{"id":147499,"date":"2010-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-04-21T09:25:23","modified_gmt":"2018-04-21T03:55:23","slug":"cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Cheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Cheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 285 of 2000(A)\n\n\n\n1. CHEEMENI ESTATE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. NARAYANI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :29\/10\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                   S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J\n                   --------------------------------------\n                       S.A No.285 OF 2000\n                      --------------------------------\n            Dated this the 29th day of October 2010\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Plaintiff in a suit for injunction has filed this appeal. Trial<\/p>\n
court granted a decree in his favour, but, in appeal preferred by<\/p>\n
the defendants, the lower appellate court reversed the decree<\/p>\n
and dismissed the suit. Challenging the decision of the lower<\/p>\n
appellate court as aforesaid, plaintiff has preferred this appeal.<\/p>\n
     2. Plaintiff is a unit of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala<\/p>\n
Ltd. Suit claim is in respect of a portion of the property assigned<\/p>\n
in favour of the Corporation by the Government, which was<\/p>\n
described in the plaint as having an extent of 17 = cents when<\/p>\n
the suit was instituted, but, later, amended and reduced to 13<\/p>\n
cents after local inspection of the suit property and preparation of<\/p>\n
a plan by an advocate commissioner.               The defendants made<\/p>\n
attempts to trespass upon the suit property was the case<\/p>\n
canvassed to claim the discretional relief of injunction against<\/p>\n
them. Resisting the suit, the defendants claiming that they had<\/p>\n
been issued a purchase certificate over 10 cents of land by the<\/p>\n
Land Tribunal recognizing the tenancy over such land contended<\/p>\n
that they are in possession and enjoyment of more extent of land<\/p>\n
at the site. Description of the plaint schedule was disputed by the<\/p>\n
defendants contending that the suit has been filed to annex the<\/p>\n
S.A No.285 OF 2000                – 2 –<\/span><\/p>\n
property in their possession. The trial court, on the materials<\/p>\n
placed, which consisted of PW1 and PW2 and Ext.A1 to Ext.A4<\/p>\n
series for the plaintiff, DW1 and Ext.B1 for the defendants and<\/p>\n
Ext.C1 to Ext.C4 reports and plan prepared by an advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner, found the case of the plaintiff more probable and<\/p>\n
acceptable, and accordingly, granted the plaintiff a decree of<\/p>\n
injunction    against the   defendants    restraining  them   from<\/p>\n
interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over<\/p>\n
the suit property. In the appeal preferred by the defendants, the<\/p>\n
lower appellate court, after reappreciating the materials tendered<\/p>\n
in the case, coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed<\/p>\n
to identify and establish its possession over the suit property as<\/p>\n
described in the plaint reversed the decree of the trial court and<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit.\n<\/p>\n
      3. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiff, challenging the<\/p>\n
decision of the lower appellate court as stated above, notice was<\/p>\n
ordered to the respondents and thereupon they have entered<\/p>\n
appearance. Though the appeal had been filed as early as on<\/p>\n
2000, its admissibility with reference to the question whether any<\/p>\n
substantial question of law is involved as covered by sub Section<\/p>\n
(1) of Section 100 of the Code has not been considered so far. So<\/p>\n
much so, the admissibility of the appeal was heard.            The<\/p>\n
S.A No.285 OF 2000                 – 3 –<\/span><\/p>\n
questions formulated in the memorandum of appeal, it is seen,<\/p>\n
are not based on any question of law, but, on the findings entered<\/p>\n
by the lower appellate court over disputed facts involved in the<\/p>\n
case. Perusing the judgments of both the courts below, it is seen<\/p>\n
that even the trial court, on the materials, found that the<\/p>\n
documents tendered by the plaintiff to sustain the claim of<\/p>\n
injunction canvassed in the suit are hardly sufficient to identify<\/p>\n
the suit property. However, it proceeded to examine the claim of<\/p>\n
injunction of the plaintiff with reference to the commission report<\/p>\n
and plans whereunder the advocate commissioner had located<\/p>\n
the property under the possession of the defendants and rest of<\/p>\n
the property lying to its north and also east as forming part of the<\/p>\n
property of the plaintiff. Considering the oral evidence tendered<\/p>\n
in the case with reference to the report and plan of the<\/p>\n
commissioner, the trial court formed an opinion that the case<\/p>\n
canvassed by the plaintiff is more probable and acceptable and in<\/p>\n
that view of the matter, the decree of injunction was granted.<\/p>\n
The trial court has expressed the view that in the facts involved in<\/p>\n
the case, ‘probabilities can be gathered from the testimony of the<\/p>\n
parties as also from the reports and plans of the Commissioner’.<\/p>\n
Needless to point out, when a decree of injunction is applied for in<\/p>\n
respect of an immovable property, such a discretionary relief can<\/p>\n
S.A No.285 OF 2000                – 4 –<\/span><\/p>\n
be granted only on proper identification of that property, and, if<\/p>\n
not, any decree passed on incomplete data is likely to create<\/p>\n
more confusion and further work out undesirable consequences to<\/p>\n
the parties. So much so, where the trial court found that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff failed to establish the identity of the property by basic<\/p>\n
documents especially where the claim of possession was based<\/p>\n
on title, assignment of the property by the Government, there<\/p>\n
was no question of granting any discretionary relief of injunction<\/p>\n
in favour of the plaintiff.        On what basis, the advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner deputed by the court identified the suit property<\/p>\n
also appears to be a mystery. A large extent of property in the<\/p>\n
survey number relating to the plaint property ie, 313. 60 acres,<\/p>\n
was obtained by the plaintiff Corporation as part of 1268.74 acres<\/p>\n
handed over to it by the Government. Plaint property at the time<\/p>\n
of institution of the suit was shown as having 17 = cents, but,<\/p>\n
later, it was amended on the basis of the commission report<\/p>\n
reducing it to 13 cents for the reason that in Ext.B1 purchase<\/p>\n
certificate issued in favour of the       defendants, the eastern<\/p>\n
boundary is shown as a public road.           On mere surmise a<\/p>\n
description of the property was included in the plaint to seek the<\/p>\n
relief of injunction.   So, whether or not the defendants had<\/p>\n
established the contention raised by them to resist the suit claim<\/p>\n
S.A No.285 OF 2000                – 5 –<\/span><\/p>\n
for injunction, it was a case where the plaintiffs failed to prove the<\/p>\n
identity of the suit property over which the relief of injunction was<\/p>\n
canvassed.      The lower appellate court was fully justified in<\/p>\n
reversing the decree of injunction granted by the trial court where<\/p>\n
the property in respect of which that relief was claimed remained<\/p>\n
unidentified.    The reports and plan prepared by the advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner, it is seen, no way assist the plaintiff to identify or<\/p>\n
establish its possession over the suit property described in the<\/p>\n
plaint. The appeal does not involve any question of law leave<\/p>\n
alone any substantial question of law.         Appeal is dismissed<\/p>\n
directing both sides to suffer their cost.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                       S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
\n                                                    JUDGE
\n                       \/\/True Copy\/\/<\/p>\n
                                               P.A to Judge<\/p>\n
vdv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Cheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 285 of 2000(A) 1. CHEEMENI ESTATE … Petitioner Vs 1. NARAYANI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :29\/10\/2010 O R D E R S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, […]<\/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-147499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 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\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Cheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-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=\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-21T03:55:23+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\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Cheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-21T03:55:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1072,\"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\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Cheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-21T03:55:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Cheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Cheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 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\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Cheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-21T03:55:23+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\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Cheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-21T03:55:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010"},"wordCount":1072,"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\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010","name":"Cheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-21T03:55:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cheemeni-estate-vs-narayani-on-29-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Cheemeni Estate vs Narayani on 29 October, 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/147499","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=147499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147499\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}