{"id":199570,"date":"2010-12-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-12-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-02T22:34:32","modified_gmt":"2016-12-02T17:04:32","slug":"bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010","title":{"rendered":"Bi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Bi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 361 of 1999(B)\n\n\n\n1. BI LEATHER FOOTWEAR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. P.M.ROSY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SIBY MATHEW\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :15\/12\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                           P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.\n                          = = = = = = = = = = =\n                           S.A. NO. 361 OF 1999\n                          = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n        DATED THIS, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010.\n\n                               J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The appellant is the defendant in O.S. 511 of 1994 on the file of the<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge’s Court, Ernakulam. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs, contended that building bearing No. XXXVII\/386 (old) of<\/p>\n
Corporation of Cochin belonged to their predecessor and it devolved upon<\/p>\n
them. The appellant herein is a tenant with liability to pay monthly rent at<\/p>\n
the rate of Rs. 370\/- and that the rent up to 15.6.1991 was paid and<\/p>\n
thereafter it was defaulted till 15.6.1994. With these pleadings, they sought<\/p>\n
for a decree for realisation of Rs. 13,320\/- with interest at the rate of 18%<\/p>\n
per annum.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The appellant contended that he is not a tenant under respondents<\/p>\n
1 and 2 and that he is a tenant under Sebi Elias who is now impleaded as<\/p>\n
additional third respondent in the second appeal and that the rate of rent was<\/p>\n
Rs. 550\/- and as directed by the third respondent herein, he had been<\/p>\n
depositing the rent in State Bank of India, M.G. Road Branch, the Manager<\/p>\n
of which was examined as PW.2 and there is no landlord – tenant<\/p>\n
S.A. 361\/1999                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
relationship between the appellant and respondents 1 and 2 and that the<\/p>\n
appellant is not liable to pay respondents 1 and 2 any amount towards rent.<\/p>\n
       3. The trial court raised necessary issues and the parties were sent<\/p>\n
for trial. On the side of respondents 1 and 2, PWs 1 to 3 were examined<\/p>\n
and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. The appellant was examined as DW.1.<\/p>\n
Ext.X1 to X4 were marked through PW.2.           During the course of the<\/p>\n
evidence, respondents 1 and 2 had developed a case that by virtue of<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 there is an agreement to exchange the properties between<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2 on one side and the third respondent on the other side<\/p>\n
and by virtue of Ext.A1, the respondents 1 and 2 had got title over the<\/p>\n
building which the appellant is occupying as a tenant. Ext.A1 document<\/p>\n
was rejected by the courts below concurrently on finding that the said<\/p>\n
document was not at all registered and hence it is not reliable to come to a<\/p>\n
conclusion regarding the title of the respondents 1 and 2 over the building<\/p>\n
which the appellant was occupying as tenant. However, the trial judge<\/p>\n
found that since there is a direction to PW.2 to transfer at the rate of Rs.<\/p>\n
370\/- per month to the account of the first respondent, copy of which is<\/p>\n
marked as Ext.X1, the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to a decree as<\/p>\n
claimed in the plaint. Accordingly, the suit was decreed.<\/p>\n
       4. In appeal, the learned District Judge, arrived at a finding that the<\/p>\n
S.A. 361\/1999                           3<\/span><\/p>\n
first respondent is the wife of the third respondent and the second<\/p>\n
respondent is the son born to the first respondent in third respondent. To<\/p>\n
conclude so, the learned District Judge had given reliance to Ext.A5 letter.<\/p>\n
In fact, there is no pleadings to that effect.  Now the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2 fairly conceded that there is no pleading at all that the<\/p>\n
first respondent is the wife of the third respondent or the second respondent<\/p>\n
is the son of the first respondent born through the third respondent. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel submitted that the third respondent had not at all married the first<\/p>\n
respondent and the first respondent was engaged as a maid servant to look<\/p>\n
after the mother of the third respondent and he had gone to Australia and<\/p>\n
to make the payment, the third respondent had made arrangements with the<\/p>\n
Bank to transfer Rs. 370\/- from Ext.X2 account maintained in the name of<\/p>\n
the 3rd respondent to Ext.X1 account maintained in the name of the first<\/p>\n
respondent. The evidence of PW.2, the Manager of the Bank would fully<\/p>\n
support the defence set up by the third respondent as well as the appellant.<\/p>\n
Though respondents 1 and 2 had got a case that the land where the building<\/p>\n
which was let out to the appellant was situated belonging to the predecessor<\/p>\n
of respondents 1 and 2 and it was let out to the appellant by the predecessor,<\/p>\n
there is no supporting evidence at all. So, the very case of the respondents<\/p>\n
1 and 2 as landlords of the building in which the appellant is occupying as a<\/p>\n
S.A. 361\/1999                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
tenant collapses.    The evidence of PW.2 itself would belie the claim of<\/p>\n
respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 cannot escape from the evidence<\/p>\n
of PW.2 as he was brought at the instance of respondents 1 and 2<\/p>\n
themselves.    Even if it is assumed that the third respondent had entrusted<\/p>\n
the Bank to transfer Rs.370\/- from Ext.X2 account to Ext.X1 account<\/p>\n
maintained by the first respondent, that would not entitle respondents 1 and<\/p>\n
2   to claim     any amount as rent from the appellant.          The so called<\/p>\n
arrangement made by the third respondent with the Bank would not create<\/p>\n
any liability on the side of the appellant to pay the rent to respondents 1 and<\/p>\n
2. On going by the judgments of the courts below and evidence on record<\/p>\n
and after hearing the arguments on either side, I find that the decree and<\/p>\n
judgment under challenge is contrary to the pleadings and evidence. In<\/p>\n
that sense, it is perverse and not at all sustainable. Respondents 1 and 2<\/p>\n
totally failed to establish any landlord-tenant relationship between<\/p>\n
themselves on one side and the appellant on the other side. There is no<\/p>\n
privity of contract at all between the appellant and respondents 1 and 2<\/p>\n
regarding any payment.       The evidence on record would show that the<\/p>\n
appellant had succeeded to establish the right of the 3rd respondent over<\/p>\n
the building in which the appellant is residing as a tenant. He is not liable<\/p>\n
to pay any rent to respondents 1 and 2. The liability of the appellant is to<\/p>\n
S.A. 361\/1999                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
pay rent to the 3rd respondent to whom the building belongs or to deposit<\/p>\n
the rent in the account of the 3rd respondent.     The decree and judgment<\/p>\n
under challenge, being contrary to the pleadings and evidence, are liable to<\/p>\n
be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
      In the result, the appeal is allowed and the decree and judgment under<\/p>\n
challenge are set aside. The parties are directed to suffer their respective<\/p>\n
costs.    The Bank guarantee furnished by the appellant shall stand<\/p>\n
discharged.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                        P.S. GOPINATHAN,
\n                                                                  (JUDGE)<\/p>\n
Knc\/-\n<\/p>\n
S.A. 361\/1999    6\n\n\n\n\n                            P.S. GOPINATHAN, J.\n                           = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n\n\n\n                            S.A. NO. 361 OF 1999\n                         = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n\n\n\n                 DATED : 15TH DECEMBER, 2010.\n\n\n\n\n                                 J U D G M E N T\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Bi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 361 of 1999(B) 1. BI LEATHER FOOTWEAR … Petitioner Vs 1. P.M.ROSY … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR For Respondent :SRI.SIBY MATHEW The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN Dated :15\/12\/2010 O R D E R P.S. […]<\/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-199570","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-02T17:04:32+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-02T17:04:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1045,\"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\\\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010\",\"name\":\"Bi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-02T17:04:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-02T17:04:32+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010","datePublished":"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-02T17:04:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010"},"wordCount":1045,"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\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010","name":"Bi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-12-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-02T17:04:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bi-leather-footwear-vs-p-m-rosy-on-15-december-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bi Leather Footwear vs P.M.Rosy on 15 December, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199570","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=199570"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199570\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199570"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199570"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199570"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}