{"id":17264,"date":"2005-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005"},"modified":"2017-08-08T15:06:45","modified_gmt":"2017-08-08T09:36:45","slug":"christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B.P.Singh<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B.P. Singh, Arun Kumar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  875 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nCHRISTOPHER BARLA                         \n\nRESPONDENT:\nBASUDEV NAIK(D) BY LRS.                     \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/01\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nB.P. SINGH &amp; ARUN KUMAR    \n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>B.P.Singh,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High<br \/>\nCourt of Orissa at Cuttack dated October 22, 1992, in Second Appeal No.188 of 1981.  The<br \/>\nplaintiff is the appellant whose suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge in Title Suit No.2 of<br \/>\n1977 by judgment and decree of 27th September, 1979.  The District Judge, Sundargarh,<br \/>\nhowever, in Title Appeal No.23\/79 dated 10th April, 1981 reversed the decision of the trial court<br \/>\nand dismissed the suit.  The Second Appeal appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed.<br \/>\nThis appeal has been preferred by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe case of the appellant is that one Sanatan Kalo of Mouza Sundargarh had three<br \/>\nsons namely, Kunu, Benudhar and Somnath.  Sanatan Kalo as well as his sons are all dead.<br \/>\nKunu had three sons namely, Ratnakar, Raghunath and Pitambar, while Benudhar also had<br \/>\nthree sons namely, Sadasiv, Dhaneswar and Binod.  The third son namely, Somnath had two<br \/>\nsons namely, Kanhei and Purna.  In the Mukherjee Settlement which took place  prior to 1972<br \/>\nthe plot in question was recorded in Khata No.12 of Mouza Sundargarh in the names of Kunu<br \/>\nand Benudhar, sons of Sanatan Kalo and Kanhei and Purna, sons of the third son of Sanatan<br \/>\nKalo namely, Somnath.  The land measured 33 decimals in plot No.824.  This corresponds to Hal<br \/>\nPlot No.61 measuring as 0.270 decimals in Khata No.371 of the Hal Settlement, which we are told<br \/>\ntook place after 1972.  In the aforesaid  settlement, the land in question was recorded jointly in<br \/>\nthe names of the sons of Kunu, Benudhar and Somnath.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the lands from Sadasiv, Dhaneswar and<br \/>\nBinod, sons of Benudhar by registered sale deed dated 12th  January, 1972.  It may here be<br \/>\nnoticed that Sanatan Kalo was the member of a scheduled tribe and the appellant was also a<br \/>\nmember of a scheduled tribe.  According to the appellant, after the execution of the sale deed he<br \/>\ncame in possession of the suit plot and the same was fenced by him and he continued in<br \/>\nenjoyment of the said plot.  However, in the year 1976 the defendant claims to have purchased<br \/>\nthe land from Raghunath, one of the sons of Kunu under a registered sale deed dated 4th<br \/>\nFebruary, 1976.  It is not disputed that the defendant is not a tribal and he obtained the property<br \/>\nin question from a tribal with the prior permission of the competent authority under the relevant<br \/>\nRegulation namely, Orissa Regulation No.2 of 1956.  After obtaining the sale deed the defendant<br \/>\nrespondent is alleged to have forcibly evicted the appellant from the plot in question.  This led<br \/>\nthe appellant to file a suit for recovery of  possession on the basis of his title.<br \/>\n\tThe parties led evidence before the learned Subordinate Judge who decreed the suit.<br \/>\nOn appeal, the learned District Judge, Sundargarh set aside the aforesaid judgment and decree<br \/>\nand dismissed the suit.  The High Court in second appeal found that the question as to whether<br \/>\nthe land in question fell to the share of Kunu or Benudhar, the sons of original holder Sanstan<br \/>\nKalo being a pure question of fact, there was no reason for the High Court to set aside this<br \/>\nfinding of fact which was based on evidence on record.  The appellant has impugned the<br \/>\naforesaid judgment and order of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the High Court<br \/>\nitself noticed the fact that the onus had been wrongly placed on the plaintiff to prove his title,<br \/>\nand that the appellate court did not even look into the evidence led by the defendant.  The<br \/>\nsubmission is that since both the parties had led evidence on the question as to whether in the<br \/>\noral partition of the year 1941 the plot in question fell to the share of Kunu or Benudhar, the<br \/>\nappellate court ought to have looked into the evidence adduced by both the parties and it was not<br \/>\njustified in merely examining the evidence produced by the plaintiff and not the evidence<br \/>\nadduced by the defendant.  Having noticed this fact the High Court initially thought that the<br \/>\nmatter may have to be remanded, but on further consideration the High Court wanted  to be<br \/>\nsatisfied as to whether there was any evidence adduced by the defendant, which if accepted,<br \/>\nwould have supported the case of the plaintiff.  The High Court, therefore, called upon the<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant to point out any particular evidence adduced by the defendant which<br \/>\nwould necessitate the disturbance of the finding of fact recorded by the appellate court.  The<br \/>\nHigh Court has further noticed  the insistence of the counsel for the appellant to consider the<br \/>\nreasoning given by the appellate court while rejecting the evidence led on behalf of the plaintiff.<br \/>\nHowever, the High Court was of the view that in second appeal it was not permissible for the<br \/>\nHigh Court to do so, unless the case fell within the one of  those categories of cases where the<br \/>\nHigh Court may be justified in looking  at the evidence afresh.  The mere fact that on<br \/>\nappreciation  of the evidence the appellate court came to record a finding from which it may be<br \/>\npossible to differ, was not a sufficient ground for interfering in second appeal.<br \/>\n\tOut of deference for counsel for the appellant who wanted  us to look at the evidence<br \/>\nadduced by the defendant, we permitted him to place before us the material on record, including<br \/>\nthe evidence, which according to him was adduced by the defendant but supported the case of<br \/>\nthe plaintiff.  Having gone through the evidence shown to us, we are satisfied that the aforesaid<br \/>\nevidence does not in any manner support the case of the plaintiff-appellant.  Admittedly, the<br \/>\npartition of the year 1941 was not reduced to writing and, therefore, the courts had necessarily to<br \/>\ndepend on the oral evidence on record.  The entries in the record of rights do not support the<br \/>\ncase either of the plaintiff or the defendant because in the Mukherjee Settlement, the lands are<br \/>\nrecorded in the names of the two sons of the original owner namely, Sanatan Kalo, and two<br \/>\ngrand-sons being the sons of the third son of the original owner.  Neither the plaintiff nor the<br \/>\ndefendant can derive any advantage from such an entry.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSo far as Hal Settlement is concerned, the entry is in the names of the grand-sons of<br \/>\nthe original owner Sanatan Kalo.  So far as the plaintiff-appellant is concerned, he has been<br \/>\nshown as being in unauthorised occupation of the plot in question.  The fact that the appellant-<br \/>\nplaintiff was found to be in unauthorised possession is of no help to him, as it does not support<br \/>\nhis title to the plot in question.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tLearned counsel then drew our attention to the provisions of the Orissa Regulation<br \/>\nNo.2 of 1956 particularly, to Regulation 7 and submitted that in any proceeding under the<br \/>\naforesaid Regulation if the transfer or relinquishment of immovable property is called in<br \/>\nquestion, the burden of proof that such transfer or relinquishment was valid shall,<br \/>\nnotwithstanding anything  contained in any other law for the time being in force, lies on the<br \/>\ntransferee.  We fail to understand how Regulation 7(2) helps the case of the appellant-plaintiff.<br \/>\nThe aforesaid Regulation deals with transfer of immovable property within a scheduled area by<br \/>\na member of a scheduled tribe.  Except in a case where the member of a scheduled tribe<br \/>\ntransfers land in favour of another member of a scheduled tribe, the previous consent in writing<br \/>\nof the competent authority is necessary to give validity to such a transfer.  The Regulation<br \/>\nprovides the manner in which proceedings may be taken for setting aside such a transfer, and<br \/>\nthe penalty that may be imposed in certain cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe instant case is not a case where the question of validity of a transfer is in issue.<br \/>\nIn the instant case, the appellant-plaintiff claims to have purchased the property from one of the<br \/>\nsons of  Sanatan Kalo, namely, Benudhar, claiming that in the oral partition of 1941 this plot fell<br \/>\nto the share of Benudhar.  On the other hand, the defendants claim to have purchased the same<br \/>\nplot of land from Raghunath, son of Kunu, another son of Sanatan Kalo, claiming that the plot in<br \/>\nquestion fell to the share of Kunu in the partition of the year 1941.  There could be no challenge<br \/>\nto either of the transfers under Regulation 2 of 1956 because the transfer in favour of the<br \/>\nplaintiff being a transfer in favour of a member of a scheduled tribe did not offend the said<br \/>\nRegulation, and the transfer in favour of the defendant was in accordance with the Regulation<br \/>\nsince previous consent of the competent authority was obtained.  The sole question, therefore,<br \/>\nwhich fell for consideration was whether in  the partition of the year 1941 the plot in question fell<br \/>\nto the share of Kunu as claimed by the defendant, or to the share of Benudhar as claimed by the<br \/>\nappellant.  Such a question has necessarily to be decided on the basis of evidence on record and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the High Court was justified in holding that the finding of fact recorded by the District<br \/>\nJudge namely, that the appellant had failed to prove that the plot in question fell to the share of<br \/>\nBenudhar and, therefore, he derived no valid title from him, was a pure finding of fact based on<br \/>\nevidence on record  which did not deserve interference in second appeal.  We find no reason to<br \/>\ntake a different view.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThis appeal is, therefore, dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005 Author: B.P.Singh Bench: B.P. Singh, Arun Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 875 of 1998 PETITIONER: CHRISTOPHER BARLA RESPONDENT: BASUDEV NAIK(D) BY LRS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/01\/2005 BENCH: B.P. SINGH &amp; ARUN KUMAR JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N [&hellip;]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17264","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-08T09:36:45+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\\\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-08T09:36:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":1637,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005\",\"name\":\"Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-08T09:36:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-08T09:36:45+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\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-08T09:36:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005"},"wordCount":1637,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005","name":"Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-08T09:36:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/christopher-barla-vs-basudev-naikd-by-lrs-on-27-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Christopher Barla vs Basudev Naik(D) By Lrs on 27 January, 2005"}]},{"@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\/17264","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=17264"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17264\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17264"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17264"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17264"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}