{"id":233906,"date":"2010-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010"},"modified":"2018-07-29T00:22:20","modified_gmt":"2018-07-28T18:52:20","slug":"ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Electronics And Controls A … vs The Karnataka Industrial Area … on 6 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Electronics And Controls A … vs The Karnataka Industrial Area … on 6 August, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Aravind Kumar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE em DAY OF AUGUST ~2\u00a3'}:i'_\u20ac)_:, ~\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUsTIOE~n.RA*,  \n\nWRIT PETITION No.90 OE ETOO8  1' \n\nBETWEEN :\n\nM\/S. ELECTRONICS AND C_ON\"fROLS,  \nA PROPR1ETAR'\u00a5__CONIDARI   \"':MACHA_NDRAN.\n(to) Ms. \\v'1DYA\"'{YER.,ij>  *  '\n(q1'_MS~.V.,DIV:\u00abtA, KER, ' '\n\n;(c1) SMTI} K. I*%ATI'A1\\.aAI,, \n\nALL. RES1D'Ii\\IG AT.NO..54'7, III MAIN\nIIICROSS', II BLOCAK~,\u00abR.T. NAGAR,\nBANGALOE-560 032.. '\n\n \" .    ...PE'I'ITIONER\n\n (By Sn'.  Naganand, Senior Counsel for\n\n_ M Sundaraswamy Ramdas and\n\n _  P.~f1a,;Td3 Advocates}\n\n KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL\nAREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD,\n\nA' '  ~._A GOVERNMENT OF' KARNATAKA\n\n  UNDERTAKING, NO.l4\/3, II FLOOR.\n\nR.P. BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,\nBANGALORE-560 O52.\nREPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTFV E MEMBER\n\n\n\n2 S.B. PRDEEP,\nS\/O H.S. BHAKTHAVATSALA.\nAGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,\nPROPRIETOR,\nM\/ S. PRADEEP INDUSTRIES,\nNOA53, 15'? FLOOR, 11TH CROSS,\nSADASHIVANAGAR,\nBANGALORE 560 080.\n\n ~ S .. T? . \n\n{By Sri. Padubidri Ragiiayendrsf\u00e9\u00e9o, Cpuriisetl\nfor Sri. M. Madhvac'h.ai*,sAdv., for  \nSri.B.Srinivas, Adv., fer R51) '\n\nThis Writ Petitien\"'i\u00ab~s fi-i_ed,11i1i:3_.er_ Articles 226 and 227\nof the Constitution of Iridia priiyingtito\ufb01set. aside the Order\ndated 3.8.2007VpassedV_byV..the XXVH Additional City Civil\nJudge, (CCH--9_]: Bang;ai0re'~ 23:14 'Issue 'N94 with respect to\nlimitation Vide A:;11ex.J-. an'-d\"dismiss* th-evsuit.\n\nThis  ib'ee1i\"ghSeard and reserved for\norders-comjing on, for'-pi'-on0uneerr1ent of orders, this day\nthe Court _rria;de_AVti1e foiieyving:\n\n\\}fgRDER\n\n 'In. this V\"s\\>.tiji:tV'petition order dated 3-8-2007 passed\n\nS.'i11_,VStJ.S'.i$IQ--;22Ei8\/1996 by the 27th Additional City cm:\n\n  [Annexure--J) by answering issue No.4\n\nh0i\"Clii1g:Jt'ria1t suit is not barred by limitation, is\n\n V' izripiigiied herein. V\n\n\n\n2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ\npetition are as under; it 9\n\nRespondent No.2 herein was  <\/pre>\n
site by the first respondent
\nDevelopment Board (hereinafter
\n‘Board’ for brevity) and  actualij’vposVs\u00e9ssion of
\nthe industrial site vbypxissuing.possession'”certi\ufb01cate in
\nthe year 1988.   said to have
\nallotted the 3     petitioner herein
\nin 1990 i13iiiJ\u20ac\u00a7’i”eXeicuted lease cum–sale<\/p>\n
agreerr1ein’teAi.ri. favour _of..itl1e petitioner in 1994.<\/p>\n
ReSpondent””..ip’   has \ufb01led a suit<\/p>\n
O.$;.Noi..22Ei8’\/..1i996 lgaefore the City Civil Court initially<\/p>\n
   of permanent injunction and later on an<\/p>\n
 app_Iic’ati”o.n  filed to incorporate the prayer to declare<\/p>\n
that  respondent is the confirmed allottee of the<\/p>\n
  industrial site and as such entitled to possession of the<\/p>\n
tsiuitiiischeduie land, which order was questioned by the<\/p>\n
 “petitioner herein before this Court in CRP<\/p>\n
&\/.\n<\/p>\n
No.2203\/1999 which came to be dismissed on 7~_,’3″–2000
\nand aiso confirmed in SLP (Civil) No.11682\/2a0’D-dpidated
\n21~8–2000. The trial Court framed
\nit was recasted. The petitioner “\ufb01led
\nconsidering issue No.4
\nlimitation and Valuation’respectirely   V
\nissues and after considering””the:’t1rgu_rnents'”adiianced by
\nthe parties trial  to lead
\nevidence or}    by the same,
\npetitioner?  in CRP 711\/2001
\nagainst’  dated 29-1-2001
\ndirecting on all issues. This Court<\/p>\n
by order dated’..1’3–A1–120.01 has directed the parties to<\/p>\n
 “V-.leadll:ev<ideI'1ce onisstie No.4 and 6 and directed the trial<\/p>\n
 Court issue No.4 and 6 and thereafter proceed<\/p>\n
to *–consider' other issues. In so far as issue No.6<\/p>\n
"*regardin\u00a7gva1uation, the plaintiff i.e., second respondent<\/p>\n
   who was directed to pay additional court fee<\/p>\n
 -urlsuccessfully challenged the order of the trial Court<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
before this Court in W.P.No.5035\/ 2005 and on
\ndismissal of the writ petition on 2l~10–2006 stated
\nthat additional Court fee has been paid.   it “C n<\/p>\n
3. The trial Court on rrisihim  ‘rggarqirig 5
\nlimitation had framed anissue4’asil””Wheth’er..the
\nbarred by limitation period’?<\/p>\n
4. After consid’ering’–_riV5taT. eofnteiitions trial Court<\/p>\n
held that the suit fi1e”ti”is.fwitl1in_the {germ of limitation
\nby order .dfittCCl:::g”3~8-l2(?1C?. Iitvislthis order which is
\nimpugned’  ;;p_If\u20ac  petition.<\/p>\n
 C’ .lHeardl..”f.S1’i,.VS;$l.Naganand, learned Senior<\/p>\n
Counsel lliappeiari;ng”r_iforil petitioner and Sri.Padubidri<\/p>\n
 ‘  _ Ragliiaffendra Rao;”‘iearned Senior Counsel appearing for<\/p>\n
 _ 1*espond.erit;’  ”\n<\/p>\n
 6.,” ‘I-raving heard the learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
   pa,.rjties;”‘i;ollowing points arise for my consideration:<\/p>\n
C  “If Whether the trial court was correct in holding<\/p>\n
that the suit is not barred by limttatiori by<\/p>\n
by respondent No.1 by issuance of possession certi\ufb01cate
\nand thereafterwards lease cum sale agree1ne:n:t- _ A4 is
\nexecuted in its favour on 28. 12.
\nrespondent \ufb01led a suit   0 j
\n29.03.1996 on the file of the City:
\nagainst the Board and the  the relief 0
\nof perpetual injunctizon. Tlierieafteiwgrdtstari ‘application
\nwas filed seeking  the prayer<\/p>\n
for deolarationrgppon  two months
\nfrom   statement by the
\npetitioner’Athereihwp’  o.psit”Ne;t22e8\/1996. The said
\napplioationVcarrfieiftoi’benirmbered as I.A.No.3 and same<\/p>\n
was .. resis’ted’~Vby   petitioner herein and on<\/p>\n
 pco’r1sid_”era’tion of ‘arguments. trial court by its order<\/p>\n
  allowed the appiication I.A.No.3 for<\/p>\n
ariiendrrxentt. The said order came to be questioned by<\/p>\n
  the petitioner herein in CRP.No.2203\/1999 which after<\/p>\n
0’ .:cVo11t0est came to be dismissed by order dated 07.03.2000<\/p>\n
 ” ‘-{VAnneXure R8]. Aggxjieved by the same the petitioner<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
herein preferred a Special Leave Petition to the __} ion’ble
\nSupreme Court in SLP[CiVil}.No. 1 1682 \/ 2000 ‘also
\ncame to be dismissed by following order: it it A
\n“The petitioner is given liberty to   A
\nground at an appropriate ~’st\u00e9ige*
\ndisposal of the main suit  V
\nliberty as aforesaid tfie..SpecialVLe(:ive: Petition
\nis dismissed\/’V      ‘V
\n  me)
\nThus, the order of Zsmerid\ufb01ientl allowed by trial court<\/p>\n
had  = In
\n anojilielr-‘be noticed by this Court
\nis   application for grant of<\/p>\n
temporary-wi.njunetion  the suit at the time of filing the<\/p>\n
   and said abpiication came to be dismissed by order<\/p>\n
   and it was confirmed by order of this \u00ab<\/p>\n
 in MFA.No.3394\/1997 on 10.07.1999.<\/p>\n
 ‘The  order has reached \ufb01nality.<\/p>\n
10. As observed herein above on 19.08.2000 the<\/p>\n
0′ “trial Court had framed issues and relevant issue for<\/p>\n
$9\/’<\/p>\n
consideration of rival contentions in this writ petition is
\nissue No.4 which reads as under:<\/p>\n
“-4) Whether the suit is barred<\/p>\n
limitation perio_\u00a2J:l?’f_i<\/p>\n
11. An interlocutory
\nby the petitioner herein requ’estinigiV’ the Co”urt-ivto”dispose
\nof issues No.4   as  The said
\nappiicatlon though   by the plaintiff
\ni.e., first  on consideration
\nof rival    application by order
\n that issues No.4 and 6 is
\nto beheard  issues. Thereafter triai court<\/p>\n
passed  order: on 29.01.2001 directing the<\/p>\n
2 it  – parties’etovadduceiiitheir evidence on all issues. Aggrieved<\/p>\n
  29.01.2001 petitioner herein had filed<\/p>\n
0RP.N13.’7,1:’~1Ai\/2001 before this Court and after<\/p>\n
 considering the contentions of both the parties, this<\/p>\n
it  by order dated 13.03.2001 disposed of the<\/p>\n
 ” i-‘revision petition by directing the trial court to decide<\/p>\n
We<\/p>\n
issues No.4 and 6 at first instance and thereafter to<\/p>\n
proceed to consider other issues.<\/p>\n
12. Accordingly issue No.6 was taken <\/p>\n
court directed the respondent herein to   <\/p>\n
the market value of the  <\/p>\n
accordingly first respondent [plaintiff] is l’to\u00b0’;h’avle’<\/p>\n
remitted an additional couvrtifeeg of  — in
\naddition to the  in  amounting
\nto Rs.l,’78,l25\/_–. Thgugh.tsait1i _ordaf\u00a7’rA \u00a7:;at\u00a7, challenged by
\nthe second  i  No.5085\/2004, it
\ndid   result in favour of the second
\nrespondent   writ petition came to be<\/p>\n
disrrlilssied on~._V2ll.1CV):.2OO6 the second respondent has<\/p>\n
 Court -fee as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
‘ ‘l3}’_”_v\u00bb.Ho;Wever, trial court while considering issue<\/p>\n
No} the same in the negative i.e., in favour of the<\/p>\n
   and answered the same by holding that sgit<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
filed by the plaintiff was within the period of limitation.<\/p>\n
It is this order which is impugned in the writ petition.<\/p>\n
14. Application for amendment of<\/p>\n
seeking relief of declaration wasfiled on  and” . <\/p>\n
same came to be allowed on <\/p>\n
came to be con\ufb01rrned”0V__i’n_  font’<\/p>\n
07.03.2000 and Speeial ‘}:3.eti.1_;ion.filedpagiainst this
\norder came to be  is not in
\ndispute. It  the  learned Senior
\nCounsel   is allowed<\/p>\n
it relates __’which it was allowed and not
\nthe date. thetffapplication. In support of this<\/p>\n
proposi.tion  relied upon the judgment of the<\/p>\n
  Court in Tarlok Singh vs. Vijay<\/a><\/p>\n
  reported in 1996(8) sec 367,<\/p>\n
wherein it has been held as follows:<\/p>\n
if  ‘iTi1e question is: as to when the limitation<\/p>\n
0 began to run? In view of the admitted<\/p>\n
position that the contract was to be performed<\/p>\n
4%<\/p>\n
within 15 days after the iryunction was
\nvacated, the limitation began to run on<\/p>\n
06. 04.1986. In view of the position thatv~t..hLe_:0’0′-..
\nsuit for perpetual iryunction was coriverted:
\ninto one for specific performance”_’b:y-.:.order 88
\ndated 25.08.1989, the sL;it””ni-ust the  A
\nto have been instituted an <\/p>\n
the suit was clearly barred ..litnitaiio’ri..\\:r\/..,  <\/p>\n
15. On the basis orFpaf1e:p1ee eneeeaiee in the
\nabove decision it v.:Sri_.Naganand that
\nwhen same iS_:app1ied”‘t\u00a7 case he would
\ncontend  was allowed on
\n t the date of allowing the
\nainendrnent  under Article 58 of<\/p>\n
Liniitat’ion  since lease cum sale deed had<\/p>\n
8  .executed_ by the first respondent in favour of the<\/p>\n
H ‘petitione’rfori=hV.’?.8.12.1994. Thus, reckoning the period<\/p>\n
 of iimitation of 3 years from the date of execution of<\/p>\n
A  tease cum sale agreement the suit had become time<\/p>\n
harred and as such he would submit that issues framed<\/p>\n
CV<\/p>\n
regarding limitation ought to have been held  the<\/p>\n
affirmative and suit ought to have been dismissjed:;j’\u00ab.._l”i\u00ab_’<\/p>\n
16. At this juncture it would be <\/p>\n
extract the judgments of the <\/p>\n
relied upon by the 1earne_d Ctounsel for’:  <\/p>\n
respondent, which are as under:<\/p>\n
1) 2002 (4)KCCR 2839 _  V _  p
\nSampath Kumar  Another
\nwherein it h;as’been held
\n“Ant.  incorporated relates
\n “‘da’te:”-of  However, the
\n “back in the context of
\narne4_nd.rnent”.Vp’of’::””ple.adings is not one of
\n‘ *11AniVtersval”‘application and in appropriate
\n Cases’ the “”” “Court is Competent while
\n  _  an amendment to direct that the
\n‘  permitted by it shall not relate
\nbiackdto the date of the suit and to the extent
\na penriitted by it shall be deemed to have been<\/p>\n
 brought before the Court on the date of<\/p>\n
which the application seeking the<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
amendment was filed.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2) AIR 2001 SC 2896  7
\nSiddalingamma and another vs. Mamtlnz <\/p>\n
“On the doctrine of relation
\ngenerally governs amendment’
\nunless for reasons the
\napplicability of the rioctrine._in’ a giv’en  it<\/p>\n
the petition for evictionras amended
\nbe deemed to have  originally as
\nsuch and  shsiii,AV:lhave to be
\nappreciated in. ~t’hh.e::- _  ‘ ;” averments
\nmade   The High
\nCourt  :s’et’j’.-iaside  ‘order of the trial
\n is vlVritvl1arger- itom the framing of
\n  Court, especially the
\nplortions  extracted from the
\n._ordei”  the  Court and reproduced in
\n earlier hpartwof this judgment, that the
\n.1:e’ar’>ned Single Judge of the High Court also
\n _n’o;t”‘serious1y doubting the genuiness of
\nt__l1e.VCAIEandlady’s requirement on the material<\/p>\n
” aylailable on record but was not feeling<\/p>\n
it  happy with the contents of the eviction<\/p>\n
A petition as originally \ufb01led an over–zealous<\/p>\n
attempt on the part of the landlady in<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
projecting her sister’s sons and granpdf<\/p>\n
children as her own.”\n<\/p>\n
17. In the background of the principles  <\/p>\n
by their Lordships in the above.’,_  i T <\/p>\n
Kumar and Siddalingarmna
\nextract the order dated’-v:l:’4&O6.ilV.99Q  the
\npresent case i.e.,  allowiri\u00e9 I.A.No.3
\ni.e., application \ufb01led  Order 6 Rule
\n17 of Code \u00a7of”:fCi<ril  plaintiff had
\nsought for the prayer for
\n  reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
1 it
\nA   under Order 6 Rule 17
\n  Codellllof\ufb02ivil Procedure by the plaintiff
\n edilowed. The plaintiff is hereby<\/p>\n
  to carry out the amendment in
\n of I.A.No.3.\n<\/p>\n
 ..  l8: A bare reading of the above order would reveal<\/p>\n
   application has been allowed without any<\/p>\n
it  -“coriditions imposing on the plaintiff and it is an order in<\/p>\n
W\/.\n<\/p>\n
sirnpliciter allowing the application. There is no speci\ufb01c
\ndirection restricting the prayer to be incorporatedfrom a<\/p>\n
particular date. The order allowing l.A. <\/p>\n
that it shall come into effect from the datep.preserit.iri-gp <\/p>\n
the plaint or it would be effectixfe <\/p>\n
date. As held by the  Hon’-bl’e– Apeii<\/p>\n
Siddalingan1Ina’s case”   allowed to
\nbe incorporated it relates   date of the suit
\nand the doctrine of relation not get excluded<\/p>\n
in the instant ;e’ase..sin’ce therellisl\ufb01o such restrictive<\/p>\n
order:v’dV”pVasslevdV    while allowing the
\napplicationr principle in mind when the<\/p>\n
facts are examined it  noticed that present suit has<\/p>\n
Vlhbev\u00e9nl filled” on  and written statement was<\/p>\n
  Application for amendment was<\/p>\n
\ufb01led on -l\u00abf2f.O6.l996 which came to be allowed on<\/p>\n
 l4._D6.Vi999. As contended by the learned Senior<\/p>\n
  \ufb01\ufb01ounsel Sri.S.S.Naganand if the limitation is to be<\/p>\n
” AIR 2001 SC 2896 W<\/p>\n
2009 AIR SCW 6644 i.e., Paragraph 67 which reads as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
“67. On critically analyzing both iheirlsnglishl <\/p>\n
and Indian cases, some basic principles  <\/p>\n
which ought to be taken into’ conslitleiiation.
\nallowing or rejecting thee application’ ‘ for” V<\/p>\n
amendment.\n<\/p>\n
(1) Whether the  soughgt is
\nl imperative for   effective
\nadjud’iCatiO nV’qf’the.  1   1V _
\n{2}   \u00abapplication-Iforvfarnendnient is
\n\u20actlori.’a;f’ide..or'”n%ia’la\ufb01i;le:*\u00a7:
\n it should not cause such
\n ._   other side which can not
\n  be  adequately in terms of
\n  Refusin’g*——amendment would in fact lead to
\n  ‘injustice or lead to multiple litigation;
\n _  (5ll the proposed amendment
\n__ ‘ constitutionally or fundamentally changes
\n1 the nature and character of the case? And
\nit ll”-..t[6) As a general rule, the Court should
\nit decline amendments if a fresh suit on<\/p>\n
the amendment claims would be<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
barred by limitation on the date of
\napplication.” ”\n<\/p>\n
(Emphasis supplied by me)<\/p>\n
20. In the above judgment the
\nCourt has laid down that
\namendment if a fresh suit _’on
\nwould be barred by 1:m1t’a\u00a3\u00a7\u00a7a1 _on” “of the
\napplication the  should not
\nbe er1tertajned.__ When,.this  to the facts of
\nthe case or}    ’em’erges that suit has
\nbeen    and application for
\n 1996 and as on the date<\/p>\n
of filing of,  even if the argument of the<\/p>\n
  1eaI*hed:’Counse1\u00abfor.the petitioner is to be accepted that<\/p>\n
 ‘ Articiev.58;’ivs:”attracted to the facts of the case, the claim<\/p>\n
made  amendment application had not become<\/p>\n
 time barred and it was well Within the time prescribed<\/p>\n
A under Article 58 as on date of \ufb01ling of the application<\/p>\n
  for amendment. Hence, the contention raised by the<\/p>\n
es>\/<\/p>\n
-\u00bb’~n<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
learned Counsel for petitioner that the suit was barred<\/p>\n
by time cannot be acceded to and it is hereby A4<\/p>\n
21. Insofar as the judgment of Tarlpolgl’  <\/p>\n
referred to supra relied upon by” the ‘learned -Ciotinselpppfor<\/p>\n
petitioner has to be held as inapplicable  <\/p>\n
the present case for the folloiving reasonsi <\/p>\n
a] In the said  suit for
\nperpetual  application
\nfor   performance
\nwas   came to be allowed on
\n it was found that in the said
\ncasethe be performed within 15 days<\/p>\n
afte1’rr.injun’ction  vacated and the limitation had<\/p>\n
  from 06.04.1986 and thus, it was found<\/p>\n
 ._  :lWhen””..application had been allowed it was<\/p>\n
ldeen-‘iedfto have been instituted on 25.08.1989 by<\/p>\n
V ” much date the claim of plaintiff had become time
\n barred. However, the said facts are conspicuously<\/p>\n
l absent in the instant case. Q\/’<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
b) Even otherwise applying the “Doctrine of relation<\/p>\n
0)<\/p>\n
back” as held in the judgments of thevV.V:\u00a7=I.oi:.fble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court in Sampath Kumarfa. <\/p>\n
Siddalingammas case to the.. facts”Hof”t}ie”‘ca_se  <\/p>\n
arrive at a conclusion that  said” 7is<\/p>\n
squarely applicable to  factsl of __the_1c:as’e;’sinee trial’ it<\/p>\n
court has not sp’eg.:i\ufb01ca.1Iy’V:..orde-red ‘that..at\u00a7r1endment
\npermitted would   date of the
\nsuit. In. of  placed by
\ntrial  ed View that these two
\n  ‘applicable to the facts of the
\npresent   hp  .. W   H<\/p>\n
As held ._by-the.’-Ho.n’ble Apex Court in Revajeetu’s<\/p>\n
  “if\u00e9’_on thew\u00e9date of filing of the application for<\/p>\n
it   the claim had not become time barred,<\/p>\n
it been held that amendment requires to be<\/p>\n
 ..  allotved otherwise which would result in entertaining<\/p>\n
V ‘ ‘ “or examining a stale claim.<\/p>\n
a\/<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
“Para 9: Normally the title …………. ..thereof,<\/p>\n
However, primufacie, the case is in   <\/p>\n
the plaintiff that he must be deeniedft)  ‘ l<\/p>\n
possession of the property” by  the}, <\/p>\n
possession certlficate as ‘wel\u00a3”a:=; the order Ej\ufb01.'<1.f<\/p>\n
allotment. "\n<\/p>\n
In order to appreci_ate\u00bbv.__the coritentioh of the<\/p>\n
learned Counsel for j, necessary to<\/p>\n
extract Article”6_5 ofthe   which reads as<\/p>\n
under:\n<\/p>\n
Des.crip_tiof;:::yof su:it._l<\/p>\n
A   vl5eriod of<\/p>\n
limitation<\/p>\n
Time from which
\nperiod begins to
\nrun<\/p>\n
 \u00bb   tit.le’;:.  _<\/p>\n
65. For _ poss’essio’n_:’ of
\nirnmovable, property  any
\ninterest. therein’ based on<\/p>\n
Exfp1anatieiiil:}FQr the<\/p>\n
 pt-e:poses~V,Qi’lt]rxis article-<\/p>\n
where the suit is by a
\n” rernainderman, a
\n‘reversioner (other than<\/p>\n
la}…\n<\/p>\n
V * 4_ a landlord) or a devisee,<\/p>\n
_ the possession of the
\n‘A defendant shall be
\ndeemed to become
\nadverse only when the<\/p>\n
Twelve
\nyears<\/p>\n
When the
\npossession of the
\ndefendant becomes
\nadverse to the
\nplaintiff<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
estate of the
\nrernainderman,
\nreversioner or devisee,
\nas the case may be,
\nfalls into possession;\n<\/p>\n
[b] Where the suit is by a
\nHindu or Muslim
\nentitled to the 1
\npossession of
\nimmovable property on
\nthe death of a Hindu
\nMuslim female, the*.._’ _
\npossession of the -.\n<\/p>\n
defendant sliallg be: . .’ ” ‘
\ndeemed to beeomevj
\nadverse only wh_.en_’t.he_
\nfemale   _.\n<\/p>\n
((2) Where 3_thef?’s_uit is by a, j V
\npurchaser “‘at’-.__a “sja1,e”~ V. ”
\nexecution Qof a  decree’
\nwhen a. \ufb02fthe ‘7? ‘j11dg_{vn1ent–_””” V
\ndebtor V V “”Wa_s’Vi V .. ‘Of
\npossession’ ‘  . _  date
\nof {the  sale,’  the<\/p>\n
\u00bb .PurcliaSer\u00bb _  shall’. be
\n deemed” xto V be a
\n “representatiVe”‘i of the<\/p>\n
 _V judgrne’nt–debtor who<\/p>\n
V was o11t._o:7 possession.\n<\/p>\n
” In this regard the following decisions relied<\/p>\n
tipon by the learned Counsel for second respondent is<\/p>\n
K   required to be extracted which are as under:<\/p>\n
4\/<\/p>\n
1} AIR 1991 Kar 273
\nSeshumull M.Shah vs. Sayed Abdul
\nothers  S V<\/a>  if V”\n<\/p>\n
“7. The learned Counsel for they  h it
\nurged before me two subrnis”sions:\u00a7__ V S’  S _  A
\nThe first submission was  117i
\nthe plaintiff was  by’-liniitatioln\ufb01y’Thee:
\nsuit was governed  not by
\nArt.65 of the Lim\u00a3tqti;miAcbi’jiy  .
\nSecond submission’  was that
\nin the facts  S the case,
\ndefendanilo.   S. if t’o”the protection
\nof   “Property Act, he
\nVvbeir’2g.V:.purchas’er: for value without
\nSo   is concerned, it
\n5 ‘ -proceeds on  assumption that the suit was
\n merely  suitv for declaration of title and<\/p>\n
  _ :1.oihingjelse. It is not possible to accept this<\/p>\n
  In the plaint, the plaintiff has
\n the manner in which she acquired title<\/p>\n
y “the suit lands. She then stated the facts
\n about the necessity to appoint her son-in~law
\nA defendant No.2 as her manager to look after
\nher properties. She has then stated about the<\/p>\n
Q\/’<\/p>\n
the courts below have held that the suit is
\nbarred by limitation. The lower appellateiit
\ncourt has held that although the  ~
\npossession based on title Could be
\nby Art.65 of the Limitation…Act, biit’ae’_’;Vthere’i.V
\nare other ancillary reliefs’ alsoz A’
\nlimitation period would be”-goivernedi. 1
\nArt. 65. Here the lowerrriappellate
\nobviously gone, iurong-.——–  period
\nin this case  -be governed
\nby Art. 65 of ibi\u00e9cause the
\nrelief  reggardiiig ::  the Suit
\nschediiie  main relief and it
\n lesser period of
\nl’?..Alirrsitatiolnff-\u00bb to ancillary reliefs
\n  the main relief. When
\n. ‘ \u00bb there are several? reliefs claimed in a suit, the
\n ii.l-iniitationl  would be that of the main
\n  ‘vrelieflithe limitation for ancillary relief being<\/p>\n
 red.’ *’<\/p>\n
l ~  ‘The plaintiff has claimed for declaration that<\/p>\n
    a confirmed allottee of the suit schedule land as<\/p>\n
  ‘per the confirmatory letter of allotment dated 23 \/ 28-3-<\/p>\n
\u00e9R,\/<\/p>\n
29<\/span><\/p>\n
RE: POINT NO: 2<\/p>\n
26. It would be necessary to extract the judgment<\/p>\n
of this Court in CRP.No.2203\/1999 wherein a Vdirection<\/p>\n
has been issued by this Court to the  <\/p>\n
07.03.2000 to dispose of the suitpurithir1″afperi0dAVof:”Sax <\/p>\n
months and the said direction’~.has”re:maiI1’ed” at<\/p>\n
The suit is of the year 1S’9_8–~.Vandh3,.4 yearshaveH}apsed.tt’<\/p>\n
and trial is yet to y_commeric’e.__on other,:iss_u\u00e9es. The
\nHon’b1e Supreme cessemie ddisupojsing of SLP [Civil]<\/p>\n
No. 1 1682 \/200:0  on 1 ;s;2d000t ‘ _  ‘is fact reserved<\/p>\n
liberty to  iierein to raise the grounds raised in
\nCRP \/*3  iejapdpropriate stage after disposal<\/p>\n
ofy4suite.so  issues can be decided. As such it<\/p>\n
  hen’e.(:essary to issue further direction to the triai<\/p>\n
 ‘tofdispose of the suit Within 3 months from today<\/p>\n
and Z to the suit are also hereby directed to<\/p>\n
 nextend full co–operation in disposing of the suit as<\/p>\n
xhordered herein above within a period of 3 months from<\/p>\n
_ by ._ .. today.\n<\/p>\n
30<\/span><\/p>\n
Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. Thqorder<\/p>\n
of trial court dated 03.08.2007 is hereby confir;nefci;_:T’*’si%<\/p>\n
500 0<\/p>\n
   ” .\n<\/p>\n
ca<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Electronics And Controls A … vs The Karnataka Industrial Area … on 6 August, 2010 Author: Aravind Kumar IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE em DAY OF AUGUST ~2\u00a3’}:i’_\u20ac)_:, ~ BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUsTIOE~n.RA*, WRIT PETITION No.90 OE ETOO8 1′ BETWEEN : M\/S. ELECTRONICS AND C_ON”fROLS, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-233906","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Electronics And Controls A ... vs The Karnataka Industrial Area ... on 6 August, 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\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Electronics And Controls A ... vs The Karnataka Industrial Area ... on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-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=\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-28T18:52:20+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\\\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Electronics And Controls A … vs The Karnataka Industrial Area … on 6 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-28T18:52:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3127,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Electronics And Controls A ... vs The Karnataka Industrial Area ... on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-28T18:52:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Electronics And Controls A … vs The Karnataka Industrial Area … on 6 August, 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":"M\/S Electronics And Controls A ... vs The Karnataka Industrial Area ... on 6 August, 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\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Electronics And Controls A ... vs The Karnataka Industrial Area ... on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-28T18:52:20+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\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Electronics And Controls A … vs The Karnataka Industrial Area … on 6 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-28T18:52:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010"},"wordCount":3127,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010","name":"M\/S Electronics And Controls A ... vs The Karnataka Industrial Area ... on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-28T18:52:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-electronics-and-controls-a-vs-the-karnataka-industrial-area-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Electronics And Controls A … vs The Karnataka Industrial Area … on 6 August, 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\/233906","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=233906"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/233906\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=233906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=233906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=233906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}