{"id":216449,"date":"2009-01-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009"},"modified":"2014-12-16T14:18:33","modified_gmt":"2014-12-16T08:48:33","slug":"james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 483 of 2008()\n\n\n1. JAMES, S\/O.THOMAS, POOVANNUMOOTTIL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.T.MATHAI, S\/O.THOMAS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR\n\n Dated :15\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                     * *R.S.A.*RAMKUMAR,*J.* * * *\n                        * *V. * * * * * * *\n                            *\n                               NO. 483 of 2008\n                    *Dated, *15th*January, *2009*\n                      * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n\n\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>      The sole defendant in O.S. 442 of 2000 is the sole appellant<br \/>\nin this Second Appeal. The said suit instituted by the respondent \/<br \/>\nplaintiff was one for declaration of his title and possession over the<br \/>\nplaint schedule item Nos.      1 and 3 and for fixation of boundary<br \/>\nand for a consequential prohibitory injunction.\n<\/p>\n<p>      2.    The    plaintiff  is   the     younger    brother      of   the<br \/>\nappellant\/defendant.      The defendant is the owner of plaint<br \/>\nschedule item No. 2 and 4.        As per Exts. A2 to A5 documents<br \/>\nranging between     1972 and 1999 the plaintiff obtained title over<br \/>\nplaint schedule items 1 and 3 . It is admitted that the plaintiff went<br \/>\nabroad to Canada in the year 1971 and he did not turned up for 32<br \/>\nyears.\n<\/p>\n<p>      3.    The suit was filed in year        2000 seeking the above<br \/>\nreliefs.    The suit was resisted by the appellant\/defendant<br \/>\ncontending inter alia that he was in exclusive possession of the<br \/>\nplaint schedule items     1 and 3      belonging to the plaintiff       and<br \/>\nhostile to the interest of the plaintiff. and that the title, if any, of the<br \/>\nplaintiff over plaint schedule items 1 and 3 was lost by adverse<br \/>\npossession and limitation.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.    On the side of the plaintiff, his power-of-attorney was<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">R.S.A. NO. 483 of 2008               -:2:-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>examined as P.W.1 and Exts.A1 to 6 were marked. On the side of<br \/>\nthe defendant\/appellant he examined himself as          DW1 and also<br \/>\nexamined 9 other witnesses as DW2 to 10 and got marked Exts.<br \/>\nB1 to B10. Two Advocate Commissioners deputed by the trial court<br \/>\nsubmitted their reports and plan which have been marked as Exts.<br \/>\nC1 series , C2 series and C3 series.\n<\/p>\n<p>       5.    The learned Munsiff, after trial, as per judgment and<br \/>\ndecree dated 28-2-2004            decreed the suit after rejecting the<br \/>\ndefence set up by the appellant.           On appeal preferred by the<br \/>\nappellant as A.S. No. 119 of 2004 before the            District Court,<br \/>\nPathanamthitta, the learned Addl. District Judge as per judgment<br \/>\nand decree dated 15-1-2007 dismissed the appeal confirming the<br \/>\njudgment and decree passed by the trial court. Hence, this Second<br \/>\nAppeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>       6.    The following are the questions of law formulated in the<br \/>\nmemorandum of Second Appeal:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               i) Whether the Court can decree a suit for declaration of<br \/>\n               title and possession after the expiry of period of<br \/>\n               limitation as contemplated under Sec. 27 of the<br \/>\n               Limitation Act ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>               ii)   Was the Court below justified in allowing the<br \/>\n               plaintiff to fix the boundary as per the commissioner&#8217;s<br \/>\n               report, and thereby ignoring    the basic title deed by<br \/>\n               which the plaintiff and defendant derived title to their<br \/>\n               respective plaint schedule properties ?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>       7.    I heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">R.S.A. NO. 483 of 2008            -:3:-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>who re-iterated the contentions of the appellant to submit that the<br \/>\nevidence adduced by the appellant will unequivocally show that the<br \/>\nappellant has been in possession of plaint schedule items 1 and 3<br \/>\nto the exclusion of the plaintiff for more than 30 years, that the<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff had not entrusted the defendant to look after<br \/>\nthe property during his absence could have very well found out that<br \/>\nthe appellant\/defendant      has been in    open and uninterrupted<br \/>\npossession of his property for more than 30 years whereby his title<br \/>\nover the property stood extinguished under Sec. 27 of the<br \/>\nLimitation Act, 1963.       The learned counsel also relied on the<br \/>\ndecisions reported in 2004 (1) KLT SN Page 46 and 2005 (2) KLT SN<br \/>\nPage 51 (SC) to contend for the position that the finding recording<br \/>\nthe adverse possession involved a question of law justifying the<br \/>\ninterference by this Court under Sec. 100 C.P.C. and that were the<br \/>\nadverse possessor has has been in possession for more than the<br \/>\nstatutory period, the court has no other alternative except to hold<br \/>\nthat the title of the real owner is lost.\n<\/p>\n<p>       8.    I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above<br \/>\nsubmissions. The lower appellate court has, while re-appreciating<br \/>\nthe oral and documentary evidence         considered the    exhibits<br \/>\nproduced by the appellant and has held that most of them do not<br \/>\npertain to the plaint schedule items 1 and 3 which are situated<br \/>\nclose to the properties of the appellant namely, plaint schedule<br \/>\nitems 2 and 4. The appellant is none other than the elder brother of<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">R.S.A. NO. 483 of 2008            -:4:-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>the respondent\/plaintiff. If during the absence of the plaintiff, the<br \/>\nelder brother has been exercising acts of possession over the<br \/>\nplaint schedule item Nos. 1 and 3 belonging to the plaintiff, there<br \/>\ncannot be a presumption of any hostile animus in the conduct of<br \/>\nhis brother. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff through his<br \/>\npower- of -attorney holder shows that after acquiring the title over<br \/>\nplaint schedule items 1 and 3, mutation over those items has also<br \/>\nbeen effected in his favour and he had paid tax even on the eve of<br \/>\nthe filing of the suit. Even assuming that the appellant\/defendant<br \/>\nhad paid tax in respect of plaint schedule items 1 and 3 that can<br \/>\nonly be to the account of the plaintiff in         whose favour the<br \/>\nmutation had been effected         in the revenue registers.     The<br \/>\nappellant\/elder brother     paying tax, if any, to the account to his<br \/>\nyounger brother who was in Canada cannot be characterised as an<br \/>\nact of adverse possession.       The classic requirements of adverse<br \/>\npossession are nec vi nec clam         and nec precario    which are<br \/>\nconspicuously absent in this case. The Possession, however long,<br \/>\ncannot      necessarily be adverse unless the possessor has brought it<br \/>\nto the knowledge of the real owner (who is abroad) that he has<br \/>\nbeen in possession with a hostile animus towards             his own<br \/>\nyounger brother. The findings recorded by the courts below, apart<br \/>\nfrom being pure findings of fact are fully in accordance with the<br \/>\ndecision of the apex Court in         <a href=\"\/doc\/663164\/\">P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and<br \/>\nOthers v. Revamma and Others<\/a> &#8211; 2007 (6) SCC 59. No question of<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">R.S.A. NO. 483 of 2008           -:5:-<\/span><\/p>\n<p>law,    much less,     any substantial question of law arises   for<br \/>\nconsideration in this     Second Appeal.     The questions of law<br \/>\nformulated in the memorandum of appeal also do not arise for<br \/>\nconsideration in this Second Appeal which is accordingly, dismissed<br \/>\nin limine.\n<\/p>\n<p>       Dated this the 15 th January 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                             V. RAMKUMAR,<br \/>\n                                                (JUDGE)<\/p>\n<p>ani.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 483 of 2008() 1. JAMES, S\/O.THOMAS, POOVANNUMOOTTIL, &#8230; Petitioner Vs 1. P.T.MATHAI, S\/O.THOMAS, &#8230; Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon&#8217;ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR Dated :15\/01\/2009 O R D E R * [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216449","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 2009 - 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\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-16T08:48:33+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\\\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-16T08:48:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1018,\"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\\\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009\",\"name\":\"James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-16T08:48:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 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":"James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 2009 - 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\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-16T08:48:33+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\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-16T08:48:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009"},"wordCount":1018,"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\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009","name":"James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-16T08:48:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/james-vs-p-t-mathai-on-15-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"James vs P.T.Mathai on 15 January, 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\/216449","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=216449"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216449\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216449"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216449"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216449"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}