{"id":244332,"date":"2009-10-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-03T02:32:36","modified_gmt":"2017-12-02T21:02:36","slug":"shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"Shanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Shanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: N.Kumar And C.R.Kumaraswamy<\/div>\n
DJTHETHGFICOURTWDFKARNATAKAlH'BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 14?\" DAY OF OCTOBER 2009fif-._\nPRESENT 't'\" \"\"\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUN, KU_;\"~'i)E\\F'x:.:\"_'v:'V\"\":: *\nAND   *.     \u00ab\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R}.Kt?!\"-tVRA'S\\NAMAY..\"t\"'*--~_V\u00b0Y_:\n\nREGULAR FIRST APPEALTNO. 275 O?  7:\nBETWEEN: 4 % t 't V\n\nM\/S. Shanti Trust,  \nNo.13, Jaipaknkhi Vikas Park,\nJuhu Tara Road,     _  - \nMumbai --- 400 049\",       \nRepresented by,its\"TruStVeesI;~,__\"   '\n\n( 1) Sri. Me no_h\u00aba% 'r;\u00a2u~RrTae:eed heft -.1.<__'na-"tri.\n(2) Sri. Rajesh. ML:raivi\u00a2\u00a7~h_a~r..__}<'ha.tri.\n\n * _   \u00bb--   Appellant\n(By Sri. H_.R, Ana"ntha..KriS'hn\u00e9a Murthy, Advocate)\n 'V \u00ab  ...... ..\nM\/S'; E_'__E5'he_ \u00a7'<ta:w.;\u00a7ir-Tr.tJ \nNo.15, {3--awa7'Sj3_'V_v\u00bbPa:eE Street,\n\n :""*-'Mehr Hogse, 5-fo_r%t,,'\n',_Mumbai 4 400 001,\n"'*'--\u00abRepreSentec$_.by its Managing Trustee\n\ng=M4'rS..fgM .i\\J".\u00ab..tiran i.\n\n".ReSpondent<\/pre>\n
pt”tteemxfsrtie. Re. Appaiah Advocate)
\nV\\ _   I<\/p>\n
This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the
\nJudgement and Award dated 27.11.2001 passed in
\nO.S.No.3369\/1988 on the file of the XI Additionai C.ity__:C\u00a7_vi|<\/p>\n
Judge, Bangaiore, partly decreeing the suit <\/p>\n
performance.\n<\/p>\n
This RFA coming up for aclinis.s4iofii”‘-this:
\nKUMAR 3., deiivered the following. i if A l f V
\n3 u D G M<\/p>\n
This is a plaintiff’s la-.o”peal’_VAagain—S\\t.,Zthe Judgrnent and<\/p>\n
Decree of   -grant the decree for
\ndamages. V V’   if ‘  l h<\/p>\n
(2) For the  convenience, the parties are
\nrfe’fe..r_reci..’:cif;C>  th\u00e9yl are~r–ef’erred in the Originai Suit.<\/p>\n
 is a famiiy trust. The defendant is a<\/p>\n
  ‘\u00a3One Sri B.K. Srinivasan was the absolute<\/p>\n
*4-\u00ab’.j’own’erA of sites bearing i\\los.S1 to S4 of Rajamahal Vilas<\/p>\n
li<\/p>\n
Extension, Bangalore. The defendant — land developer
\nrepresented to the plaintiff that it had acquired j”u–nder<\/p>\n
various Development agreements and contracts.f_en”teire’dy<\/p>\n
into with M\/s Kanch\u00e9 Corporation, the right <\/p>\n
bearing l\\ios.S1 to 54, Rajmahalzl\u00e9
\nconstructing a rnultistoried residgntilal-compi’\u00a7vx’._Leaglglgedlllvasiiif\u00bb
\nPalace Orchard Apartments   ground
\nfloor and seven or more  defendant aiso
\nrepresented thatali’ n’ece’s’sa.ry;  entitlements
\nand authority  building were<\/p>\n
obtained. {It comlpiiyedj”wgith_Tth_e–mandatory requirements as
\nrequired unde’r__llaw.” no legai impediment for the
\nc4onstruct.ioni’of the”sai_d___t\u00a7ui|ding. The construction would<\/p>\n
begin Va’ccordva’nce””-with the latest architecture. That every<\/p>\n
 woutd  V:l*ul><urEous one equipped with ail modern<\/p>\n
_jifconvgenience.g_ Further they made other representations.<\/p>\n
'j..'_:'The:.pia:En"t_iff entered into a written contract on 2.2.1981 for<\/p>\n
 of fiat No.54 situated in 5"' floor in the
\nl R\\\/"\n<\/p>\n
construction to be put up. The plaintiff paid in all sum of
\nRs.2,63,500\/~ being 90% of the sale price by
\nquarter of the year 1982. Possession has to
\non or before 31.12.1982. By letter  V
\ndefendant informed the plaintiff that
\noccupation certificate togetherl*i:\/vii’:”t.h ell’eCtric.aVl_;_.AlViiiiiva’te’r”‘\u00a7and”?
\nsewerage connections. The def\u00e9ric1’anV’t..permfitttedVi to have
\nan inspection. On such   that it was
\nnot completed andI~\u00a3.uI’nfititffogr–:hu’m:aln”-ihaibitation. When
\nconfronted,  the piaintiff that the
\nresidents   preferred a writ petition in
\nthe High Co’u’i=t:_’_’ way of a Public Interest
\nLgtigatioln\ufb01lopgposing “tlh:eV:____co:nstrtiction of 5″”, 6″‘ and 7″‘ floors<\/p>\n
on’.__va.rie.us..:_g’rO:iVn”d.S. The High Court has held the said<\/p>\n
1′”..__xconstruc’t~iionVas’.j\u00a7_I|egal and directed demolition. Against the<\/p>\n
 order); the defendant has preferred a SLP<\/p>\n
‘i._’_’v”i\\i_o;2’78f)\/”3982 before the Supreme Court. The plaintiff and<\/p>\n
h  purchasers of the flats filed an undertaking before<\/p>\n
k\/..\n<\/p>\n
the Supreme Court as prescribed. The defendant called
\nupon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.98,951\/..1,as.,_ a
\ncondition precedent for taking delivery of
\nproperty. The plaintiff was not
\nbuilding was not complete. The ljlggiiitiff
\nbalance amount. Ultimately    they
\norder of the High Court, directed”dVe’rno’l”i\u00bbt\u00a7.onT. TTTT-hevviisaid fact
\nwas informed by the defendant’   and the other
\npersons who hap.,.g..,,,gt:akey,,  vacate as the
\nBangalore Cit)’; the three
\nfloors. Un:der._ further performance of
\ncontract  exchange of legal notices,
\nthe\u00e9yvplaivhtigffifiled  a decree for specific performance<\/p>\n
of’.;,on.tr’a.ct.,\u00a2latedf”2.,_2.1981 or in the alternative for payment<\/p>\n
 Rs.’9..’S7,7v2(3,#\u00a7_as damages with 24% interest.<\/p>\n
 (4) After service of summons, the defendant entered<\/p>\n
if’–\u00abV.V’a’ppe.a~ra_h’Ce. They did not dispute the contract entered into<\/p>\n
between the parties, the receipt of the amount by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff, the litigation pending both in the High <\/p>\n
Supreme Court and the orders passed <\/p>\n
directing demolition, the steps takenbyth’_e”._BaVng’a’l_oVre~’.City<\/p>\n
Corporation to demolish of 5″‘, 6″‘ and7:5’floorsin\u00bb.rer’rns~~.of~.u<\/p>\n
the orders of the Court. As agre’eiC:i::’;’i\u00bbthey wgrec to pay it<\/p>\n
back the money receiveclfby  contract was
\nfrustrated because of  Court.\n<\/p>\n
They contended’ of committing
\nbreach of   liability to pay the
\ndamages.  pay the amount which they
\nhave receive’d”;*c:_’_’ ” V’ V C ‘p    <\/p>\n
(5)._\u00a7f<C)'niithe.Va'fo.revsaid pleadings, the trial Court framed<\/p>\n
if "– plaintiff proves that it is a family
\ntrustcreated under the Wiii dated 4.1.1980<\/p>\n
 it yygpal\u00e9i\u00e9lleged? yr\/l<\/p>\n
Whether the suit is filed by competent<\/p>\n
parties?\n<\/p>\n
. Whether the plaintiff proves that he
\nalong ready & willing to perform his”‘pafrt”‘o:f<\/p>\n
the contract under the <\/p>\n
2.2.1981?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the clefendanth’-.,pi’o’Vves”‘that the<\/p>\n
plaintiff did not the bigiantcieiopi sale price<\/p>\n
to take possession of t_he”pr?op~e:frt\u00a7,kj1?.<\/p>\n
Whether  .\u00e9ntit’ied to forfeit<\/p>\n
the   ‘<\/p>\n
.  entitled for the relief<\/p>\n
of sper;_ifir_ pie-rf’orrn.a”rj.ce?<\/p>\n
._’gN’riether ‘th_e’p’|ai’i1tiff is entitled for refund of<\/p>\n
 ‘V ..___t\u00abh\u00e9_A._tam_Qpnt?\u00ab… ….. ..
\n suit is barred by time?\n<\/p>\n
. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession<\/p>\n
‘W of suit property?\n<\/p>\n
 __}i0.To what relief?”\n<\/p>\n
(6) The plaintiff in order to substantiate his claim,<\/p>\n
examined Manohar Muralidhar Khatri as PW-1, produce.d*1A9<\/p>\n
documents which are marked as Ex.P1 to  <\/p>\n
of the defendant, no evidence was”‘ad–d.uc’ed._.’.”:”fVTh:e~–‘.itria–iV<\/p>\n
Court on appreciation of the<\/p>\n
documentary evidence on record-..,h”e!.d issLieV_No’s.1f’,; Zmand 3 V<\/p>\n
in favour of the plaintiff  has proved the
\ncontract between the parti’e_s_,’i’ =wiasbi’._ijeady and willing<\/p>\n
to performi’-,his._part’of._:the”‘co’n–t_ract. The trial Court held the
\ndefendant hascfaileditof’iiestablish the breach of contract by
\ntyheyplaintiff.  It ailsioheyld that the defendant is not entitied<\/p>\n
to’Vfo’rfei*t…th.e”an7io”u.nt in the facts of the case. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
 not”en’titied’.tothe reiief of specific performance. It aiso<\/p>\n
..\u00a7_y’_:\u00abh.eid_yVthat plaintiff is entitled for refund of the amount.<\/p>\n
  suit is not barred by time and plaintiff is not<\/p>\n
.  to possession of the property. Thus it decreed the<\/p>\n
suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.2,83,500\/– with interest
\nat 10% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation.
\nThe relief of specific performance of the
\nrefused so also the relief of damages <\/p>\n
plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
(7) Aggrieved by the said  Dilecrvfeemof the
\ntrial Court refusing to   plaintiff has
\npreferred this aDP_\u00a3fal__-  decree, the
\ndefendant has to that extent<\/p>\n
the decreegis fulA|Ay’l”sa\u00abvt\u00a7sfiedilr’-..__T–herefore the subject matter
\nof this appeal whethetthe\u00bbt.pIVaint\u00a7rf is entitled to damages<\/p>\n
a4_s..c|aime\u00e9d irithe <\/p>\n
(8)”–.Sr..i_V’ti~.lAi\u00a7”{.A Ananthakrishna Murthy, learned counsel<\/p>\n
‘   “for the plaintiff\/appellant contended<\/p>\n
‘V”i\u00bb’V.”V..’;unsformrlately though specific plea was raised in the plaint<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
claiming a sum of Rs.6,74,220\/– as damages being the
\ndifference in the market value between the <\/p>\n
agreement and date of suit, the trial Court <\/p>\n
proper issue. Consequentiy the.__part’ies*~~’:c:0u’i~dV’*.Vnot” it<\/p>\n
concentrate their attention on this aspect
\nhave not lead sufficient evide’|”@#C”~~tsand”‘
\nCourt also very casuaiiyhas  the”saidvvEclaim in
\nthe plaint and has rejec4tead”VT?ierefore he
\nsubmits this is a \u00a7fit’:Vc\u00a7:_ise  should set aside<\/p>\n
that portion of  andrcii-r.eict’*:th~e trial Court to frame<\/p>\n
appropriateissuesl~and:”givel_T’a..n’ opportunity to the parties to
\nlead evidence\ufb01inii rvesp_e’ct  said issues and then pass
\na.ppropr.ia5te order: :Ei._\/__en otherwise it was contended that<\/p>\n
the__tri:ai~ Co–urtih.asv not properiy appreciated the evidence on<\/p>\n
:7R,_Ag__rveCord,’didinlet’consider the judgment relied on by the<\/p>\n
..l_igi’_;.pl4a~i.ntiff in~~su;ppvort of his contention and therefore in so far<\/p>\n
4:~.Ta’S”th\u20ac:\u00bbCl’t\u00ableStiOi’1 of damages is concerned, the Judgment<\/p>\n
E\/i<\/p>\n
(1)<\/span><\/p>\n
(2)<\/span><\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether the Judgment of the trial Court in so far as<\/p>\n
damages is concerned is vitiated for non-framing’g”~.of a<\/p>\n
specific issue ?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the finding of the trial Court on  <\/p>\n
of entitlement to damages is su_s.tai_nabl–e”in”liagwl”?   <\/p>\n
(11) The piea regarding <\/p>\n
paragraph–17 of the piaint, whiChV:”r’eVadsi’as_’  <\/p>\n
“In the alternatiye, p$lia–i–n.t1iff'”states’th–at..~i\u00a7f it
\nis not possible to gra”i’it’a_ s.pe{cifiE’*\u00abrjerformance of
\nthe contract cgonsequenht-up.ong t.hvei”deC’isions of<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble””‘i\u00a7:7l.iigh.”-_Co:u”i’t ‘:–“‘Kia.r.iiataka and<\/p>\n
Supreme’ ‘Cijfi:-,1′ I’n*dti’a,  the Commissioner
\nof thevv–.Corporatit:.n;\u00bb.t’4h*e_:ri”the failure to obey the
\nterms o’F__the lies squarely with the<\/p>\n
defendant’  construction of fiat No.54<\/p>\n
 four)..gA’on thlellifvifth \ufb02oor of Paiace Orchards<\/p>\n
 illegal and not under valid<\/p>\n
licences’,’.tihe9’breach of contract is deliberate and<\/p>\n
wiiiui…”i_Piaintiff is subjected to great ioss and<\/p>\n
 hardshib and it is entitled to compensation and<\/p>\n
Vii’-..d’amiages for fiagrarit breach of the contract.<\/p>\n
li.\/<\/p>\n
V A<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
Piaintiff is entitled to compensation under the<\/p>\n
foiiowing heads:\n<\/p>\n
a) Refund of the advance paidji  ‘
\nRs.2,83,5OO\/– (Two Eakhs eight_ymtyhree_.’th’o~–tjSgaeri’dV”_   V<\/p>\n
five hundred).\n<\/p>\n
b) Difference in the pricefs,:_of_Ma fiatV__of_the <\/p>\n
dimension, extent and nat_ue:r’e..:_a\u00abs_y_ agereedve to? be
\ndelivered possessio’ri–…_'”Qf_ to \u00a7h.e’~._Vp!iE\u00a7”i’ntiff DY the
\ndefendant as on the date  fbreaeci’i.ij_~off.. contract<\/p>\n
and the agreved..:p’riceii_ Z:\n<\/p>\n
There  e:’tiieefprice in the real
\nestateeine fiatseebetween 1981 to
\n1988e(Niinete.\u00e9Verfa\u00a7i.Qiw.fV*-.:e:\u00a7.ne to Nineteen eightv
\neight). parti-cuiasry:.ee-the prices of the flats in
\nRa.j\u00abaifia~ha| \\}iia.s____f__:__&><ytension have sky rocketted.<\/p>\n
_fi'iat\\T_of\u00ab.._the nature, dimension and the<\/p>\n
*—de-scfri-f5t\u00abi..o"rieeV".nre1ferred to in the contract of sale<\/p>\n
dated 2tiZ}R3,.9e81 (Two, Two, Nineteen eighty one)<\/p>\n
 in theagrea nearby the Rajamaha! Vilas Extension
\nV'  apartn\ufb01ent would cost more than Rupees Ten
\neiaekhjs. Plaintiff has been subjected to serious<\/p>\n
 = \u00ab$1055, has lost many working days, subjected to<\/p>\n
EV<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
great mental stress and strain on account of the
\nbreach of the contract by defendant. PiaintiffVV.is._f’._
\nentitled to a compensation of
\n(Rupees Six lakhs, seventy~four thousand:
\nhundred and twenty only) on this”head–“_4’oe,i:n:gI.
\ndifference between the market
\nthe amount paid. In all, ~;jia.i_ntiff’ii-s”entitii’ev’d.,;to:a
\nsum of Rs.9,S’7,’720\/-\n<\/p>\n
seven thousand Se:ve\u00ab_n  twevrlty<\/p>\n
0rily).”\n<\/p>\n
(12) Tra.V.\u00e9.rsii\u00a7g._~_ .t4’r:.,..g_1\u20ac:.gafofieslaid”allegations, the<\/p>\n
defendant has paragraph-16 of the
\nwritten statement as u nder:\n<\/p>\n
“The.V%aiieVga_tVio.ns\u00ab.:eontained in paragraph 17
\nA ofv..t.iije plaintlla–re____h_ereby denied and the plaintiff
\n_  tgopstrict proof thereof. The defendant
\n1 really what the plaintiff says is
\nco.rrectg..\u00a7it:}_. further surprising as to how the<\/p>\n
 plaintivff\ufb02sv entitled to ciaim compensation. When<\/p>\n
  thepiallintiff gave an undertaking to the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
-~.–eou’nter guarantee was given by the defendant<\/p>\n
“‘Stipreme Court in the form of an Affidavit, a<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
which has been accepted by the plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
said counter guarantee reads as foliows:<\/p>\n
“We therefore agree that in the event of. <\/p>\n
your vacating the above apartment <\/p>\n
reason of any order made by the <\/p>\n
Court\/Supreme Court, we shiaiiyreituirrfttlo 4′<\/p>\n
You the amount paid by you FQ’it..iJu\u00abrc_h’\u00a25\u00a7  <\/p>\n
of the above apartmentt’w_ithout.v_raising'”ajny__ <\/p>\n
objection or requisition  be”r~.a|:_’t”‘.t~V-I
\nalso agree to i.ri’d.emniiiFy
\nindemnified against _a_’ai’i these
\nproceedings,”  cos’t”s;*i’; deimands,
\nlosses   be
\n orwvwhich may be
\nincurred or: reason of your
\nvacatiingthei -sai.d”‘a”partment and handing<\/p>\n
.oiveri’~vacantvpossession thereof”<\/p>\n
  it clear that there was no condition<\/p>\n
  damages or for payment of<\/p>\n
interesVt.’e:-yen in the event of the piaintiff<\/p>\n
 vacating the property and handing over
\nV’  npos_sesVsion. As a matter of fact, even that
\n7co’n’tingetacy will arise oniy if the property is to be<\/p>\n
 ‘V \u00bb-demolished in accordance with the orders of the<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
Courts. Having regard to the fact that such
\ncontingency has not so far arisen, the question'”—-._<\/p>\n
of the defendant making good even the ea.r.r:”e:s’t.f”,:’–_:”~_
\nmoney paid does not arise. Even otherwi_se,”th’e1′.j”*
\nplaintiff is not entitled to eitherthe  V
\nprice between the cost of
\nsought to be purchased by_thev4″plaintiff if
\none which is prevailing at”pr’esent i–n.VB.ajrv3gV\u00e9:lV,o”re<\/p>\n
or for mental agonyuthe V,l.oSV.s”,_v–of*~..working..days,<\/p>\n
etc., as alleged  if it is
\naccepted, for the sa,i<.e.:'o–f  it is a<\/p>\n
case wherein  originally<\/p>\n
valid has .i'niv:a'l"i*d.m.–o"r;.,: account of the
\nsubses:cgHdent"  p|_ai.ntiff can only ask for
\nrefundiof the–arr$ou_ht..V_:a'-no..-not for damages since<\/p>\n
the agreemlentw_asr._va\u00ab!:.i-d at the inception."
\n Ad.mttted-iv,' no_.ssue is framed on these pleas. in<\/p>\n
 \u00bbiig'i'tt_ofA_v't.he,:"aforesaid material assertion in the plaint<\/p>\n
bjvlvthe defendant, the Court ought to have<\/p>\n
_  at ..lea:_stV two issues.\n<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
1) Whether the defendant has committed
\nbreach of the terms of the agreement and<\/p>\n
consequently the piaintiff is entitied to damages_.?___<\/p>\n
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damagVes’~.:”‘vv_,
\nof Rs.6,74,220\/– as ciaimed in the piaint    i<\/p>\n
(14) Having so eiaborateiy raised__the .ipi’e’a’f}re’ga:’=ding <\/p>\n
damages in the piaint, unfortunate-iy ztiiei’
\ncourse of his evidence probabiyiihiasforgotten  <\/p>\n
that has been said in respect ofggh-i-s:f’p\u00a3e’a..g_in ex”\/’ic\u00a3en.ce of PW-<\/p>\n
1 is as undgerz” –  g . .\n<\/p>\n
“Due to’  I incurred a huge
\nloss. ‘I.__have'”  ioss to the tune of
\n Rs\u00bb’.46,7’\ufb01…22u()\/’Vjbeicause of the increase in prizes
\nI fr\u00e9ei\ufb01 i%.98i1t\ufb01Q 1938s.}<\/p>\n
 (‘.1_5u)*fvtghispiece of evidence was not subjected to<\/p>\n
ii’AA””c’r0ss-exa:miriatifien by the defendant. Defendant did not<\/p>\n
“‘~\u00ab\u00abl’i5teb”‘into Lwitness box. Under these circumstances, it is<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
not possibie to accept the contention of the learned counsel<\/p>\n
for the defendant that the parties understood the respjective<\/p>\n
cases, knew the issues raised in the case<\/p>\n
evidence. On the part of the defendant, ‘no.,.u_ef\\(i’dei1ce <\/p>\n
adduced. On the part of the plaintiff, excieiptathaltvafo’ife_sa\u00a7Vd’<\/p>\n
two stray sentences, nothing isv’de.pose”cI~._a’nd e=\\\u20ac:en,}’.M.hVat3 hasliv<\/p>\n
been deposed is not cro_ss–exa_m”i:ned..__barih’pligvtq\u00e9ifendant.<\/p>\n
The material on record  this context,
\nwhat the trial Court_h’a.s  if if <\/p>\n
 the ma rket<\/p>\n
value, llll    acceptable evidence.\n<\/p>\n
Seconcll.y’,..the– not able to complete<\/p>\n
the tranlsactivonl Ex.P1 because of the
\n theV”HoVnl’__bl’e Supreme Court and that of
\n  Corporation. Hence, the
\nVhlisfenot liable to pay the damages
\nclaijmed  plaintiff. I feel it not necessary to
\nconsi~rie’r and discuss the reasons and other
\n  asipectysl for demolition of the suit flat and certain
\nlotbheir flats. It is suffice to note that, the<\/p>\n
 -\u00bb-diefendant obtained the plan and licence from the<\/p>\n
k<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
Corporation and constructed the suit f|at___
\nincluding certain other fiats but the
\nSupreme Court held that, the said
\nlicence are in contravention of the
\nlaw. Considering this aspect, ii-n””rn-yrop’ini_,o’n,1
\ndefendant cannot be made l;’i’1abl–e*~to
\ndamages claimed by the’\u00ab-.._plaiVn’t,iff.V F:o:5.j.’ithVe.i3
\nplaintiff, certain ruiings are r’e.l_Vi:ed_VVupVo’n– about\ufb02the
\nfrustration of the  consiidering
\ncertain admitted facts,  n,o’t,C’_n.ec_essary to
\nconsider ail thi\u00e9  d,e’tuai.l,_.’  ‘iirther more,<\/p>\n
as per the \ufb01ificiii\u00a2on,:i:taong”6r Ex.P1 the
\npiaintiff  the rules and
\nregul:aVtioln’_s”:o,f   as well as other
\nlaws. is not entitle for<\/p>\n
damages;’7..i –\n<\/p>\n
‘C   Tihe ‘iegarnedvtriiai Judge has rejected the claim for
\ndamiageslfvvi:tjh_’avin’;~observation that first of all to prove loss
\n the “‘iima.ri<e-t\u00ab:'~"vaiue, there is no acceptable evidence.
\n he has proceeded to find out whether defendant<\/p>\n
 has committed the breach of contract and he is liable to pay<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
damages. The case of the plaintiff is defendant committed
\nbreach of the contract and therefore he is |iab|e…Vt:e:_:’ifiV_E:1y
\ndamages. The case of the defendant is
\nfrustration of the contract beyond his.
\nhe is not liable to pay damages.\n<\/p>\n
case of frustration. The  his*l’
\ncontention after knowing the  delfenda\ufb01nt reiied
\non certain ruling regarding contract etc.
\nThe learned 3udg\u00a7e’o.Aug~ht  the aforesaid
\nrulings, stated point is and then
\napplying the  of\ufb02the case, it was open to
\nhim to have’lr’ec4ord’eVdl:atfinlchnlgwllleither accepting the case of
\ntheypiaivlnstififioryy same. But unfortunately the<\/p>\n
tri’a_EEiidgge\u00bbhasjst’at_ed that by considering certain admitted<\/p>\n
:’\u00b0<.____,facts,"herllfevlttthatitvl it is not necessary to consider all the<\/p>\n
_l_f_–\u00ab.rui\u00a7nygs in detait. In fact he has not considered even one<\/p>\n
"This is not the way a trial Judge should deal with<\/p>\n
. _m?atter concerning damages payable either on account<\/p>\n
it\/\/T<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
of breach of contract or on account of frustration of
\ncontract. As set out above, the piaintiff has p|eadV.e_’d_V’hvvi’4s
\ncase ciaiming a sum of Rs.6,74,220\/–.
\nrequisite court fee on the said cIaim.:-“uh
\nnot framed, probabiy they couicl
\nappropriate evidence to substVa’nvst.i:’ate   is’
\nbecause of that probabiy   not “step into
\nthe witness box. V f:ig_.~i:.n’o’.[i\\.Effective cross
\nexamination of  plaintiff has
\nadduced. At Judge ought to have
\nappreciated’  -that was on record and
\nreferred theiiruiirigvs  in brief and stated what
\n|a\\(tv\u00ab.\u00a7fc:.’o:n” is and then he shoufd have<\/p>\n
de’n1on’s’trated~ih’Qi}ir that law is applicabie or not applicable to<\/p>\n
 factsiofvth\ufb01ogise and then grant or decline to grant a<\/p>\n
..h_i’i’_;.gi.ecr,ee. ‘”‘:’~*ha:t is what is expected of a triai 3ndge. It is<\/p>\n
4:-:”u\u00abnfort\u00bbun.a’Ate that the triai Judge has not kept in mind the<\/p>\n
 iegal principies and casuaiiy referred to the matters ..<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
which are not subject matters of the issue
\nissues had not been framed at them
\nissues, at the time of judgment
\nissues, calied upon the parties
\ndecided the case on merits. Th_e\ufb02|A’ear~n_Ved  ‘has failed
\nto discharge these iegal   imposed on
\nhim. In the   this portion
\nof the  the’ necessary issues
\narise for  ‘have; not been raised. The
\nDarties  in mind the issues
\ninvoived aridx iiearnedv-sJu”dVge has not appiied his mind to
\n“‘p!eaiding’i:Aarid.’issuv\u00e9mi\/iihich arises for consideration and<\/p>\n
theA”-\u20ac\\i\u00abiiC!eA{iv<':\u00e9~JCriT..~:'i'eCOi"d in arriving at a conclusion.<\/p>\n
V".;-dwTVrierefoe*'e t__\ufb01e-niabove portion of the judgment is not<\/p>\n
_:SrustcainaibieVVi'n law. Hence we pass the following :<\/p>\n
3.1,\/'<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
(a) The appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(in) The Judgment and Decree of the  *
\ndismissing the suit of
\nclaim for damages is conclernedihhhyis
\naside. V 4′ h V V 2<\/p>\n
(C) The matter is reinitte\u00abd “‘haseig1’to..g.the\u00e9triaiVv’Court
\nfor fresh Consideratiodhhheoiviy ‘thve’–V*’question of<\/p>\n
claim  ciamafges  a sum of<\/p>\n
Rs. 5;i7\u00ab4;.i;20a\/1:23′ ‘Cia’i’m’ed byrhe plaintiff.
\n(cf) The-trial’  to frame appropriate<\/p>\n
issuesthis regard taking note of what we<\/p>\n
.   statedfvabfove with the assistance of the<\/p>\n
 and thereafter permit both the
\n“”*–parjties:”‘ to adduce evidence in respect of the
\n * .-._issues to be raised and thereafter after hearing<\/p>\n
 the parties and referring to the judgments cited<\/p>\n
M\/1<\/p>\n
24<\/span><\/p>\n
by them pass judgment on merits in accordance<\/p>\n
with la W.\n<\/p>\n
(e) The parties are directed to file  ~<\/p>\n
enable the Court to frame: ~a,o_p&ro,-‘:’ria”te7It issues <\/p>\n
without confusion or further}’os:s._lof time; –. _ ‘\/ ” <\/p>\n
(F) In all other aspects, vfl\u00b0i\u00e9i..V’i7fl’a\/ .co.L’,ftV..iJjL:id\u00a7eVn1e’nt
\nstands undi’sturbed.,_<\/p>\n
(g) No costs<\/p>\n
(h) High Courttet-\u00a7’*’ice;1.;’sgdirected?.to._refund the court
\nfee oaiid gV:>”n_”this,nae-nfiorandun;’ of appeal under
\nsectibriasg “‘t.h’e~,:Karna’ta’lta Court Fees and
\nSuits “‘\u00ab\/;_al’ua’t  9.58. L<\/p>\n
 …..\n<\/p>\n
Sdl-in
\nEadge<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Shanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009 Author: N.Kumar And C.R.Kumaraswamy DJTHETHGFICOURTWDFKARNATAKAlH’BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14?” DAY OF OCTOBER 2009fif-._ PRESENT ‘t'” “” THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MUN, KU_;”~’i)E\\F’x:.:”_’v:’V””:: * AND *. \u00ab THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R}.Kt?!”-tVRA’S\\NAMAY..”t”‘*–~_V\u00b0Y_: REGULAR FIRST APPEALTNO. 275 O? 7: BETWEEN: 4 % t ‘t V […]<\/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-244332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-02T21:02:36+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\\\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-02T21:02:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3399,\"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\\\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009\",\"name\":\"Shanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-02T21:02:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-02T21:02:36+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\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-02T21:02:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009"},"wordCount":3399,"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\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009","name":"Shanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-02T21:02:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shanti-trust-vs-bhaktawar-trust-on-14-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shanti Trust vs Bhaktawar Trust on 14 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244332","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=244332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}