{"id":12938,"date":"2009-08-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009"},"modified":"2017-02-22T13:10:55","modified_gmt":"2017-02-22T07:40:55","slug":"gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Gurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Gurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009<\/div>\n
Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                           [1]\n\nIN   THE     HIGH       COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                            CHANDIGARH\n\n\n\n\n                     Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987\n                     Date of Decision: August 26, 2009\n\n\n\n\nGurbaz Singh alias Baja Singh                         ......... Appellant\n\n                              versus\n\nBhal Singh and others                                 .......... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\n\n\nPresent:-   Shri C.B. Goel, Advocate for the appellant.\n\n            Shri V.K. Jindal, Advocate for the respondent\n\n            Shri Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate for respondent No.34\n\n\n\nHEMANT GUPTA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            The plaintiff is in second appeal arising out of the judgment<\/p>\n
and decree passed by the learned Courts below dismissing his suit for<\/p>\n
possession of land measuring 321 Kanals 13 Marlas.<\/p>\n
            The plaintiff and defendants No. 9 to 15 claim to be the owners<\/p>\n
of land measuring 321 Kanals 13 Marlas being the descendants as well<\/p>\n
heirs and successors of Phulla Singh s\/o Partap Singh. Defendants No.1 to 8<\/p>\n
are alleged to be in illegal and unauthorized possession of the suit land. It
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                            [2]<\/p>\n
was pleaded that Sunder Singh, brother of Phulla Singh, has never<\/p>\n
mortgaged any land with the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 8<\/p>\n
and, thus, the plaintiff claimed possession of the suit land as owner. In the<\/p>\n
alternative, it was pleaded that if it is held that defendants No.1 to 8 are the<\/p>\n
mortgagees then the plaintiff claimed a decree for possession by redemption<\/p>\n
of the mortgage.\n<\/p>\n
             In the written statement, it was pleaded that the plaintiffs have<\/p>\n
sought possession though the period of redemption has expired and that the<\/p>\n
defendants are occupying the land in dispute for the last more than 30 years<\/p>\n
and as such they have become the owners by adverse possession.<\/p>\n
             One of the issues framed was whether the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
defendants No. 9 to 15 are the owners of the suit land and whether the suit<\/p>\n
land was mortgaged with defendants No.1 to 8 and they have become<\/p>\n
owners of land by prescription. Both         the learned Courts below have<\/p>\n
returned concurrent finding of fact on the basis of revenue record Exhibit P-<\/p>\n
2 and P-3 that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit land. The Court also<\/p>\n
considered the entire evidence of the defendants to the effect that the<\/p>\n
predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and defendants No.9 to 15 had<\/p>\n
mortgaged the land in West Pakistan with the predecessor-in-interest of<\/p>\n
defendants No.1 to 8 and after partition the suit land was allotted to them in<\/p>\n
lieu of the land left by them in Pakistan. Thus, it was alleged that they are in<\/p>\n
possession of the same as mortgagees and thereafter they have become<\/p>\n
owners as plaintiff has failed to redeem the same within the prescribed<\/p>\n
period.\n<\/p>\n
             Issue No.3 which is a material issue reads as under:-<\/p>\n
             Whether the suit land was mortgaged with defendant Nos. 1 to
\n             8 and they have become the owners of the same by way of
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                          [3]<\/p>\n
            prescription, as alleged ? OPD 1 to 8<\/p>\n
            On the said issue, learned trial Court returned a finding on the<\/p>\n
basis of Exhibit D-1, claim for allotment of land in lieu of land owned and<\/p>\n
left by Sunder Singh s\/o Partap Singh in Pakistan. As per Khatoni Istemal<\/p>\n
Exhibits P-13 and P-14, the land in dispute was allotted to defendants No.1<\/p>\n
to 8 or their predecessors-in-interest. The same is possession of the<\/p>\n
defendants which is evident from the jamabandi Exhibit D-12 for the year<\/p>\n
1960-61, Exhibit D-11 jamabandi for the year 1972-73. DW4 Bhagat Ram,<\/p>\n
Clerk of Land Claim Office, Jullunder, has deposed that as per record<\/p>\n
Sunder Singh s\/o Partap Singh submitted claim for allotment of land in lieu<\/p>\n
of land left by him in Pakistan. The land measuring 23 Acres 3 Kanals was<\/p>\n
mortgaged with Sunder Singh etc for Rs.2500\/- and another piece of land<\/p>\n
measuring 27 Acres 6 Kanals 10 Marlas was mortgaged with Phulla Singh<\/p>\n
for Rs.2500\/-. DW5 Bahal Singh defendant No.1 has deposed that the land<\/p>\n
in question was owned by Sunder Singh s\/o Partap Singh and was<\/p>\n
mortgaged 6-7 years prior to the partition of the country. The land in<\/p>\n
question was Banjar and they made it cultivable by installing five tube-wells<\/p>\n
incurring expenditure to the tune of Rs.7000\/- on each tube-well. They spent<\/p>\n
about Rs.50000\/- to 60,000\/- on improvement of land. Learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the defendants has raised the following argument before the learned trial<\/p>\n
Court:-\n<\/p>\n
            ” On the basis of this evidence, it has been vehemently argued
\n            by Mr. Bedi, the learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 8, that
\n            it is clear from the aforesaid evidence that Sunder Singh son of
\n            Partap Singh mortgaged land in Pakistan with the predecessor-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            in-interest of the present defendants No.1 to 8 and thereafter the
\n            land in question was allotted to them in lieu of the land left by
\n            them in Pakistan. He further urged that it is clear from Exhibit
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                           [4]<\/p>\n
            D-1 that Phulla Singh brother of Sunder Singh submitted an
\n            application in the year 1959 for the redemption of the said land
\n            but that was dismissed and as such they brought improvement
\n            on the said land by incurring expenditures to the tune of
\n            Rs.50,000\/- to Rs.60,000\/- considering themselves as owners”.<\/p>\n
            The argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff before the<\/p>\n
learned trial Court was that since the original mortgage deed or in the<\/p>\n
alternative secondary evidence in the shape of certified copy of the same has<\/p>\n
not been produced so as to disclose the period of mortgage, defendants No.1<\/p>\n
to 8 have not become owners of the suit land. While considering the<\/p>\n
secondary evidence in respect of mortgage, it was held that the contents of a<\/p>\n
registered mortgage deed can only be proved either by registered deed or a<\/p>\n
certified copy thereof and no other evidence can be looked into. The Court<\/p>\n
concluded to the following effect: –\n<\/p>\n
            “…. I have come to the conclusion that the defendants No.1 to 8
\n            having failed to place on record the original registered
\n            mortgage deed (as admitted by D.W.5 Bahal Singh) or a
\n            certified copy thereof by obtaining permission to lead
\n            secondary evidence cannot be considered to have become
\n            owners of the suit land on the ground that the plaintiff and
\n            defendants No. 9 to 13 or their predecessor-in-interest have
\n            failed to get the same redeemed. Issue No.3 is, thus, decided in
\n            favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 to 8”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            On Issue No.5, learned trial Court found that it was incumbent<\/p>\n
upon the plaintiff to prove the terms and conditions of the mortgage deed.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff has failed to do so and that the land still stands mortgaged with<\/p>\n
defendants No.1 to 8. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove the terms and<\/p>\n
conditions of the mortgage deed, therefore, he is not entitled to the<\/p>\n
possession of the suit land merely on the basis of title without making any
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                          [5]<\/p>\n
payment and without removing the clog or encumbrances of mortgage. In<\/p>\n
respect of Issue No. 7, the learned trial Court returned a finding that the<\/p>\n
defendants are not entitled to any amount on account of improvement<\/p>\n
brought by them as they were holding the land in question as mortgagees. In<\/p>\n
view of the above findings, the suit was dismissed.<\/p>\n
            In appeal, learned First Appellate Court found that the<\/p>\n
mortgage was somewhere in the year 1942 and since it has not been<\/p>\n
redeemed for the last more than 30 years, the defendants have become<\/p>\n
owners by prescription. The learned First Appellate Court concluded as<\/p>\n
under:-\n<\/p>\n
            ” 15. So in view of the relevant documents which are mostly
\n            copies of the revenue record, the oral evidence and the
\n            evidence coming from the official source and because of the
\n            admission of the appellant themselves and the entries into the
\n            redemption application filed by the appellant’s predecessor-in-
\n            interest, there is inescapable conclusion        which is only
\n            equitable finding which can be arrived at is that the property
\n            was mortgaged by Phulla Singh with the predecessors-in-
\n            interest of respondents No.1 to 8 and the mortgage was
\n            certainly go somewhere in the year 1942 as mentioned in the
\n            redemption application copy of which is Exhibit D-2 and there
\n            has been no redemption of the property as such which was for
\n            the appellants to have mentioned the details particulars of the
\n            mortgage so as to enable them to redeem the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            16.   As a consequence of this finding, it would be clear that
\n            once the mortgage is not redeemed and the respondents are
\n            clearly in possession of the property for the last more than 30
\n            years , they become the owners by prescription. Therefore, the
\n            finding on Issue No.3 as arrived at by the learned trial Court
\n            which is absolutely illegal is reversed”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            I have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the following
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                          [6]<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law framed on 11.08.2009:-<\/p>\n
            1. Whether oral evidence of the mortgage can be taken into
\n               consideration to return a finding on the terms of the
\n               mortgage in the absence of written document containing the
\n               terms and conditions of the mortgage proved on record ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2. Whether the mortgagee who continues in possession for
\n               more than 30 years is entitled to protect his possession as a
\n               right of redemption can be said to be lost with prescription ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3. Whether in a suit for possession, a decree for redemption of
\n               mortgage on payment of mortgage amount can be granted ?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that<\/p>\n
an application was moved by the defendants for directing the plaintiff to<\/p>\n
amend the plaint or in the alternative for recasting the issues. The<\/p>\n
defendants have claimed that the onus should be on the plaintiff to give the<\/p>\n
particulars of the mortgage. Therefore, the onus of Issue No.3 should be<\/p>\n
placed on the plaintiff by recasting the issues. The learned trial Court<\/p>\n
dismissed the said application on 19.3.1979 holding that it is the defendants<\/p>\n
who have set up the mortgage and, therefore, it is the defendants who will<\/p>\n
have to prove the terms and conditions of mortgage and that they have<\/p>\n
become owners of the suit property for the failure of the plaintiff to redeem<\/p>\n
the same. The said order was challenged before this Court in Civil Revision<\/p>\n
No. 1681 of 1979 titled Bahal Singh etc      vs. Gurbaj Singh etc. The said<\/p>\n
revision petition was dismissed on 20th November, 1979. It is, thus, argued<\/p>\n
that in terms of the order dated 19.03.1979 passed by the learned trial Court,<\/p>\n
the defendants were to prove the terms of the mortgage deed. The<\/p>\n
defendants have not proved the terms of the mortgage deed as neither the<\/p>\n
original mortgage deed nor certified copy of the same has been produced.<\/p>\n
Since oral evidence of mortgage has been led by the defendants, therefore,
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                          [7]<\/p>\n
in terms of Section 65 (c ) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( for short “the<\/p>\n
Evidence Act”), the terms of the mortgage can be proved. It is contended<\/p>\n
that sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act exclude oral evidence of the<\/p>\n
contents of document when the document is available but when when<\/p>\n
document is not available and the same is being proved by secondary<\/p>\n
evidence, the terms can be proved by oral evidence as well. Reliance is<\/p>\n
placed upon first Explanation of Section 65 of the Evidence Act. The<\/p>\n
relevant provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence Act read as under:-<\/p>\n
            “65. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to
\n            documents may be given – Secondary evidence may be given
\n            of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the
\n            following cases:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the
\n            possession or power –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            of the person against whom the document is sought to be
\n            proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the
\n            process of the Court, or
\n            of any person legally bound to produce it,
\n            and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such person
\n            does not produce it;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (b) xx             xx             xx                xx\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the
\n            party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other
\n            reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in
\n            reasonable time;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (d) xx               xx            xx                 xx\n            (e) xx             xx              xx                    xx\n<\/pre>\n
            (f) When the original is a document of which a certified copy is
\n            permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India to be
\n            given in evidence;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (g) xx               xx             xx                   xx
\n            In cases (a), (c) and (d), any secondary evidence of the contents
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                           [8]<\/p>\n
            of the documents is admissible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In case (b), the written admission is admissible.
\n            In case (e) or (f), a certified copy of the document, but no other
\n            kind of secondary evidence, is admissible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            In case (g), evidence may be given as to the general result of<\/p>\n
            the documents by any person who has examined them, and who<\/p>\n
            is skilled in the examination of such documents”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant contends that since<\/p>\n
unregistered mortgage deed has neither been produced nor a certified copy<\/p>\n
thereof has been produced, thus, oral evidence of contents of such mortgage<\/p>\n
can be led in terms of Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act. He has relied upon<\/p>\n
Mst. Bibi Aisha and others vs. The Bihar Subai Sunni Majlis Avaqaf<\/p>\n
and others<\/a>, AIR 1969 SC 253. It is contended that sections 91 and 92 of<\/p>\n
the Evidence Act exclude oral evidence of contents of the document when<\/p>\n
the document is available. But when the document is being proved by<\/p>\n
secondary evidence, it can consist of oral evidence of the contents of the<\/p>\n
document as well. Reliance is placed upon Jupudi Kesava Rao               vs.<\/p>\n
Pulavarthi Venkata Subbarao and others<\/a>, AIR 1971 SC 1070 and<\/p>\n
Marwari Kumhar and others vs. Bhagwanpuri Guru Ganeshpuri and<\/a><\/p>\n
another, (2000) 6 SCC 735.\n<\/p>\n
            In Jupudi Kesava Rao’s case (supra), it has been held that<\/p>\n
under Section 64 of the Evidence Act, a document must be proved by<\/p>\n
primary evidence. Section 65 of the Evidence Act allows secondary<\/p>\n
evidence to be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document<\/p>\n
in circumstances specified in Clauses (a) to (g) thereof. The Court held to<\/p>\n
the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
            “9.    Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sen argued that the
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                           [9]<\/p>\n
            admissibility of secondary evidence, be it oral or in writing,
\n            must be primarily decided in terms of the Indian Evidence Act.
\n            Inasmuch as the original document which was insufficiently
\n            stamped was suppressed by the defendants in the suit for
\n            specific performance, secondary evidence of the contents of the
\n            document could be led in terms of          Section 65(a) of the
\n            Evidence Act. The Evidence Act imposed no bar to the
\n            reception of oral evidence by way of secondary evidence to
\n            prove the terms of the agreement to lease which was in writing
\n            and duly executed…..\n<\/p>\n
            10.    …… Under section 64, documents must be proved by
\n            primary evidence except in cases mentioned thereafter. Section
\n            65 allows secondary evidence to be given of the existence,
\n            condition or contents of a document in circumstances specified
\n            in Clauses (a) to (g) thereof. Under Section 91 when the
\n            relevant portion of a contract or of a grant or of any other
\n            disposition of property has been reduced to the form of a
\n            document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms
\n            except the document itself or secondary evidence of its contents
\n            in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the
\n            provisions hereinbefore contained.\n<\/p>\n
            11.    As the first Court of appeal recorded the finding that it
\n            was the defendants who were responsible for suppression of the
\n            original agreement to lease, a finding which was accepted by
\n            the High Court, it must be held that no objection to the
\n            reception of secondary evidence by way of oral evidence can be
\n            raised under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act”.<\/p>\n
            In Mst. Bibi Aisha’s case (supra), the Court considered the<\/p>\n
scope of sub-clauses (a), (c) and (f) of the Evidence Act. It was held that if<\/p>\n
the case falls under clause (a) any secondary evidence of the document is<\/p>\n
admissible, though the case may be also fall under clause (f). Clause (a) is<\/p>\n
not controlled by clause (f). The loss of the document attracted clause (c ) of<\/p>\n
Section 65 and the failure to produce it after notice attracted clause (a) and
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                          [10]<\/p>\n
Clause (f) of Section 65 was also applicable. The Court approved the view<\/p>\n
of Wilson J. in the case of A Collision between The Ava (1879) ILR 5 Cal<\/p>\n
568 wherein it was held that in cases under clauses (a) and (c ) any<\/p>\n
secondary evidence is admissible; in cases under clauses (e) and (f) only a<\/p>\n
certified copy. It was found that the case falls under clauses (a) or (c ) and<\/p>\n
also under (f). It was held that in cases (a), (c ) and (d) any secondary<\/p>\n
evidence is admissible.\n<\/p>\n
            In Marwari Kumhar’s case (supra), it was held to the<\/p>\n
following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
            “10. Thus it is to be seen that under clause (c ) of Section 65,
\n            when the original has been lost or destroyed then secondary
\n            evidence of the contents of the document is admissible. Clause
\n            (c ) is independent of clause (f). Secondary evidence can be led,
\n            even of a public document, if the conditions as laid down under
\n            clause (c ) are fulfilled. Thus if the original of the public
\n            document has been lost or destroyed then the secondary
\n            evidence can be given even of a public document. This is the
\n            law as has been laid down by this Court in Bibi Aisha vs. Bihar
\n            Subai Sunni Majlis Avaqaf (AIR<\/a> 1969 SC 253). In this case a
\n            suit had been filed for setting aside a registered mokarrari lease
\n            deed and for restoration of possession of properties. The suit
\n            had been filed on behalf of a waqf. The original waqf deed was
\n            lost and an ordinary copy of the waqf deed was produced in
\n            evidence. The question was whether an ordinary copy was
\n            admissible in evidence and whether or not secondary evidence
\n            could be led of a public document. The Court held that under
\n            Section       65 clause (a) and (c ) secondary evidence was
\n            admissible. It is held that a case may fall both under clauses (a)
\n            or (c ) and (f) in which case secondary evidence would be
\n            admissible. It was held that clauses (a) and (c ) were
\n            independent of clause (f) and even an ordinary copy would,
\n            therefore, be admissible. As stated above, the case that the
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                          [11]<\/p>\n
              original was no longer available in the court records and the
\n              certified copy was lost has not been disbelieved. Thus the
\n              ordinary copy of the earlier judgment was admissible in
\n              evidence and had been correctly marked as an exhibit by the
\n              trial court”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Though the aforesaid case was a case where an ordinary copy<\/p>\n
of judgment was admitted by way of secondary evidence but in a case even<\/p>\n
the ordinary copy of the document is not available, contents thereof can be<\/p>\n
proved by oral evidence. The principle that oral evidence cannot be led as to<\/p>\n
contents of a document is that the parties have crystallized the terms of<\/p>\n
agreement in writing and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to travel<\/p>\n
beyond such terms reduced in writing. But where the written terms and<\/p>\n
conditions of the agreement are not available, it cannot be said that oral<\/p>\n
evidence in such circumstances would not be permissible to prove the<\/p>\n
contents of the written document by way of secondary evidence. Such proof<\/p>\n
is not to contradict the terms of the agreement. Thus, in terms of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence is admissible in respect<\/p>\n
of secondary evidence falling in clause (c).\n<\/p>\n
              In the present case, the original document i.e., the registered<\/p>\n
mortgage deed has not been produced by the defendants though the same<\/p>\n
was stated to be in their possession. A certified copy could not be produced<\/p>\n
within a reasonable time as the record is in area which is now part of<\/p>\n
Pakistan. It is apparent from the record, including oral and documentary<\/p>\n
evidence, that the mortgage was registered prior to the partition of the<\/p>\n
country and such registered mortgage deed could not be produced on<\/p>\n
account of the circumstances i.e., partition of the country. Therefore, oral<\/p>\n
evidence of     the contents   of document is admissible.     Thus, the first
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                          [12]<\/p>\n
question of law is answered in favour of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
            In respect to the second question of law, it is contended that in<\/p>\n
view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Ram Kishan and others<\/p>\n
vs. Sheo Ram and others<\/a>, AIR 2008 Punjab and Haryana 77, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is entitled to possession as failure of the mortgagor to redeem<\/p>\n
within the period of 30 years does not amount to loss of right of redemption.<\/p>\n
It is argued that a decree for redemption on payment of mortgage amount<\/p>\n
can be granted by this Court on payment of mortgage amount as disclosed<\/p>\n
by DW5 Bahal Singh defendant No.1.\n<\/p>\n
            On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has<\/p>\n
relied upon Single Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Poulose and<\/p>\n
another vs. State Bank of Travancore, AIR 1989 Kerala 79 to contend<\/p>\n
that the right of the mortgagor to seek redemption is not available to the<\/p>\n
appellant now as the appellant has failed to seek redemption within the time<\/p>\n
prescribed. Such right could be exercised in a properly constituted suit for<\/p>\n
redemption. Reliance is also placed upon Prithi Nath Singh and others vs.<\/p>\n
Suraj Ahir and others<\/a>, AIR 1963 SC 1041 to contend that since the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has not paid the mortgage amount to the defendant, the mortgagors<\/p>\n
have lost right to redemption.\n<\/p>\n
            In Ram Kishan’s case (supra), it was held to the following<\/p>\n
effect:-\n<\/p>\n
            “38. After     considering     the   aforesaid   judgments,    we
\n            respectfully agree that the view of the Full Bench of this Court
\n            in Lachhman Singh’s case (supra) and that of Patna High
\n            Court in Jadubans Sahai’s case (supra). The provisions of
\n            Sections 60, 62 and 67 of the Transfer of Property Act are not
\n            applicable within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, these
\n            provisions are required to be interpreted keeping in view the
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                         [13]<\/p>\n
           principles of equity and good conscience. Since the mortgage is
\n           essentially and basically a conveyance in law or an assignment
\n           of chattels as a security for the payment of debt or for discharge
\n           of some other obligation for which it is given, the security
\n           must, therefore, be redeemable on the payment or discharge of
\n           such debt or obligation. That is the view of the Hon’ble
\n           Supreme Court in Pomal Kanji Govindji’s case (supra)
\n           wherein it has also been held that poverty should not be unduly
\n           permitted to curtail one’s right to borrow money. Since at one
\n           point of time the mortgagor for one or the other reason
\n           mortgaged his property to avail financial assistance on account
\n           of necessities of life, the mortgagor’s right cannot be permitted
\n           to be defeated only on account of passage of time. The
\n           interpretation sought to be raised by the mortgagees is to defeat
\n           the right of the mortgagor and is wholly inequitable and unjust.
\n           The mortgagee remains in possession of the mortgaged
\n           property; enjoys the usufruct thereof and, therefore, not to lose
\n           anything by returning the security on receipt of mortgage debt.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           40.   The limitation of 30 years under Article 61(a) beings to
\n           run “when the right to redeem or the possession accrues”. The
\n           right to redemption or recover possession accrues to the
\n           mortgagor on payment of sum secured in case of usufructuary
\n           mortgage, where rents and profits are to be set off against
\n           interest on the mortgage debt, on payment or tender to the
\n           mortgagee, the mortgage money or balance thereof or deposit in
\n           the court. The right to seek foreclosure is co-extensive with the
\n           right to seek redemption. Since right to seek redemption
\n           accrues only on payment of the mortgage money or the balance
\n           thereof after adjustment of rents and profits from the interest
\n           thereof, therefore, right of foreclosure will not accrue to the
\n           mortgagee till such time the mortgagee remains in possession
\n           of the mortgaged security and is appropriating usufruct of the
\n           mortgaged land towards the interest on the mortgaged debt.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Thus, the period of redemption or possession would not start
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                         [14]<\/p>\n
            till such time usufruct of the land and the profits are being
\n            adjusted towards interest on the mortgage amount. In view of
\n            the said interpretation, the principle that once a mortgage,
\n            always a mortgage and, therefore always redeemable would be
\n            applicable”.\n<\/p>\n
            The judgment in Poulose’s case (supra) hardly supports the<\/p>\n
contention raised. It was held therein that right to deposit the mortgage<\/p>\n
amount is available to the mortgagor only before the mortgagee has filed a<\/p>\n
suit for enforcement of the mortgage. However, present is not a suit filed by<\/p>\n
the mortgagee. The present suit has been filed by the mortgagor to claim<\/p>\n
possession of the suit property. Even otherwise, the question whether there<\/p>\n
is any period of limitation for redemption of usufructuary mortgage has<\/p>\n
been considered by this Court in Ram Kishan’s case (supra) and it has<\/p>\n
been held that once a mortgage always a mortgage is the principle<\/p>\n
applicable to the usufructuary mortgage. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment<\/p>\n
is of no help to the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
            In Prithi Nath Singh’s case (supra), the right to recover<\/p>\n
possession was lost on account of enactment of Bihar Land Reforms Act,<\/p>\n
1950. It has been further held that the authority given to the mortgagee to<\/p>\n
remain in possession of the mortgaged property ceased when mortgage<\/p>\n
money has been paid up and thereafter there is no question of appropriating<\/p>\n
the rents and profits accruing from the property towards interest or<\/p>\n
mortgage money can arise. It was held that section 60 of the Transfer of<\/p>\n
Property Act describe the right of the mortgagor to redeem on payment of<\/p>\n
the mortgage amount. The said judgment is hardly applicable to the facts of<\/p>\n
the present case. In the instant case, the plaintiff has claimed possession<\/p>\n
and in the alternative possession after redemption of the mortgage. In view
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                          [15]<\/p>\n
of the above, it cannot be said that the usufructuary mortgagee who<\/p>\n
continues in possession for more than 30 years is entitled to protect his<\/p>\n
possession. The right of redemption is not lost with the effflux of time. The<\/p>\n
second question of law is, thus, answered in favour of the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
against the mortgagee.\n<\/p>\n
            Coming to the third question of law, it may be noticed that<\/p>\n
earlier the plaintiff has filed application dated 29.01.1959, Exhibit D-2, for<\/p>\n
redemption before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Kaithal. The Assistant<\/p>\n
Collector has ordered on 30.01.1959 that mortgage money be deposited and<\/p>\n
the notice be issued to the second party for 10.02.1959. The said application<\/p>\n
was dismissed in default on 19.11.1959, Exhibit P-4. The said application<\/p>\n
discloses that the land was mortgaged with the second party for a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs.2500\/-. The record of proceedings before the Assistant Collector has<\/p>\n
been produced by DW3 Din Dayal who has produced a copy of application<\/p>\n
for redemption Exhibit D-2. DW5 Bahal Singh defendant No.1 has deposed<\/p>\n
regarding the terms of the mortgage. From his statement, the amount of<\/p>\n
mortgage comes to Rs.2200\/- and another sum of Rs.25000\/- i.e., total<\/p>\n
Rs.27200\/-. Therefore, the statement of      DW5 Bahal Singh sufficiently<\/p>\n
prove the amount of mortgage can be Rs.27200\/- and on payment of such<\/p>\n
mortgage amount, the plaintiff is entitled to redemption.<\/p>\n
            The plaintiff has sought possession on the basis of title and in<\/p>\n
the alternative by redemption of mortgage. Since the land is proved to be<\/p>\n
mortgaged for an amount of Rs.27200\/-, the suit of the plaintiff for<\/p>\n
possession by redemption is decreed on deposit of mortgage amount of<\/p>\n
Rs.27200\/- within three months from today and the judgment and decree of<\/p>\n
the Courts below are set aside. On such deposit, the land shall stand
\n Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987                    [16]<\/p>\n
redeemed and the plaintiff shall be entitled to possession from the<\/p>\n
defendants in accordance with law. The suit is, thus, decreed in the<\/p>\n
abovesaid terms with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
August 26, 2009                              ( HEMANT GUPTA )\nks                                               JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Gurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009 Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 419 of 1987 Date of Decision: August 26, 2009 Gurbaz Singh alias Baja Singh ……… Appellant […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12938","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009 - 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\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Gurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-22T07:40:55+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Gurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-22T07:40:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4587,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Gurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-22T07:40:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Gurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Gurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009 - 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\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Gurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-22T07:40:55+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Gurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-22T07:40:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009"},"wordCount":4587,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009","name":"Gurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-22T07:40:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/gurbaz-singh-alias-baja-singh-vs-bhal-singh-and-others-on-26-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Gurbaz Singh Alias Baja Singh vs Bhal Singh And Others on 26 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/12938","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=12938"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12938\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12938"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12938"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}