{"id":138292,"date":"2010-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010"},"modified":"2014-02-14T05:01:16","modified_gmt":"2014-02-13T23:31:16","slug":"smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Smt Nagarathnamma W\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\/O … on 17 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Nagarathnamma W\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\/O … on 17 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Anand Byrareddy<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THE HIGH CQJLERT C)? K.-1\\R\u00a7\\\u00a7A'i\"AKA AT B.ANGAL_(:)Rf*L\n\nDATED THIS THE1'i\"\"i)AY ()1: FEBRUARY 2{}:m\u00a7\n\nBESFORE:\n\nTHE. I-{ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AD~'\u00a7A'N'13\u00abB'\u00a7fRM\u00a7}fZ{_J_1\u00a7VY*-:7' \n\nREGULAR SEC(')ND A\u00a5?.P_EAI, 'Ng\u00a7'.'5()7 <)TE= "  \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nS mt.Naxggzuutilnamma, \n\nWife 01' \\\/'21di:';.1j;1. ' V\n\nAge: 59 ye'.11:~;,_  _  '\nVadiraja, . _ V . ._  V V \nSon of Si1'e<~3._.div\u00a3i$:1Ch21\u00a3";{'j'-- _    V. "\nAg_:<:;_{3(j 3\/';e.V;;'i";'sj";,;:,V_ V 3  *\n\nBoth are fe5idi'1ag ' '\nDu1'gigL1di.'4-f" P;1ra'iiVss. Opposite: to Jumittaniia Miil.\nShimogt-1-577 20 E.  RIiSP()NDE%iNT\n\n(By Si\"l1'i.S.V.Pl'di<L1Si}, Advocate)\n\n:{: :5: :5: :{: \n\nThis Rfigtliill' S{3C()l1d Appczui is _i'_'\u00e9.1c:,!__Lmdgfii"SC<:tfioi'i'100 of ii\nthe Code of Civil Pi"OL,'\u20acdLIl'\u20ac'._ 1908, Z;g\u00a3EiI1_$i th\u00e9ziJ':icig\u00a2i11;3a}tiiiatnd'\ndecree dated:;22.l!.2005 passed h}i{\u00a2KHV(i96\/2002 tutth\u00a2"\u00a7\ufb016 of.\nthe Additional Civii Judge (Senior .Divisi'o_:t)":_md C}'iM,:Sitiiii;1()ga,, \n\nLiisittissiitg the appeal! and L'()1]'.i-i1'1'1--1,_iiiIi';'," thei.I\u00e91c;igi1te'i1ti11\u00bbiii\u00e9i"'d}3ci"ee\ndated: 19.1 l.2()()?. pa-1s.'x'cd in (..).S.No';\u00ab.t_U2.(()3 t)1'1m_thL' fiicg of the I\nAdditional C ivi! .iLIdf__I\u20ac (_Ji1h*ioi' Di\\"~'ii*,iiii(J'i1.)i.' SiiiI}}()g\u00a3't ai"i'ci etc.,\n\nThis Regular Second -i.Ap_T)t3'(1ii7ih.11t)\u00a7\ufb01ig. E1\u20ac\u20ac:I1 heard and\nreserved on (")9.()'2.2iH() tutti"'co'mitigf,(')it f()i'"proiiotsncertteiit of\n\nJudg__ment this day, 1i'.7.'::L.i':()L1i'__E d;:1itJes"'t=:.d"t1tfc V.'f'g)_lV}Vow'i11g: -\n\ni7\u00a7}%\u00a7GMENT\n\nHcatrd {tiara Com l'1.~?u.('3ii'ii(')iil"'f..iTii('3 pzartics.\n\n ._':'iT'i'!.11i iLlE in\n\nJatnttttry E993, when the defentimtt sought to Cl}C\u00a3'(')E1CE}...Qt\"t\u00bbl'ttt}i':E? \"tat:\n\nthe plaintiffs property by tztying f\"t)LiI1('1L1'l.iV(_.)p\u00a3'}F'~-.V.f'(}tT:\"f:tlt;1'\u00a716't'\n\nc0nst:'uct'ion -- the suit ettme to he t'i;b1ed._The._;)hti'nt_E't't's'..V;;te'he<;i'_po:'t'f.tmtind':\n\ndescribed as Sehedute - B.\nThe defendant deniec1_t:t':e p't_z1in_t ttl'E*;2g;tt"'1'ttns and cht\u00e9ttted that\n\nafter purchase of her site\u00b0t':'ae:jtsut'i:1g__50';  feet, she had\n\nc01'tst1'Ltcted tt tttmf-\u00e9e Llfltd 'i'a:1t't"t{\u00a2'iEEt'uI.\n\nthe pubhc 'a:1]&nt1eI'bu'r1s{'t't;t1'ee,A""t)n" the 1"t0rthern side of her pmperty\n\nand h2t\u00a7s'exe1"cis.ed. Apt):9L\u00a7E3S$tt)E} over the sztme, since the year 1967.\n\n It WE1t\u00a7 C()1't7t:1A{iE}\ufb01dc'\ufb01d that the City Municipal} Cottncit had \u00e9sstaed L1\n\nni,-t_ie'e__Vd:t'te"'~._I33",v't?.E981 cutting upott the. detettdant to remit\n\n."'a1iett';tt.\u00e9t)t*-t" Chaltge\ufb01; in a sum of Rs.I._378\/--. whieh wan paid.\n\n:1~\u00a5e'ttene.,.\u00ab it  etaimed by the defendant that she had perfetsted her\n\n' '*pt,)VE5St3SSit)1} of such e.ner0ttelmtett\u00a3.\n\n5\n\nIt\/eVtvtct't)ztehed H)' X St)' feet of\n\n\n\n9\nher title by way of' adverse possession over\nsehedtile A and B pi'0pe:*ty."\n\nIt is also pointed out that there was no issue l'i'z1me_d 2.-ts\n\ni"egai1is the nebulous claim of aiciverse pussessiuii by theldeVl'i:ii'da'nt'\n\nand hence. the declaration made in favour of the-..giei'eii.1ll21, was the sister of plaintiff NSs'eSSi(')I'} ham-:in;_z_ been held in\nfavour of the defendant is wholiy iilegui and perverse.\n\nit is further' gtnointed out that the encrc)aehn1e1t'a: pmperty bei11g'pVg;'Iy';.\u00bb \nThe Counsel places s'ei%.;mee.\"(5'h tE'z-.5' f\"t\u00a73i<)wi11g Lvl"LAIAE1"1AtV")1'iEi(iSI\n{J ) M. 1)mu' t--'. Murlzur, (2007;'-3_5<ff(_.'  " V  \n\n(.2}f)(liT?(iJ(J}v'?"Ct'V'V   ttir\ufb02VGwtrpczduppcz Mallappa\n\nPaznuzs\/zerfs, j1;!e_ \/99\u00a2)' i\u00a7a}\u00a5t:3 \n\nand prays-vthztt the V-ztppeh\u00e9ii  a'i1.c.)u\/ed.\n\n'\u00a33, i5o.m1'a. the counsel for the respondent contends<\/pre>\n
as tbikiwszv ‘  V’<\/p>\n
Thattghe substantial question of law fretmed by this Court <\/p>\n
   effect of the jucigmetzt zmti decree in O.S.N(>.4()8\/1986<\/p>\n
VA   net. at all a substamtial question of law. And even if the same<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
E 1
\nwere to be tmswered against the defeiidtmt the jtsdgiheitts of the<\/p>\n
Courts below would not warrant ihter’ference._  the ref’ei’ei1<_je to<\/p>\n
that 'jtldglll\ufb01\ufb01ti by the C.'tirt.~; i”)t3i<)\\\u00bbk wtls; 0E'Ii}= one circtit11.s_t';ttiCe';ii'i<f3<\/p>\n
11'}{lI\u20acI'i'c3.i evidence in arriving at findings, which _w_ei_*e~–..h()t.i_:entirely<\/p>\n
on the basis of that \ufb01tdgment.\n<\/p>\n
it is contended that the pat’e.ht tidii’ii_s.t_tsti’ue’tipei”ty in the yeaf ‘–1..'<.i)i:\u00a2f}7A  the claim of<\/p>\n
ildVCl'SC p0ssessi<)n by the Ci:<*.-'i""t";"'iEdt:l't}{i\u20ac';&"'C3t'!_' Sehedulie 'B' property.<\/p>\n
it t";~:._ e's>;e:;’;~:i:’:)n:__twei’ sui’t’~sehedule I-3 property is p\u20acE’E’E1.iSSii)iC and<\/p>\n
iteha.b1e”:-,nd..iiiit ‘,i’l’i$iii”\u20ac.gul’d, seeks to place reliance on the foliowing<\/p>\n
E1UIhi\u20ac)1’i{iiiCSZ  ”\n<\/p>\n
fa)” ti-.–\/m Bc’iim,\\’:(z\/wt’) .8′:-i’zm?I’ 3′. Ki:-‘(tit Ap;)uLsr) Stmnti AIR<\/p>\n
 ,5!\/\u00a7I\u00a7}'(‘f’I2\u20ac? Court 1663, arzrfg<\/p>\n
(Z9) Karlmlaka Wcz\/gf’1)’m’1m’ 1′. Smte off’ Knmzata\/ca 19.95 (4)<\/p>\n
Km’ LJ .326,<\/p>\n
to contend that 2: dei”er1d;1r1\u00a3 is cmitlcd \u00a30 Ez1};t;’ ii.1L1:-:;{;1.’lVi’}%.<\/p>\n
inconsisieni pleas in the written statement.\n<\/p>\n
The Counsel also places i’\u20acliL1jhC\u20ac ‘(‘)i1\u00ab  1′{o1′;*cI’;’!2_&z’–.L);igkg({Li’<\/p>\n
Kodam v. Sa.w’Iribart’ Soupczm GL1j(;.:*,’ AI]? 1.999 SC c:zr’zc1’j’;}\u20ac “i%’E “L<\/p>\n
Van\/z;}iz’1′}4  2()()..? SC
\n4548 E0 substzlntizlte that Vt}*–..c. \u00e9;L1b:’\u00a7ta1;-mil”~–;;_i\u00bb:.e$’E~ic)ns of law E”ra:nc’:d<\/p>\n
by this Court do 11m. :11c\u20ac:L,-wzshe.1*ec1L:i5i.L\u20ac’Cr_itg:’I’i%;-\u00a3mad hence. the<\/p>\n
appeal be:’i”ej\u00e9Vc’teA<i15.:,;s 11:31: 'gix9i*;..1}_: 1"i.~;c:_E(\u00a7";1:1y .SUbSE\u00a3tI1EiE11 questions of<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n
7,. _V ir1′”ih_\u00e9 ::b.m-‘\u00a2’v. %3Az1L:!\u00ab:g1’0L:mE, in.~;\u20ac)f2:1′ as the L]Llt’3SEi(m<\/p>\n
  WhcIhc–1’C’the’A ju’Li.g:11ezn V\u00e9\ufb01ti decree passed in O.S.No.408\/1996 in<\/p>\n
f;c!”-:'(V)L~!f of Ev1’1 \u00e9\u00bb. CvT\u20acT’\u00e9nd:Z1I11 couid be reiiecf upon to defeat the claim of<\/p>\n
the 1:>E\u00e91\u00ab\u00abi,.r’:tit_’_’iT”‘u1u;E” zzcivzzmx-2 the cam: 0%” ihc d11c)wing reasons:<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
It was it :_~;uit filed etgztittst one Savithrunmta by the<\/p>\n
defeardant. on the ;1ile_2;ati<):1 that she was the ow11et"r.o't7.._suit<\/p>\n
propezty, at that point of time and we\u00bb; seeking to.,j'rt'te1'fere:"Witt': '<\/p>\n
her property. That suit was decreed ex5~p'3't'te.\u00a2 ltjs <\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
Sztvitlmtrnma, w'.t..s dead even as eztrh, ti:s__th:f ye.2tr'l_–9(3'7._ r.E.k{e11ii'~.<\/p>\n
the suit could be held binding on h'et"'i~eg21l rep1_'ese1itati'*..zesl in the<\/p>\n
absence of 21 Challenge to tvhe~~:;_;1111e:".l they lf:;1\u00a7ll' no claimhlotrer' the suit
\nproperty on the date of the ih ye_';f.rf–V~'1987, since the<\/p>\n
property was s()ld_.:to:t1lre_plti'ittt\u00a7t'flh  The trial Court<\/p>\n
having aeeeptedpthe. re21sc):.iit1.g"tha.I:S':1vrthr'a1mn2t, was the sister of<\/p>\n
plaintiff rr..t).2__zt.ndthe~:efere',' .,the__pl21ftntiffs were aware of the claim<\/p>\n
set up by therdefendztnt'"o'vertijle Suit Schedule '8' property is; not<\/p>\n
terrable._– .. Th\u00a3.su"c;tVnt"1ot'* be s\u00a3:s;t.ained on legal principle. The<\/p>\n
 ljlttd\u00e9lpttieht E"\u00e9ir:dV'l'~'5=\u00a2C1'ee\u00abl\u00e9t"O.S.No.4()8\/1.996 could not even have<\/p>\n
'treeh eited'*v;1\u00a7\u00a7leVi.tie't}ee of ti plea of adveme pos.~;ession as :'1gai:1st
\nthe pl_2rl11tif_t'\u00a7.'e~'i._The Courts below were not justified in law in<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
‘pltteingl l’\u00a7:EJl2iV\ufb02CV\u20ac on the said judgment and det:r’ee in finclirag at ease.<\/p>\n
44 ‘ ‘for’ At tie ferrdamt. g<\/p>\n
$4
\nThe \u00a7.;\u20ac311Cl’;:ll rule of evidence in respect nl”_}Ltd;_:e1nez1t.s’ in
\npersonam of L1 competent Court is conclusive proof in ii<\/p>\n
subsequent pmeeeding between the same panties or their privies<\/p>\n
(persons whose relationship to the same right of \u00a73t”c)pe1’\u00a3y*’i$’ ~:.1tutii:;tl<\/p>\n
and successive) of the matters ztetuztlly deeidedll fi’r~:)_1i”t  <\/p>\n
judgement itself. But judgements in pt:e~st;5’z1at~t~: ‘_E’1L;)l \u00e9.;ntr.:{t” p\u00a2.tftes7ut’e”.<\/p>\n
not at all admissible in evidence (See: Se.e’tion 4l_.’+;– T’lte lI\u00b0}d.l’amlV.<\/p>\n
Evidence Act. 1872. Sau’El<tlIj:~v\\}’l1’e_tllte.;’.~:he clefenclant ha-tcl perfected title<\/p>\n
by ztdveyee p<)S\u00a7es\u00a7Vi<3n.,v'* ml'-re.\u00a7peet of suit schedule B property as<\/p>\n
\u00ab .r<\/p>\n
 helal by 1l1e5'lC..'0t1:.'1As below. with re'l"ere:'1ee to the pleadings and the<\/p>\n
e\\t'\u00e9cle':i1'et3&lAwil'iu.hzu\u00e9e-.t-1) be answerecl in the tteggative. in View of the<\/p>\n
fol lt)wl":–1 g ;_:_iz{1'i mg e i re u msttmees:\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
In<\/p>\n
The doctrine of :.1dverse possession wouid arise oniy when<\/p>\n
the pztrty has set up his own \u00a3idV<il'St' titie. diselaiining t_4}*re;'t-i.\u00a7iies.of'<\/p>\n
the owner mid est;1biishin\u00a7._t that he Yellitlilltid {i}{'Cit1ASix'~.r\u00a7i}' *<\/p>\n
possession to the knowtedge of the t)w:i*ei';..host.'ite to"rh.i';;: tiitvlegttncii<\/p>\n
the owner had aieqtriesceti to the same  A21\/Im!\/i'c'z,i= 'Ki-'.{.s'l'i.”1’c’zIc> of Rctjcz,sI\/um. vs.<\/p>\n
Hc’lrpr)0! 5vtT’}’IgH\/1′.{2.tv;’Q())5′:VtSC_ (>52 j. Littiiess and anti! there is adverse
\nanimus, mete pcissetssitinrover”the statutory period of Eimitation is<\/p>\n
not strffit:-iei’it for the suen has been speeifieaiiy raised in the pieading,<\/p>\n
put in”issu.e atrtd then cogent and convincing evidence led on id<\/p>\n
“rnxLii’titude of points  the plea: of adverse possession cannot be<\/p>\n
 ..;t1t{i’gt.\u00a5;:ditsee: AIR 19591>m;%147t1:’1:;).<\/p>\n
l9<\/p>\n
po.<;.s'ession of the land, wl1e1"ea1s in terms of Articles; ()4 and 65 of<\/p>\n
the Limitation Act, E963. the position has unde1'5;one J-it eo.m__plete<\/p>\n
change insofar as the onus is coneernetl: once at p:tt't},;jM;i?s"g'SV'es..li'%s<\/p>\n
title, the onus of proof shifts to the other patrty to"p;m{\u00a2-.he Vitus: V'<\/p>\n
perfected his title by adverse. possessio1'2=;.\n<\/p>\n
(See: P T Mm-’21Tt”l1:’k\/(ct;–ma Rem-thy;tz,Rmm;;}m (‘.?()tt}7-J   Si’, <\/p>\n
M.1)umt’ vi Mtif\/IL1, (2007) 3 SCC 11}? M<\/p>\n
In the case on hand, (thedvelt’el11d_;11ithatenot eategorieztlly<\/p>\n
assetted the pEe:1\u00a7~vo\u00a7’\u00ab.g3tdxre1″\u00e9:e \u00a7t’)se\u00a7es’s;io11.\u00a7_”-Qnflthe other hand, the<\/p>\n
primary t\u00a7lztitaal’t’v.xt;:$ that’ th’e\u00ab:;e is no enes’oaeh1ne.nt of the suit<\/p>\n
property. ‘l’het”e%is’t3tt’1l’y.:.it.lite.oni\u00abe” plea in the etlternz-ttive. more by<\/p>\n
way \u00a3117″l’:’1$t1I’E11lC\u20achitgitlllst the plaintiff stteeeeding to establish<\/p>\n
V”1_etiet'<:)atehnlentlof\ufb02suit schedule 8 property by the defendant.<\/p>\n
Hen_Ce.._SuC'i't.it~v.ple;i;'ol' adverse possession C2-Ef1l'l()[ be countenaneed<\/p>\n
at all. "The"—-lCt)'ti'fts below were notjL1sti\u00a7"ied in 21CCt3p\u00a3i1'1g the same.<\/p>\n
  *T:l'et..i4s tallies us to the next question whethe.r it vt-as open to the<\/p>\n
-.j(tefe:t1<l;.int to t_,'t}Ill.\u20acl'lLl that she lt\u00e9id not en<;:'oael1e:.\u00a7 the suit pro\u00a7)et'ty<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
2 0<\/p>\n
while incideiitztlly Ct)l’tt.t3I1(ilt\u00a7g that in the event the phtintiff w’.t$
\nable to esttxblish that there was in fact such eiiemachment W this<\/p>\n
ottght to be held in \u00a7’;tV-xitei’ of the tleiehtlziitt tn sL:p.p’t)tft’t\u00ab.._’her<\/p>\n
contention that she had pe:’t’ect.ed her title by adverse;j5’t)sse\u00a7sEel: ‘<\/p>\n
required in law”.\n<\/p>\n
The Counsel for the re.s;p0hdeht h\u00a3i1′:%__pi;1_C\u20ac(l l’iEi3_itl’\u00a21l”tC\u20ac’~(lt1.i}dl1R~.u<\/p>\n
2007 SC 1663 to support his ct)ih’teitt.it1n Ii”l2t.T, . i”t;c()liisiste.nt<\/p>\n
pleas were tuhiiissible. ‘l’li’e\u00bb,t’2tCtis i_)t’t’tE?i_;it c;’;1.se E1121}? iisefully be<\/p>\n
noticed to examine whetheifVV_itV’Co_ul<l_  pfev\u00e9seti ..i-'nth service. The<\/p>\n
appeal therein ;t1'?_.)seE:1:':u't i)Vi';i'Zl \u00e9teiit the Ap;i'1'ti'tio's'i. The plaintiff had
\nelaimetl i7~_E()"'\u00a7'l&l'\u00ab'Cfii'1ti'i~':jAl;\u00a7Er;Cii'2\u00a3:llilt_'~iil\u00e9llii share oi the suit pm;)erties<\/p>\n
jointly withiithe dete.i_1tlt:nit.s;..:!E to 7. The said defendants had<\/p>\n
'i"SLtppt:ii*tied; pl.;1Eiii'tiff9..\u00abease. in the first instance. However.<\/p>\n
id\u00a2t'et1i_dantisv.,Sl:6"l_4"–\u00a7ought an amendment to the written statement<\/p>\n
that  pl;2.intitfi"\u00e9ind defendants 3 to 7 could not z1C'ql.liI'\u20ac any right<\/p>\n
A or Ainte1*eist,_,ih the joint fantily p:"ope1'ties 2-is tliey were illegitimate<\/p>\n
 t.ei1il'* Mi!\/5′ C(}J’?’![‘)(N’1_\\’ 1.1′;-1-“lira! 1.25′. I.oc’2’i2a Rum two’ (‘7(;;j1}9c2z’2_\\’<\/p>\n
(1976) 4 SCC’ 320. The High Court heid that Ltii()\\f\\\/;iiii1i}_1_’i-Sit}-t$:i1i’:<\/p>\n
amtmdment wouid totaliy displace the cage of [iii”Pi\u00e9li\ufb01iifi’i’~?;1i1’\u20aci  <\/p>\n
right to get the partition decree.\n<\/p>\n
in the above backgroun(i,__'”–the appeal wzjis ~~{4_1jefo..=.’e1 the <\/p>\n
Supreme Court. While ta1<,ing notie——-of"V-the:.._t'cwEEc)Wi–ng observation
\nof the Privy Couneii in the Case'(_)\u00a3'-..f\u00a7+f\u00a2.2.Siziii-w{*M).':1 vs. Maung Mn<\/p>\n
Hnuang AIR 1922. PC 249.\n<\/p>\n
i”A_.i-‘i*_rtile–s. ‘t.’)’\u00a7i,i:”v_C()ilvifE8u”.t.1E’:3i 13()I’i]i1′]g_ but
\n}_}E”(‘)’\\ir’i1i.$i’.’i’QF1..V_.S’i%i11ICn’Ci’ii2_d .t(,= secure the proper<\/p>\n
‘ ad’miiti:;t_i4atifo.ni’o.fijas’tice and it. is; therefore,
\nes\u00e9entialoVtE12it:’=_tiie’\u00a7’ shouid be made to serve<\/p>\n
 and be i”st:b<_tg\/'tiinate to that purpose, so that
\n'’V;.ii’t'(iiLlid always be Eiberaily exemised, but
\n“no-iietheiess no power has yet been given to<\/p>\n
enable one distinct Cause of action to be<\/p>\n
substitttted for another, not to change by
\nmeans o’t’amend1tten\u00a7 the subject matter oi’<\/p>\n
the suit”.\n<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
The Apex Court has gone on to lay clown that it is an equally<\/p>\n
well setileci principle that a pi’a1ye:’ for {~lEH\u20acl”iClETlC\ufb02E of the pvlV’dl\u00a7i.i.l’\u00a31E1Ll<\/p>\n
21 prayer for amendment of the written statement stan;l.\u00a7’_’oh’eii’if7fe:i’e:_;;;’= _<\/p>\n
footings. And that addition of a new bgroLiiti’d”‘c3f:’_<iel'e.r1ce or <\/p>\n
substituting or altering :1 defence or tiikiniglii~i'ieohsiS*telht pl.e;is"'i.n:<\/p>\n
the written statemem would not be~Vob_jeci"iohab_leiadding, *<\/p>\n
altering or substituting 2-1 !1(3"':'.\\{ cau$.e"'ol'ilL_a;ttio;a in the'plzi.iht may be<\/p>\n
objeciionable.\n<\/p>\n
Board, l\u00a7tlzi1gcilIr1i’re:lii.llSIe1lIea :'(‘l):]f~,.K'(.”\u00a3?:l’lC.1I’C1\/((1 1995(4) KCII’ L J 326.<\/p>\n
4Tllee.faCts i’::.{_hat case were  follows:\n<\/p>\n
 .’ ~A.St.a4fe..Vi)f’ Karnataka had filed a suit against the<\/p>\n
Ka;?1ia’ta1’i<;i'lW'a–ki"Bozi1'd and another claiming thai the soil property<\/p>\n
'.belonglerl  State and that it was erroneously notified as 'Wald<\/p>\n
 _ '~i\u00a7i'r)pe.i*t}; under {he Wakf Aci. in the ;1lLeri1;1tive. it was claimed<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
24%<\/p>\n
This ruie is embedded in Order VIE Ruie 8 and Order VIII<\/p>\n
Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Pmcedute, 1908 — Both the pE'(.)’if..iSiV()E1S<\/p>\n
insist that grounds of aiteniative ciaiins are to be st;-1teei~~::;e_t;>a:_fifetteiy)<\/p>\n
It must be shown that each of the iiacciitsisli-2:.*.1.t_:’*~eiaii.ii1s_ are  i<\/p>\n
mzlintztinable.\n<\/p>\n
Inconsistent pleadings ai”e7no.t_ proh-ibiteti i..the_VViitii\u00a7gaht <\/p>\n
who avails himseif of the ifight to p_ress_ an iiicoiisisvteiitiieaise and
\netidea1vES_1f i\u00a71’W;:$e1*i’E i’i1?if;iii’ihiE”{1S\u20ac1i” entangled
\nin iE}BXEI’iC3bi\u20ac\u00a7’dViffiQt\u00a7’\u00a7E}iV’, i”i(J1-‘._i:__\\i’ideri–?:e’~giddziced in Siipp(‘)E'{ of two
\nabsoiuteiyaincoiisistetii-\u00bb.,e:tse4s=yt?iiieii are imitually destructive can<\/p>\n
hardly be expeeteci to st-_ci’tiiie7 eonfi<,Eence. (Br'-mbczn. Mo\/Hm' Vs.<\/p>\n
A '2}{\u00ab\u00a3f\u00a5\u00a2'?1L4._(:1:':  131');  ttttt I' –\n<\/p>\n
” ._  “Eii”_t..|1__eugzise on hand, it cam hardly be said that the<\/p>\n
-tiefentitint Elsi:-i'{1 position to sustain the alternate pleats put forth for<\/p>\n
  ii.i”i\u00bb\u20ac:iie’yv.t;tt”e to be accepted site would have to pieaci and establish<\/p>\n
 .__”t’ii2it\u00a7 not oniy had she \u20acFIC1″OEi{‘:h\u20ac-d public ltind to the North of her<\/p>\n
l–J
\n‘J1<\/p>\n
pmpeny to the extent of ll} X 50 feel bui that she l1ac_l_ also<\/p>\n
eneroaehed {he suit p:’0perI’},-i \u00a30 the extem of 10 X 50 f<:'el.'–v:.t_"0.lt"he<\/p>\n
south of the p1'0pe.1'{y. There is no such plea and hence ll\ufb01hili,'-Vl\u00e9i'l'llT'1 V'<\/p>\n
respect of the suit p1'0perty falls foul  V. ()~f\u00ab'lhE".<\/p>\n
Code 0fCi\\\/il Procedure, 1908.\n<\/p>\n
lns0f:;u* as the contention L1l:_>f~;ta1ilal’L~i.2l1leeieslligheof luw
\nalrise in the present ;1ppezlz.l.,zl:’*E$’ also:1g;e.l;:;;:.%el\u00bbl,,lllizwiing  to the
\nseveral iSSL1\u20acS th21t’3121Vl\/e  is no doubi
\nthat the qL1es\u00abt~ir};,n\u00a7  questions of law
\napplying   decisions of the Apex
\nCourt as      <\/p>\n
in the “1*::su~ls, t;l__1eA’::\ufb013’p.;’\u00bb’:~l4;1l is allowed. The judgemenz and<\/p>\n
  C}.f\u00a2tl:6Atrla1llHC(3t:i”{ as well as of the First Appellate Court<\/p>\n
‘ma l1\u00a7.m1.a_g,-e {1s;.l_cl_e. The suit of ihe plaimifl” is deereecl as pmyed<\/p>\n
for w.i__ih c_r..’ast\u00a7.j..~ A<\/p>\n
$5] –\n<\/p>\n
JUDGE<\/p>\n
ll “E19\/sf<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Nagarathnamma W\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\/O … on 17 February, 2010 Author: Anand Byrareddy IN THE HIGH CQJLERT C)? K.-1\\R\u00a7\\\u00a7A’i”AKA AT B.ANGAL_(:)Rf*L DATED THIS THE1’i””i)AY ()1: FEBRUARY 2{}:m\u00a7 BESFORE: THE. I-{ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AD~’\u00a7A’N’13\u00abB’\u00a7fRM\u00a7}fZ{_J_1\u00a7VY*-:7′ REGULAR SEC(‘)ND A\u00a5?.P_EAI, ‘Ng\u00a7’.’5()7 <)TE= " BETWEEN: S mt.Naxggzuutilnamma, Wife 01' \\\/'21di:';.1j;1. ' […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138292","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Nagarathnamma W\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\/O ... on 17 February, 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\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Nagarathnamma W\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\/O ... on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-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=\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-13T23:31:16+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Nagarathnamma W\\\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\\\/O … on 17 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-13T23:31:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2441,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Smt Nagarathnamma W\\\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\\\/O ... on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-13T23:31:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Nagarathnamma W\\\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\\\/O … on 17 February, 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":"Smt Nagarathnamma W\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\/O ... on 17 February, 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\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Nagarathnamma W\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\/O ... on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-13T23:31:16+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Nagarathnamma W\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\/O … on 17 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-13T23:31:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010"},"wordCount":2441,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010","name":"Smt Nagarathnamma W\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\/O ... on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-13T23:31:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-nagarathnamma-wo-vadiraja-vs-smt-halamma-sanna-halamma-wo-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Nagarathnamma W\/O Vadiraja vs Smt Halamma @ Sanna Halamma W\/O … on 17 February, 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\/138292","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=138292"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138292\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138292"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138292"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138292"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}