{"id":17965,"date":"2009-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009"},"modified":"2018-03-23T09:28:57","modified_gmt":"2018-03-23T03:58:57","slug":"whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009","title":{"rendered":"Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: K.U. Chandiwal<\/div>\n
                      (1)\n    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n              BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n    SECOND APPEAL NO. 5 OF 1993.\n\n\n    Date of decision: 27TH FEBRUARY, 2009.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                   \n    For approval   and signature\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n         HON'BLE   MR. JUSTICE   K.U.CHANDIWAL\n\n\n\n\n                                        \n    1.   Whether the Reporters of Local Papers ]                Yes\/No\n         may be allowed to see the Judgment    ]\n\n\n\n\n                                  \n    2.   To be referred to the Reporter or not ? ]              Yes\/No\n\n    3.\n                    \n         Whether Their Lordships wish to\n         the fair copy of the Judgment ?\n                                              see         ]\n                                                          ]\n                                                                Yes\/No\n\n\n    4.   Whether this case involves a substantial]              Yes\/No\n                   \n         question of law as to the interpretation]\n         of the Constitution of India, 1950,   or]\n         any order made thereunder ?             ]\n\n    5.   Whether it is to be circulated to       the      ]     Yes\/No\n         Civil Judges ?                                   ]\n      \n\n\n    6.   Whether the case involves an important           ]     Yes\/No\n   \n\n\n\n         question of law and whether a copy of            ]\n         the Order should be sent to   Bombay,            ]\n         Goa and Nagpur Office ?                          ]\n\n\n\n\n\n\n    BD VADNERE\n    (PS Hon'ble Judge)\n\n    uniplex\/agp\/bdv5.93.\n\n\n\n\n                                           ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::\n                         (2)\n\n\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY\n                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD\n\n                     SECOND APPEAL NO.5 OF 1993.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     \n     Shri Hari Kashiram Sonawane\n     Age: 57 Yrs., occu. --\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n     R\/o Shirsad, Tq. Yawal,\n     District Jalgaon, since\n     deceased through legal heirs -\n\n     1A)     Namdeo Hari Sonawane\n\n\n\n\n                                            \n     1B)     Santosh Hari Sonawane\n\n     1C)     Rajendra Hari Sonawane\n\n     1D)     Janabai Hari Sonawane\n\n\n\n\n                                 \n     1E)     Ramabai Suresh Koli\n\n     1F)\n                     \n             Jayavantabai w\/o Keshav\n             Salunke.\n                    \n             All are adults and residents\n             Of Shirasad, Tq. Yawal\n             District Jalgaon.         ..    APPELLANTS\n                                         (Orig.Defendants)\n\n             VERSUS\n      \n\n\n     Shri Vasudeo Hirman Kotil\n   \n\n\n\n     Age:58 Yrs., Resident of\n     Police Khurd, Ta. Yawal\n     District Jalgaon.                  ..           RESPONDENTS.\n                             ...\n\n\n\n\n\n     Mr.A.N.Nagargoje, Adv. h\/for Mr.VJ Dixit, Sr.Counsel\n     for Appellants\n                             ...\n\n                        CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.\n\n                        Date:    27.02.2009.\n\n\n\n\n\n     JUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     .       Heard learned Counsel for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     2)      The      Judgment   and   decree        directing            the<\/p>\n
     defendant     to execute saledeed in favour of             plaintiff<\/p>\n
                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                      (3)<\/span>
\n     (Respondent) is under challenge in Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     3)           The facts of the case are :\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                       \n     .            The        defendant          and his brother Grangaram                   has\n\n     agreed        to        sell        2    acres 4 gunthas        land       for       total\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n     consideration             of        Rs.11,000\/- and plaintiff                  paid      an\n\n<\/pre>\n
     amount of Rs.8,000\/- and he received possession on the<\/p>\n
     next     day        of Registered agreement of                    sale       (Exh.83).\n<\/p>\n
     After 4 years, the plaintiff again paid Rs.500\/- under<\/p>\n
     a receipt (Exhibit-89) to the defendant on 10.03.1977.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n     It     was agreed, the defendant to execute sale deed                                    in\n\n     respect\n\n     from     Collector.\n                              \n<\/pre>\n
                    of suit land after he had obtained permission<\/p>\n
                                         The        application      for       Collector’s<\/p>\n
     permission              remained with plaintiff, since it was                          not<\/p>\n
     submitted           any time.             It is alleged, the defendant was<\/p>\n
     avoiding           to     obtain          the permission.           The      plaintiff<\/p>\n
     asked        defendant          and        his    brother      by      notice        dated<\/p>\n
     30.11.1979 to execute the saledeed.\n<\/p>\n
     4)           Defendant              denied the nature of transaction to<\/p>\n
     be     of sale it as a money lending transaction for loan<\/p>\n
     of     Rs.4,000\/-           but plaintiff showed payment                       for     Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     8,000\/-        allegedly                made at home.       Defendant          was     not<\/p>\n
     absolute           owner of property.                 There could not be              sale<\/p>\n
     of      property,              as       sale     of   agricultural         lands         is<\/p>\n
     prohibited              and Collector’s permission was                     mandatory.\n<\/p>\n
     It     was     a Inam land and sales are prohibited                             due      to<\/p>\n
     implementation             of Bombay Prevention of                    Fragmentation<\/p>\n
     and     Consolidation                   of Holdings, Act.         It     was      agreed<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                            (4)<\/span>
\n     that     to     satisfy the loan amount, the plaintiff                            will<\/p>\n
     collect       the income by yield of the suit land for five<\/p>\n
     years.        Since     plaintiff has enjoyed                 exhausted,           the<\/p>\n
     five     years’       agreed period, defendants do not owe                           to<\/p>\n
     the    plaintiff.          He denied the subsequent Receipt                          of<\/p>\n
     Rs.500\/-        (Exh.89).         The       agreement of          sale      is      not<\/p>\n
     enforceable in law.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     5)          The    learned        Civil       Judge,       Junior        Division,\n\n     framed        23    Issues        as        per     Exhibit-71,            recorded\n\n     plaintiff's        readiness to perform his part of contract\n\n\n\n\n                                                \n     and    accepted the plaintiff's contention for                             specific\n\n     performance        of\n                          ig contract.             The learned\n\n<\/pre>\n
     death of another executant to document is not fatal to
\n                                                                         Judge       felt,<\/p>\n
     transaction.\n<\/p>\n
     6)          The    first     Appellate Court, while                    confirming<\/p>\n
     the    decree,        accepted that defendant and his                       brother<\/p>\n
     has    executed the Agreement of sale, however                             recorded<\/p>\n
     that     7\/12      extract refers half share which is                         84     R.\n<\/p>\n
     and    as     Gangaram       is        no   more,    hence        defendant          is<\/p>\n
     absolute owner of the property.\n<\/p>\n
     7)          The    first Appellate Court recorded, agreement<\/p>\n
     of     sale provided completion of sale within 30 days of<\/p>\n
     permission,        and transaction is not hit by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
     It     found, the suit land could not be said to be                                Inam<\/p>\n
     land and land is not a fragment requiring permission.\n<\/p>\n
     8)          This    Second Appeal was admitted on                        29.1.1993<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                      (5)<\/span>
\n     on following grounds :\n<\/p>\n
     (i)     When there are two persons, who contracted
\n     jointly and if one of them is not brought forth by the
\n     other party to that contract, then, it is the question
\n     of law in respect of the deficiencies of the contract,
\n     agreement of sale, validity of that contract and the<\/p>\n
     enforceability of such contract.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)    Total neglection of the provisions of the<\/p>\n
     Fragmentation Act is also the point of law that can be
\n     decided in the Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     9)      The submission of Counsel for the appellants<\/p>\n
     commenced from 23rd January, 2009 and was adjourned to<\/p>\n
     27th     January, 2009.             On that day, at the instance                of<\/p>\n
     Counsel        for the respondent, it was adjourned to                       28th<\/p>\n
     January,        2009.         The    submission of Counsel            for     the<\/p>\n
     appellant        completed          on 28th January, 2009.             It     was<\/p>\n
     adjourned        to<\/p>\n
                             30.01.2009 at 3.00 p.m.            to     facilitate<\/p>\n
     the     Counsel        for respondent to make his               submissions.\n<\/p>\n
     Again it was adjourned to 3rd February, 2009 as prayed<\/p>\n
     by     both     the Counsels.          However, the matter            was     not<\/p>\n
     attended.         Mr.Nagargoje Counsel for the appellant                        in<\/p>\n
     writing         has     communicated       the      counsel         for       the<\/p>\n
     respondents           about    the     next date.      The       matter       was<\/p>\n
     adjourned        to     5th     February, 2009.       Counsel         for     the<\/p>\n
     respondent was again communicated, however, he did not<\/p>\n
     remain        present.        The matter came to be adjourned                   to<\/p>\n
     9th     February,        2009.        Respondent’s Counsel            did     not<\/p>\n
     attend        the matter.        Again since there was no response<\/p>\n
     from     respondent,          the submissions of         Mr.        Nagargoje<\/p>\n
     were     heard,        the matter came to be adjourned to                    12th<\/p>\n
     Febraury, 2009 under the caption of Judgment.                          On that<\/p>\n
     day, since Counsel for the respondent did not turn up,<\/p>\n
     Mr.      Nagargoje        again made his submissions                informing<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                              (6)<\/span>
\n     non-compliance          of Section 16-C of the Specific Relief<\/p>\n
     Act.      There was written communication to the                               Counsel<\/p>\n
     for     respondent,           but he did not turn up.                 Matter        was<\/p>\n
     adjourned        to     20th February, 2009.                The      noting        date<\/p>\n
     24th     February, indicates that Mr.                     Nagargoje for             the<\/p>\n
     appellant has substantially argued the matter.                                  He has<\/p>\n
     communicated to Mr.                S.R.Barlinge, learned Counsel for<\/p>\n
     the     respondents.             There was no response.               There is no<\/p>\n
     argument        from        the respondents in spite                 of        availing<\/p>\n
     sufficient opportunities and hence the matter was kept<\/p>\n
     for     Judgment on 27th February, 2009 at 2.30 p.m.                                  On<\/p>\n
     27th     February,           2009, the Counsel for the                    respondent<\/p>\n
     did     not<\/p>\n
     pronounced.<\/p>\n
\n                     turn\n                            ig   up,      the    judgment        was\n\n<\/pre>\n
                           The conduct of the respondents Counsel is
\n                                                                          consequently<\/p>\n
     demonstrative           of apathy to appear in old matters                          and<\/p>\n
     the     Court     had        no     option but to         proceed          with     the<\/p>\n
     matter,        with     available material              without           assistance<\/p>\n
     from the respondents Counsel.\n<\/p>\n
     10)        The Registered Agreement of ale in question is<\/p>\n
     dated     28.12.1974,             Receipt    of        Rs.500\/-           is      dated<\/p>\n
     10.3.1977;            Notice was issued on 30.11.1979 and                          suit<\/p>\n
     is     filed     on 22.1.1980.             It is an admitted fact,                  the<\/p>\n
     original        application under signature of defendant and<\/p>\n
     his     brother,        to be submitted to Assistant                       Collector<\/p>\n
     was     with     plaintiff.           Both the Courts held making                     of<\/p>\n
     application           was        a obligation cast on the                 defendant.\n<\/p>\n
     However,        they did not consider that, when application<\/p>\n
     was     collected           by     plaintiff,     it      was      plaintiff          to<\/p>\n
     comply.         The statements of Seller and purchasers                             are<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                               (7)<\/span>
\n     required           before said authority, consequently, casting<\/p>\n
     responsibility               on defendant alone and hence reckoning<\/p>\n
     period        of     limitation from date of notice, was not                          a<\/p>\n
     correct        legal approach.            It more lean to the              fiction<\/p>\n
     of Courts.\n<\/p>\n
     11)          The        Agreement      (Exh.83) specify handing                  over<\/p>\n
     possession           to the plaintiff at the time of sale-deed,<\/p>\n
     still        plaintiff         asserts       to be in        possession        since<\/p>\n
     1974.         Even otherwise, owing to the law in prevalence<\/p>\n
     at    the      material          time,       defendant        could      not     part<\/p>\n
     possession           based      on    agreement         of     sale,       unless,<\/p>\n
     transaction<\/p>\n
     Collector.\n<\/p>\n
                             is    recognized and approved by\n\n                             Section      7(1)     of   Bombay\n                                                                             Assistant\n\n                                                                     Prevention          of\n                            \n<\/pre>\n
     Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947,<\/p>\n
     restricts          to        transfer of any fragment in respect                    of<\/p>\n
     which a notice has been given under sub-section (2) of<\/p>\n
     Section        6     (except         a owner of) a       contiguous            survey<\/p>\n
     number        or recognized sub-division of a survey number;\n<\/p>\n
     The     inhibition            is applicable to even the               Agreement.\n<\/p>\n
     The plaintiff was admittedly not possessing contiguous<\/p>\n
     survey        number.         The transaction was not of entire Gut<\/p>\n
     number,        but       for a piece of 84 R which legally                     could<\/p>\n
     not     be     segregated, as property of four brothers                           was<\/p>\n
     joint.         It       follows,       the     transaction         was     hit      by<\/p>\n
     provisions of said Act.\n<\/p>\n
     12)          The        appellants       Counsel    contended           that      the<\/p>\n
     pleadings          in a suit for specific performance                      warrant<\/p>\n
     readiness          and       willingness        which     is     conspicuously<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                 (8)<\/span>
\n     absent.          The        land     was        Inam    land.          There        was<\/p>\n
     restriction           for     alienation        to the small            pieces        of<\/p>\n
     land.      As        the     plaintiff      has come with              a    case      of<\/p>\n
     execution        of        agreement to sell by defendant and                       his<\/p>\n
     brother,        Gangaram, non impleadment of legal heirs                              of<\/p>\n
     Gangaram        or        bringing them on record in the suit                       for<\/p>\n
     specific performance foreclose such claim and contract<\/p>\n
     comes to an end.\n<\/p>\n
     13)        In        a     suit seeking for        specific            performance<\/p>\n
     requires         the        plaintiff      to     plead          readiness          and<\/p>\n
     willingness           to     perform     his part of           contract.            The<\/p>\n
     pleading<\/p>\n
     of<\/p>\n
                     to this context is reflected in paragraph<\/p>\n
           the plaint, which reads, “the plaintiff has                                asked
\n                                                                                             2<\/span><\/p>\n
     the defendant for executing sale deed of the property;\n<\/p>\n
     the     defendant           has avoided and did not                execute         sale<\/p>\n
     deed.     ” Presently there is no legal impediment to the<\/p>\n
     transaction.              Hence the plaintiff has issued notice to<\/p>\n
     the defendant and his brother on 30.11.1979 to execute<\/p>\n
     the     sale deed.           The defendant has given a false reply<\/p>\n
     dt.17.12.1979 and refused to execute sale deed.                                  Hence<\/p>\n
     the     suit seeking directions against the defendant                                 to<\/p>\n
     execute     the           sale    deed.” This part of              the      pleading<\/p>\n
     naturally,           needs       a support in the deposition of                     the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff        Vasudeo.           He   says that          he     has      received<\/p>\n
     possession           of     the    property on the           next        day     after<\/p>\n
     execution        of sale deed.           There is possession                 receipt<\/p>\n
     executed        by        defendant.     He has issued             a     registered<\/p>\n
     notice to the defendant and thereby asked defendant to<\/p>\n
     execute     the sale deed in respect of the suit land                                 in<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                  (9)<\/span>
\n     his favour.\n<\/p>\n
     14)        The     Apex Court in Syed Dastgir’s case ( 1999)<\/p>\n
     6     SCC 337) observed – “Unless a statute                      specifically<\/p>\n
     requires       a plea to be in any particular form, it                          can<\/p>\n
     be    in any form.            No specific phraseology or                language<\/p>\n
     is    required         to     take such a plea.         The      language         in<\/p>\n
     Section     16(c)        of the Specific Relief Act, 1963                      does<\/p>\n
     not require any specific phraseology but only that the<\/p>\n
     plaintiff        must       aver     that he has      performed          or     has<\/p>\n
     always     been and is willing to perform his part of the<\/p>\n
     contract.         so        the    compliance      of    ‘readiness             and<\/p>\n
     willingness’ has to be in spirit and substance and not<\/p>\n
     in letter and form.”\n<\/p>\n
     15)        The     first          appellate Court did not             formulate<\/p>\n
     the    point      relating          to the plaintiff was            ready       and<\/p>\n
     willing to perform his part of the contract.                            However,<\/p>\n
     observations in paragraph no.17 in the judgment of the<\/p>\n
     first appellate Court are as under:\n<\/p>\n
                ” Admittedly, the plaintiff though has not
\n                (in) specific words pleaded in the plaint
\n                about his readiness and willingness to perform
\n                his part, his conduct regarding the payment of
\n                Rs.500\/- on 10.3.1977 vide Exh.89, so also
\n                request to defendant from time to time to do
\n                the needful to execute registered sale deed is<\/p>\n
                more than sufficient to come to the conclusion
\n                that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing
\n                to perform the contract on his part. ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     16)        Section          16(c) of Specific Relief Act requires<\/p>\n
     in    a suit for specific performance who fails to                             aver<\/p>\n
     and    prove      that he has performed or has                   always        been<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                               (10)<\/span>
\n     ready     and        willing to perform the essential terms                        of<\/p>\n
     the contract which are to be performed by him or other<\/p>\n
     than     terms of performance of which has been prevented<\/p>\n
     or waived by the defendants.                  Section 16 creates a bar<\/p>\n
     for     enforcement of a contract, if such averments                             are<\/p>\n
     missing.\n<\/p>\n
     17)        Explanation-II indicates as under:\n<\/p>\n
                ” The plaintiff must aver performance of or
\n                readiness and willingness to perform     the
\n                contract    according  to     its     proved
\n                construction.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This     essential           part which is requirement               under       the<\/p>\n
     statute,        is<\/p>\n
                            absolutely       missing      in     the      plaint        as<\/p>\n
     portrayed        hereinbefore.          The observation of the first<\/p>\n
     appellate        Court       quoted     are more leaning to               be     non<\/p>\n
     application           of     mind to the factual position and                    are<\/p>\n
     sketchy     in its nature.              It has taken divorce from the<\/p>\n
     evidence        of     plaintiff quoted above.              On this         ground<\/p>\n
     plaintiff fails.\n<\/p>\n
     18)        In        fact,       the   plaintiff himself           had      become<\/p>\n
     incapable        of        performing    or    he    has      violated           the<\/p>\n
     essential        terms       of contract by keeping the                  original<\/p>\n
     application with him which was required to be moved to<\/p>\n
     the     competent          revenue authorities.           It was         probably<\/p>\n
     because     the        plaintiff was showered with                 parting         of<\/p>\n
     possession           by the defendant and his brother Gangaram,<\/p>\n
     the     plaintiff          was     more keen to enjoy the              crops       in<\/p>\n
     agricultural field than to make payment of his part of<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                               (11)<\/span>
\n     his     obligation        or to make the                   application             to     the<\/p>\n
     competent         authority.            It is clear that the                  plaintiff<\/p>\n
     has     violated the essential terms of his obligation in<\/p>\n
     contravention            of     the contract and he has varied                           the<\/p>\n
     same.\n<\/p>\n
     19)         The     witness          for       Agreement         of      Sale,          P.W.2<\/p>\n
     -Raghunath,             is     a     cousin      of     the      defenadnt.                He<\/p>\n
     confirmed         his        signature         to the agreement               of        sale,<\/p>\n
     Exh.83.          However,          he     denied as to contents                    of     the<\/p>\n
     document, as according to him, it was already written.\n<\/p>\n
     He    had    not        read        the same;         he    simply        signed          the<\/p>\n
     document.\n<\/p>\n
     cannot      tell<\/p>\n
                        He states in the examination-in-chief,<\/p>\n
                             as     to what was decided on that                         day
\n                                                                                               he<\/p>\n
                                                                                                in<\/p>\n
     between      the        plaintiff          and     defendant.                The        other<\/p>\n
     witness      – Jagannath Girdhar Sonawane has denied about<\/p>\n
     the     transaction.               He     stated       that         the      amount        of<\/p>\n
     Rs.500\/-         was taken by the defendant.                       He was          present<\/p>\n
     and     signed on the document dated 3.10.2007                                (Exh.89).\n<\/p>\n
     In the cross-examination, he has accepted that receipt<\/p>\n
     was     already written before he reached there.                                 He      has<\/p>\n
     signed      on     the receipt as directed by                         plaintiff          and<\/p>\n
     defendant.          The        receipt was in connection of                         giving<\/p>\n
     and taking money.              He has no personal knowledge of the<\/p>\n
     transaction,             which           was     between            plaintiff             and<\/p>\n
     defendant.          These          two     witnesses          are      not      properly<\/p>\n
     appreciated         by        both the Courts.              On the other                hand,<\/p>\n
     the     Courts      have           erroneously        held       that        these        two<\/p>\n
     witnesses         have proved either the agreement of sale or<\/p>\n
     Receipt, Exh.89.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                 (12)<\/span><\/p>\n
     20)          The other crucial aspect in the matter is, the<\/p>\n
     Agreement        of        Sale (Exhibit-83) was by defendant                     and<\/p>\n
     his     brother        –     Gangaram.       The   notice,         Exh.85,        was<\/p>\n
     issued        to both the brothers and the reply Exh.86                           was<\/p>\n
     by     both     the        brothers.     However      possession           receipt<\/p>\n
     Exh.98        dt.28.2.1974         is   by    Hari      Kashiram          Sonavane<\/p>\n
     (Appellante\/defendant)               The 7\/12 extract at Exh.84, is<\/p>\n
     not     read     in proper tune by the learned                     Judge.         The<\/p>\n
     entries in the revenue record Ex.94 till 1978-1979 was<\/p>\n
     in     the     name of the defendant and his brother.                            They<\/p>\n
     had     raised society loan for crops.                    The learned Judge<\/p>\n
     time     of     its<\/p>\n
     should have considered these aspects.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                agreement was Survey\n                                                                  The land at the\n\n                                                               No.331\/1         and      in\n                          \n<\/pre>\n
     Consolidation, it was given as Block No.609, still the<\/p>\n
     ownership        of        the defendant and his brother                  Gangaram<\/p>\n
     remained        with       other     two brothers.         In      a    suit      for<\/p>\n
     specific        performance of contract, where the agreement<\/p>\n
     was by two brothers, the notice seeking performance of<\/p>\n
     the     contract was issued to two brothers, the contract<\/p>\n
     was     joint and indivisible with the defendant and                              his<\/p>\n
     brother, there was no demarcation of the property, the<\/p>\n
     death        of Gangaram and not impleading his legal                          heirs<\/p>\n
     to     the     suit or not seeking performance                     of     contract<\/p>\n
     from     them vitiates the transaction.                    The right to sue<\/p>\n
     does     not survive to the plaintiff due to death of one<\/p>\n
     of     the executant.             The suit in the form it was                  filed<\/p>\n
     was     not maintainable as Gangaram or for that                           purpose<\/p>\n
     his     legal     heirs were necessary parties to the                          suit.\n<\/p>\n
     The     pleading that it was defendant, who has agreed to<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                                 (13)<\/span>
\n     sell     two          acres and 4 gunthas agricultural land                        from<\/p>\n
     gut No.          609, is contrary to the agreement of sale.\n<\/p>\n
     21)         The         plaintiff     and      his witness,           PW     4     have<\/p>\n
     stated       that        at    the time of agreement of                 sale,       the<\/p>\n
     amount       of        Rs.8,000\/- was given to the                 defendant          as<\/p>\n
     earnest.             However,     the     Agreement of           Sale,       Exh.83,<\/p>\n
     indicated that the amount was paid at house.                                I do not<\/p>\n
     wish to give much emphasis on this anomaly.\n<\/p>\n
     22)         The         possession of the suit land was allegedly<\/p>\n
     given       on        28.2.1974      by Hari, which          is      not     legally<\/p>\n
     proved.\n<\/p>\n
     as<\/p>\n
                          This document, in fact, cannot be acted upon<\/p>\n
            the signature of Hari is on the obverse when there<\/p>\n
     was     sufficient            space for his signature at the                     front<\/p>\n
     page where the contents of the document are written.\n<\/p>\n
     23)         Exhibit-89           – Bharana Pawati dated                 10.03.1977<\/p>\n
     is     purported          to    be      signed    by      Gangaram          Kashiram<\/p>\n
     (deceased            brother) and at left side on revenue ticket<\/p>\n
     of     10    paisa,           it bears signature          of      Hari      Kashiram<\/p>\n
     Sonavane          and     Santosh       Hari    Sonawane.            Namdeo        Hari<\/p>\n
     Sonawane          has     endorsed       receipt of         Rs.495\/-         in     his<\/p>\n
     presence.             This     payment      receipt is         not      free       from<\/p>\n
     doubt.           A     impression is generated that either                       first<\/p>\n
     signatures were obtained and later the contents\/script<\/p>\n
     was written, or they were obtained on blank sheet.\n<\/p>\n
     24)         In        the reply dated 17.12.1979, Exh.86 to                         the<\/p>\n
     notice       dated 30.11.1989 (Exh.85) by Gangaram Kashiram<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                         (14)<\/span>
\n     and     Hari Kashiram (Appellant), they have disputed the<\/p>\n
     transaction        to     be of absolute sale and pointed                        that<\/p>\n
     the     agricultural        property      was more than               worth       Rs.\n<\/p>\n
     20,000\/-        and the Receipt dated 10.3.1977 for Rs.500\/-\n<\/p>\n
     was     nothing,        but interest.         It was pointed that                 for<\/p>\n
     the     years     1974-1975 to 1978-1979, the plaintiff                           has<\/p>\n
     enjoyed         fruits      in     the        agricultural            land        and<\/p>\n
     consequently, the loan is discharged and the defendant<\/p>\n
     owe     nothing.        Even it was settled in presence of four<\/p>\n
     responsible        villagers,       consequent thereupon, it                      was<\/p>\n
     the defendants who have sowed the field and have taken<\/p>\n
     the agricultural income.             Thus, the notice under reply<\/p>\n
     makes<\/p>\n
               the things clear.\n<\/p>\n
     entries, Exh.94.<\/p>\n
\n                                          This is supported by revenue\n                          \n     25)        Thus,        findings recorded by both the Courts do\n\n     not     flow     in     consonance       to    the      record        and      legal\n      \n\n\n     position.         The substantial questions are answered                            in\n   \n\n\n\n     affirmative.          Hence, order :\n\n\n\n                                        ORDER\n\n\n\n\n\n     (i)        The     appeal     is    allowed.            The      judgment         and\n\n     Decree     in     Regular     Civil Suit No.12\/1980                   passed        by\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Civil Judge, Junior Division, Yawal, dated 31.08.1985,<\/p>\n
     and     Regular Civil Appeal No.308\/1985, of the District<\/p>\n
     Court, Jalgaon, decided on 20.08.1992, is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     (ii)       The Respondent to restore possession of suit<\/p>\n
     property within three months.                  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>
\n                      (15)<\/span><\/p>\n
     25)     In   view    of   disposal   of    the      appeal,          CA<\/p>\n
     No.153\/1993 becomes infructuous, it is disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                            ( K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)
\n                                             J )<\/p>\n
     (agp:u\/bdv\/sa5.93)<\/p>\n
                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:22:35 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 2009 Bench: K.U. Chandiwal (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 5 OF 1993. Date of decision: 27TH FEBRUARY, 2009. For approval and signature HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL 1. Whether the Reporters […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17965","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhether The Reporters Of Local ... vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 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\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether The Reporters Of Local ... vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-23T03:58:57+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=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-23T03:58:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2670,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009\",\"name\":\"Whether The Reporters Of Local ... vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-23T03:58:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 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":"Whether The Reporters Of Local ... vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 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\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether The Reporters Of Local ... vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-23T03:58:57+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":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-23T03:58:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009"},"wordCount":2670,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009","name":"Whether The Reporters Of Local ... vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-23T03:58:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/whether-the-reporters-of-local-vs-age58-yrs-on-27-february-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether The Reporters Of Local … vs Age:58 Yrs. on 27 February, 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\/17965","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=17965"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17965\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17965"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17965"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17965"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}