{"id":155436,"date":"2009-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2"},"modified":"2018-06-06T11:48:36","modified_gmt":"2018-06-06T06:18:36","slug":"ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Ouseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ouseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 707 of 1999(B)\n\n\n\n1. OUSEPH\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. ALEY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.B.SURESH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :19\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                      HARUN-UL-RASHID,J.\n                 ---------------------------\n                        A.S.NO. OF 2005\n                  ---------------------------\n              DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
             The lst defendant in O.S.No.344\/93 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Sub Court, Kottayam is the appellant. The appeal is directed<\/p>\n
against the judgment and decree dated 6\/6\/1998. The suit was<\/p>\n
filed for partition. The plaint schedule property having an extent<\/p>\n
of one acre and virivu belonged to late Chacko. The lst plaintiff<\/p>\n
is the wife of late Chacko, the 2nd plaintiff is their daughter and<\/p>\n
the lst defendant is the son of late Chacko born through his first<\/p>\n
wife. It is the plaintiff’s case that the deceased Chacko married<\/p>\n
the lst plaintiff on 30\/5\/1960 and Chacko died on 30\/5\/1972. The<\/p>\n
plaintiffs claimed 2\/3 share over the plaint schedule property.<\/p>\n
The trial court passed a preliminary decree dividing the property<\/p>\n
into three equal shares and declared that the plaintiffs are entitled<\/p>\n
to get 2\/3 share and the lst defendant is entitled to get 1\/3 share.<\/p>\n
             2. The lst defendant resisted the suit contending that<\/p>\n
                               -2-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.707\/1999<\/p>\n
he was cultivating the property for the last number of years, that<\/p>\n
late Chacko became a T.B. patient in the year 1950 and therefore<\/p>\n
he could not do any work and that it was this defendant, who<\/p>\n
cultivated and improved the property and effected valuable<\/p>\n
improvements by planting coconut trees, arecanut trees, jack<\/p>\n
trees, teak trees, pepper wines, rubber trees etc. According to<\/p>\n
him, he has constructed kayyalas on all sides and put up a<\/p>\n
residential building worth not less than Rs.2 = lakhs. After the<\/p>\n
construction of the building he was residing in the property with<\/p>\n
his wife and the deceased Chacko was residing far away from the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule property at Kanjiramattam. It is also averred that<\/p>\n
the defendant’s mother died when he was about 4 years old.<\/p>\n
While his father was living as a widower, he happened to come in<\/p>\n
contact with the lst plaintiff Aley, who is a widow having two<\/p>\n
daughters, and married her. After the marriage, the lst plaintiff<\/p>\n
came to know that late Chacko was a T.B. patient and therefor<\/p>\n
she left Chacko and started living with one Mathai, who is also a<\/p>\n
widower having children.\n<\/p>\n
                                 -3-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.707\/1999<\/p>\n
             3. The evidence in this case consists of depositions<\/p>\n
of PW1, DW1 to DW4, Exts.A1 to A4 and X1 and X2.\n<\/p>\n
             4. The lst plaintiff is the 2nd wife of deceased Ouseph<\/p>\n
Chacko. According to the lst plaintiff, the 2nd plaintiff is the<\/p>\n
daughter born to her and Chacko. Chacko died on 30\/5\/1972.<\/p>\n
According to her, the plaintiffs and the lst defendant are the legal<\/p>\n
heirs entitled to inherit the property of deceased Chacko. It is the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs’ case that the lst plaintiff has married Chacko on<\/p>\n
30\/5\/1960 and the marriage was in existence till the death of<\/p>\n
Chacko. Ext.X1 is the photocopy of the marriage register of<\/p>\n
Holy Cross Church. In Ext.X1 register, the marriage between lst<\/p>\n
plaintiff and Chacko was registered and the same was endorsed<\/p>\n
as Serial No.65. From the evidence on record, it is seen that sthe<\/p>\n
lst plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Chacko and the 2nd<\/p>\n
plaintiff daughter was born to them in the wedlock. The trial<\/p>\n
court held that they are entitled to inherit the property belonged<\/p>\n
to the deceased Chacko. The trial court also considered the<\/p>\n
contentions of the lst defendant in detail including the contention<\/p>\n
                                -4-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.707\/1999<\/p>\n
of adverse possession and limitation.       According to the lst<\/p>\n
defendant, his father was a T.B. patient for more than 10 to 20<\/p>\n
years, that he was not able to do any work and so according to<\/p>\n
him, he is in exclusive possession over the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property and even if the plaintiffs are found to be the legal heirs<\/p>\n
of Ouseph Chacko, they are not entitled to inherit the property.<\/p>\n
Ext.A3 is the copy of the sale deed executed by the lst defendant<\/p>\n
in favour of third party. The recitals in Ext.A3 would go to show<\/p>\n
that the lst defendant has alienated the property as the legal heir<\/p>\n
of the deceased Chacko. The trial court considered the evidence<\/p>\n
and rightly held that there is absolutely no evidence to show that<\/p>\n
the possession of the lst defendant was exclusive one as against<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs.  I   find that the evidence adduced by the lst<\/p>\n
defendant is not sufficient to take a different conclusion. There<\/p>\n
is absolutely no evidence to show that he had ever possessed the<\/p>\n
property adverse to the interest of the plaintiffs. The trial court<\/p>\n
also observed that the mere statement that the property has been<\/p>\n
in possession and enjoyment for long time by a party is not at all<\/p>\n
                                 -5-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.707\/1999<\/p>\n
sufficient and that there must be clear, definite and specific<\/p>\n
evidence to prove exclusive possession adverse to the interest of<\/p>\n
the real owner. Having failed to prove that he is enjoying the<\/p>\n
property adverse to the other co owners, the trial court held that<\/p>\n
the possession of the lst defendant over the property was also for<\/p>\n
the interest and benefit of the other legal heirs, namely, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs in the suit. The trial court issued a direction that at the<\/p>\n
time of allotting the shares in the final decree proceedings, the<\/p>\n
property alienated by the lst defendant shall be allotted to his<\/p>\n
share.\n<\/p>\n
             5. The lst defendant has a definite case that since his<\/p>\n
father was a T.B. patient, he has improved the property by<\/p>\n
effecting cultivation and constructed the house situated in the<\/p>\n
property and is living therein with his family.<\/p>\n
             6. The property is available for partition.        It is<\/p>\n
submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that they have<\/p>\n
conveyed their 2\/3 share in favour of the third plaintiff. But the<\/p>\n
sale deed was not produced before the court. In the light of the<\/p>\n
                                 -6-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.707\/1999<\/p>\n
fact that the plaintiffs had alienated their 2\/3 share to the 3rd<\/p>\n
plaintiff and for the reason that they had only alienated their<\/p>\n
share over the property and for the further reason that they had<\/p>\n
not conveyed any right over the residential building in question, a<\/p>\n
modification of the decree and judgment is proper and just in the<\/p>\n
circumstances.\n<\/p>\n
            The appeal is partly allowed. The plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property is liable to be partitioned except the residential building.<\/p>\n
To that extent the preliminary decree is modified. The 2\/3 share<\/p>\n
shall be allotted to the 3rd plaintiff subject to the production of<\/p>\n
sale deed before the final decree court. The residential building<\/p>\n
shall be allotted to the share of the lst defendant. There will be<\/p>\n
no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                    Judge.\n<\/p>\n
kcv.\n<\/p>\n
                   -7-<\/span>
\nA.S.No.707\/1999<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ouseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 707 of 1999(B) 1. OUSEPH … Petitioner Vs 1. ALEY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.SURESH For Respondent :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :19\/10\/2009 O R D E R HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ————————— A.S.NO. OF […]<\/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-155436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nOuseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ouseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-06T06:18:36+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\\\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ouseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-06T06:18:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":1104,\"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\\\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Ouseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-06T06:18:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ouseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ouseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ouseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-06T06:18:36+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\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ouseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-06T06:18:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2"},"wordCount":1104,"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\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2","name":"Ouseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-06T06:18:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ouseph-vs-aley-on-19-october-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ouseph vs Aley on 19 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155436","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=155436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/155436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=155436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=155436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=155436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}