{"id":233819,"date":"2010-03-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010"},"modified":"2015-10-01T18:35:33","modified_gmt":"2015-10-01T13:05:33","slug":"sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 700 of 1997(E)\n\n\n\n1. SOBHA\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. KUNHIKKALI\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.TKM.UNNITHAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.BABU\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM\n\n Dated :11\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n     PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ.\n            ------------------------------------------\n             AS. Nos. 700 of 1997 & 187 of 1998\n           -------------------------------------------\n           Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.\n<\/p>\n
     A.S. No.700\/1997 is preferred by defendants 1 to 4<\/p>\n
and A.S.No.187\/1998 is preferred by defendants 5 to 7.<\/p>\n
The suit was for partition, and for convenience we will be<\/p>\n
referring to the parties by their ranks before the trial court.<\/p>\n
The    suit  was    filed  by    the   original   plaintiff, one<\/p>\n
Smt.Kunhikkali seeking partition and allotment of her 1\/5<\/p>\n
share in the plaint schedule properties which are 5 in<\/p>\n
number.     The suit was filed on the premise that the<\/p>\n
properties belonged to her only son Sekharan, who died in<\/p>\n
testate.   The 1st defendant Sobha is the widow of late<\/p>\n
Sekharan and defendants 2 to 4, all of them then minors,<\/p>\n
are the 3 daughters of late Sekharan. Defendants Nos.5 to<\/p>\n
7 purchased properties described as item Nos.2 to 4 during<\/p>\n
the pendency of the suit from the 1st defendant and they<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                               – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
\nwere impleaded on the basis of such purchase. Additional<\/p>\n
plaintiff No.2 got himself impleaded on the basis of purchase<\/p>\n
of the 1\/5 fractional interest claimed over the property by<\/p>\n
the original plaintiff Smt.Kunhikkali.<\/p>\n
     2. The 1st defendant on her personal behalf as well as<\/p>\n
on behalf of minor children D2 to 4 filed a written<\/p>\n
statement.       In the very first paragraph of the written<\/p>\n
statement it is contended that late Sekharan had on<\/p>\n
24.10.1991 executed a will in respect of his properties in the<\/p>\n
presence of witnesses. It is also contended that provision<\/p>\n
has been made in the above will as to how properties of<\/p>\n
Sekharan should be divided. It is alleged that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
who is aware of the existence of the will has filed the suit<\/p>\n
deliberately suppressing the same. As regards item Nos.3<\/p>\n
and 5 of the plaint schedule, it is contended that those items<\/p>\n
are not partible since the 1st defendant alone is in<\/p>\n
possession of the property having advanced the entire<\/p>\n
consideration for purchase of those two items. The written<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                                – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
\nstatement raises other contentions also.           The learned<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge formulated the following issues for trial:<\/p>\n
          “1).    Are not the plaint schedule properties
\n                       partible?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            2). Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to
\n            get         1\/5 share in the plaint schedule
\n            properties?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            3). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a
\n                  decree as prayed for?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            4).   Reliefs and Costs? ”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
At trial the evidence on the side of the plaintiff consisted of<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A7 apart from the oral testimony given by PW1<\/p>\n
the daughter of the plaintiff, who was also power of attorney<\/p>\n
holder for the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants the<\/p>\n
same consisted on Exts.B1 to B6(b) and the oral testimonies<\/p>\n
of DW1, the 1st defendant and DW2 to 5. DW5 was the 6th<\/p>\n
defendant himself.         Reports filed   by the Advocate<\/p>\n
Commissioners appointed by the court were marked as<\/p>\n
Exts.C1 to C3.      At the stage of evidence the contention<\/p>\n
which was pursued by the main contesting 1st defendant<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                             – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
\nwas that succession to the estate of Sekharan was<\/p>\n
testamentary. Ext.B1 was the will dt. 25.10.1991. DW2<\/p>\n
Preman who is the direct brother of DW1 Sobha was<\/p>\n
examined to prove that B1 will was written by him as<\/p>\n
instructed by deceased Sekharan. DW3 is the brother-in-<\/p>\n
law of DW2 and he was examined to prove that he attested<\/p>\n
the will and that the will was executed by late Sekharan.<\/p>\n
DW4 Karuppan who is the brother-in-law (elder sister’s<\/p>\n
husband) of DW1 Sobha, was another attester to B1 and he<\/p>\n
was examined to prove the due execution and attestation of<\/p>\n
B1.   DW5 was examined to prove his case that he is a<\/p>\n
bonafide purchaser for value. The learned Sub Judge came<\/p>\n
to the conclusion on evaluating the evidence that Ext.B1 will<\/p>\n
was    shrouded    in several     suspicious circumstances.<\/p>\n
According to the learned Sub Judge DW1 the propounder of<\/p>\n
the will was totally unsuccessful in removing those<\/p>\n
circumstances and proving Ext.B1 to be a genuine will. In<\/p>\n
that view of the matter and relying on the documents<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                               – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
\nrelating to title, it was found by the court below that the<\/p>\n
properties are partible.   Dealing with Exts.B2 and B5 the<\/p>\n
learned Sub Judge noticed that those documents are<\/p>\n
executed in respect of portions of the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property during the pendency of the suit and only D1 who<\/p>\n
is entitled to only 1\/5 share has executed the same. The<\/p>\n
court below found that the document in favour of D5, D6<\/p>\n
and D7 will not bind the plaintiffs and the other co-owners.<\/p>\n
On the basis of such findings the learned Subordinate Judge<\/p>\n
held that a preliminary decree for partition was liable to be<\/p>\n
passed and accordingly passed a preliminary decree<\/p>\n
directing division of the plaint schedule property into 5<\/p>\n
equal shares and allotment of one such share to the 1st<\/p>\n
plaintiff and recognising the assignment by the 1st plaintiff in<\/p>\n
favour of the 2nd plaintiff it was held that the above share<\/p>\n
should be allotted to the additional plaintiff.     Share of<\/p>\n
income from the date of suit was also allowed to be<\/p>\n
recovered by the 2nd additional plaintiff. But the quantum of<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
\nincome was left upon to be decided at the final decree<\/p>\n
proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     In the appeal preferred by defendants 1 to 4 in<\/p>\n
A.S.No.700\/97 various grounds have been raised assailing<\/p>\n
the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge regarding the<\/p>\n
genuineness of Ext.B1 will whereas in A.S.No.187\/98<\/p>\n
though it is also urged that the will is a genuine one and<\/p>\n
that properties are not partible what is ultimately urged is<\/p>\n
that equitable relief should be granted to the appellants<\/p>\n
therein along item Nos.2 to 4 purchased by them towards<\/p>\n
the share of defendants Nos.1 to 4.          Very extensive<\/p>\n
submissions were addressed before us by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel appearing for the parties particularly Sri.T.K.M<\/p>\n
Unnithan,       learned counsel    for  the   appellant  in<\/p>\n
A.S.No.700\/97 and Smt.Sudha Babu, learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the 2nd respondent in that appeal.       Sri.T.K.M.Unnithan<\/p>\n
submitted that the so called suspicious circumstances<\/p>\n
highlighted by the learned Subordinate Judge under the<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
\nimpugned judgment are not really suspicious circumstances.<\/p>\n
They are all circumstances which are clearly explicable. Mr.<\/p>\n
Unnithan further submitted that these circumstances are not<\/p>\n
brought out in the evidence. According to Mr. Unnithan the<\/p>\n
evidence adduced by DWs 1 to 4 was quite convincing as<\/p>\n
regards execution of the Will by Sri. Sekharan. The court<\/p>\n
below’s conclusion that the Will is not genuine was based on<\/p>\n
surmises.     Mr. Unnithan highlighted that the mother, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff did not enter the box. Instead, she authorised her<\/p>\n
daughter to give evidence on her behalf. The circumstance<\/p>\n
that the mother was not prepared to give evidence herself,<\/p>\n
is a circumstance which will justify drawal of adverse<\/p>\n
inference against the mother, the plaintiff. The mother was<\/p>\n
set up by the sister of the deceased and others and it is<\/p>\n
very clear from the evidence of PW-1 who came as a<\/p>\n
substitute for her mother.    Sri.TKM Unnithan relied on a<\/p>\n
number of judicial precedents in support of his argument<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff was unsuccessful in proving that the Will in<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
\nquestion was shrouded in suspicious circumstances.        He<\/p>\n
referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Brij<\/p>\n
Mohan Lal v. Girdhari Lal, AIR<\/a> 1978 SC 1202, and argued<\/p>\n
by referring to paragraphs 3, 9 and also paragraphs 2 to 12<\/p>\n
generally that the evidence adduced in the case on the side<\/p>\n
of the defendants was more than sufficient to dispel the so-<\/p>\n
called suspicious circumstances. Mr. Unnithan referred to<\/p>\n
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and also to Section<\/p>\n
68 of the Indian Evidence Act and submitted on the<\/p>\n
authority of the judgment         of the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
B.Venkatamuni v. C.J.Ayodhya Ram Singh & ors. (AIR<\/a> 2007<\/p>\n
SC 311) that proof of the Will in terms of the above sections<\/p>\n
has been given in this case by the propounders.           Mr.<\/p>\n
Unnithan also referred to the judgment of the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in Madhukar D.Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage, AIR<\/a><\/p>\n
2002 SC 637 that the Law of Evidence        does not permit<\/p>\n
conjuncture or suspicion having the place of legal proof nor<\/p>\n
permit them to demolish a fact otherwise proved by legal<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
\nand convincing evidence.    It is only well founded suspicion<\/p>\n
which can be a ground for close scrutiny of evidence, but<\/p>\n
suspicion alone cannot form the foundation of a judicial<\/p>\n
verdict. Mr. Unnithan also argued that it is not the<\/p>\n
requirement of law that a doctor should be available at the<\/p>\n
time of execution of a Will for certifying the testamentary<\/p>\n
capacity of the testator. Mr. Unnithan also referred to the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Supreme Court in Apoline D’Souza v. John<\/p>\n
D’Souza, AIR<\/a> 2007 SC 2219.\n<\/p>\n
     4. All the submissions of Mr. Unnithan were stiffly<\/p>\n
resisted by Smt.Sudha Babu, counsel for the contesting<\/p>\n
respondent.       She would draw our attention to various<\/p>\n
aspects of the evidence adduced in the case and support the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment. According to her, the Will in question<\/p>\n
is shrouded in a number of suspicious circumstances and<\/p>\n
the propounders of the Will were unsuccessful in removing<\/p>\n
the suspicion. Smt. Sudha fortified her submissions by the<\/p>\n
authority of various decisions. She referred to the judgment<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
\nof the Supreme Court in H.Venkatachala Iyengar v.<\/p>\n
B.N.Thimmajamma and others<\/a>, AIR 1959 SC 443 and to the<\/p>\n
judgment of the Supreme Court in Babu Singh v. Ram<\/p>\n
Sahai, AIR<\/a> 2008 SC 2485. She also referrd to the judgment<\/p>\n
of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti, AIR 1990<\/p>\n
SC 396 in support of the various propositions canvassed by<\/p>\n
her.\n<\/p>\n
        5. Sri.K.P.Dandapani,      learned  counsel  for  the<\/p>\n
appellants in AS. 187 of 1998 would assail the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment      on   the  various     grounds  raised  in   the<\/p>\n
memorandum of appeal. According to him, on the basis of<\/p>\n
the evidence it should have been concluded that the Will is a<\/p>\n
genuine one.      Even though Mr. Dandapani assailed the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment and the finding therein regarding<\/p>\n
genuineness of the Will, his ultimate submission was that<\/p>\n
equitable relief be granted to his clients who were additional<\/p>\n
defendants 5 to 7 and plaint item Nos. 2, 3, and 4 be set<\/p>\n
apart to the share of those who assigned those properties to<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
\nhis clients.      Mr.Dandapani also submitted that the<\/p>\n
contesting respondent, the additional plaintiff himself is<\/p>\n
assignee pendente lite is not entitled to any privilege over<\/p>\n
any of the properties. According to him, the appellants are<\/p>\n
transferees from co-owners. Even if the Will is found to be<\/p>\n
not genuine and the transfer being from co-owners, they<\/p>\n
are co-owners along with the remaining co-owners and are<\/p>\n
entitled to claim exclusive right over the properties<\/p>\n
purchased by them and possessed by them in so far as the<\/p>\n
same is within the respective share of their assignors.<\/p>\n
     6. We have very anxiously considered the rival<\/p>\n
submissions addressed at the Bar.         We have made a<\/p>\n
thorough reappraisal of the entire evidence adduced in the<\/p>\n
case and the pleadings raised by the parties. According to<\/p>\n
us, the contesting defendants, the appellants in AS. 700\/97<\/p>\n
failed miserably in establishing that Ext.B1 Will propounded<\/p>\n
by them was a genuine Will, duly executed by Sekharan the<\/p>\n
testator. Before we proceed to examine the correctness of<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
\nthe findings entered by the learned Subordinate Judge with<\/p>\n
reference to the evidence adduced in the case, we will refer<\/p>\n
to the specific pleading raised by the contesting defendants<\/p>\n
as regards Ext.B1 Will which significantly is not produced<\/p>\n
along with the written statement which was filed as early as<\/p>\n
on 2nd March, 1993. The Will is produced only on 5th July<\/p>\n
1997 and the explanation offered by the contesting<\/p>\n
defendant in IA. No. 2656\/97 for the late production of the<\/p>\n
Will is that the Will was shown to the Advocate at the time<\/p>\n
when the written statement was prepared and that Advocate<\/p>\n
returned the Will to the defendant saying that the same<\/p>\n
need be produced only at a later stage ad that when the<\/p>\n
Advocate’s instructions came for production of the Will, the<\/p>\n
Will could not be traced. We will atonce observe that the<\/p>\n
explanation offered by the contesting defendants for the late<\/p>\n
production of the Will does not inspire any confidence in our<\/p>\n
mind. In fact the inordinate delay in producing the Will, the<\/p>\n
one document on the basis of which the plaintiff was sought<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
\nto be non-suited     is a circumstance which gives strong<\/p>\n
support to the contention of the plaintiff that the Will has<\/p>\n
been fabricated actually   after the written statement was<\/p>\n
filed in the case. There is yet another strong circumstance<\/p>\n
which supports the     conclusion that Ext.B1 Will though<\/p>\n
conceived by its beneficiaries earlier was actually brought<\/p>\n
into existence only after the written statement dated<\/p>\n
02\/03\/93 was filed in court. It is in paragraph 1 of the above<\/p>\n
written statement that reference is made to Ext.B1 Will.<\/p>\n
Translated to English, what is stated therein is as follows:-<\/p>\n
            “Deceased  Shekaran      has  on   24\/10\/91
\n     executed a Will in respect of his properties in the
\n     presence of witnesses. In that Will it is provided
\n     as to the manner in which Shekaran’s properties
\n     should be divided.”\n<\/p>\n
\nA reading of Ext.B1 will show that the disposition under the<\/p>\n
same is a bequest of all the movable and immovable assets<\/p>\n
of the testator Shekaran including the terminal benefits<\/p>\n
which will be due to him from his employers and the Bank<\/p>\n
deposits in his name in favour of his wife Sobhana alone. In<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                             – 14 –\n<\/p>\n
\nother words, Smt.Sobhana, the wife is the sole and<\/p>\n
universal legatee to the assets and estates of the testator. If<\/p>\n
as a matter of fact, the written statement was filed with<\/p>\n
reference to Ext.B1 and on the basis of Ext.B1 as contended<\/p>\n
there was no scope for a contention in the written statement<\/p>\n
to the effect that Shekaran’s Will contains provision<\/p>\n
regarding the manner in which the assets left behind by<\/p>\n
Shekaran are to be divided (partitioned)after his demise.<\/p>\n
     7. Sri.Shekaran had three daughters. All of them were<\/p>\n
minors at the time when Ext.B1 was allegedly executed.<\/p>\n
They along with the original plaintiff Shekaran’s mother<\/p>\n
were also Shekaran’s legal heirs under the Hindu Succession<\/p>\n
Act which would       have governed     the succession to<\/p>\n
Shekaran’s estate. Surprisingly no provision is made in<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 even for the three minor daughters. One would<\/p>\n
expect the Will to contain some statement in the Will as to<\/p>\n
why the testator is disinheriting all his daughters and<\/p>\n
bequeathing the entirety of his estate in favour of his wife<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                             – 15 –\n<\/p>\n
\nwho at that time was aged only 38 years. This again is a<\/p>\n
circumstance      which probabilises  the  version  of    the<\/p>\n
contesting respondents that the Will is not a genuine one<\/p>\n
but is a concoction brought into existence long after the<\/p>\n
deceased breathed his last.\n<\/p>\n
     8. Ext.B1 Will is allegedly executed on 24\/10\/91 while<\/p>\n
Sri.Shekaran, the testator was admitted in the emergency<\/p>\n
post operative care ward of the Medical College Hospital at<\/p>\n
Trichur. The health condition of Sri.Shekaran who was<\/p>\n
suffering from colon\/Pancreas cancer at a terminal stage<\/p>\n
having already undergone two unsuccessful major surgeries<\/p>\n
in succession was evidently precarious.        Significantly,<\/p>\n
Sri.Shekaran died on the very next day and it is not difficult<\/p>\n
to assume having regard to the nature of the disease which<\/p>\n
Sri.Shekaran was suffering from, that at the time of alleged<\/p>\n
execution of the Will. Sri.Shekaran must have been<\/p>\n
suffering from excruciating pain. We will immediately<\/p>\n
observe that the story that Sri.Shekaran executed Ext.B1<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                               – 16 –\n<\/p>\n
\nout of his own volition with perfect testamentary capacity<\/p>\n
while being admitted in the post operative care emergency<\/p>\n
ward of the Medical College Hospital is implicitly incredible.<\/p>\n
The learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment has referred to various circumstances which cast<\/p>\n
natural clouds of suspicion on Ext.B1 Will. The question is<\/p>\n
whether the propounders of the Will were able to remove<\/p>\n
those clouds by the evidence that they adduced for proving<\/p>\n
the due execution and attestations of the Will. We are in<\/p>\n
complete agreement with the finding entered by the learned<\/p>\n
Subordinate Judge in the context of the issue regarding the<\/p>\n
genuineness of the Will and its alleged execution and<\/p>\n
attestation. The oral evidence adduced by the witnesses<\/p>\n
DWs.1 to 4 cannot inspire any confidence in the mind of any<\/p>\n
conscientious court searching for truth.<\/p>\n
     9. DW1 is the sole legatee under Ext.B1. Her version in<\/p>\n
cross examination is that she was keeping custody of the<\/p>\n
Will. He first version in cross examination is that till the Will<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 17 –\n<\/p>\n
\nwas produced in the Court she was keeping custody of the<\/p>\n
same. Later she would say that at the commencement of<\/p>\n
the litigation she entrusted the Will with the Advocate and<\/p>\n
that she has never taken it back from the Advocate. When<\/p>\n
she is confronted with her own averment in the affidavit in<\/p>\n
support of the I.A for production of the Will, as regards the<\/p>\n
return of the Will by the lawyer to her and also as regards<\/p>\n
the un-traceability of the Will when the lawyer gave<\/p>\n
instructions for production, her response is mere silence.<\/p>\n
     10. DW2 Preman the alleged scribe of the Will is none<\/p>\n
other than the brother of DW1 Sobhana. He is on his own<\/p>\n
admission a novice in the art of Will writing or for that<\/p>\n
matter writing of any document whatsoever. Importantly,<\/p>\n
neither the name nor the signature of Sri.Preman        DW1<\/p>\n
appears on Ext.B1. B1 is completely silent as to the identity<\/p>\n
of the scribe under whose handwriting the same is written.<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 runs to two pages. On the first page name of<\/p>\n
Shekaran is written and against that a signature which is<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 18 –\n<\/p>\n
\nalleged to be that of Shekaran is also seen put. But on the<\/p>\n
last page significantly, Shekaran’s signature is seen put not<\/p>\n
against his name but after the signature of the two attesting<\/p>\n
witnesses. DW2 Preman was employed in a Gulf country and<\/p>\n
was on a short visit to Trichur at the time when Ext.B1 was<\/p>\n
allegedly written by him to the dictation of his deceased<\/p>\n
brother-in-law Shekaran. When DW2 is asked about the<\/p>\n
signature of Shekaran what he says is Shekaran writes his<\/p>\n
name and draws a circle above the same. It will be noticed<\/p>\n
that Shekaran’s apparent signature on Ext.B1 does not<\/p>\n
conform to DW2’s version regarding Shekaran’s signature.<\/p>\n
     11. DW3 is Jayachandran who was a House Surgeon at<\/p>\n
the time of alleged execution of Ext.B1. At that time his<\/p>\n
sister was betrothed to DW2 Preman and he refers to DW2<\/p>\n
Preman as his brother-in-law, even at the time of alleged<\/p>\n
execution of the Will in view of the obvious position that the<\/p>\n
marriage between DW3’s sister and Preman stood fixed<\/p>\n
already. DW3 is apparently an attester of Ext.B1 and he is<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                             – 19 –\n<\/p>\n
\nexamined for proving due execution and attestation of<\/p>\n
Ext.B1. His version is to the effect that going by the terms<\/p>\n
of the Will which was read over in his presence, the bequest<\/p>\n
under the Will was in favour of the wife and children of the<\/p>\n
testator Shekaran. He has not witnessed the writing down<\/p>\n
of the Will by his brother-in-law Preman to the dictation of<\/p>\n
the testator Shekaran. He does not know on which day and<\/p>\n
at what time the Will was written. At the time when he<\/p>\n
signed the Will, nobody else had subscribed his signature to<\/p>\n
the same. The testimony of this highly interesting witness<\/p>\n
did not inspire the trial court, nor does it inspire us. An<\/p>\n
aspect which emerges from the testimony of this witness is<\/p>\n
that one Dr.Sasidharan was the chief of the unit which<\/p>\n
treated deceased Shekaran and that a Surgeon then<\/p>\n
attached to the Medical College Hospital conducted surgery<\/p>\n
on Sri.Shekaran. We are of the view that the most<\/p>\n
competent persons to swear as to the testamentary capacity<\/p>\n
of deceased Shekaran on 24\/10\/91 were either of these<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 20 –\n<\/p>\n
\nDoctors and not DW3.\n<\/p>\n
      12. DW4 Karappan is the other attesting witness to<\/p>\n
Ext.B1. He again is the direct brother-in-law of DW1<\/p>\n
Sobhana the sole legatee under Ext.B1. A scrutiny of his<\/p>\n
cross examination will show that he is perhaps more<\/p>\n
interested in DW1 than DW2 her own brother. His version<\/p>\n
also did not rightly inspire confidence in the mind of the<\/p>\n
learned Subordinate Judge.\n<\/p>\n
      13. There are other excellent reasons to support our<\/p>\n
conclusions that the version of the plaintiff that Ext.B1 is not<\/p>\n
a genuine Will duly executed by deceased Shekaran is much<\/p>\n
more probable than the version of the propounders of the<\/p>\n
Will. The apparent signatures of Shekaran the testator is<\/p>\n
stiffly disputed by the plaintiff. In the wake of this dispute<\/p>\n
DW1 produces get herself examined again and proves<\/p>\n
Ext.B6 series. Ext.B6 series are interestingly three postal<\/p>\n
covers in which deceased Shekaran while abroad had sent<\/p>\n
her letters. On these three covers the name of Shekaran is<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 21 –\n<\/p>\n
\nwritten. It is perhaps to prove the similarity in the name of<\/p>\n
Shekaran written in Ext.B1 with the names written on these<\/p>\n
covers that the covers were produced. But in cross<\/p>\n
examination it has come out that a few letters written by<\/p>\n
her husband are actually available in her house. We are at a<\/p>\n
loss to understand why DW1 did not become prepared to<\/p>\n
produce the letters written by her husband. We feel that<\/p>\n
there is justification for drawal of adverse inference against<\/p>\n
DW1 due to non-production of the letters of her husband<\/p>\n
which are admittedly kept by her in her house. Even<\/p>\n
otherwise Sri.Shekaran was employed overseas for quite a<\/p>\n
long period of time. If as a matter of fact DW1 wanted to<\/p>\n
prove the apparent signatures of Shekaran on Ext.B1 to be<\/p>\n
his genuine signatures she could have done so without<\/p>\n
much difficulty.\n<\/p>\n
     14. As already indicated, we have made a thorough re-<\/p>\n
appraisal of the entire evidence adduced in this case. The<\/p>\n
testimonies of DWs.1 to 4 by whom due execution and<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                             – 22 –\n<\/p>\n
\nattestation of Ext.B1 is sought to be established by DW1 the<\/p>\n
propounder of the Will contradict with each other in material<\/p>\n
particulars. Their versions are not capable of removing the<\/p>\n
clouds of suspicion which naturally shroud Ext.B1 will. The<\/p>\n
judgment of the Supreme Court in H.Venkatachala Iyengar<\/p>\n
v. B.N.Thimmajamma & ors. (AIR<\/a> 1959 SC 443) continues<\/p>\n
to be a leading light regarding the nature of the evidence<\/p>\n
required to prove a will in dispute. It is the duty of the<\/p>\n
propounder of the Will to satisfy the court by adducing<\/p>\n
quality evidence that the Will in dispute had been validly<\/p>\n
executed by the testator. We are of the considered view that<\/p>\n
in the instant case the propounder of the Will DW1 failed<\/p>\n
miserably in discharging that duty.\n<\/p>\n
     15. Now we shall come to the plea of equitable relief<\/p>\n
made by the appellants in AS No.187\/98 the appeal filed by<\/p>\n
Sri.K.P.Dandapani. The trial court repelled their plea of<\/p>\n
equitable relief on the reason that they who were<\/p>\n
defendants 5 to 7 purchased the properties from the first<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                             – 23 –\n<\/p>\n
\ndefendant alone and that too after filing of the suit. The<\/p>\n
learned Subordinate Judge obviously had in his mind<\/p>\n
Section 52 of the Transfer of Properties Act as well as the<\/p>\n
principle that one co-sharer is not entitled to deal with co-<\/p>\n
ownership property in a manner as to prejudice the other<\/p>\n
co-sharers. Ordinarily, we would have approved the above<\/p>\n
decision of the learned Subordinate Judge straight away.<\/p>\n
But there is some evidence in this case to find that the<\/p>\n
proceeds of the sale in favour of     defendants 5 to 7 the<\/p>\n
appellants in that appeal were utilised by DW1 for meeting a<\/p>\n
very genuine family necessity – the treatment of one of her<\/p>\n
daughters for cardiac diseases. It is also noticed by us that<\/p>\n
DW1 did not re-marry and remained a dutiful mother<\/p>\n
looking after her daughters properly. None of the daughters<\/p>\n
have come forward so far to challenge the assignment by<\/p>\n
DW1 in favour of the appellants in AS.187\/98. Noticing all<\/p>\n
these aspects even as we confirm the preliminary decree for<\/p>\n
partition passed by the court below, we direct that as far as<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                              – 24 –\n<\/p>\n
\npossible the property covered by the assignment deed in<\/p>\n
their favour will be set apart to the shares of respondent<\/p>\n
Nos.3 to 6 in As.187\/98.\n<\/p>\n
     16. The result of the above discussion is therefore, as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     A.S. No.700\/97 is dismissed. A.S. No.187\/98 is allowed<\/p>\n
to the limited extent of directing that to the extent possible<\/p>\n
while effecting partition the properties covered by the<\/p>\n
assignment deed in favour of the appellants be allotted to<\/p>\n
the shares of respondent Nos.3 to 6 in the appeal. Despite<\/p>\n
our findings that Ext.B1 Will is a concoction and is not a<\/p>\n
genuine one, we direct the parties to suffer their costs<\/p>\n
throughout.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                         PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE<\/p>\n
                         C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
\nksv\/-\n<\/p>\n
AS.700\/97 & 187\/98\n<\/p>\n
                      – 25 –\n<\/p>\n
                      PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &
\n                      C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ<\/p>\n
                      AS. Nos. 700\/97 & 187\/98<\/p>\n
                             JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                            11th March, 2010<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 700 of 1997(E) 1. SOBHA … Petitioner Vs 1. KUNHIKKALI … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.TKM.UNNITHAN For Respondent :SRI.K.S.BABU The Hon’ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE The Hon’ble MR. Justice C.K.ABDUL REHIM Dated :11\/03\/2010 O R D E […]<\/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-233819","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-01T13:05:33+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-01T13:05:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4207,\"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\\\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Sobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-01T13:05:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-01T13:05:33+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-01T13:05:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010"},"wordCount":4207,"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\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010","name":"Sobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-01T13:05:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sobha-vs-kunhikkali-on-11-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sobha vs Kunhikkali on 11 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233819","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=233819"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233819\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233819"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233819"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233819"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}