{"id":162012,"date":"2010-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010"},"modified":"2018-03-09T11:12:48","modified_gmt":"2018-03-09T05:42:48","slug":"devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010","title":{"rendered":"Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 818 of 1994(E)\n\n\n\n1. DEVADAS GLADIS REENI VAYALA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. M.A.SAMUEL\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.HARILAL\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :22\/07\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                          P. BHAVADASAN, J.\n               - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                          S.A. No. 818 of 1994\n              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n              Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2010.\n\n                                 JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
            The plaintiff in O.S.29 of 1980 before the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s Court, Punalur, who had his suit dismissed by<\/p>\n
both the courts below, are the appellants.<\/p>\n
            2. The plaintiffs are the children of the 4th and<\/p>\n
5th defendants. First and second defendants are brothers<\/p>\n
and the third defendant is the son of the first defendant.<\/p>\n
According to the plaintiffs, the plaint schedule properties,<\/p>\n
which consist of two items were acquired in their name<\/p>\n
while they were minors as per Exts.A1 and A2 dated<\/p>\n
21.12.1964 and 29.12.1964 respectively. The funds were<\/p>\n
supplied by their               grand father.                 Even since the<\/p>\n
acquisition, the fourth defendant, the father of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs, had been managing the properties on behalf of<\/p>\n
the minor plaintiffs.              They were in possession and<\/p>\n
enjoyment of the property. According to the plaintiffs, a<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
dispute arose between defendants 1 and 2 on the one hand<\/p>\n
and the employee, defendant No.4, on the other hand.<\/p>\n
Defendnts 1 to 3 trespassed into the property in 1974 and<\/p>\n
reduced it into their possession. They began to take income<\/p>\n
from the property. They destroyed the boundaries of the<\/p>\n
properties. As stated earlier, the fourth defendant was the<\/p>\n
employee of defendants 1 to 3. There were some major<\/p>\n
disputes between them and ultimately the fourth defendant<\/p>\n
was awarded a compensation of Rs.18,000\/-.         Thereafter<\/p>\n
defendants 4 and 5 with their children shifted their residence<\/p>\n
from the estate bunglow. That enabled defendants 1 to 3 to<\/p>\n
occupy the property completely.       The fourth defendant<\/p>\n
therefore instituted O.S. 195 of 1974 on behalf of the minors<\/p>\n
for necessary reliefs. According to the plaintiffs, the fourth<\/p>\n
and fifth defendants did not conduct the suit properly and<\/p>\n
were negligent in that regard. The result was that the suit<\/p>\n
happened to be dismissed. The fourth and fifth defendants<\/p>\n
did not produce the necessary documents and did not take<\/p>\n
the necessary steps to prosecute the suit properly. Since<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
they were negligent and had misconducted themselves, it is<\/p>\n
alleged that the decree in O.S. 195 of 1974 is not binding on<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs. Pointing out that the defendants 1 to 3 have<\/p>\n
no manner of right over the suit property, and they are in<\/p>\n
illegal possession, the suit was laid.\n<\/p>\n
             3. Defendants 1 to 3 resisted the suit.    They<\/p>\n
pointed out that the suit is a fraudulent and vexatious one.<\/p>\n
After having met defeat in the earlier adventure, which was<\/p>\n
hotly contested and fought till the end, an ingenious method<\/p>\n
has now been devised to re-agitate the issue. They pointed<\/p>\n
out that the description of the plaint schedule properties is<\/p>\n
incorrect and the plaintiffs have no right over the property.<\/p>\n
The properties scheduled to the plaint is a portion of the<\/p>\n
YMCA Estate, which belonged to the family of defendants 1<\/p>\n
to 3. The suit is barred by the principle of res judicata.<\/p>\n
Even if the plaintiffs had any manner of right over the suit<\/p>\n
property, the same is lost by adverse possession and<\/p>\n
limitation. Based on these contentions, they prayed for a<\/p>\n
dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
             4. The trial court raised necessary issues for<\/p>\n
consideration.    The evidence consists of the testimony of<\/p>\n
P.Ws. 1 to 9 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A68<\/p>\n
from the side of the plaintiffs. The defendants had D.Ws. 1<\/p>\n
to 3 examined and Exts. B1 to B55 marked. Exts. C1 to C6<\/p>\n
are the various reports and plans filed by the Commissioner.<\/p>\n
             5. On going through the materials, the trial court<\/p>\n
found that the claim that the earlier litigation     was mis-<\/p>\n
conducted and the fourth defendant was negligent is not<\/p>\n
correct and all necessary steps had been taken in the earlier<\/p>\n
litigation. It is found that the present suit is barred by the<\/p>\n
principle of res judicata since the same issues as were<\/p>\n
settled in the earlier suit are sought to be re-agitated in the<\/p>\n
present suit. The trial court went on further to ascertain<\/p>\n
whether the plaintiffs have proved their case on facts. On<\/p>\n
an elaborate consideration of the evidence, the trial court<\/p>\n
found that the fate of their case is the same in the earlier<\/p>\n
case and that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to get the<\/p>\n
suit properties identified and accordingly dismissed the suit.<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
             6. The plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal as<\/p>\n
A.S.74 of 1992 before the District Court, Kollam. The lower<\/p>\n
appellate court reconsidered the issues agitated in the suit<\/p>\n
and found that none of the claims put forward by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are sustainable. The said court too found that the<\/p>\n
earlier litigation was keenly contested and there were<\/p>\n
nothing to show that the decree passed in the earlier suit,<\/p>\n
namely, O.S. 195 of 1974, which was laid on behalf of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs herein was vitiated due to any reason. Like the<\/p>\n
trial court, the lower appellate court too felt that in the<\/p>\n
fitness of things it will be only proper to consider the merits<\/p>\n
also of the case and went on to do so. The result was that<\/p>\n
the lower appellate court too found that the conclusions<\/p>\n
reached by the trial court are fully justified. Faced with this<\/p>\n
concurrent findings against them, the plaintiffs have now<\/p>\n
come up before this court.\n<\/p>\n
             7. During the pendency of the appeal, the first<\/p>\n
respondent died and his legal heirs have been brought on<\/p>\n
the party array.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
             8. The following substantial questions of law have<\/p>\n
been raised in this Second Appeal:\n<\/p>\n
                 “i) Is not the finding that the decree in<\/p>\n
      O.S. 195 of 1974 is not liable to be set aside on<\/p>\n
      the ground of misconduct and gross negligence of<\/p>\n
      the next friend in the matter of prosecuting the<\/p>\n
      case contrary to law?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 ii)  Is not the finding that this suit is<\/p>\n
      barred by res judicata by the judgments and the<\/p>\n
      decree in O.S. 195 of 1974 vitiated by error of<\/p>\n
      law?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 iii)   Is the finding on the issue of<\/p>\n
      plaintiffs title to and possession of the plaint<\/p>\n
      schedule property sustainable in law. Is not the<\/p>\n
      said finding vitiated by the omission to apply the<\/p>\n
      correct principles of law relating to interpretation<\/p>\n
      of deeds and by misreading of the evidence?”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants<\/p>\n
vehemently contended that the plaintiffs are entitled to<\/p>\n
avoid the decree in O.S. 195 of 1974 as confirmed in A.S. 45<\/p>\n
of 1978 since the suit was not properly conducted by their<\/p>\n
guardian, namely, the fourth defendant in the present suit.<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                  7<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The negligence and mis-conduct on the part of the guardian<\/p>\n
jeopardized the interests of the minors.        According to<\/p>\n
learned counsel, in the decision reported in Narayanan<\/p>\n
Nambooripad v. Gopalan Nair<\/a> (1960 KLT 546) it has<\/p>\n
been held that once it is found that        there has been<\/p>\n
misconduct on the part of the guardian, the decree can be<\/p>\n
avoided. Learned counsel also went on to contend that the<\/p>\n
courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence on<\/p>\n
record and have been carried away by certain observations<\/p>\n
in the earlier suit and that has resulted in miscarriage of<\/p>\n
justice. A proper analysis of the documents will clearly show<\/p>\n
that they have succeeded in establishing the title to the<\/p>\n
suit property and they are entitled to the reliefs prayed for.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel characterized the decision of the courts<\/p>\n
below as based on conjunctures and surmises.        Both the<\/p>\n
courts below have grievously erred in finding that the<\/p>\n
identity of the property has not been established.      If the<\/p>\n
courts below have perused the various documents of title<\/p>\n
produced by the plaintiffs, such an error would not have<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
occurred. Finally, learned counsel contended that viewed<\/p>\n
from any angle, the judgments and decrees of      the  courts<\/p>\n
below are clearly unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
             10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
contesting respondents pointed out that there is absolutely<\/p>\n
no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants. There<\/p>\n
is absolutely no evidence at all to show that there was any<\/p>\n
misconduct on the part       of  the  guardian,  which    had<\/p>\n
jeopardized the rights of minors and it enables them to avoid<\/p>\n
the decree in the earlier suit. Learned counsel drew the<\/p>\n
attention of this court to Exts.B32 and 34, which are the<\/p>\n
judgments in the earlier suit and appeal and pointed out that<\/p>\n
a reading of those judgments will show that all efforts have<\/p>\n
been made by the guardian to establish the rights of the<\/p>\n
minors.     Learned counsel also pointed out that details of<\/p>\n
negligence or misconduct are not available from the<\/p>\n
pleadings. Misconduct involves a mental element or wilful<\/p>\n
act, which obliges a person to act in a particular manner.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel pointed out that there is no case for the<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiffs in the present suit that their guardian, the fourth<\/p>\n
defendant, had colluded with the defendants in the earlier<\/p>\n
suit, so as to defeat the claims of the present plaintiffs.<\/p>\n
Except for producing some more documents, the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
have done nothing more in the present suit also. In this suit<\/p>\n
also, the courts below have considered the evidence in<\/p>\n
detail and have come to the conclusion that the fate of this<\/p>\n
case is no better than the earlier case. In the present suit<\/p>\n
also, like in the earlier suit, the plaintiffs were unable to<\/p>\n
establish the title to the property and so also the identity of<\/p>\n
the property. A reading of the commission report in this<\/p>\n
case is sufficient to show that the claims made by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs are false and hollow. A perusal of the documents<\/p>\n
produced also shows it is really the fourth defendant who<\/p>\n
was behind the whole proceedings and he even now claims<\/p>\n
the property as his own.\n<\/p>\n
             11.  After hearing both sides and after going<\/p>\n
through the records and the evidence in the case, this court<\/p>\n
is constrained to observe that the suit is a typical instance<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                  10<\/span><\/p>\n
of gross abuse of process of court and the suit is<\/p>\n
misconstrued and vexatious. The reasons follow.<\/p>\n
             12.  At the outset itself, one aspect may be<\/p>\n
noticed. In the courts below, the plaintiffs seem to have<\/p>\n
placed reliance on Order XXXII Rule 3A of Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure to avoid the earlier decree. The said provision<\/p>\n
reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
             “3-A. Decree against minor not to be<\/p>\n
      set aside unless prejudice has been caused<\/p>\n
      to his interests.- (1) No decree passed against<\/p>\n
      minor shall be set aside merely on the ground that<\/p>\n
      the next friend or guardian     for the suit of the<\/p>\n
      minor had an interest in the subject matter of the<\/p>\n
      suit adverse to that of the minor, but the fact that<\/p>\n
      by reason of such adverse interest of the next<\/p>\n
      friend or guardian for the suit, prejudice has been<\/p>\n
      caused to the interests of the minor, shall be<\/p>\n
      ground for setting aside the decree.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             (2) Nothing in this rule shall preclude the<\/p>\n
      minor from obtaining any relief available under<\/p>\n
      any law by reason of the misconduct or gross<\/p>\n
      negligence on the part of the next friend or<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
      guardian for the suit resulting in prejudice to the<\/p>\n
      interest of the minor.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
It is interesting to note that on going through the judgment<\/p>\n
of the court below it can be seen that before the courts<\/p>\n
below the effort taken by the plaintiffs was to show that<\/p>\n
their guardian had been negligent in the conduct of the<\/p>\n
earlier suit and therefore they had suffered.      Surprisingly<\/p>\n
enough, before this court that line of argument is not<\/p>\n
pursued and the plea changed to one of misconduct.<\/p>\n
Therefore, one can see that a totally different ground is<\/p>\n
taken before this court to avoid the earlier decree.<\/p>\n
             13. A reading of the provision narrated above will<\/p>\n
show that the two grounds on which the decree can be<\/p>\n
avoided are ‘negligence’ or ‘misconduct’ on the part of the<\/p>\n
guardian. There is a distinction between ‘negligence’ and<\/p>\n
‘misconduct’.      ‘ Gross Negligence’ is omission to do<\/p>\n
something or doing something which he is not supposed to<\/p>\n
do. ‘Misconduct’ on the other hand involves a slight element<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                  12<\/span><\/p>\n
of intention to do something wrong. The word ‘misconduct’<\/p>\n
takes its colour from its context. In Black’s Law Dictionary,<\/p>\n
‘misconduct’ is defined as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “Misconduct.         A   transgression    of   some<\/p>\n
      established and definite rule of action, a forbidden<\/p>\n
      act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior,<\/p>\n
      willful in character, improper or wrong behavior,<\/p>\n
      its    synonyms    are  mis-demeanor,      misdeed,<\/p>\n
      misbehaviour,         delinquency,        propriety,<\/p>\n
      mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or<\/p>\n
      carelessness. Term “misconduct” when applied to<\/p>\n
      act of attorney, implies dishonest act or attempt<\/p>\n
      to persuade court or jury by use of deceptive or<\/p>\n
      reprehensible methods.      People v. Sigal, 249<\/p>\n
      C.A.2d 299, 57 Cal.Rptr. 541, 549.      Misconduct,<\/p>\n
      which renders discharged employee ineligible for<\/p>\n
      unemployment       compensation,     occurs    when<\/p>\n
      conduct of employee evinces willful or wanton<\/p>\n
      disregard of employer’s interest, as in deliberate<\/p>\n
      violations, or disregard of standards of behavior<\/p>\n
      which employer has right to expect of his<\/p>\n
      employees, or in carelessness or negligence of<\/p>\n
      such degree or recurrence as to manifest wrongful<\/p>\n
      intent or evil design.”\n<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                    13<\/span><\/p>\n
              14.    As already noticed, before this court<\/p>\n
negligence has given way to misconduct.             What is the<\/p>\n
misconduct attributed to the fourth defendant. Misconduct<\/p>\n
is that the fourth defendant did not take adequate steps to<\/p>\n
produce the necessary documents to protect the interests of<\/p>\n
the minors. Since negligence was the weapon used before<\/p>\n
the courts below, they considered the issues from that<\/p>\n
angle.      On hearing counsel for the appellants, the facts<\/p>\n
relied on in support of negligence and misconduct are one<\/p>\n
and the same. That itself shows the hollowness of the claim.<\/p>\n
              15. It can be seen that both the courts below have<\/p>\n
considered all the aspects of the case in considerable detail<\/p>\n
and have considered each of the issues raised before the<\/p>\n
courts below.\n<\/p>\n
              16. One may now refer to the plaint to ascertain<\/p>\n
the pleadings regarding misconduct. In paragraph 8, it is<\/p>\n
mentioned as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “…….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
S.A.818\/1994.                  14<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                                                      1-0<\/p>\n
      2-0 3 -0
\n                     .”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
(The guardian has not conducted the case properly and he<\/p>\n
has been very careless with the result that the case was<\/p>\n
decided against the plaintiffs and that after the preliminary<\/p>\n
report, defendants 1, 2 and 3 have removed survey stones.)<\/p>\n
In paragraph 9, it is stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “1   3<\/p>\n
        4-0 5-0<\/p>\n
               . ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
(Defendants 1 to 3 had influenced the commissioner and<\/p>\n
obtained an incorrect report and the plan prepared and the<\/p>\n
fourth defendant, who was the guardian of the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                    15<\/span><\/p>\n
failed to take necessary steps to have the original plan and<\/p>\n
survey records brought to court and to produce necessary<\/p>\n
evidence and his gross negligence resulted in the case going<\/p>\n
against the minors.)<\/p>\n
             17. It is further stated that the fourth defendant<\/p>\n
did not take steps to have the property properly identified.<\/p>\n
In paragraph 11 it is stated that frightened of defendants 1<\/p>\n
to 3 the fourth defendant and fifth defendant could not come<\/p>\n
to the place and due to gross negligence and fraud the<\/p>\n
decision happened to go against the plaintiffs. Except the<\/p>\n
above bald statements, no other particulars are given in the<\/p>\n
plaint. One must at once notice that no oblique motive is<\/p>\n
attributed to defendants 4 and 5. There is no allegation that<\/p>\n
they had acted in that manner with the intention to cause<\/p>\n
loss to the plaintiffs.      It can be easily seen that the<\/p>\n
allegations are vague and do not contain necessary<\/p>\n
particulars. It is well settled that in cases where vitiating<\/p>\n
circumstances are pleaded, details ought to be given. That<\/p>\n
has not been done in the present case. So also the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
have no case that the fourth defendant had any interest<\/p>\n
adverse to their’s when he represented them in the earlier<\/p>\n
litigation.\n<\/p>\n
             18. One has to notice that even after all the<\/p>\n
above, though the earlier defects are said to have been<\/p>\n
cured in the present suit, the suit suffered the same fate as<\/p>\n
the earlier one and the position of the plaintiffs is no better.<\/p>\n
             19. One may recall that both the courts below did<\/p>\n
not accept the plea of negligence put forward by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs. Except for repeating what has been stated in the<\/p>\n
plaint, P.W.1 says nothing more. She is unable to say what<\/p>\n
are the things the fourth defendant ought to have done to<\/p>\n
protect the interests of the minors. She has no explanation<\/p>\n
as to why her father did not take necessary steps in the<\/p>\n
previous suit.    She has no case that her father had any<\/p>\n
interest adverse to her or her sisters. P.W.8, who is the third<\/p>\n
plaintiff does not say much about the vitiating elements. No<\/p>\n
details whatsoever are available regarding the allegation of<\/p>\n
negligence or misconduct. Going by the averments in the<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                 17<\/span><\/p>\n
plaint, it would appear that the plaintiffs are at logger heads<\/p>\n
with the fourth defendant.     But interestingly enough, the<\/p>\n
evidence is otherwise.     The courts below too found that<\/p>\n
except for producing some more documents now, nothing<\/p>\n
more has been established.      The courts below have also<\/p>\n
gone through the records and found that the earlier<\/p>\n
proceedings was hotly contested and the matter was carried<\/p>\n
in appeal by the fourth defendant. There is absolutely no<\/p>\n
proof of any misconduct, much less gross negligence on the<\/p>\n
part of fourth defendant in the conduct of the earlier suit.<\/p>\n
             20. If that be the position, the present suit is<\/p>\n
barred by the principle of res judicata. There is no dispute<\/p>\n
regarding the fact that the issues raised in the suit are the<\/p>\n
same issues raised in the earlier suit and all the issues were<\/p>\n
considered in the earlier proceedings also.      In the earlier<\/p>\n
proceedings, the courts have rendered decision on all the<\/p>\n
issues on merits and if that be so, the plaintiffs cannot<\/p>\n
re-agitate again.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                    18<\/span><\/p>\n
             21. The above finding is sufficient to dispose of<\/p>\n
this appeal. Since elaborate arguments have been raised on<\/p>\n
merits also, it is felt necessary to go into that aspect also.<\/p>\n
             22. One may at once refer to Ext.C6 commission<\/p>\n
report. The commissioner says that the plots claimed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs have been shown in pencil shade in the plan<\/p>\n
produced by him. But the commissioner has noticed that<\/p>\n
while locating the properties, it is seen that the boundaries<\/p>\n
do not tally. The commissioner clearly states that at the<\/p>\n
time when the survey was conducted in the year 1964, even<\/p>\n
at that point of time the predecessors in interest of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs did not have possession of the property.<\/p>\n
             23. It is seen that after the commissioner has filed<\/p>\n
his report, the plaintiffs had amended the schedule. The<\/p>\n
commissioner has also located the plaint schedule property<\/p>\n
after the amendment. He has observed that there is no road<\/p>\n
either on the north or on the south as claimed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs. The commissioner has also located the properties<\/p>\n
as per the documents and as shown by the plaintiffs. The<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                 19<\/span><\/p>\n
two properties are in two different survey numbers and far<\/p>\n
away from each other.       The trial court as well as the<\/p>\n
appellate court have perused the documents produced by<\/p>\n
both sides and also considered the oral evidence adduced<\/p>\n
by the parties.\n<\/p>\n
             24. Exts.A1 and A2 dated 21.12.1964 and<\/p>\n
29.12.1964 respectively are seen to have been executed by<\/p>\n
Gopala Pillai. From the records it is seen that he claims to<\/p>\n
have obtained 12.24 acres          as per Ext. A35 dated<\/p>\n
17.12.1959 from one Krishna Pillai. That shows that he had<\/p>\n
1.56 acres in Sy. No.808\/1-64, 4.34 acres in Sy. No.808\/1\/65<\/p>\n
and 6.34 acres in Sy. No.808\/1-66. By Ext.A1 document 2.86<\/p>\n
acres in Sy. No.808\/1-64 has been      conveyed and as per<\/p>\n
Ext.A2 14 cents in Sy. No.188\/1-65. It is interesting to note<\/p>\n
that neither in Ext.A1 nor in Ext.A2 there is a recital that the<\/p>\n
vendor had possession of the property and the possession<\/p>\n
handed over to the vendees.        The prior documents are<\/p>\n
Exts.B33, 34 and 35. On a careful scrutiny, it can be seen<\/p>\n
that the property shown as per Exts.A1 and A2 is the<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                    20<\/span><\/p>\n
property acquired by Ext.B35 by Gopala Pillai. It can also be<\/p>\n
seen that going by the documents, the property covered by<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 is lying on the western side of the total 12.24 acres<\/p>\n
covered by Ext.B35. Going by the description it can be seen<\/p>\n
that the properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2 are lying<\/p>\n
separately.\n<\/p>\n
             25. The evidence of P.W.3, the Head Surveyor,<\/p>\n
who prepared Ext.C1 plan will show that as per the survey<\/p>\n
records Gopala Pillai had never been in possession of the<\/p>\n
properties. The contesting defendants have produced field<\/p>\n
plan as Ext.B10. There was an attempt from the side of the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs to show that the recital in the document of title as<\/p>\n
Ext.B2 is wrong. Even assuming that there is some error in<\/p>\n
the description, one fails to understand how that would help<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
             26. The plaintiffs are suing on their title. It is trite<\/p>\n
that in such state of affairs the entire burden is on the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs to prove his title and any weakness in the defence<\/p>\n
case cannot be of any help to him. Both the courts below<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                  21<\/span><\/p>\n
have found that going by the documents, evidence of the<\/p>\n
Commissioner and the Survey Superintendent, it is not<\/p>\n
possible to identify the properties covered by Exts.A1 and<\/p>\n
A2. The survey numbers are also not discernible.             On<\/p>\n
perusing the records, the findings appear to be correct. It is<\/p>\n
interesting to note that even after the amendment was<\/p>\n
carried out to bring it in consonance with the report, still the<\/p>\n
position remained the same.\n<\/p>\n
             27. P.W.3 is the Survey Superintendent. He has<\/p>\n
deposed that he has located the properties comprised in Sy.<\/p>\n
Nos. 20\/A2, 30A\/2, 38\/A2, 29\/76, which are the amended<\/p>\n
survey numbers in the plaint. He had deposed that he had<\/p>\n
scrutinized the documents produced by both sides.            His<\/p>\n
evidence shows that on scrutiny of the documents produced<\/p>\n
by the plaintiffs and while locating the property as claimed<\/p>\n
by the plaintiffs, only one of the boundaries tallied. He has<\/p>\n
deposed that the road made mention of in Exts.A1 and A2 as<\/p>\n
its northern boundary does not exist at all. He has also<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                   22<\/span><\/p>\n
deposed that the plaintiffs had purchased the property after<\/p>\n
re-survey had been conducted.\n<\/p>\n
             28. P.W.4 is the Commissioner, who was deputed<\/p>\n
to inspect the property in O.S. 195 of 1974.         He would<\/p>\n
depose that it was he who had submitted Ext.A30 report.<\/p>\n
             29. P.W.5 is the commissioner in the present suit.<\/p>\n
He speaks about having prepared three plans and reports<\/p>\n
and gives details about them. It is not necessary to narrate<\/p>\n
his evidence in detail. However, he would depose that the<\/p>\n
plaint was amended to bring it in consonance with his<\/p>\n
report. Ext.C4 is the report and Ext.C5 is the mahazar filed<\/p>\n
by him. He deposed that the schedule shown in the plaint<\/p>\n
are different from the schedule shown in Exts.A1 and A2.<\/p>\n
His evidence would show that it is not possible to locate the<\/p>\n
properties as claimed by the plaintiffs. One fact is very clear<\/p>\n
that after the amendment has been effected, the schedule<\/p>\n
shown in the plaint does not tally with the schedule shown in<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 and A2. The lower appellate court also noticed that<\/p>\n
there is a difference in the description of the property<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                    23<\/span><\/p>\n
between the earlier suit and the present suit.         On going<\/p>\n
through the records, it appears to be correct. The assertion<\/p>\n
of P.W.8, who is the third plaintiff is that both the properties<\/p>\n
lie contiguously.     But the evidence shows otherwise.        A<\/p>\n
perusal of Ext.C2 report would show that the properties in<\/p>\n
Sy. No. 808\/1\/65 for a long time has been in the possession<\/p>\n
of a stranger, who has nothing to do with the case. It is also<\/p>\n
shown that going by the description of the properties in<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 and A2, it is difficult to locate the properties.<\/p>\n
             30. A perusal of Ext.B6 partition deed shows that<\/p>\n
the western boundary of Ramachandra Rao’s property is<\/p>\n
YMCA Estate. That deed was executed in 1966. If that be<\/p>\n
so, the story of the plaintiffs that defendants 1 to 3 have<\/p>\n
trespassed into the property in 1974 falls to the ground.<\/p>\n
             31. It is significant to notice that the assigner of<\/p>\n
the plaintiffs, namely, Gopala Pillai has executed as many<\/p>\n
as ten documents in respect of the properties over which he<\/p>\n
had no possession.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.818\/1994.                    24<\/span><\/p>\n
             The net result is that the present suit also suffers<\/p>\n
from the infirmities and defects as in the earlier suit and the<\/p>\n
position of the plaintiffs is not better. Plaintiffs have not<\/p>\n
established their claim to the suit property and the courts<\/p>\n
below were fully justified in dismissing the suit. This appeal<\/p>\n
is without merits and it is dismissed with costs to the<\/p>\n
contesting respondents.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                            P. BHAVADASAN,
\n                                                 JUDGE<\/p>\n
sb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 818 of 1994(E) 1. DEVADAS GLADIS REENI VAYALA … Petitioner Vs 1. M.A.SAMUEL … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN For Respondent :SRI.K.HARILAL The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN Dated :22\/07\/2010 O R D E R […]<\/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-162012","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDevadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 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\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-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=\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-09T05:42:48+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-09T05:42:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4079,\"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\\\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010\",\"name\":\"Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-09T05:42:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 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":"Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 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\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-09T05:42:48+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-09T05:42:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010"},"wordCount":4079,"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\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010","name":"Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-09T05:42:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devadas-gladis-reeni-vayala-vs-m-a-samuel-on-22-july-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Devadas Gladis Reeni Vayala vs M.A.Samuel on 22 July, 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\/162012","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=162012"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162012\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162012"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162012"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162012"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}