{"id":211173,"date":"2008-06-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008"},"modified":"2016-02-08T23:56:45","modified_gmt":"2016-02-08T18:26:45","slug":"ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jammu High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n \n HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIT AT JAMMU            \nCSA No. 15 of 2005 and CMP No. 233 of 2007   \n\nGhulam Mehndi  \n Petitioner\n Bihari Lal\n  Respondent <\/pre>\n<p>!Mr.S. A. Salaria, Advocate<br \/>\n^V.R. Wazir  with  R P Sharma <\/p>\n<p>Coram:\n<\/p>\n<p>   Mr Justice  Sunil Hali<\/p>\n<p> Dated :  05\/06\/2008<\/p>\n<p>:judgment:\n<\/p>\n<p>                This civil second appeal has been preferred against the findings of<br \/>\nfact and law by two courts below in civil original Suit No. 23\/99-A 180\/14.  The<br \/>\ncivil suit came to  be filed  by respondent No. 1 seeking possession of two<br \/>\nkholas, one compound of a one storeyed house with  compound situated in<br \/>\nmunicipal limits of Poonch.  The  basis for seeking possession was the sale deed<br \/>\nexecuted by the owners of the property with the defendant.  It was averred in<br \/>\nthe suit that the defendant was put in possession by the owner of the property<br \/>\non 11.3.1977  and  appellant defendant dispossessed the  plaintiff from the suit<br \/>\npremises purchased by him vide sale deed dated 10-3-1977.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The contention of defendant-appellant was that he was in possession of the<br \/>\nproperty for more than 12 years as such his right has matured into title on the<br \/>\nbasis of adverse possession.   In this respect reliance  was placed on a decree<br \/>\npassed by Sub Judge, Poonch on 29.9.1979.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The main controversy involved in appeal is  (a) whether the<br \/>\nplaintiff\/respondent had been put in possession of the property by the erstwhile<br \/>\nowners at the time of execution of sale deed and (b) whether the possession of<br \/>\ndefendant-appellant had matured  into ownership on account of adverse<br \/>\npossession.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Before adverting to the merits of the case it is important to understand<br \/>\nthe import of judgment passed by Sub Judge, Poonch on 29.9.1979 in a suit filed<br \/>\nby appellant against the present respondent.  The case of the appellant in that<br \/>\nsuit   was that he has executed an agreement to sell with the erstwhile owners<br \/>\nin 1974.  It is stipulated in the said agreement that if the sale deed is not<br \/>\nexecuted, part payment will be forfeited.  The possession of the property will<br \/>\nbe taken over after the execution of sale deed. The trial court found the<br \/>\nappellant in possession of property from which he could not be dispossessed<br \/>\notherwise in due course of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>        That on the plea of adverse possession the courts below found on fact that<br \/>\nin view of stand taken in the suit filed by the appellant based on agreement to<br \/>\nsell pleading therein that he was put in possession on the basis of agreement<br \/>\ndated 11.9.1974 coupled with the recital of the agreement  that possession will<br \/>\nbe delivered at the time of sale deed, the  possession of property is admitted<br \/>\nto be with the owners at the time of agreement to sell executed on 11.9.1974.\n<\/p>\n<p>        That no amount of oral evidence brought in after the above said pleadings<br \/>\nwhich are crystal clear on the factum of possession with the erstwhile owners at<br \/>\nthe time of execution, admitted in documentary evidence, can be taken into<br \/>\nconsideration in support of claim of the appellant of adverse possession as<br \/>\nprojected by him. The appellant has admitted the execution of receipts EXPA\/2<br \/>\nand EXPW\/4. These receipts are not merely receipts, but enumerate the conditions<br \/>\nfor the sale of land as well.  On the issue of limitation, the courts below have<br \/>\nheld that the plea is misconceived.  Suit that was filed by the respondent for<br \/>\npossession of property on 30.3.1981 when admittedly sale deed was executed in<br \/>\nMarch 1977.  The suit was well within time.  In respect of 2nd question that he<br \/>\nis in possession for more than 12 years and his right has matured into title on<br \/>\nthe plea of adverse is also misconceived.  The appellant has admitted in his<br \/>\nearlier suit that he was put  in possession by virtue of agreement to sell in<br \/>\nthe year 1974 thereby conceding that the possession of property was with the<br \/>\noriginal owner on the said date.  Respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in the<br \/>\nyear 1981 which is well within time.  This plea of appellant is also<br \/>\nmisconceived.\n<\/p>\n<p>        The other issue which arose was that the plaintiff has not filed suit<br \/>\nwithin the period of limitation. This plea has also been rejected by the trial<br \/>\ncourt on the ground that sale deed was executed in 1977 and suit for possession<br \/>\nwas filed on 30.3.1981.\n<\/p>\n<p>        Power of the High Court to intervene in civil second appeal is confined to<br \/>\ndetermine any substantial question of law which may arise in the appeal.  The<br \/>\nHigh court assumes the jurisdiction to hear a second appeal only after it frames<br \/>\nsubstantial questions of law on the basis of which the judgment of court below<br \/>\nis to be scrutinized. It must be  clearly  understood that the legislative<br \/>\nintention was very clear that legislature never wanted  2nd appeal to become<br \/>\n&#8216;third trial on facts&#8217; or &#8216;one more dice in the gamble.&#8217; It is clearly<br \/>\nunderstood that the duty is cast on this court to formulate substantial<br \/>\nquestions of law before hearing the appeal.  Another aspect is that appeal shall<br \/>\nbe heard only on that question.  What is substantial question of law is no<br \/>\nlonger res-integra. The word &#8216;substantial&#8217;, as qualifying &#8220;question of law&#8221;,<br \/>\nmeans- of having substance, essential, real, of  sound worth , important or<br \/>\nconsiderable.\n<\/p>\n<p>        This court has also clearly stated that substantial question of law would<br \/>\nbe of law which is of general importance and in respect of which there is no<br \/>\ndetermination by the Apex Court.  Coming to the present case  the learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant has formulated as many as 7 questions  which according<br \/>\nto him  are substantial questions of law.  In essence while scanning through<br \/>\nsubstantial questions of law framed by the learned counsel it is manifestly<br \/>\nclear that the appellant has clearly tried to show that his possession has<br \/>\nmatured into title on the basis of adverse possession  claimed by the owners.<br \/>\nHis contention is that there was a decree in favour of the appellant that he is<br \/>\nin possession of the property which assumes finality as decree was not appealed<br \/>\nagainst.  It is further averred that in face of decree  holding the appellant to<br \/>\nbe in possession of the property, the courts below have recorded finding in<br \/>\ncontradiction to the said findings of the court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The decree of the trial court passed in 1979 clearly states that petitioner<br \/>\nhas only possessory title and he can be dispossessed  if due process of law is<br \/>\nfollowed. The suit has been filed by the present respondent on the basis of sale<br \/>\ndeed. It cannot be said that the trial courts have recorded contradictory<br \/>\nfindings in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of<br \/>\nproperty.  Courts below have found that  the plaintiff is owner of property on<br \/>\nthe basis of sale deed and  has right to seek possession of property on the<br \/>\nbasis of said deed.   This in no way contradicts the findings recorded in the<br \/>\ndecree in the year 1979 which only protected possessory right of appellant<br \/>\nagainst all except in real  owner.\n<\/p>\n<p>        In respect of second question raised that he is in possession for more<br \/>\nthan 12 years is belied by his own stand  that he was put in possession of<br \/>\nproperty by virtue of agreement to sell in the year 1974 as averred in his suit.<br \/>\nThe other substantial questions framed in the appeal relate to the appreciation<br \/>\nof evidence which this court cannot go into, in view of limitation imposed by<br \/>\nsection 100 of CPC.  It is not in dispute that finding of fact how wrong or<br \/>\ngrossly inexcusable may be cannot be interfered by the court.\n<\/p>\n<p>      With this I do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed and<br \/>\nthe interim direction shall stand vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>??\n<\/p>\n<p>??\n<\/p>\n<p>??\n<\/p>\n<p>??\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">5<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jammu High Court Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIT AT JAMMU CSA No. 15 of 2005 and CMP No. 233 of 2007 Ghulam Mehndi Petitioner Bihari Lal Respondent !Mr.S. A. Salaria, Advocate ^V.R. Wazir with R P Sharma Coram: Mr Justice Sunil Hali Dated : 05\/06\/2008 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211173","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jammu-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-08T18:26:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"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\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-08T18:26:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1252,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jammu High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008\",\"name\":\"Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-08T18:26:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-08T18:26:45+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-08T18:26:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008"},"wordCount":1252,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jammu High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008","name":"Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-08T18:26:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ghulam-mehndi-vs-bihari-lal-on-5-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ghulam Mehndi vs Bihari Lal on 5 June, 2008"}]},{"@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\/211173","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=211173"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211173\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=211173"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=211173"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=211173"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}