{"id":192916,"date":"2009-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-19T10:52:10","modified_gmt":"2017-08-19T05:22:10","slug":"jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Jasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Jasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009<\/div>\n
C.R. No. 168 of 2008                                                               1\n\n\nIN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT\n              CHANDIGARH\n\n                                  C.R. No. 168 of 2008 (O&M)\n                                  Date of Decision : 28.10.2009\nJasbir Singh\n\n                                                                .......... Petitioner\n                                  Versus\n\nBaldev Singh\n                                                                ...... Respondent\n\nCORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA\n\nPresent :      Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate\n               for the petitioner.\n\n               Mr. Hitesh Kaplish , Advocate\n               for the respondent.\n\n                     ****\n\nVINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)\n<\/pre>\n
               This revision petition is directed against the order dated<\/p>\n
26.9.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Divn.), Phagwara vide<\/p>\n
which suit filed by the plaintiff \/ petitioner under Section 6 of the Specific<\/p>\n
Relief Act, has been ordered to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
               The plaintiff \/ petitioner sought possession of room No. 7, as<\/p>\n
shown in the red colour in the site plan, on the plea that defendant \/<\/p>\n
respondent had illegally taken possession of the suit property after<\/p>\n
demolishing the intervening wall between the tenanted premises and the<\/p>\n
room in possession of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
               The case of the plaintiff \/ petitioner was that a suit for specific<\/p>\n
performance was decreed by the learned Court on 26.2.1996. In execution
\n C.R. No. 168 of 2008                                                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
of the decree the possession of the property was handed over to the<\/p>\n
petitioner on 22.5.2000. It was further the case of the petitioner that after the<\/p>\n
possession was given to the petitioner, the respondent \/ defendant illegally<\/p>\n
took possession of the property in dispute by demolishing the intervening<\/p>\n
wall.\n<\/p>\n
             The suit was contested, wherein a specific plea was taken that<\/p>\n
the premises in dispute were under tenancy of the defendant \/ respondent<\/p>\n
and that he had not taken any illegal possession of the property.<\/p>\n
             On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court was<\/p>\n
pleased to frame the following issues :-\n<\/p>\n
             “1.   Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of
\n                   possession of suit premises ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2.    Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the
\n                   amount of Rs. 200\/- as tentative mesne profit for
\n                   the room in dispute ? OPP\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3.    Whether the present suit is not maintainable ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   OPD\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             4.    Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file
\n                   the present suit ? OPD\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             5.    Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not properly
\n                   valued for the purpose of court fee and
\n                   jurisdiction ? OPD\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             6.    Relief.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The parties led evidence. The learned trial Court on<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence held that the plaintiff \/ petitioner in his cross-<\/p>\n
examination admitted that he had filed a rent petition under Section 13 of<\/p>\n
the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, and the dispute in the said
\n C.R. No. 168 of 2008                                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
petition and in the present petition was the same. He further admitted in his<\/p>\n
cross-examination that at the time of execution of agreement to sell he had<\/p>\n
not taken possession of any portion of the building and further admitted<\/p>\n
that, on 22.5.2000 symbolic possession of the property was given to the<\/p>\n
petitioner \/ plaintiff because the property was in possession of different<\/p>\n
tenants.\n<\/p>\n
            Even the Bailiff though in his statement stated that possession<\/p>\n
of the property was given to the plaintiff \/ petitioner, but in cross-<\/p>\n
examination admitted that he had not marked in the warrants of possession,<\/p>\n
the shops and rooms of which the actual physical possession was given.<\/p>\n
Strangely it was asserted that 13 tenants had handed over the possession to<\/p>\n
Jasbir Singh at that time. The learned Court, on appreciation of evidence<\/p>\n
held, that petitioner had failed to show that the possession of the property in<\/p>\n
dispute was illegally taken by the respondent, so as to maintain a suit under<\/p>\n
Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.\n<\/p>\n
            Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of<\/p>\n
the petitioner vehemently contended that the findings recorded by the<\/p>\n
learned trial Court are on the face of it perverse, and cannot be sustained for<\/p>\n
the reason, that the learned Court below has failed to take note of the<\/p>\n
documentary evidence i.e. the warrants of possession, showing that<\/p>\n
possession of the property in dispute was handed over to the petitioner. It<\/p>\n
was also contended that the report of the Bailiff, coupled with the fact that<\/p>\n
the Local Commissioner had reported that intervening wall was demolished,<\/p>\n
leaves no manner of doubt that the defendant \/ respondent had taken illegal
\n C.R. No. 168 of 2008                                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
possession of the property in dispute.\n<\/p>\n
            The learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the<\/p>\n
learned trial Court committed an error in trying the suit as a regular suit by<\/p>\n
permitting the parties to lead evidence, whereas it was to be tried in<\/p>\n
summary manner.\n<\/p>\n
            On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by<\/p>\n
the learned counsel for the petitioner. The admission is the best piece of<\/p>\n
evidence. When the plaintiff \/ petitioner himself admitted that he had not<\/p>\n
taken physical possession of the property, while taking possession on<\/p>\n
22.5.2000 and that he was only given symbolic possession as the property<\/p>\n
was in possession of the tenants, it cannot be said that the learned Court<\/p>\n
misread the documentary evidence or oral evidence.<\/p>\n
            The Bailiff, who appeared in the Court also in his cross-<\/p>\n
examination gave evasive reply regarding delivery of possession of 13<\/p>\n
shops. The plea of the petitioner that all the 13 tenants handed over<\/p>\n
possession to the petitioner in execution of a decree against the vendor in a<\/p>\n
suit for specific performance cannot be accepted on the face of it.<\/p>\n
Admittedly, there was no decree against any of the tenants, nor any<\/p>\n
evidence was brought on record to prove the handing over of the possession<\/p>\n
by any of the tenant. The plaintiff \/ petitioner failed to prove       illegal<\/p>\n
dispossession to maintain suit under Section 6 of the specific performance.<\/p>\n
            The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that suit<\/p>\n
was not tried in summary manner, therefore, the judgment deserves to be set<\/p>\n
aside, is also totally misconceived merely because the petitioner had been
\n C.R. No. 168 of 2008                                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
given opportunity to prove his case, but he failed to do so, can not be a<\/p>\n
ground to set aside the decree, when no prejudice is shown to have been<\/p>\n
caused to the petitioner by trying the suit under Section 6 of the Act as a<\/p>\n
regular suit.\n<\/p>\n
                No fault, therefore, can be found with the procedure adopted by<\/p>\n
the learned Court below.\n<\/p>\n
                However, the judgment and decree passed under Section 6 of<\/p>\n
the Act would not bar the petitioner \/ plaintiff from seeking possession of<\/p>\n
the property on the basis of his ownership in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
                No merit.\n<\/p>\n
                Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
28.10.2009                                        ( VINOD K. SHARMA )\n  'sp'                                                 JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Jasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009 C.R. No. 168 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 168 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.10.2009 Jasbir Singh ………. Petitioner Versus Baldev Singh …… Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-192916","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-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=\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-19T05:22:10+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-19T05:22:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":997,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Jasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-19T05:22:10+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-19T05:22:10+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-19T05:22:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009"},"wordCount":997,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009","name":"Jasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-19T05:22:10+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jasbir-singh-vs-baldev-singh-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jasbir Singh vs Baldev Singh on 28 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192916","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=192916"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192916\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192916"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192916"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192916"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}