{"id":229466,"date":"2009-03-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009"},"modified":"2018-04-24T19:21:51","modified_gmt":"2018-04-24T13:51:51","slug":"narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Narayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Narayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 730 of 1996()\n\n\n\n1. NARAYANA MOOLYA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. SADASIVA MOOLYA\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :17\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                            THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                           --------------------------------------\n                                A.S.No.730 of 1996\n                           --------------------------------------\n                     Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009.\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       Respondents though served, remain absent.                  I heard counsel for<\/p>\n
appellants\/plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       2.     Frills and embroideries excluded, the case of appellants\/plaintiffs is<\/p>\n
that plaint A schedule properties belonged to late Manku Moolya and that on his<\/p>\n
death, it devolved on his children, appellants and respondent No.1\/defendant<\/p>\n
No.1. Respondent No.2\/defendant No.2 is wife of respondent No.1\/defendant<\/p>\n
No.1. Respondents are in possession of plaint A schedule properties after the<\/p>\n
death of Manku Moolya. Appellants alleged that respondent No.1 caused the<\/p>\n
death of Manku Moolya and hence, stands disqualified from               inheritance by<\/p>\n
virtue of Section     25 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short, “the Act”).<\/p>\n
Appellants therefore, prayed for recovery of possession of plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
properties from the respondents.          Respondent No.2 filed written statement<\/p>\n
denying the claim of the appellants and contending inter alia that Manku Moolya<\/p>\n
and respondent No.1 were in joint possession of the properties and denying the<\/p>\n
allegation that respondent No.1 caused the death of Manku Moolya.<\/p>\n
Respondent No.2 also contended that respondent No.1 who was then detained<\/p>\n
in prison in connection with the charge of the murder of Manku Moolya and his<\/p>\n
wife was insane.     Appellants moved application to appoint respondent No.2 as<\/p>\n
AS No.730\/1996<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
the guardian of respondent No.1.       That application was allowed.     That was<\/p>\n
followed by respondent No.2 filing a written statement on behalf of respondent<\/p>\n
No.1 as well adopting the contentions already taken up by her. In the course of<\/p>\n
the pendency of the proceedings appellants filed I.A.No.675 of 1996 to amend<\/p>\n
the plaint to incorporate an alternative prayer for partition of plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
properties among them and respondent No.1 in case their contention that<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 is disentitled for inheritance is found against. Learned Sub<\/p>\n
Judge vide order dated 24.6.1996 dismissed the application holding that the<\/p>\n
amendment if allowed will demolish the foundation of the plaint.        Appellants<\/p>\n
adduced oral and documentary evidence.          There was no evidence for the<\/p>\n
respondents.     Learned Sub Judge vide the impugned judgment and decree<\/p>\n
dismissed the suit holding that there is no evidence to hold that respondent No.1<\/p>\n
caused the death of Manku Moolya. Hence this appeal.<\/p>\n
      3.      It is contended by the learned counsel for appellants that learned<\/p>\n
Sub Judge was not correct in dismissing the application for amendment in that,<\/p>\n
the claim of the appellants that plaint A schedule properties belonged to Manku<\/p>\n
Moolya remained the same without change even by the amendment as sought<\/p>\n
for. According to the learned counsel, even without an amendment as proposed<\/p>\n
it was within the power of the court below to allow a lesser relief of partition of<\/p>\n
AS No.730\/1996<\/p>\n
                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
plaint A schedule properties among the appellants and respondent No.1.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel therefore prayed that appellants be given a preliminary decree<\/p>\n
for partition of their > share in  plaint A schedule properties.<\/p>\n
       4.      It is seen from paragraph 7 of the judgment under challenge that<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge found         that appellants were able to prove that plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule properties belonged to them and respondent No.1 jointly. Learned Sub<\/p>\n
Judge found that the allegation that respondent No.1 caused the death             of<\/p>\n
Manku Moolya is not proved and hence, disinheritance under Section 25 of the<\/p>\n
Act is not permissible. As to the prayer of the appellants for partition, learned<\/p>\n
Sub Judge observed that appellants cannot be granted a decree for partition as<\/p>\n
it would work out injustice and prejudice to respondent No.1 but it is not stated<\/p>\n
in what way injustice or prejudice will be caused to respondent No.1.<\/p>\n
       5.      There cannot be a dispute, and the learned Sub Judge has also<\/p>\n
referred to the relevant decisions on the point that it is open to the court to mould<\/p>\n
relief even without amendment of the plaint.             Court can grant relief in<\/p>\n
appropriate cases based on facts admitted by       the defendant if no prejudice is<\/p>\n
caused to the defendant.         In this case   appellants disputed the right of<\/p>\n
respondent No.1 only under Section 25 of the Act. Therefore, it is not as if<\/p>\n
injustice or prejudice will be caused to respondent No.1 if the amendment of the<\/p>\n
AS No.730\/1996<\/p>\n
                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
plaint prayed for was allowed. It is not as if the court is powerless to allow<\/p>\n
amendment if it changes the character of the suit. There is nothing that prevents<\/p>\n
the appellants from relying upon different rights alternatively or making<\/p>\n
inconsistent allegations and claiming relief thereunder. Therefore, it was open to<\/p>\n
the appellants to alternatively seek the lesser relief of partition between<\/p>\n
themselves and respondent No.1, assuming that they could not succeed in<\/p>\n
disqualifying respondent No.1 from inheritance under Section 25 of the Act.<\/p>\n
When amendment of the plaint is sought for, the courts must be liberal in<\/p>\n
considering the request provided ofcourse by such amendment no prejudice or<\/p>\n
injustice is caused to the opposite party, since the ultimate aim of the court is to<\/p>\n
render justice to     the parties    rather than push them to multiplicity of<\/p>\n
proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       6.     Though the order on I.A.No.675 of 1996 has not been separately<\/p>\n
challenged by the appellants, they are entitled to challenge the correctness of<\/p>\n
that order in the appeal from the judgment and decree under Section 105 of the<\/p>\n
Code of Civil Procedure as the dismissal of I.A.No.675 of 1996 has affected the<\/p>\n
ultimate decision in the suit. Learned counsel for appellants fairly concedes that<\/p>\n
the appellants are not pursuing their claim under Section 25 of the Act. On the<\/p>\n
AS No.730\/1996<\/p>\n
                                            5<\/span><\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of the case, it is only just and proper and necessary to<\/p>\n
avoid to multiplicity of proceedings that the amendment sought for as per I.A<\/p>\n
No.675 of 1996 is allowed. Therefore, that application will stand allowed.<\/p>\n
       7.      The necessary corollary is that the matter has to go back to the<\/p>\n
trial court for consideration of the relief incorporated by amendment. Appellants<\/p>\n
shall carry out the amendment in the plaint within two weeks from the date of<\/p>\n
their appearance in the trial court.          Respondents will be given sufficient<\/p>\n
opportunity to file additional written statement if any consequent to the<\/p>\n
amendment. Both sides will get opportunity to adduce evidence as well.<\/p>\n
       8.      No other point is raised for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
       Resultantly, this appeal is allowed in the following lines:-<\/p>\n
               (i)    I.A.No.675 of 1996 is allowed and the appellants are<\/p>\n
permitted to amend the plaint accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
               (ii)   The finding of the court below that respondent No.1 is not<\/p>\n
disentitled from claiming right over suit property under Section 25 of the Act is<\/p>\n
confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
AS No.730\/1996<\/p>\n
                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
              (iii) The judgment and decree of the court below dismissing the<\/p>\n
suit are set aside and the case is remitted to that court for consideration of the<\/p>\n
relief incorporated by amendment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
              (vi)  Parties shall suffer their cost in this appeal.<\/p>\n
              (v)     Parties shall appear in the trial court on 22.5.2009.     In<\/p>\n
case the respondents do not appear in that court on 22.5.2009, learned Sub<\/p>\n
Judge shall issue summons to them for their appearance. Learned Sub Judge<\/p>\n
is directed to expedite the trial and disposal of the case.<\/p>\n
        C.M.P.No.4439 of 1996 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                           Judge.\n<\/p>\n
cks<\/p>\n
AS No.730\/1996<\/p>\n
                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
                     Thomas P.Joseph, J.\n<\/p>\n
                     A.S.No.730 of 1996<\/p>\n
                     JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                     17th March, 2009<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Narayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 730 of 1996() 1. NARAYANA MOOLYA … Petitioner Vs 1. SADASIVA MOOLYA … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.GOURI SANKAR RAI For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH Dated :17\/03\/2009 O R […]<\/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-229466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNarayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-24T13:51:51+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\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-24T13:51:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1189,\"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\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Narayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-24T13:51:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 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:\/\/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":"Narayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-24T13:51:51+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\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-24T13:51:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009"},"wordCount":1189,"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\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009","name":"Narayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-24T13:51:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayana-moolya-vs-sadasiva-moolya-on-17-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narayana Moolya vs Sadasiva Moolya on 17 March, 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:\/\/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\/229466","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=229466"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/229466\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=229466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=229466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=229466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}