{"id":133433,"date":"2010-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-16T21:26:59","modified_gmt":"2016-08-16T15:56:59","slug":"raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"Raman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Raman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 12233 of 2009(O)\n\n\n1. RAMAN. S\/O.KUTTIKKATTIL NEDUMBURATHU\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. JAYARAJ, S\/O.KUTTIKKATTIL NEDUMBURATH\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. RAMACHANDRAN, S\/O.DO IN..DO..\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :08\/09\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                       HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                        ------------------------\n                     W.P.(C).No.12233 Of 2009\n                         ----------------------\n           Dated this the 8th day of September, 2010.\n\n                           J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The plaintiff in O.S.No.147 of 1994 on the file of the Munsiff<\/p>\n
Court, Pattambi, is the petitioner herein. During the pendency of<\/p>\n
the suit, parties entered into a compromise. They have jointly<\/p>\n
filed I.A.No.88 of 1995 praying that a decree may be passed in<\/p>\n
terms of the compromise.        The trial court passed a decree in<\/p>\n
terms of the compromise on 31.1.1995. The plaint C schedule<\/p>\n
pathway commences from western edavazhi and the pathway lies<\/p>\n
in the east-west direction at its commencement from the western<\/p>\n
edavazhi. According to the compromise decree, the plaintiff was<\/p>\n
given liberty to use the C schedule pathway by widening the<\/p>\n
same to 12 feet adding the necessary width from the defendants’<\/p>\n
property.   The defendants were restrained from fencing the C<\/p>\n
schedule property and interfering with the plaintiff’s possession.<\/p>\n
C schedule is the pathway. The commissioner’s plan attached to<\/p>\n
the compromise decree is marked as Ext.P1(A).<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.12233 Of 2009<\/p>\n
                                  ::2::\n<\/p>\n
      2.    The decree holder filed E.P.No.63 of 2005 stating that<\/p>\n
there is positive obstruction to the user of the C schedule<\/p>\n
pathway. Ext.P2 is the execution petition. It is the case of the<\/p>\n
decree holder that the defendants 4 & 5 in the suit with an<\/p>\n
intention to obstruct the use of plaint C schedule pathway caused<\/p>\n
damage to the way at the place it commences from the western<\/p>\n
edavazhi which passes in the north-south direction, by making a<\/p>\n
trench and heaping the soil at another portion of the way. The<\/p>\n
decree holder requested the court to depute an Amin to restore<\/p>\n
plaint C schedule pathway to its original condition with police aid<\/p>\n
if necessary, and to order imprisonment of the respondents in<\/p>\n
civil prison for violation of the decree.\n<\/p>\n
      3.    Respondents in their objection denied the material<\/p>\n
averments in the petition and prayed for its dismissal.       They<\/p>\n
contended that as per the compromise decree both parties are<\/p>\n
entitled to use C schedule pathway, that there was a natural wear<\/p>\n
and tear by the flow of water and that the respondents were<\/p>\n
maintaining     C   schedule    pathway   as  a  motorable    way.<\/p>\n
Respondents further contended that making of the trench<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.12233 Of 2009<\/p>\n
                               ::3::\n<\/p>\n
complained of and heaping of soil were part and parcel of the<\/p>\n
maintenance work carried out and that the same did not amount<\/p>\n
to wilful disobedience of the decree of court.    The copy of the<\/p>\n
objection filed by the respondents is produced as Ext.P3.<\/p>\n
     4.    At the instance of the decree holder a commissioner<\/p>\n
inspected the site and reported that at the beginning of C<\/p>\n
schedule pathway, soil had been removed so as to form a trench<\/p>\n
having a width of 6-7 feet and depth of 1 feet. It is also reported<\/p>\n
that soil has been heaped at the beginning of C schedule pathway<\/p>\n
along its northern side to a height of 4 feet. In the light of the<\/p>\n
commissioner’s report, the petition was filed as E.A.No.132 of<\/p>\n
2005 in E.P.No.63 of 2005 for taking appropriate action for<\/p>\n
contempt of court. Ext.P5 is the order passed by the execution<\/p>\n
court in E.P.No.63 of 2005.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    The   execution   court   held  that   report    of  the<\/p>\n
commissioner is not sufficient to hold that respondents have<\/p>\n
violated the decree and that to invoke the penal provisions of the<\/p>\n
Code of Civil Procedure there should be positive evidence of fact<\/p>\n
beyond the degree of preponderance of probabilities. The court<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.12233 Of 2009<\/p>\n
                                   ::4::\n<\/p>\n
below dismissed the petition finding that the decree holder failed<\/p>\n
to establish that the respondents have violated the decree.<\/p>\n
     6.     Ext.P1 is the decree passed in O.S.No.147 of 1994.<\/p>\n
The decree provides that the defendants abandoned their claim<\/p>\n
over plaint C schedule pathway, that the plaintiff is at liberty to<\/p>\n
use plaint C schedule pathway by widening the same at 12 feet<\/p>\n
level from defendants’ property. The decree also restrained the<\/p>\n
defendants from fencing the same and from interfering with the<\/p>\n
plaintiff’s possession of plaint C schedule pathway. The grievance<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff is that in spite of the decree passed in terms of the<\/p>\n
compromise the respondents caused obstruction to plaint C<\/p>\n
schedule pathway causing difficulties to the plaintiff in enjoying<\/p>\n
plaint C schedule property.         Ext.C1 commission report would<\/p>\n
show that at the beginning of plaint C schedule pathway soil had<\/p>\n
been removed so as to form a trench having a width of 6-7 feet<\/p>\n
and depth of one feet.        The commissioner also noted that the<\/p>\n
soil was seen heaped at the beginning of plaint C schedule<\/p>\n
pathway along the northern side to a height of 4 feet.            The<\/p>\n
respondents did not dispute the obstructions cased in the plaint C<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.12233 Of 2009<\/p>\n
                                ::5::\n<\/p>\n
schedule pathway. Their contention is that there was a natural<\/p>\n
wear and tear by the flow of water and they were maintaining<\/p>\n
plaint C schedule pathway as a motorable way and that the<\/p>\n
making of the trench complained of and heaping of soil were part<\/p>\n
and parcel of the maintenance work carried out and that the<\/p>\n
same did not amount to wilful disobedience of the decree of<\/p>\n
court.    In the light of the commissioner’s report and the<\/p>\n
contention of the respondents stated above, the court below is<\/p>\n
not justified in dismissing the petition filed complaining violation<\/p>\n
of the decree.     Going by the commissioner’s report and the<\/p>\n
contention of the respondents it cannot be denied that for<\/p>\n
whatever reasons, the respondents caused obstruction to the<\/p>\n
user of plaint C schedule pathway.       They may be justified in<\/p>\n
contending that the trench formed and heaping of soil were part<\/p>\n
and parcel of the maintenance work carried out.         As per the<\/p>\n
decree, petitioners have right to use plaint C schedule pathway<\/p>\n
without any hindrance.       In fact, the decree restrained the<\/p>\n
respondents from interfering with the right of user of plaint C<\/p>\n
schedule pathway by the plaintiffs. In the circumstances, in the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C).No.12233 Of 2009<\/p>\n
                                  ::6::\n<\/p>\n
interest of justice, the obstruction caused to the smooth user of<\/p>\n
the pathway has to be removed. The respondents admitted that<\/p>\n
the trench formed and the soil heaped in C schedule pathway<\/p>\n
were part of the maintenance work done by them. The learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents will<\/p>\n
remove the obstructions, if any, in existence in the plaint C<\/p>\n
schedule pathway within a period of one month from today.        If<\/p>\n
the obstruction is still subsisting and if the same is not removed,<\/p>\n
the petitioners are at liberty to approach the execution court for<\/p>\n
restoration of position of plaint C schedule pathway at the cost of<\/p>\n
the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     Writ petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                               HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                      Judge.\n<\/p>\n
bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Raman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 12233 of 2009(O) 1. RAMAN. S\/O.KUTTIKKATTIL NEDUMBURATHU … Petitioner Vs 1. JAYARAJ, S\/O.KUTTIKKATTIL NEDUMBURATH … Respondent 2. RAMACHANDRAN, S\/O.DO IN..DO.. For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR For Respondent :SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :08\/09\/2010 O R D […]<\/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-133433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRaman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010 - 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\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-16T15:56:59+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-16T15:56:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1115,\"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\\\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010\",\"name\":\"Raman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-16T15:56:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Raman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010 - 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\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-16T15:56:59+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-16T15:56:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010"},"wordCount":1115,"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\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010","name":"Raman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-16T15:56:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-jayaraj-on-8-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raman. vs Jayaraj on 8 September, 2010"}]},{"@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\/133433","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=133433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}