{"id":214890,"date":"2010-03-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010"},"modified":"2019-03-25T14:31:04","modified_gmt":"2019-03-25T09:01:04","slug":"s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"S Rangaswamy Iyengar S\/O Late … vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
S Rangaswamy Iyengar S\/O Late … vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: N.Kumar And Nagaraj<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN\n\nDaued this the 2nd day of March. 20 10\"\". \n\nPRESENT\n\nTI-IE I--ION'BLE MR.    \n\nAND \nTHE I-ION'BLE MR. Jijsifrcs   \nREGULAR FIRST APPEAL. 698' QF 200:3.\n\nBETWEEN :\n\nSri S.  ' '\nAged about 74 yea1*s. a \"  \"\n\nS\/ late S NEL$1*e1:niVasa.Ra\ufb01gz\u00a7ch.a1'\nSince-_ decease'd,_by .h.is L,Rs'\".,\n\n\" V'  -a] \" . C'S1?11t. S\u00a2ethe1\"mfr1'a S\n\n.. _ Aged abcaut 70 years\nV _  WV\/Q iafc. Rangaswamy Iyengar\n\" .__\u00abR]ai:_~vsy;1\u00a7:'o'.55\/2, Saragur Village\n\n Near 'Gm'. Hundi, H B Saragur\n\n  Kcite Taluk\nMy\u00e9\u00e9ore District ---- 571 \u00a321\n\nL}. _  ';Smt;. S R Usha Ravikumal\"\n\n\"Aged 47 years\n\nW\/0 T S Ravikumar\n\nD \/ 0 late S. Rangaswamy Iyengar\n\nNo. 1017, 8\"' Main, 111 Stage\n\nGokulam Doc:t;or's Comer\n\n1\\\/fysoxa 570 002 \n\n\n\n \n\nV Myso1*e~VDEs\u20ac;,rViet ~--'--.\n\n'(-3\n\nSmt. S R Pushpa\n\nAged about 4.5 years\n\nW\/o M R Srmath\n\nD\/o late S. Rangaswamy Iyengar\nR\/at No.51, FCI Layout\nNear Ganapathy Temple\nDeepanjali\n\nBangalore\n\nJayashree\n\nAged about 43 years V __ _ \nD \/ o S. Rangaswamy..\u00a7yen'gar A  _4 V \nR\/at Sy.No.55\/2, S'at'gt1r--.\\71Z{lage\"'-.LA AA 'A .\nNear G. Hundt, H B S-aragur'   '\nH D Kote Taluk V g  _  .\nMysore I)is'i;ri(:t M\u00bb 5373:.    ' ll\n\nSri Gopalal<_rtsh'na  l' A\n\nAgeolyvaboyut '~*l:}_ ye:--t_rs_  "  \n\nS\/0 lateA.Ra1t1gaswamy lye\ufb01gar\nR'\/at-_Sy .No_.5?, \/\u00a33, h,B';--- __Sa.ragur Village\nNear G. HL1ndi':,e'~H' B_Saragur\n\nH Dliote Tatuk,' .   '\n57;" 121\n\n...Appellants\n\n A (ByllS1*i-T N Raghupathy, Advocate)\n\n lSri.lS  Vi] ayaragh avach ar\n\n Aged-abot1t 57 years\n\nS \/ o_ late S M Sreen\u00a3vasa:'ar1gac:har\nResiding at No.31.\n\nI ll  dayalakshmi Layout\n RMV 11 Stage\n\nBangalore -- 560 084\n\nSri S M Sesha lyengar\nAged about 64 years\nS \/ 0 late S M Sreerlivasarangaehar\n\n\n\n3(b)\n\n3(6)\n\nResiding at N0.1397\n4"' Cross. Krishnamurthlpuram\nMysore\n\nSmt. Ranganayakamma\nSince deceased by her L.Rs..   ._\n\nSri Ramakrishna\nAged about 72 years g _\nS\/0 late Sreenivasachar'  \n\nSri Venkatanarasimhachai".-..  '\nAged about 70 years ' 'A _'\nS\/0 late Sreenivasa('ha.r   }\nSri Rangaraju V " \nAged abe~u'L'5VG*years 3; \nS\/ 0 late 'Sree\u00e9i1i.jvasaeh;xr\n\nsf: Vijagzarag\ufb01faya\ufb01 ~ . \nAged about 6.5 'years " - ....\nS\/Q 1a._1;e Sree\u00abr1'i\u00ab\\rasa.(EharV._.\n\nsmt.V'Myth111' -_ A\n\n;'251gC(31 abut 1t 68 yea:-5\nLO Sate Sreer1_i_Vavsaehar\n\n abyexgt 65 years\n\n d D \/ O --1'ate'aISreenivasachar\n\n" "Sinai. Mangaia\n\nAged about ~45 years\n\nn  D\/0 late Sreenivasachar\n\n Smt. Radha\n\nAged about 60 years\nD \/ 0 late Sreenivasachar\n\n\n\n3(1) Smi. Prabhu\nAged about 64 years\nD \/ o iate Sreenivasachar\n\n3[k} Smt. Seethalakshmi   \nAged about 62 years I\nD\/ o late Sreenivasachar\n\nAil the respondents 3(a) Lr._)_ 3&1)<\/pre>\n
Are residing at No.565  ”\n<\/p>\n
Halebandlkeri _   .._\u00bb
\nVenkataramanasvdaniy Temple Stfeei
\nKRD\/Iohalla ” t I
\nMysore -~ 24<\/p>\n
Aged 57 ;Ieai;’s <\/p>\n
4 Smt. S  Jaya1aks_hrr}.i <\/p>\n
W\/o S’ ‘i    V
\nRe_sidingVat1′.;_;_ as  ~
\n2’4. Jvayas-hree:’\u00a7Eiuiidihg <\/p>\n
4-!” Block’     — ‘
\nThyag.ara}ana’ga1″= _  V _<\/p>\n
Bangalore   _  …Respondents<\/p>\n
‘ * _[By’.Sr.i Nataiajaii. Advocate for R1 to R4}<\/p>\n
      under Section 96 of CPC against the
\njudgxinent :n3IijdA’a1dvvecree dated 16-4-2003 passed in os No.20\/O7′
\non iihe fiie -oiithe Civil Judge {Sr.E)n.) and JMFC, Husur. partly<\/p>\n
”  “‘~deCree1ng’ the suit for partition and interim reiief.<\/p>\n
   Wdaielivereci the following:\n<\/p>\n
i    This RFA coming on for hearing this day. N. KUMAR J<\/p>\n
J U D G M E N ‘1’
\nThis is first defendants appeal against the  and
\ndecree of the trial Court, which has decreed_A-the’A:slti’i’t\u00ab.:o’i”–..the<\/p>\n
plaintiff for partition and separate possessionf ” * <\/p>\n
2. For the purpose of (:onvenie_n’c_e,’:”t’he”pa.rtiesy areV.__ 4_j<\/p>\n
referred to as they are referred to in th.el’originVa1′.’,suit.:<\/p>\n
3. Late S.I\\\/I. Siinivasarangacharl “;Va_\u00e9_~_ the””pm”pos1t;:s.<\/p>\n
He  ‘four    S. Rangaswamy Iyengar,
\nS.  H S.N. Sheshaiyengar and<\/p>\n
SN. Vi}ayaraghavachar…17 They constituted ancestral joint<\/p>\n
  fa:I\ufb01l..y,  schedul.e…properties are agricultural land, House<\/p>\n
 ‘ properties at B-schedule and items–1 and 2 at 13 Schedule<\/p>\n
 and are joint family properties. SM.\n<\/p>\n
Sriniyasarangachar passed away in 1973, leaving behind his<\/p>\n
2 .. ‘1’o’u:_sol1s and a daughter, Sowmyavalli, the third defendant in<\/p>\n
 The second son S. Lakshminarsimhachar died in the<\/p>\n
V  “year 1990 leaving behind his wife Kamalamma as his only heir<\/p>\n
who is the second plaintiff in the suit. All these persons are<\/p>\n
t<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
entitled to the share according to Hindu Law in the suit<\/p>\n
schedule properties. They are all impleaded as parties.<\/p>\n
4. The plaintiffs and the defendants are in enjoyment<\/p>\n
and possession of the suit schedule properties <\/p>\n
the joint Hindu family and of late, the  of<\/p>\n
lands is being managed by the 15? defendant, -the:_.Velde_s’t’V’son of <\/p>\n
late S.i\\\/I. Srinivasarangachar,  other  ” sons gbewirig
\nemployed and in service elsewhere, i.e\u00a7; ._out the village.<\/p>\n
Taking unfair advantagepf thellabsegncepf hislbrothers the first<\/p>\n
defendant  ‘tine property and utilising the
\nentire  In spite of repeated demands<\/p>\n
andgrequests made tdthevllfirst defendant by the other sharers,<\/p>\n
 V.  _   v,rilling'”to”‘get the properties duly partitioned amongst<\/p>\n
 _ ithe”sh’arel arid also not accounting for the income of more than<\/p>\n
i<s_;i5o,0_\u00a7)o'Lia07' to Rs.60.000–O0 derived annually from the<\/p>\n
 property; item No.2 of the 'B' schedule. house property, has<\/p>\n
A {f  built out of the usufructs of the joint family properly, it is<\/p>\n
and deemed to be the joint family property. liable to be<\/p>\n
'partitioned and divided amongst the members of the joint<\/p>\n
family. As per the provisions of the Hindu Law, the plaintiffs<\/p>\n
and the defendants–1 and 2 are entitled each to 6\/25*" share
\nand the 3"?' defendant is entitled to 1\/2531 share in all..the suit<\/p>\n
schedule properties.\n<\/p>\n
5. After service of summons, the defendant’ eiiteired,<\/p>\n
appearance. The first defendarit”‘4fil_e’l:l  <\/p>\n
statement contesting the Claim of  I*I\u00a7,is
\ncontesting defendants in  ll-ie :’vnot:”Vdispute the
\nrelationship between the partie’s,–..”deathlof-their father and<\/p>\n
brother and the fact    f:=.o”ri-S were all employed<\/p>\n
elsewhere avray   he denied the right of the<\/p>\n
plaintifis to a ,inv’t_he.property. The specific case pleaded<\/p>\n
by the first defendant vvas that the first defendant and other<\/p>\n
 de:fe11d_antsf2 and””‘3’Vand the plaintiff have partitioned the<\/p>\n
   long back orally and also the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
.defendantls}?..s::and 3 have agreed and gave consent to the first<\/p>\n
 defendantvto cultivate the suit schedule property as the owner<\/p>\n
A  nbylvpaying kandayam to the Government since 1973. The<\/p>\n
plaintiff and defendants–2 and 3 have received the usufructs<\/p>\n
l from the suit schedule property, i.e., ten pallas of paddy every<\/p>\n
year and other usufructs in the suit schedule property.<\/p>\n
6. The first defendant has spent nearly Rs.60,000 to
\nRs.70,000 to improve the suit schedule property for better
\ncultivation and also he had borrowed loan for 1egal*n_eQ_essity<\/p>\n
and family benefits from the State Bank of Mysore,’ _a<\/p>\n
total sum of Rs.30,000–0O and also the.-<\/p>\n
borrowed from other persons__ nealjly tor-<\/p>\n
Rs.70,000–O0. The first ,’de_fendan_tf’ hast
\naccounts of expenses incurred.:l_V’ppi13_pp of  schedule
\nproperty. The plaintiff:y_._:–‘\ufb01i}.*1d  andv\u00e9 have not paid
\nany amount to iA1fI’1p1’0V(3′”\ufb02’_iv:(V.3’   fertilizer for the<\/p>\n
purpose \u00abof  ‘land. The first defendant has
\nperformed the obsecv3’uial”_.\u00bbrceremony of his father by spending<\/p>\n
huge amount”; ~ that regard the plaintiff and defendants~2<\/p>\n
  3_f’haveA’*not participated to pay the expenses incurred in<\/p>\n
  iffhe first defendant had borrowed a loan from<\/p>\n
service-._’.co\u00bboperatiVe society, Sargur to improve the land for<\/p>\n
  ..agricu1tural purpose. The debts borrowed by the first<\/p>\n
‘ ‘~_d’efendant are still pending.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7. One Javara Shetty, son of Chikkamada Shetty had
\n\ufb01led a case in R.A.No. 19 of 1987-88, against the first defendant
\nunder Section 136(2) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964;.V_:”i1l1e first<\/p>\n
defendant appeared in that case before_.\u00a7the””vl.’\u00a3issistanVt<\/p>\n
Commissioner. Hunsur, by spending huge_-ai11ountV’to’pay_ the <\/p>\n
Advocates fees and travelling expenses to preserve’ plaint <\/p>\n
schedule property and also.*by_ paying’ the  to
\nGovernment for the family benefitsband necessity. <\/p>\n
8. Subsequently, by<\\vayl.o:f ainendment to the written<\/p>\n
staternent,-vvhitxh._vvas"aliowed, additional pleas were raised.
\nThe additional pleas' raised are as under:<\/p>\n
 '8s.acres"'3C:i'guntas in Sy.No.6G, 11 acres 39 guntas in<\/p>\n
  o:"u't…_of which 8 acres 17 guntas was acquired by the<\/p>\n
  fi_1*.V""'the years 1971 to 1973 for the purpose of<\/p>\n
cot'i\u00abstructioi'i of Kabini Right Bank Canal. 5 acres of which was<\/p>\n
 pl lying fallow since ten years due to the leakage of water from<\/p>\n
it  Right Bank Canal, hence the defendant could not<\/p>\n
  .,,_cultivate the land. The allegations made in the plaint in para<\/p>\n
9, items 4 and 5 of the schedule. i.e., in Sy.No.60, 8 acres 16<\/p>\n
guntas and in Sy.No.6l, 12 acres 10 guntas are false and<\/p>\n
it\/,,..e<\/p>\n
concocted for the purpose of the suit. The  not
\nmaintainable for non–joinder of parties. Thereforef<\/p>\n
for dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
9. The plaintiffs \ufb01led’ reply said:\n<\/p>\n
by the first defendant. They  islvfutterly false
\nthat there was any    as falsely
\nalleged in para 5′ of the  is very signi\ufb01cant
\nthat the first  has’:.”r1ot”cared~–.t.oilstate when such oral<\/p>\n
division allegedby’l”hirri”:55too:k-vlplace” and he does not at all<\/p>\n
disclose any  oral divisions. It is further false
\nthat  of4lthelpl–iairitiffs: 21″‘ and 3rd defendant gave any<\/p>\n
consen’tr. to the defendant to cultivate these lands as the<\/p>\n
  flier;-o\u00a3_o1.o9.1973 or at any other time. Just because<\/p>\n
  the eldest member of the joint family he is<\/p>\n
maintairpiiiiiglthe joint family properties described in the plaint<\/p>\n
  scheduleihand he is bound to give each of the other sharers the<\/p>\n
A’  of paddy and other crops grown every year in the<\/p>\n
l   _,l_3.ands of their Value thereof from the inception of this suit until<\/p>\n
a final division is made putting the sharers in possession of<\/p>\n
their shares. Though it is true that each. of the sharers used to<\/p>\n
{A\/..\n<\/p>\n
take his or her shares from the seasonal or annua.l__._produce<\/p>\n
from the land they have been denied that share urilayyfuily by<\/p>\n
the first defendant who has grabbed all cropspfrorng<\/p>\n
after the filing of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
10. The allegations niade ingjpaira
\nstatement that the first defendant’ has   to seventy
\nthousand rupees to iniprove  false and it is
\nfurther false that a suniof was taken from<\/p>\n
S.I3.M for anygbenelfit ofthie joint fainilyor for the improvement<\/p>\n
of theat all he has borrowed any money
\npersonallyitllis his “pe1’so”n.al if obligation and these plaintiffs or<\/p>\n
the other shafcrsfolr their shares in the suit properties cannot<\/p>\n
 any obligation to discharge such liabilities of<\/p>\n
 The alleged loan incurred by the first<\/p>\n
defendant  stated in para 9 of the written statement is not<\/p>\n
 :”‘ad;Initte’d:’ and the plaintiffs are not accountable for that<\/p>\n
  ‘.aceot’int. The allegations made in para 15{a) about the<\/p>\n
  .._acquisition of 8 acres 17 guntas out of 8 acres 30 guntas in<\/p>\n
Sy.No.6O and 11 acres 39 guntas in Sy.No.61 in the year 1971-<\/p>\n
73 are not true and not admitted only a small extent was<\/p>\n
3\/”\n<\/p>\n
acquired for construction of Kabini Right Bank Canaland it is<\/p>\n
further false that these lands were not cultivated  joint<\/p>\n
family. Even from these lands also the <\/p>\n
realised very good crops during  pyear_–‘l”99’cl#_’\u00a7.3l””avr’id <\/p>\n
part of 93, he is accountable for  the”.ot11,er:”Sharers. <\/p>\n
Therefore, they sought for disrnissal of the suit;    .
\n1 1. Though the othe’r\u00bb’defendants”e -have: also filed<\/p>\n
separate written staten1.ent,_\u00ab”ttheyilliayeyg denied the partition
\npleaded by the first defendant’v”and  that they are<\/p>\n
entitled to a  th’e.Esui.t’schedule property.\n<\/p>\n
12. On the afo_resaid'”pleadings, the trial Court framed four<\/p>\n
issues on lCi8_;V10V..l’99.’2.. ‘T:However, subsequently nine issues<\/p>\n
 mg beenivsfaxned 05.01.1993, which includes the earlier<\/p>\n
  four’ whlieh reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
1}. it\/lthether the plainu\ufb01s prove that they are the
\nmembers of joint Hindu family along with the<\/p>\n
defendants as alleged?\n<\/p>\n
3}<\/p>\n
p5)<\/p>\n
Do the plaintjfs prove that the  are<\/p>\n
the ancestral joint Hindi family properties? “a <\/p>\n
Whether plaintiffs 1 and  -ttde;fe’ndc\u00a2nfts_.l 2,15 <\/p>\n
are entitled for,t’5\/25 share eaCli’lV’l’cutn:d’. defelhaclm
\nNo.3 is entitled    the suit<\/p>\n
properties  ‘*~ .,<\/p>\n
lzl\/hether thle\ufb02ll\u00e9i’ defenrlojnt proves that there was an<\/p>\n
   .t;et1_veenf.’the_\u00a79latna;ffs and himself long\n<\/p>\n
 -.tie._::ivas-..per.;nitted by the plaintiffs and<\/p>\n
._ \u00ab oVther”‘dej”e_ndants ‘to’cult1’vate his share?<\/p>\n
 ~Wl1ether A”t.he” “V185 defendant proves that he had<\/p>\n
 zincL:,l’lI’eCi”CiV loan of Rs.30_.0OO\/- from the State Bank<\/p>\n
 V “Mysore, Sargur Branch and Rs.60,000\/- to<\/p>\n
70,000\/~ from public and also by loan from Co-<\/p>\n
operative Society of Sargur for improvement of suit
\nproperties and also for legal necessity and family<\/p>\n
benefit?\n<\/p>\n
\u00a7<\/p>\n
6) Whether the 13′ defendant proves ‘spent<\/p>\n
huge amount towards the litigatior’:.’\ufb01’leda  <\/p>\n
R.A. No.19\/87-88 i-“before-‘_t  \ufb02Assis’Lantf’ <\/p>\n
Commissioner, I-Iunsur’.51V\n<\/p>\n
7) Whether the 15$ defen.dant  tthativhe is paying
\nkandayarn  suit  as owner?\n<\/p>\n
8) Whether   for mesne pro\ufb01ts
\n    H <\/p>\n
 ” the parties are entitled?\n<\/p>\n
13. V. _  su”pport””:of the case, the first p1aintiff-<\/p>\n
 ,,.’AVij.\u00e9L3f1’aghavachafV “was examined as P.W–1, Kamalamma as<\/p>\n
   ‘Vandpther witnesses Venkatesha and Doddegowda<\/p>\n
 exantiljezd as P.Ws–3 and 4. They produced eight<\/p>\n
 documenfts, which were marked as EXs.P-1 to P-8. On behalf<\/p>\n
A ‘~?_” Vtdefendants, the first defendant was examined as D.W~1 and<\/p>\n
second defendant S.M. Sheshaiyengar as D.W–2. They<\/p>\n
‘produced 13 documents, which were marked as Exs.}Z)-1<\/p>\n
to D~13.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14. The trial Court on appreciation of the aforesaid
\noral and documentary evidence on record, the<\/p>\n
plaintiffs have proved that they are the membersr of<\/p>\n
Hindu family along with the defendants ‘l-The  have it<\/p>\n
also proved that the suit propertie_s’are
\nHindu family properties.  are to  share
\nin the property which available’jfoivpartiftiorx  the family.
\nThe first defendant and  there was a oral<\/p>\n
partition between the  long back and he<\/p>\n
was  _  and other defendants to
\ncultivate. his share;’:_jThe..dfefer1dants have failed to prove that he<\/p>\n
had incurred a loanAoffF<'s.3O,000–00 from the State Bank of<\/p>\n
Sargurfllflf\ufb01rarich and Rs.60,000–O0 to Rs.7o,ooo-00<\/p>\n
  from   also by loan from Co-operative Society of<\/p>\n
 forvfeiimlprovement of suit properties and also for legal<\/p>\n
 necessity and family benefit. The first defendant has failed to<\/p>\n
A   that he has spent huge amount towards the litigation<\/p>\n
EK\u00a7.A.No.i9\/87~88 before the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur.<\/p>\n
WThe first defendant also has failed to prove that he is paying<\/p>\n
kandayam and cultivating the suit land as owner thereof. The<\/p>\n
lg\/.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
16. Per contra, learned counsel Sri Natrajan appearing
\nfor the respondents submit even if such loans are raised;._it has<\/p>\n
to be raised with the permission of the other co_–jshare;-rs: <\/p>\n
respect of which property that money is in.ves.te’fd  Cviearf<\/p>\n
The documents produced do not <\/p>\n
61 is acquired by the Government. In.th’ose
\njudgment and decree passed dvbyithe Codurtldbeiovi\u00e9\ufb01 is fair and
\nproper, no interference  hands  this Court.<\/p>\n
17.   stage.g learriedfounsel for the appellants<\/p>\n
seek leave ‘oftVtiief\u00a2ourt~.eto=.dismiss IA III\/03 as not pressed.
\nSubmission  oriiddrecord. IA HI\/O3 is dismissed as not<\/p>\n
pressed .\n<\/p>\n
  light of the aforesaid facts and rival<\/p>\n
contenti_’ons,<""the point that arise for our consideration in this<\/p>\n
H   appeal is as under:\n<\/p>\n
Whether part of Sy.Nos.6O and 61 of “A” schedule
\nproperty was acquired by the Govemment and<\/p>\n
not available for partition?\n<\/p>\n
L’\/e<\/p>\n
19. The material on record discloses that”therel’t.i:_:-rhino<\/p>\n
dispute regarding the relationship betwe–en: .partie–s..l”–..<\/p>\n
Similarly, both “A” and “B” schedule properties are  l’<\/p>\n
properties. Admittedly, there e’is_Kno
\npartition and separate possessioirof  properties.
\nThe defendant has setstipan  Onvllappreciation of
\nthe oral evidence  Court has held
\nthat oral parti’tio’n,set–dip is  <\/p>\n
20.  llll   afjjso:l.’goriellllthrough the oral evidence on
\nrecord we   that the partition set–up by the<\/p>\n
defendant  es’jr.,ab’1ished from the said evidence. In fact,<\/p>\n
  writtenstatement, the defendant has categorically<\/p>\n
  stated has been giving the plaintiff his legitimate share<\/p>\n
in   every year. If there was a partition, the<\/p>\n
 questiong_of 15\u00a2 defendant giving every year the share of the<\/p>\n
ff produces to the other brothers would not arise. The evidence<\/p>\n
on record shows the father died in the year 1973. Thereafter,<\/p>\n
the second son also died. 19* defendant is the person who is<\/p>\n
managing the entire properties as the other two brothers are<\/p>\n
away from the village. Therefore, he is the person___who is<\/p>\n
cultivating the land. It is his speci\ufb01c case that h*?::l’1′?:1.:’$’.:l””\u00ab”;!.lS(*:Cl<\/p>\n
money for improvement of the property and that <\/p>\n
received compensation for the landsmacquiredis ”  theviliglit of . <\/p>\n
these admitted evidence on record.’
\nplea of oral partition which iSlS_t5.’Ln~:j.1p  only
\ndeny the right of the plaintiffs_ legitirnateppvshare in the
\nschedule properties. .the:’:t1atter, We hold that
\nthe schedule properties-Via-re:the’–jpc.intl.’1″airiily’properties and all
\nthe parties. ‘are   shares in the said<\/p>\n
pr0pe1;_tieS__p .     .\n<\/p>\n
21.  \u00abInsofar Sy:l\\’os’.60 and 61 in the “A” schedule is<\/p>\n
concernedtthe’ defendant’ has taken a speci\ufb01c stand that they<\/p>\n
 ,,o.ywe\u00abre”:’acquired  the”Government in the year 197 1-73 for the<\/p>\n
    ccnvslruction of Kabini Right Bank Canal. 5 acres of<\/p>\n
 fallow since ten years due to the leakage of<\/p>\n
water  the Kabini Right Bank Canal, hence defendant<\/p>\n
  not cultivate the said land and therefore, in substance,<\/p>\n
he submits an extent of 11 acres 39 guntas in Sy.No.6O and 8<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
acres and 17 guntas in Sy,No.61 is not available for partition.
\nIn support of the said plea, no evidence was adduced before the
\nCourt. Therefore, the trial Court held the acquisition pleaded<\/p>\n
is not established.\n<\/p>\n
22. Admittedly, the defendant has not the<\/p>\n
preliminary noti\ufb01cation, final notification or the passed’ <\/p>\n
for acquisition of the said land. On fflif\ufb02 oontrary’,__itv’i’\u00a7.v clear T.<\/p>\n
from the records that becauseof  <\/p>\n
Canal, the seepage of water 1’r\u00a7\u00a71a:, the Canal “land, ls:<\/p>\n
defendantwasl no’t\u00bbableltdfraiselany crop; Gradually the fertility
\nof the soilwlraisvseriousiyiaffected. Therefore, 15′ defendant had<\/p>\n
 if represe’ntation  to the authorities for payment of<\/p>\n
pic’:-mpensaition.,v the compensation had been awarded and the<\/p>\n
_of:land which was so affected is about 9 acres. In<\/p>\n
the””-‘light’ the above, it is clear that the case of the 1st<\/p>\n
 defendant that the Government had acquired the land is not<\/p>\n
  “a:cc–e–ptab1e but it is a case where, as the land was affected by<\/p>\n
  ….seepage of water and no crops could be grown, the defendant<\/p>\n
had sought for compensation from the Government, which was<\/p>\n
it,\u00bb<\/p>\n
2!<\/p>\n
granted. In those circumstances, the findings recorded by the
\ntrial Court that the acquisition setup by the IS’ defendant is<\/p>\n
not established, is proper and do not suffer frofI1_..\u20aciIJ2yt’inll;rn3ity,<\/p>\n
as such it does not call for interference. Accor(1’ingly;.:yve”faffii’Ifri <\/p>\n
the said \ufb01nding.\n<\/p>\n
23. In that View of the  we\u00bb.’d_oA”not see_fao.y
\njusti\ufb01cation to interfere with the”V.well “consi’d.e_”r_edV”jiidgrnent of<\/p>\n
the trial Court. Appeal’   ‘<\/p>\n
24.  ._ 11v,iis;:..j–_, 3891\/10, 3893\/10 and
\n3895\/10′ ‘arel\ufb01led’by Athesiatpgfaellants to bring on record the legal<\/p>\n
representatives deceased R3, to condone the delay in \ufb01ling<\/p>\n
 to bring on record the legal representatives of<\/p>\n
abatement and also condonation of delay in<\/p>\n
filing the ap\ufb01lication for setting aside abatement.<\/p>\n
if   Applications are not opposed. Hence they are<\/p>\n
  …_8i10W\u20acd.\n<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
26. However, no notice was sent to the L.Rs of the
\ndeceased third respondent as they had not preferred any
\nappeai against the impugned judgment and decree;e.oV_:Np\u00bbw. that<\/p>\n
we have con\ufb01rmed the judgment and decree of<\/p>\n
these L.Rs of the deceased R-3 beggginade parties ginwithe \ufb01ne!<\/p>\n
decree proceedings and whatever, share: the ‘deceased “*ihird <\/p>\n
respondent was entitled to, be -ailottedto the: the
\ndefendant. Accordingiy, thesetvd\u00e9dagiplications\ufb02are aiso disposed<\/p>\n
of.\n<\/p>\n
r ii i       iiii sa\/~\n\n      sex:\n  .....  \n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court S Rangaswamy Iyengar S\/O Late … vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 2010 Author: N.Kumar And Nagaraj IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN Daued this the 2nd day of March. 20 10″”. PRESENT TI-IE I–ION’BLE MR. AND THE I-ION’BLE MR. Jijsifrcs REGULAR FIRST APPEAL. 698′ QF 200:3. BETWEEN : […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214890","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS Rangaswamy Iyengar S\/O Late ... vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 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\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S Rangaswamy Iyengar S\/O Late ... vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-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=\"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-25T09:01:04+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S Rangaswamy Iyengar S\\\/O Late … vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-25T09:01:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2878,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010\",\"name\":\"S Rangaswamy Iyengar S\\\/O Late ... vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-25T09:01:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S Rangaswamy Iyengar S\\\/O Late … vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 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":"S Rangaswamy Iyengar S\/O Late ... vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 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\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S Rangaswamy Iyengar S\/O Late ... vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-25T09:01:04+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S Rangaswamy Iyengar S\/O Late … vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-25T09:01:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010"},"wordCount":2878,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010","name":"S Rangaswamy Iyengar S\/O Late ... vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-25T09:01:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-rangaswamy-iyengar-so-late-vs-s-m-vijayaraghavachar-on-2-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S Rangaswamy Iyengar S\/O Late … vs S M Vijayaraghavachar on 2 March, 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\/214890","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=214890"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214890\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214890"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214890"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214890"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}