{"id":232713,"date":"2011-11-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011"},"modified":"2019-04-12T01:24:52","modified_gmt":"2019-04-11T19:54:52","slug":"age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Age: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Age: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: G. S. Godbole<\/div>\n
                                                -1-                               sa-100-2000\n\n\n    srj\n                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                             \n                                SECOND APPEAL NO.100 OF 2000\n                                             WITH\n                              CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1244 OF 2011\n\n\n\n\n                                                            \n          1     Smt. Yamunabai Dhankude                 ]\n                Age: about 60, Occu: household          ]\n          2     Sou. Kondabai Baburao Sakore            ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n                Age: about 36, Occu: household          ]\n          3     Shri Dashrath Chabaji Dhankude          ]\n\n          4\n                                 \n                Age: about 60, Occu: Business\n                Shri Ramdas Chabaji Dhankude\n                                                        ]\n                                                        ]\n                Age: about 32, Occ: Advocate            ]\n                All R\/1t. 1053, Gokhale Road,           ]\n                                \n                \"Matruda\" Building, Pune 411 016        ]      ..       Appellants\n\n                       V\/s.\n             \n\n\n          1         Shri Raosaheb Mohanlal Chimanlal ]\n                    Maniyar Trust, having its registered ]\n          \n\n\n\n                    at 1-A, CTS No.1698, Homeguard  ]\n                    Building Shivajinagar, Pune 411 005. ]\n                    through its trustees:-               ]\n                    1. Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya        ]\n\n\n\n\n\n                        Age: Adult, R\/at. \"Mathoshri\",   ]\n                        11\/7, Erandwana Karve Road,      ]\n                        Pune 411 004.                    ]\n                    2. Shri Rajendra R. Mantri           ]\n                        Age: Adult, R\/at. 304, White     ]\n\n\n\n\n\n                        House, 1482, Sadashiv Peth,      ]\n                        Pune 411 030.                    ]\n                    3. Shri Vijay S. Mundada             ]\n                        Age: Adult, R\/at. 118-B, Main    ]\n                        Prabhat Road, Near Canol,        ]\n                        Pune 411 004.                    ]\n                    4. Sou. Dr. Sunanda S. Rathi         ]\n                        Age: Adult, R\/at. \"Chiranjeev\"   ]\n                        1107, Shukrawar Peth,  Sathe     ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::\n                                             -2-                                 sa-100-2000\n\n\n              Colony, Pune 411 002.                   ]\n          5. Shri Chandrakant N. Daga                 ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n              Age: Adult, R\/at. Post Karjat,          ]\n              Tal.: District - Raigad.                ]\n          6. Shri Omprakash D. Malpani                ]\n\n\n\n\n                                                           \n              Age: Adult, R\/at. At Post               ]\n              Sangamner, Tal.: District-              ]\n              Ahmednagar.                             ]      Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n    Mr. R. M. Pethe,for the Appellants\n    Mr. Rajesh Datar, for the Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n                                             \n                             ig        CORAM               :  G.S.GODBOLE,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                       RESERVED ON        : 4th OCTOBER, 2011\n                                       PRONOUNCED ON  :14th NOVEMBER, 2011. \n                           \n    JUDGMENT:-\n\n\n    1            Pursuant   to   the   earlier   order   dated   27th  September,   2011, \n       \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
    since the Appeal involved a short question of law, it was directed to be <\/p>\n
    heard for final hearing.  Accordingly, I have heard the learned Advocates <\/p>\n
    finally on 4th October, 2011 and the Judgment was reserved.\n<\/p>\n
    2            The   facts   are   not   in   dispute   and   are   very   brief.     The <\/p>\n
    Respondents filed RCS No.1002 of 1998 against the   Appellants in the <\/p>\n
    Civil   Court   at   Pune   for   permanent   injunction   from   disturbing   the <\/p>\n
    possession of the Plaintiffs- Trustees over the suit property.  The averments <\/p>\n
    shows   that the  Plaintiffs  are  the  trustees    of a  Public  Charitable Trust, <\/p>\n
    registered under the Bombay Public  Trusts  Act, 1950.   The suit sought <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                               -3-                                  sa-100-2000<\/p>\n
    relief   against   Defendants   on   the   ground   that   the   Defendants   were <\/p>\n
    unlawfully   trying   to   dispossess     the   Plaintiffs   and   were   disturbing   the <\/p>\n
    possession of the plaintiffs trust, through its trustees.\n<\/p>\n
    3                In this suit, an application for rejection of plaint  was filed by <\/p>\n
    the   Defendants   below  Exhibit  26   on   the  ground  that  since   the   trust  is <\/p>\n
    registered   under   Bombay   Public   Trusts   Act,   1950,   it   was   essential   to <\/p>\n
    obtain permission of the Charity Commissioner under Section 51 of the <\/p>\n
    said Act and since said permission was not obtained, plaint was liable to <\/p>\n
    be rejected.  Relying on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of <\/p>\n
    Shree Gollaleshwar Dev and others v\/s. Gangawwa Kom Shantayya Math <\/p>\n
    and others, reported in AIR 1986- SCC-231a and the Judgment of Single <\/p>\n
    Judge of this  Court in  the case of Leelavati w\/o. Vasantrao Pingle and <\/p>\n
    another v\/s. Dattatraya D. Kavishar and other, reported in 1988 (2), Bom.\n<\/p>\n
    C.R.429,b  the   learned   Joint   C.   J.   J.   D.   Pune   had   allowed   the   said <\/p>\n
    application and rejected the plaint.  Aggrieved by Judgment and Order of <\/p>\n
    rejection of plaint which amounts to a decree under Section 2(2) of the <\/p>\n
    Code  of  Civil  Procedure, 1908,  the  original   Plaintiffs  filed  Civil  Appeal <\/p>\n
    No.1   of   1998.     By   the   impugned   Judgment   and   Order   dated   15th <\/p>\n
    September, 1999 the learned 3rd ADJ, Pune allowed the said appeal,  order <\/p>\n
    a    AIR 1986- SC-231<\/p>\n
    b   1988 (2), Bom. C.R.429<\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  -4-                                  sa-100-2000<\/p>\n
    of  rejection of plaint was  set aside  and the  application  Exhibit 26 was <\/p>\n
    dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    4              By order dated 9th  February, 2000, Second Appeal has been <\/p>\n
    admitted by learned Single Judge (Coram: D. G. Deshpande,J.), and has <\/p>\n
    passed the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
    ”      Heard.\n<\/p>\n
           In view of the question raised, Appeal is admitted.”\n<\/p>\n
    5              It is thus clear that no substantial question of law was framed <\/p>\n
    as required by section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.\n<\/p>\n
    6              In view of this, I had indicated to the learned Advocates that <\/p>\n
    only one substantial question of law was being framed and the Advocates <\/p>\n
    have   advanced   their   submissions   on   that   question   of   law   which   is   as <\/p>\n
    under:-\n<\/p>\n
           (a)     Whether, considering the averments made in the plaint <\/p>\n
           where the Plaintiffs claim to be trustees of a Public Charitable <\/p>\n
           Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and <\/p>\n
           the   nature   of   relief   claimed   in   the   suit,   it   was   necessary   to <\/p>\n
           obtain   prior   permission   of   the   Charity   Commissioner   under <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                -5-                                  sa-100-2000<\/p>\n
            Section 51 of the said Act ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    7               I   have   heard   Mr.  Pethe,   appearing   for   the   Appellants     and <\/p>\n
    Mr.   Datar   for   the   Respondents.   Mr.   Pethe   advanced   the   following <\/p>\n
    submissions:-\n<\/p>\n
    (a)             Relying on the Judgment of learned Single Judge (Coram: H.\n<\/p>\n
    W. Dhabe J.) in the case of Vidarbha Kshtriya Mali Shikshan Sanstha v\/s.\n<\/p>\n
    Mahatma Fuley Shikshan Samiti, Amravati, 1986 Mh. L. J.-773.c   It was <\/p>\n
    submitted that considering the nature of controversy and averments made <\/p>\n
    in the plaint, the suit was governed by Section 50 of the Act and, hence, <\/p>\n
    permission was obligatory.\n<\/p>\n
    (b)             That the property was allegedly claimed to be trust property <\/p>\n
    and hence, suit squarely falls under Section 50 of the said Act.   He also <\/p>\n
    relied   upon   the   Judgment   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   (Coram:   A.   V.\n<\/p>\n
    Mohta J.) in the case of Surayya Afzal Khan v\/s. Raza Shah Fakir Takiya, <\/p>\n
    reported in 2006 (Supp.) Bom. C. R. 670.d  Mr. Pethe also relied upon the <\/p>\n
    observations in the Judgment of Division Bench (Mr. Justice Patkar and <\/p>\n
    Mr. Justice Barlee), in Kashinath Mahadev Mahajan v\/s. Gangubai Keshav <\/p>\n
    c   1986 Mh. L. J.-773<\/p>\n
    d   2006(Supp.)Bom. C. R. 670<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                    -6-                            sa-100-2000<\/p>\n
    Nagarkar Volume- XXXII, Bombay Law Reporter, 1687.e   Mr. Pethe also <\/p>\n
    relied upon the Judgment of learned Single Judge (Coram: B. G.Deo,J.) in <\/p>\n
    the case of Leelavati w\/o. Vasantrao Pingle (supra) and submitted that the <\/p>\n
    Appeal deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    8                On the other hand, Mr. Datar relied upon the Judgment of the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court in the case of Shree Gollaleshwar Dev and others (supra).\n<\/p>\n
    He  also  relied   upon   the   Judgment   of   the  Division   Bench   of   this   Court <\/p>\n
    (Coram: M. L. Pendse and S. H. Kapadia, JJ) in the case of Amirchand <\/p>\n
    Tulsiram Gupta and others v\/s. Vasant Dhanaji Patil and others, reported <\/p>\n
    in 1992 Mh. L.J. 275:1992(2) Bom. C. R. 22f and particularly observations <\/p>\n
    made in paragraphs 6 and 7.  Reliance was also placed on the Judgment <\/p>\n
    of the Supreme Court in the case of Church of North India v\/s. Lavajibhai <\/p>\n
    Ratanjibhai   and   Others,   reported   in   (2005)   10   SCC-760g.     The   term <\/p>\n
    “Court” is defined under Section 2(3) of the BPT Act, 1950 and the term <\/p>\n
    “persons having interest” is defined under Section 2(10) of the said Act <\/p>\n
    which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
    “2.     Definitions:- In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in <\/p>\n
    the subject or context,-<\/p>\n
    e   Volume- XXXII, Bombay Law Reporter, 1687<\/p>\n
    f   1992 Mh. L. J. 275:1992(2) Bom. C. R. 22
\n    g   (2005) 10 SCC-760<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                -7-                                  sa-100-2000<\/p>\n
           [10] “person having interest” [includes]<\/p>\n
           (a) in the case of a temple, person who is entitled to attend at
\n           or is in the habit of attending the performance of worship or
\n           service in the temple, or who is entitled to partake or is in that <\/p>\n
           habit of partaking in the distribution of gifts thereof,\n<\/p>\n
           (b) in the case of a math, a disciple of the math or a person of
\n           the religious persuasion to which the main belongs,\n<\/p>\n
           (c) in the case of a wakf, a person who if entitled to receive <\/p>\n
           any pecuniary or other benefit from the wakf and includes a
\n           person who has right to worship or to perform any religious rite
\n           in   a   mosque,   idgah,   imambara,   dargah,   maqbara   or   other
\n           religious institution connected with the wakf or to participate in <\/p>\n
           any religious or charitable institution under the wakf,\n<\/p>\n
           (d) in   the   case   of   a   society   registered   under   the   Societies <\/p>\n
           Registration   Act,   1860   (XXI   of   1860),   any   member   or   such
\n           society, and\n<\/p>\n
           (e) in   the   case   of   any   other   public   trust   [any   trustee   or <\/p>\n
           beneficiary]<\/p>\n
    10             Sections 50 and 51 of the said Act read thus:-\n<\/p>\n
    50. Suit by or against  or relating to public trusts or trustees or others <\/p>\n
     –  In any  case,     <\/p>\n
            (i)   where is alleged that there is a breach of a public trust,        <\/p>\n
             negligence,misapplication or misconduct on the part of a
\n             trustee or trustees,\n<\/p>\n
             (ii)       where a direction or decree is required to recover the
\n             possession of or to follow a property belonging or alleged to be
\n             belonging to a public trust or the proceeds thereof or for an <\/p>\n
             account of such property or proceeds from a trustee, ex-trustee,
\n             alienee,   trespasser   or   any   other   person   including   a   person
\n             holding   adversely   to   the   public   trust   but   not   a   tenant   or
\n             licensee,<\/p>\n
           (iii)         Where the direction of the Court is deemed   necessary
\n           for  the administration   of any public trust, or\n<\/p>\n
           (iv)   for any declaration or injunction in favour of or against a<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                -8-                                  sa-100-2000<\/p>\n
            public trust or trustees or beneficiary thereof,  <\/p>\n
    the   Charity   Commissioner   after   making   such   enquiry   as   he   thinks
\n    necessary, or two or more persons having an interest in case the suit is <\/p>\n
    under sub-clauses (i) to (iii), or one or more such persons in case the suit
\n    is   under   sub-clause   (iv)   having   obtained   the   consent   in   writing   of   the
\n    Charity   Commissioner   as   provided   in   section   51   may   institute   a   suit
\n    whether contentions or not in the Court within the local limits of whose <\/p>\n
    jurisdiction the whole or part of the subject-matter of the trust is situated,
\n    to obtain a decree for any of the following reliefs:-\n<\/p>\n
              (a)   an order for the recovery of the possession of such  <\/p>\n
                      property or proceeds thereof;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (b)   the removal  of any trustee or manager;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (c)   the appointment  of a new trustee or manager;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (d)   vesting any property in a trustee;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (e)   a direction for taking accounts and making certain enquiries;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (f)    an order  directing  the trustees or others to pay to the
\n                      trust   the loss caused to the same by their breach of
\n                      trust, negligence, misapplication, misconduct or willful
\n                      default;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (g)   a declaration as to  what proportion of the trust
\n                      property or of the interest  therein shall be allocated to  <\/p>\n
                      any particular object of the trust;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (h)   a direction to apply the trust property or its income cy pres on
\n                     the lines of section 56 if this relief is claimed along with any
\n                      other relief mentioned in this section;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              ( i )  a direction authorising the whole or any part of the
\n                        trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or exchanged
\n                        or in any manner alienated on such terms and
\n                        conditions as the court may deem necessary;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (j)       the settlement of a scheme, or variations or alterations in a  <\/p>\n
                      scheme already settled;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (k)   an order   for amalgamation of two or more trusts by
\n                      framing a common   scheme for the same;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (l)    an order for winding  up of any trust and applying  the
\n                     funds for  other charitable purposes;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (m)  an order for handing  over of one trust to the trustees
\n                     of some other trust and deregistering such trust;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (n)  an order  exonerating the trustees from technical
\n                     breaches, etc;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                -9-                                  sa-100-2000<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         (o)   an order  varying , altering, amending  or superseding
\n                 any instrument of trust;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (p)   declaring  or denying any right  in favour of or against,
\n                 a public trust  or trustee or trustees or beneficiary
\n                 thereof an issuing injunctions in appropriate cases; or  <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
        (q)    granting any other relief  as the nature  of the case may
\n                 require which would be a condition  precedent to or
\n                 consequential to any of the aforesaid  relief’s or is
\n                 necessary in the interest of the trust:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Provided that no suit claiming any of the reliefs specified
\n          in this section shall be instituted in respect of any public trust,
\n          except in conformity with the provisions thereof:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Provided   further   that,   the   Charity   Commissioner   may <\/p>\n
          instead of instituting a suit make an application to the Court for
\n          a variation or alteration in a scheme already settled:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 Provided also that, the provisions of this section and other
\n          consequential provisions shall apply to all public trusts, whether
\n          registered or not or  exempted from the  provisions of this  Act
\n          under sub-section (4) of section 1].\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    51.     Consent of Charity Commissioner for institution of suit.\n<\/p>\n
           (1) If the persons having an interest in any public trust intend
\n          to file a suit of the nature specified in  section 50, they shall
\n          apply to the Charity Commissioner in writing for his consent.\n<\/p>\n
          [If   the   Charity   Commissioner   after   hearing   the   parties   and
\n          making such enquiries (if any) as he thinks fit is satisfied that
\n          there   is   a  prima   facie  case,   he]   may   within   a   period   of   six
\n          months from the date on which the application is made, grant
\n          or refuse his consent to the institution of such suit.  The order <\/p>\n
          of   the   Charity   Commissioner   refusing  his  consent   shall  be  in
\n          writing and shall state the reasons for the refusal.\n<\/p>\n
          (2) If   the   Charity   Commissioner   refuses   his   consent   to   the
\n          institution   of   the   suit   under   sub-section   (1)   the   persons
\n          applying   for   such   consent   may   file   an   appeal   to   the
\n          [Maharashtra   Revenue   Tribunal],   in   the   manner   provided   by
\n          this Act.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                 – 10 –                                 sa-100-2000<\/p>\n
          (3) In every suit filed by persons having interest in any trust
\n          under section 50, the Charity Commissioner shall be a necessary <\/p>\n
          party.\n<\/p>\n
          (4) Subject   to   the   decision   of   the   [Maharashtra   Revenue <\/p>\n
          Tribunal] in appeal under section 71, the decision of the Charity
\n          Commissioner   under   sub-section   (1)   shall   be   final   and
\n          conclusive.”\n<\/p>\n
    11            For deciding the application under Order VII Rule XI of the <\/p>\n
    Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the averments made in the plaint alone <\/p>\n
    will have to be looked into.ig<\/p>\n
    12            In the case of Shree Gollaleshwar Dev and Others(supra), the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 13 as under:-\n<\/p>\n
          ”       It   is   clear   from   these   provisions   that   S.   50   of   the   Act
\n          created and regulated a right to institute a suit by the Charity <\/p>\n
          Commissioner   or   by   two   or   more   persons   interested   in   the
\n          trust,   in   the   form   of   supplementary   statutory   provisions
\n          without defeasance of the right of the manager or a trustee or a
\n          shebait of an idol to bring a suit in the name of idol to recover <\/p>\n
          the property of the trust in the usual way.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    13            In the case of Amirchand Tulsiram Gupta and others (supra), <\/p>\n
    it is observed in paragraph 7, which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
          ”        It is necessary in this connection to refer to the decision
\n          reported in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 231 (Shree Gollaleshwar Dev and
\n          ors   v.   Gangawwa   Kom   Shantayya   Math   and   others).   The
\n          Supreme Court held that section 50 created and regulated a
\n          right to institute a suit by the Charity Commissioner or by two <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         – 11 –                                sa-100-2000<\/p>\n
     or   more   persons   interested   in   the   trust,   in   the   form   of
\n     supplementary statutory provisions without defeasance of the <\/p>\n
     right of the manager or a trustee or a shebait of an idol to
\n     bring a suit in the name of idol to recover the property of the
\n     trust   in  the   usual   way.     In   other   words   the  Supreme  Court <\/p>\n
     accepted the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court
\n     that the right of a trustee to bring a suit in the usual way, that
\n     is in exercise of rights under the Common Law is not affected
\n     by provisions of section 50 of the Public Trusts Act.  The ratio <\/p>\n
     laid   down   by   the   Supreme   Court   was   followed   by   a   Single
\n     Judge of this Court in the decision reported in 1986 Mah. L.J.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     773 (Vidarbha Kshatriya  Mali Shikshan Sanstha  v. Mahatma
\n     Fuley Shikshan Samiti, Amravati), holding that trustees who <\/p>\n
     want to enforce their civil rights are not covered by definition
\n     of the expression “person having interest” and are entitled to <\/p>\n
     file suits without obtaining prior permission.   The same view
\n     was   taken   by   another   Single   Judge   of   this   Court   in   the
\n     decision   reported   in   1988(2)   Bombay   Cases   Reporter   429, <\/p>\n
     (Leelavati w\/o Vasantrao Pingle v. Dattatraya D. Kavishar &
\n     Others). The<\/a> same view was taken by another Single Judge in
\n     an unreported decision dated September 13, 1990 delivered in
\n     Original   Side   Suit   No.958   of   1975   and   the   decision   of   the <\/p>\n
     Single Judge was confirmed in Appeal No.1315 of 1990 by the
\n     Division   Bench   by   judgment   dated   March   14,   1991.     The <\/p>\n
     Division Bench specifically disapproved the view taken by the
\n     trial   Court   in   the   present   case   holding   that   the   decision
\n     reported in 69 Bom. L. R. 472 Rajgopal Raghunathdas Somani
\n     v. Ramchandra Hajarimal Jhavar,<\/a> still holds filed and section <\/p>\n
     50 does not prohibit a suit being filed by trustees to recover
\n     possession   from   a   trespasser   without   obtaining   prior
\n     permission.     We   are   in   respectful   agreement   with   the   view
\n     taken by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judges,
\n     and we entirely disagree with the finding of the trial Judge <\/p>\n
     that the suit was not maintainable in absence of permission.
\n     The learned trial Judge was clearly in error in holding that
\n     after   amendment   of   section   50   and   section   2(10)(e)   it   is
\n     incumbent upon the trustees to obtain prior approval of the
\n     Charity Commissioner to institute suit against a trespasser for
\n     recovery of possession.   As the finding of the trial Judge on
\n     this count is set aside, consequently the finding that the High
\n     Court   had   no  jurisdiction   to   entertain   the   suit   and   the   suit
\n     could be filed only in the City Civil Court after obtaining prior <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  – 12 –                                sa-100-2000<\/p>\n
            approval cannot stand.”\n<\/p>\n
    14              In the case Church of North India (supra), the Supreme Court <\/p>\n
    has considered the entire scheme of the B.P.T. Act, 1950 and the earlier <\/p>\n
    Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Gollaleshwar Dev <\/p>\n
    and others (supra) was referred and in paragraph 98 it is held that if a <\/p>\n
    question   which   is   outside   the   purview   of   the   Act   or   in   relation   to   the <\/p>\n
    possession of the trust property arises, Civil Court will have jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    15              In the aforesaid legal background, perusal of the averments <\/p>\n
    made in the plaint clearly shows that the  suit  is filed in the ordinary Civil <\/p>\n
    Court and not under the “Court” as defined under Section 2(4) of the said <\/p>\n
    Act of 1950.  The suit is for injunction instituted on the basis of averments <\/p>\n
    that the Defendants\/ Applicants herein are trying to disturb and obstruct <\/p>\n
    the peaceful possession  and enjoyment of the trustees representing the <\/p>\n
    trust and were obstructing the construction of compound wall which was <\/p>\n
    being   erected   for   safe   guarding   the   trust   property.   The   said   suit   is, <\/p>\n
    therefore, out side the purview of the said Act of 1950, though the trusts <\/p>\n
    are “persons having interest” under Section 2(10) of the said Act as held <\/p>\n
    by the Supreme Court in the case of  Shree Gollaleshwar Dev and others <\/p>\n
    (supra).\n<\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                              - 13 -                               sa-100-2000\n\n\n    16              In the case of   Leelavati w\/o Vasantrao Pingle (supra), the \n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n<\/pre>\n
    learned Single Judge held in paragraph 11 that:-\n<\/p>\n
           ”      The   other   course   is   that   trustees,   without   moving   the <\/p>\n
           Charity Commissioner, as owners of the property, can, like an
\n           ordinary owner, file a suit against a trespasser in the ordinary
\n           Court having original Civil jurisdiction over the subject-matter
\n           of the suit.  The present suit is of such a type filed before the <\/p>\n
           Civil Judge, Junior Division, Chikhli.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    17              This judgment has been specifically approved by the Division <\/p>\n
    Bench   in   the   case   of     Amirchand   Tulsiram   Gupta   and   others   (supra).\n<\/p>\n
    Since  the   suit  is  filed in  the   ordinary Civil  Court  by the  trustees  for  a <\/p>\n
    prohibitory injunction against the third party, the provision of Sections 50 <\/p>\n
    and 51 of the Act are not attracted.   In such a suit, question which is <\/p>\n
    required to be decided or determined by any authority under the said Act <\/p>\n
    is not raised and, hence, the bar contained under Section 80 of the said <\/p>\n
    Act of 1950 is not applicable.  Hence, the question of law which has been <\/p>\n
    framed above  will  have  to be answered in  favour  of  the  Respondents\/ <\/p>\n
    Plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
    18              Second   Appeal   is,   therefore,   dismissed.     On   account   of <\/p>\n
    dismissal of the Second Appeal,  Civil Application No.1244 of 2010 does <\/p>\n
    not survive and same is also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span><\/p>\n
                                          - 14 -                           sa-100-2000\n\n\n    19          Record and proceedings of RCS No.1002 of 1998 shall be sent \n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n    back to the Trial Court forthwith.\n\n    20          The learned Judge of the Trial court is directed to hear and \n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n<\/pre>\n
    decide the said Suit on or before 30th September,2012.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  (G.S.GODBOLE,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:55:01 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Age: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011 Bench: G. S. Godbole -1- sa-100-2000 srj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.100 OF 2000 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1244 OF 2011 1 Smt. Yamunabai Dhankude ] Age: about 60, Occu: household ] […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAge: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011 - 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\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Age: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-11T19:54:52+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Age: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-11T19:54:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3079,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Age: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-11T19:54:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Age: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Age: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011 - 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\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Age: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-11T19:54:52+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Age: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-11T19:54:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011"},"wordCount":3079,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011","name":"Age: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-11T19:54:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/age-about-60-vs-shri-bhagirath-r-tapadiya-on-14-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Age: About 60 vs Shri Bhagirath R. Tapadiya on 14 November, 2011"}]},{"@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\/232713","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=232713"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232713\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}