &  Ors.   v.  Union of
\n               India &  Ors.    AIR<\/a>  1957  SC  397,  409].\n<\/p>\n
               Doubtless  some  of the restrictions placed
\n               on State Financial Corporations  exercising
\n               their  powers under Section 29 of the State
\n               Financial Corporation Act, as prescribed in
\n               Mahesh Chandra  v.      Regional   Manager,
\n               U.P.Financial Corpn.<\/a>  1993 (2) SCC 279, are
\n               longer  in  place in view of the subsequent
\n               decision   in   Haryana   Financial   State
\n               Corporation v.      Jagdamba   Oils  Mills.\n<\/p>\n
               However, in  over-ruling  the  decision  in
\n               Mahesh Chandra, this Court has affirmed the
\n               view   taken   in   Chairman  and  Managing
\n               Director, SIPCOT,  Madras  v.     Contromix
\n               Pvt.Ltd.<\/a>  1995 (4) SCC 595 and said that in
\n               the  matter  of  sale under Section 29, the
\n               State Financial  Corporation  must  act  in
\n               accordance  with  the  statute and must not
\n               act unfairly i.e.  unreasonably.   If  they
\n               do their action can be called into question
\n               under Article 226.  Reasonableness is to be
\n               tested  against  the dominant consideration
\n               to secure the best price for  the  property
\n               to be  sold.    “This  can only be achieved
\n               when there is a  maximum  participation  in
\n               the  process  of  sale and everybody has an
\n               opportunity of making  an  offer.    Public
\n               auction  after  adequate  publicity ensures
\n               participation  of  every  person   who   is
\n               interesting (interested?) in purchasing the
\n               property  and  generally  secures  the best
\n               price.”\n<\/p>\n
……..L…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….J<\/p>\n
.SP 2\n<\/p>\n
        \t24.\tThis  equally  will  be applicable to the
\n        petitioner, as any other statutory body, who comes within
\n        the purview of State under Article 12 of the Constitution
\n        of India.\n<\/p>\n
        \tThe Original Petition will  stand  allowed.    No
\n        order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
.JN
\n        15th September, 2004.\n<\/p>\n
        \t\t\t           (M.RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE)@@
\n           AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
\n        mks\/<\/p>\n
((HDR 0<\/p>\n
))
\n.HE 2
\n.PA
\n……………T…….T…….L…….T…….T…….T…………….J………….
\n.SP 1<\/p>\n
                                (M.RAMACHANDRAN,J)@@
\n                               jAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA\n<\/p>\n
                               ——————————————
\n.JN<\/p>\n
                                    O.P.NO.3787 OF 1999-A@@
\n                               j\n<\/p>\n
                               ——————————————\n<\/p>\n
                               \t\tJ U D G M E N T@@
\n                                 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA<\/p>\n
                               ——————————————\n<\/p>\n
                                     Dated:     day of September, 2004\n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n                               \n\n        \n        \n        \n        \n        \n        \n        16 [OP 3787\/1999]\t- \n        \n        \n        \n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM OP No. 3787 of 1999(A) 1. THE BR. MANAGER,ETATTUPETTA BR.KSFE … Petitioner Vs 1. THE MEENACHIL CO.OP. AGRL. & RURAL … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-129024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004 - 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\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-09T04:07:26+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-09T04:07:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":4034,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004\",\"name\":\"The Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-09T04:07:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@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":"The Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004 - 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\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-09T04:07:26+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-09T04:07:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004"},"wordCount":4034,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004","name":"The Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-09T04:07:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-br-manager-vs-the-meenachil-co-op-agrl-rural-on-15-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Br. Manager vs The Meenachil Co.Op. Agrl. & Rural on 15 September, 2004"}]},{"@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\/129024","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=129024"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129024\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}