{"id":197897,"date":"2009-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009"},"modified":"2014-05-30T02:27:59","modified_gmt":"2014-05-29T20:57:59","slug":"jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Jose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Jose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 34957 of 2008(J)\n\n\n1. JOSE, S\/O.MATHEW, PAYYANAD AMSOM\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. PULIKKOD VIJAYALAKSHMI,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. NHARAKKOTT KALATHIL SREELATHA,\n\n3. KUNNAMPURATH MATHEW, S\/O.MATHEW,\n\n4. MERY, W\/O.JOSEPH, NERYAMANGALAM P.O.\n\n5. JASINTHA BABY, W\/O.BABY, PERAVOOR,\n\n6. RAJEENA @ DAISY, D\/O.MATHEW,\n\n7. SHYNI, W\/O.SHABU, KARUVARAKUNDU AMSOM,\n\n8. LAISA, W\/O.JOSE, PAYYANAD AMSOM DESOM,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SUSHANTH.J.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :21\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n               S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n                   -------------------------------\n               W.P.(C).NO.34957 OF 2008 (j)\n                 -----------------------------------\n         Dated this the 21st day of August, 2009\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:<\/p>\n
            i. to call for the records leading up to
\n            Ext.P4   order     dated    3.11.2008    in
\n            I.A.No.763 of 2005 in O.S.No.102 of
\n            2000 passed by the Munsiff Court,
\n            Manjeri and set aside the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            ii. to issue any other appropriate writ,
\n            order or direction as the case may be as
\n            this Honourable Court may deem fit and
\n            necessary in the interest of justice.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      2. Petitioner is the 7th defendant in O.S.No.102 of 2000<\/p>\n
on the file of the Munsiff Court, Manjeri. The above suit is one<\/p>\n
for partition, and the respondents are the plaintiff and the<\/p>\n
other defendants in the suit. The 2nd respondent as plaintiff<\/p>\n
laid the suit for partition setting forth a case that the property<\/p>\n
originally belonged to her mother Annakutty, and on her<\/p>\n
death, her husband got \/3 right over the property. That \/3
\n                           1 rd                               1 rd<\/p>\n
WPC.34957\/08                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
right obtained by Mathew, the husband of Annakutty was<\/p>\n
conveyed to the plaintiff under a deed executed by him. The<\/p>\n
plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 and another son of Annakutty<\/p>\n
namely, Jose, each has right over \/9 share in her property.\n<\/p>\n
                                    1 th<\/p>\n
The above referred Jose conveyed his right under a sale deed<\/p>\n
to the 6th defendant. Plaintiff sought for partition of her \/9
\n                                                           3  th<\/p>\n
share in the property. Later, on the basis of the contentions<\/p>\n
raised by defendants 1 to 5 that later Annakutty had executed<\/p>\n
a will, 7th defendant Jose and another, 8th defendant, were<\/p>\n
additionally impleaded in the suit. Since the deed in favour of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff by Mathew, the husband of Annakutty and also<\/p>\n
the documents in favour of the 6th defendant by the 7th<\/p>\n
defendant, namely, Jose, son of Annakutty, were disputed by<\/p>\n
the other defendants, plaintiff had moved an application for<\/p>\n
forensic examination of those documents.      Admittedly, the<\/p>\n
applications so filed were declined by the learned Munsiff,<\/p>\n
which was challenged earlier before this Court in W.P.(C).<\/p>\n
No.11863 of 2005.      That writ petition was disposed by<\/p>\n
judgment dated 22nd July, 2008.      While disposing the writ<\/p>\n
petition, this Court has held that so far as the documents<\/p>\n
WPC.34957\/08                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
executed by the 7th defendant in favour of the 6th defendant,<\/p>\n
the burden of proving that document, if found necessary, was<\/p>\n
on the 6th defendant and not on the plaintiff. Presumably, on<\/p>\n
that observation, the 6th defendant moved an application to<\/p>\n
summon the 7th defendant to get his signature and sent over<\/p>\n
the document executed by him in his favour for forensic<\/p>\n
examination, contending that the 6th defendant had disputed<\/p>\n
execution of the deed.      The learned Munsiff allowed the<\/p>\n
application of the 6th defendant\/1st respondent in the writ<\/p>\n
petition. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged<\/p>\n
in the writ petition by the 7th defendant invoking the<\/p>\n
supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article<\/p>\n
227 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also<\/p>\n
the 1st respondent. The argument canvassed by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the petitioner is that at this stage of the suit, the<\/p>\n
forensic examination of the document purported to have been<\/p>\n
executed by the 6th defendant in favour of the 7th defendant<\/p>\n
after getting the signature of the 6th        defendant is not<\/p>\n
WPC.34957\/08                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
warranted. It is more so, according to the counsel, since the<\/p>\n
document which is sought to be compared has been produced<\/p>\n
in another suit and while disposing the writ petition moved by<\/p>\n
the plaintiff earlier, this Court has held that at the appropriate<\/p>\n
stage for comparison of the signatures by the court, plaintiff<\/p>\n
can file fresh petition for summoning those documents<\/p>\n
produced in the other suit. On the other hand, the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that in view of the<\/p>\n
observations made in the previous statement, a copy of which<\/p>\n
is produced as Ext.P2, it was incumbent upon the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent to take steps to prove the document executed in<\/p>\n
his favour by the 7th defendant. Perusing Ext.P2 judgment<\/p>\n
rendered in the writ petition earlier moved by the plaintiff\/2nd<\/p>\n
respondent, I find this Court has made an observation that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has no burden to prove execution of document<\/p>\n
No.5245 of 1998, the document purported to have been<\/p>\n
executed by the 7th defendant in favour of the 6th defendant,<\/p>\n
and, it is for the 6th defendant to prove the same.          That<\/p>\n
observation does not ipso facto compel the 6th defendant as to<\/p>\n
prove the execution of the above document by the<\/p>\n
WPC.34957\/08                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
7th defendant by forensic examination. The above document<\/p>\n
being a registered document, it is not incumbent upon the 6th<\/p>\n
defendant to prove the signature of the 7th defendant, as the<\/p>\n
execution can be proved otherwise as provided by law.<\/p>\n
Presumptive value of the registered document will not be lost<\/p>\n
by mere denial of the execution by the executant of the<\/p>\n
document.    Resistance put up by the 7th defendant to the<\/p>\n
forensic examination is also a circumstance which may give<\/p>\n
rise to an adverse interference that his denial is not bona fide.<\/p>\n
Forensic examination of registered document solely for the<\/p>\n
reason that the executant had been denied by the executant,<\/p>\n
normally, is not warranted unless special circumstances<\/p>\n
justifying such examination is found essential to prove due<\/p>\n
execution of that document. At this stage of the suit, solely for<\/p>\n
the reason that the 7th defendant has denied the execution of<\/p>\n
the document in his written statement without any other<\/p>\n
circumstance    supporting   that   contention,    no   forensic<\/p>\n
examination of the document after summoning the 7th<\/p>\n
defendant and getting the signature is necessary.        Ext.P4<\/p>\n
order is set aside as the execution of that document can be<\/p>\n
WPC.34957\/08                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
proved otherwise than by the forensic examination comparing<\/p>\n
the admitted signature of the executant with that appearing in<\/p>\n
the document.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
     The writ petition is accordingly disposed.<\/p>\n
                           S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
\n                                      JUDGE<\/p>\n
prp<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Jose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 34957 of 2008(J) 1. JOSE, S\/O.MATHEW, PAYYANAD AMSOM … Petitioner Vs 1. PULIKKOD VIJAYALAKSHMI, … Respondent 2. NHARAKKOTT KALATHIL SREELATHA, 3. KUNNAMPURATH MATHEW, S\/O.MATHEW, 4. MERY, W\/O.JOSEPH, NERYAMANGALAM P.O. 5. JASINTHA BABY, W\/O.BABY, PERAVOOR, 6. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-197897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 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\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-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=\"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-29T20:57:59+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\\\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-29T20:57:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":974,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Jose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-29T20:57:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 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":"Jose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 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\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-29T20:57:59+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\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-29T20:57:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009"},"wordCount":974,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009","name":"Jose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-29T20:57:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jose-vs-pulikkod-vijayalakshmi-on-21-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jose vs Pulikkod Vijayalakshmi on 21 August, 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\/197897","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=197897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/197897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=197897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=197897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=197897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}