{"id":249166,"date":"2010-08-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010"},"modified":"2015-08-15T04:50:42","modified_gmt":"2015-08-14T23:20:42","slug":"bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"Bhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Bhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 August, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 921 of 2010()\n\n\n1. BHASKARAN, AGED 65 YEARS,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. ANOOP, AGED YEARS,\n3. ANEESH, AGED 34 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. DAYANANDAN.N., AGED 51 YEARS,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN\n\n Dated :11\/08\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      P.BHAVADASAN, J.\n                      -------------------------\n                    R.S.A No.921 of 2010\n                      --------------------------\n             Dated this the 11th August, 2010\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
     This Second Appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S<\/p>\n
540\/2006    before the Munsiff’s Court,         Kozhikode who<\/p>\n
suffered a decree at the hands of the trial court which was<\/p>\n
confirmed in appeal.     The parties and facts hereinafter<\/p>\n
referred to as are available before the trial court.<\/p>\n
     2.   The dispute relates to a well. Plaintiff claimed<\/p>\n
that well belongs to him and is comprised in the property<\/p>\n
acquired by him as per Ext.A1 sale deed dated 5.102004.<\/p>\n
According to him, the plaintiff is in absolute possession<\/p>\n
and enjoyment of the same.       It is stated in the plaint that<\/p>\n
the defendants are the      the adjacent property owners.<\/p>\n
They used to take water from the well situated within the<\/p>\n
boundary of plaint schedule property.           Plaintiff has no<\/p>\n
objection for doing so. The defendants have installed a<\/p>\n
motor pump in the well for taking water from it. They did<\/p>\n
so without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.921 of 2010
\n                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
They are not entitled to do so. Even in spite of the repeated<\/p>\n
demands from the plaintiff defendants did not remove the<\/p>\n
motor from the well. Hence the suit.\n<\/p>\n
     3.     Defendants entered appearance and contested<\/p>\n
the suit.    Accordingly, from the date of partition of the<\/p>\n
property, the common well had been used by the members<\/p>\n
of plaintiff and defendants family. They have been drawing<\/p>\n
water from the well.      It is contended    that    separate<\/p>\n
provisions were provided for both parties for taking water<\/p>\n
from the common well. They claimed a right to install a<\/p>\n
motor pump to draw water from the well. Therefore , the<\/p>\n
defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.<\/p>\n
     4.     The trial court raised necessary issues for<\/p>\n
consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of<\/p>\n
PW1 and PW2 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked from the<\/p>\n
side of the plaintiff. Defendant had examined DW1 and<\/p>\n
Ext.B1 was marked. Exts.C1 and C1 (a) are the commission<\/p>\n
report and plan. CW1 was examined as court witness.<\/p>\n
     5.     The trial court found that defendants failed to<\/p>\n
establish any manner of right to draw water from the well.<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.921 of 2010
\n                              3<\/span><\/p>\n
It is also found that well is situated in the property which<\/p>\n
belonged to plaintiff and going by the evidence of PW2,<\/p>\n
there is nothing to show that the defendants had any<\/p>\n
manner of right to draw water from the well. Finding so,<\/p>\n
the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
      6.    Defendants carried the matter in appeal as A.S<\/p>\n
No.103\/2008 before the District Court, Kozhikode.       The<\/p>\n
lower appellate court evaluated the evidence in the case<\/p>\n
and came to same conclusion as that of the trial court.<\/p>\n
      7.    It seems that at the appellate stage plaintiff<\/p>\n
made a concession that he had no objection in defendants<\/p>\n
drawing water manually from the well and objection is<\/p>\n
regarding the installiation of a motor pump. It is also<\/p>\n
conceded by him that he had no objection in continuing<\/p>\n
with the said process. The decree passed by the trial court<\/p>\n
was modified to that extent and the appeal was dismissed<\/p>\n
observing so. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,<\/p>\n
this appeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    Learned counsel appearing for the appellants<\/p>\n
pointed out that plaintiff had admitted that the ancestors of<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.921 of 2010
\n                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
the respective parties had only one well to draw water. It<\/p>\n
is also pointed out that the well is not included in the<\/p>\n
property purchased by plaintiff as per Ext. A1.<\/p>\n
     9.    Learned counsel appearing for the appellants<\/p>\n
pointed out that appellants had filed objection to the<\/p>\n
commission report to the effect that location of the well<\/p>\n
has been incorrectly identified and had sought for setting<\/p>\n
aside the commission report. It is contended that the same<\/p>\n
has not been considered.      Finally it is contended that at<\/p>\n
any rate,    appellants enjoyed easement by      prescriptive<\/p>\n
right to draw water from the well.\n<\/p>\n
     10.    None of the above contentions have any merits.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff only stated that previously there was only one well<\/p>\n
in the property and that does not mean by subsequent<\/p>\n
partition, well will continue to be a common one. He also<\/p>\n
accepted that people used to draw water from that well.<\/p>\n
Plaintiff has asserted that the well is situated in the<\/p>\n
property which exclusively belonged to him as per Ext.A1.<\/p>\n
Defendants had contended that well is not situated<\/p>\n
exclusively in the property owned by the plaintiff and it is a<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.921 of 2010
\n                             5<\/span><\/p>\n
common well.      The defendants     failed to establish the<\/p>\n
same.\n<\/p>\n
     11. The trial court has referred to the report and<\/p>\n
sketch submitted by the Commissioner. The court below<\/p>\n
has observed that well is located within the boundary of<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule property.     It is also stated that no<\/p>\n
evidence had been adduced by the defendants to show that<\/p>\n
commission report is erroneous and contrary to facts.<\/p>\n
     12. The claim of co-ownership, is without any legal<\/p>\n
basis. There is no document produced by the appellants to<\/p>\n
show that they are co-owners of the property and as a<\/p>\n
matter of fact they have right to draw water from the well.<\/p>\n
It is interesting to note that the appellants claimed<\/p>\n
ownership as per Ext.B1 will dated. 3.11.1955, said to have<\/p>\n
been executed by Cheriyekku. When DW1 had examined,<\/p>\n
he deposed that      there is no document to show that<\/p>\n
defendant had any manner of right over the well. He was<\/p>\n
also unable to give any cogent and convincing evidence<\/p>\n
regarding the right of the defendants to draw water from<\/p>\n
the well.  DW1 in fact stated that defendant had right as<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.921 of 2010
\n                              6<\/span><\/p>\n
such to draw water from the well though it was standing in<\/p>\n
the property owned and possessed by the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
      13. As regards the claim of question of      right of<\/p>\n
easement by prescription, it is not proved.<\/p>\n
      14.  Learned counsel appearing for the appellants<\/p>\n
relied on the    statement   found in the appellate court<\/p>\n
judgment that it was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
that he has no objection in defendants taking water from<\/p>\n
the well.   It is contended that     this shows that    the<\/p>\n
defendants have a right to draw water from the well.<\/p>\n
      15.  It is pointed out that when the motor installed<\/p>\n
by the defendants were forcibly removed, a complaint was<\/p>\n
filed before the police and at the intervention of police, it<\/p>\n
was directed that well will remain in that place.      Even<\/p>\n
assuming the said fact to be correct, that cannot confer<\/p>\n
any enforcible right on defendants to draw water from the<\/p>\n
well. One fails to understand the nature of right claimed<\/p>\n
by the defendants to enable them to draw water from the<\/p>\n
well.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.921 of 2010
\n                              7<\/span><\/p>\n
      16. One cannot omit to note that defendants are<\/p>\n
asserting a positive fact that they have a right to draw<\/p>\n
water from the well. The evidence clearly shows that well<\/p>\n
is situated within the property owned and possessed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. The burden is therefore on the defendants to<\/p>\n
show that they have a right to draw water from the well.<\/p>\n
      17. It is true that plaintiffs had stated that<\/p>\n
defendants had been using water from the well. At the<\/p>\n
appellate stage, plaintiff had conceded that he had no<\/p>\n
objection in the defendants drawing the water manually<\/p>\n
from the well     but installation of motor pump by the<\/p>\n
defendants is objected to.  The above concession could not<\/p>\n
be extended to carve out a right in favour of defendants.<\/p>\n
      18. The courts below have considered all the aspects<\/p>\n
in considerable detail and come to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
defendants have not been established any manner of right<\/p>\n
to use the well. However, the decree of the trial court is<\/p>\n
seen modified to the extent that defendants can draw water<\/p>\n
manually from the well. Therefore, the right to draw water<\/p>\n
from the well has been safeguarded.\n<\/p>\n
R.S.A No.921 of 2010
\n                              8<\/span><\/p>\n
     No grounds are made out to interfere with the<\/p>\n
judgment and decree of the courts below.      The appeal is<\/p>\n
without merits and it is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n
                                 P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
\nma<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Bhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 August, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 921 of 2010() 1. BHASKARAN, AGED 65 YEARS, … Petitioner 2. ANOOP, AGED YEARS, 3. ANEESH, AGED 34 YEARS, Vs 1. DAYANANDAN.N., AGED 51 YEARS, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI For Respondent : No Appearance […]<\/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-249166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 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\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-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=\"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-14T23:20:42+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-14T23:20:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1337,\"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\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010\",\"name\":\"Bhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-14T23:20:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 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\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-14T23:20:42+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-14T23:20:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010"},"wordCount":1337,"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\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010","name":"Bhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-14T23:20:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaskaran-vs-dayanandan-n-on-11-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhaskaran vs Dayanandan.N. on 11 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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249166","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=249166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}