{"id":154639,"date":"2008-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008"},"modified":"2015-06-07T01:31:15","modified_gmt":"2015-06-06T20:01:15","slug":"balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Balan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Balan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCMA.No. 175 of 2000()\n\n\n\n1. BALAN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. C.M. LEELA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN\n\n Dated :09\/12\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                         M.N. KRISHNAN, J\n                        -----------------------\n                      C.M.A.No. 175 OF 2000\n                                   &\n                      C.M.A.No. 239 OF 2000\n                   ---------------------------------\n               Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008\n\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Both these appeals are preferred against the judgment<\/p>\n
rendered by the Additional District Judge, Kozhikode in Appeal Suit<\/p>\n
No. 8\/1998. C.M.A 175\/2000 is filed by the first defendant in the<\/p>\n
suit and C.M.A 239\/2000 is filed by the plaintiff in the suit. The<\/p>\n
brief facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are stated as<\/p>\n
follows:\n<\/p>\n
      2. The Original Suit O.S. 735\/93 is filed for partition of the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property into 4 shares and to allot one such share to<\/p>\n
the plaintiff and one such share each to defendants 1 to 3. It is the<\/p>\n
case of the complainant that the property belonged to her mother<\/p>\n
Devaki by virtue of a partition deed.       It is submitted that the<\/p>\n
property can be divided into 4 shares and partition can be affected.<\/p>\n
      3. The first defendant in the suit would contend that the<\/p>\n
property was purchased in the name of Devaki by him with his<\/p>\n
funds for his benefit and she was only a name lender and she had<\/p>\n
never obtained any title to or possession of the property and in<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No. 175 OF 2000 & C.M.A.No. 239 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                      -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
paragraph 8 of the written statement it is specifically contended<\/p>\n
that even if the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act is to be applied<\/p>\n
it will come within the exemption under Section 4(3)(b) of the Act<\/p>\n
considering the fiduciary relationship between the mother and the<\/p>\n
son. Various other contentions such as plea of ouster, reservation<\/p>\n
etc. were also raised in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
       4. The defendants 2 and 3 contended for the position that the<\/p>\n
property was purchased in the name of the mother with the funds<\/p>\n
of the father and therefore the mother is only benamidar and on her<\/p>\n
death the property had devolved upon the 4 children equally<\/p>\n
entitling each one of them to have one out of 4 shares.<\/p>\n
       5. The trial court on consideration of the entire materials<\/p>\n
arrived at a decision that the transaction is not a benami one. The<\/p>\n
first defendant has not proved that the right of the plaintiff or other<\/p>\n
defendants is lost by ouster and that the first defendant is not<\/p>\n
entitled to any reservation. Thereafter the suit was decreed in line<\/p>\n
with the prayer in the plaint. It is against that decision the appeal<\/p>\n
was preferred before the District Court as A.S. 8\/1998. It was<\/p>\n
proved by the 1st defendant in the suit and after elaborately<\/p>\n
considering the materials         the court held that documents are<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No. 175 OF 2000 & C.M.A.No. 239 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                      -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
produced along with I.A. 1329\/99 is relevant for the purpose of<\/p>\n
determination of the case. Therefore the case is remanded back to<\/p>\n
the trial court for a fresh finding on issue Nos.1 and 2 and also for a<\/p>\n
fresh finding on issue No.5 by affording an opportunity to the first<\/p>\n
defendant to adduce evidence to prove the documents produced in<\/p>\n
the case. It is against that decision the first defendant as well as<\/p>\n
the plaintiff has come up in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      6. The grievance of the first defendant is that the court below<\/p>\n
had passed an order of remand which is liable to be interfered with<\/p>\n
and the plaintiff has preferred the appeal contending for the<\/p>\n
position that the appellate court committed error in admitting those<\/p>\n
documents and reopening the question regarding the partibility of<\/p>\n
the property.     After hearing both sides, I consider the following<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law:\n<\/p>\n
       Whether the lower appellate court has justified in passing an<\/p>\n
order of remand and whether the circumstances which had been<\/p>\n
discussed by the appellate court is legal.\n<\/p>\n
      7. I will consider this matter in detail so that the questions<\/p>\n
raised by both the parties can be met with this one judgment. At<\/p>\n
the out set I may like to point out that before the court below the<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No. 175 OF 2000 & C.M.A.No. 239 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                      -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
parties have not adverted to the legal question that should have<\/p>\n
been considered but did spend their time more on the question of<\/p>\n
the benami nature of the transaction. Admittedly the suit is filed<\/p>\n
after coming into force of the Benami Transactions Prohibition Act<\/p>\n
1988 and therefore the question whether the transaction is Benami<\/p>\n
should not have been considered, even if it is raised by the parties<\/p>\n
for reason that Section 3 and 4 of the Act bars an enquiry in to that<\/p>\n
question. But section 4(3)(b) of the Act saves a transaction where<\/p>\n
the person in whose name the property is held is a trust or other<\/p>\n
person standing in a fiduciary capacity. Admittedly here is a case<\/p>\n
where the first defendant is none other than the son of Devaki in<\/p>\n
whose name the documents stands. The contention of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
is that the property is acquired and purchased by Devaki with her<\/p>\n
own funds and she was the owner in possession of the property till<\/p>\n
her date of death. On the other hand the first defendant would<\/p>\n
contend that due to certain reasons the property was purchased in<\/p>\n
the name of Devaki by making use of his funds. According to him<\/p>\n
considering fiduciary relationship and as the consideration for the<\/p>\n
transaction had been parted with by the first defendant the property<\/p>\n
belongs to him and therefore other will not have any title to or<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No. 175 OF 2000 & C.M.A.No. 239 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                      -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
right or possession over the property. But in order to adjudicate<\/p>\n
this question even regarding fiduciary capacity prime point to be<\/p>\n
considered will be, whether the sale consideration for the purchase<\/p>\n
of the property was spent by Devaki or whether it was the funds of<\/p>\n
the first defendant which he had used for the purchase of the<\/p>\n
property in the name of his mother namely Devaki. So for this<\/p>\n
purpose, though the question of the benami nature of the<\/p>\n
transaction may not have to be considered in that perspective the<\/p>\n
source of consideration and the resultant effect of the same will<\/p>\n
have to be considered by the trial court to find out with whose fund<\/p>\n
the property had been purchased.            An answer is given to that<\/p>\n
question by appreciating and evaluating the evidence, both oral and<\/p>\n
documentary as well as the additional documents produced in the<\/p>\n
appeal. Any further document which the parties intend to produce<\/p>\n
for the purpose of arriving such a decision including additional oral<\/p>\n
evidence. The matter has to be considered in that perspective and<\/p>\n
decided. Therefore I make the order of remand very clear in this<\/p>\n
aspect namely the purpose of the remand would be for the purpose<\/p>\n
of finding out with whose fund the property had been purchased.<\/p>\n
If first defendant succeeds in proving that it was with his funds that<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No. 175 OF 2000 & C.M.A.No. 239 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                      -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
the property was purchased then the question whether the carved<\/p>\n
out exemption of 4(3)(b) would apply or not. I make it very clear<\/p>\n
that all the documents produced and to be produced and all the oral<\/p>\n
evidence adduced and to be adduced to be considered for the<\/p>\n
purpose of arriving that decision.\n<\/p>\n
      8. The next question is regarding plea of ouster. The learned<\/p>\n
trial Judge has elaborately considered the question of ouster. The<\/p>\n
dictum     in the decision of this court reported in Krishnan v.<\/p>\n
Raman (1986 Short Notes 63 Case No. 104), when applied<\/p>\n
would show that in a case of ouster really something more has to<\/p>\n
be proved that is the hostile animus. Therefore I do not propose to<\/p>\n
interfere the said decision rendered regarding plea of ouster decided<\/p>\n
by the trial court.      Now lastly let us come to the question of<\/p>\n
reservation decided by the trial court. Even if it is found that the<\/p>\n
money has been parted by Devaki, if one of the co-owners spend<\/p>\n
the entire amounts for improving the property and when there are<\/p>\n
circumstances or evidence to show that the other co-owners are<\/p>\n
having other house or property, then necessarily the question of<\/p>\n
equity and reservation has also to be considered. So I permit both<\/p>\n
sides to adduce evidence on the question of reservation as well and<\/p>\n
C.M.A.No. 175 OF 2000 & C.M.A.No. 239 OF 2000<\/p>\n
                                      -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
direct the trial court to consider the question of entitlement of<\/p>\n
reservation claimed by the first defendant. No other points arise for<\/p>\n
consideration and therefore the Civil Miscellaneous         appeals<\/p>\n
175\/2000 and 239\/2000 are disposed of with a direction to the trial<\/p>\n
court to consider the matters that has been elaborately considered<\/p>\n
by this court in the previous paragraphs of the judgment.<\/p>\n
      The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on<\/p>\n
20.1.2009. The registry is directed to send back the records also as<\/p>\n
early as possible.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE
\nvkm<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Balan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CMA.No. 175 of 2000() 1. BALAN … Petitioner Vs 1. C.M. LEELA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) For Respondent :SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN Dated :09\/12\/2008 O R D E R M.N. KRISHNAN, […]<\/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-154639","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBalan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008 - 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\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Balan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-06T20:01:15+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Balan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-06T20:01:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1464,\"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\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Balan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-06T20:01:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Balan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Balan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008 - 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\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Balan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-06T20:01:15+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Balan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-06T20:01:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008"},"wordCount":1464,"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\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008","name":"Balan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-06T20:01:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/balan-vs-c-m-leela-on-9-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Balan vs C.M. Leela on 9 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/154639","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=154639"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/154639\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=154639"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=154639"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=154639"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}