{"id":250576,"date":"2009-07-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009"},"modified":"2016-07-17T07:38:45","modified_gmt":"2016-07-17T02:08:45","slug":"stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Stanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Stanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nAS.No. 157 of 1996()\n\n\n\n1. STANLEY JOSE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1.   NUAL AND OTHERS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :.\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN\n\n Dated :22\/07\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                 A.K.BASHEER & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                         A.S.No.157 & 169 OF 1996 - B\n                  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                    Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009\n\n                                       JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Basheer, J:\n<\/p>\n
\n
       These two appeals are at the instance of the two defendants in a suit<\/p>\n
for realisation of money on the strength of a promissory note.<\/p>\n
       2. The court below accepted the case of the plaintiff and decreed<\/p>\n
the suit as prayed for, directing the defendants (father and son) to pay a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.2,27,942\/- with 6% interest thereon from the date of suit till<\/p>\n
realisation. The said decree and judgment are under challenge in these<\/p>\n
two appeals.\n<\/p>\n
       3.  The case of the respondent\/ plaintiff in brief was that the<\/p>\n
defendants had borrowed a total sum of Rs.2,05,000\/- on several<\/p>\n
occasions in connection with “the business of prawn fishing”. Defendants<\/p>\n
executed Ext.A1, promissory note dated, December 19, 1989 for the<\/p>\n
outstanding sum of Rs.2,05,000\/- undertaking to pay the same with 6%<\/p>\n
interest on demand. But since the defendants did not discharge the above<\/p>\n
liability as promised, the plaintiff issued Ext.A2 lawyer notice in<\/p>\n
September, 1991. Defendants did not choose to send any reply to the<\/p>\n
same; nor did they discharge the liability. Hence the suit.<\/p>\n
       4. Defendants filed separate written statements. In his written<\/p>\n
statement, defendant No.1 contended that he had not executed any<\/p>\n
A.S.No.157 & 169 OF 1996 – B
\n                                    :: 2 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n
promissory note as alleged in the plaint. It was further contended by him<\/p>\n
that he had had no business transaction with the plaintiff. He was laid up<\/p>\n
with rheumatism for the last several years. His son, defendant No.2, had<\/p>\n
been looking after his affairs. His son had obtained several signed papers<\/p>\n
from him for certain purposes. It was further contended by defendant No.1<\/p>\n
that if the plaintiff and defendant No.2 had fabricated any document using<\/p>\n
the signed blank papers, such a document would not be binding on him.<\/p>\n
      5. Defendant No.2 in his written statement admitted execution of the<\/p>\n
promissory note. It was further admitted by him that he had had business<\/p>\n
transaction with the plaintiff.     According to defendant No.2, he had<\/p>\n
obtained the right of fishing from Chellanam Neendakara padasekharam<\/p>\n
during the relevant period and he used to supply fish to the plaintiff in the<\/p>\n
course of their business transactions. But according to him, he was liable<\/p>\n
to pay only Rs.5,000\/- to the plaintiff when the accounts were settled.<\/p>\n
While conceding that Ext.A1 promissory note was executed by him in<\/p>\n
favour of the plaintiff, it was contended that the plaintiff had not paid<\/p>\n
Rs.2,00,000\/- at the time of execution of the promissory note. Defendant<\/p>\n
contended that he was liable to pay only Rs.5,000\/- and therefore prayed<\/p>\n
for dismissal of the suit.\n<\/p>\n
      6. Before the trial court, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1.<\/p>\n
PW2 who was stated to be a witness to Ext.A1 promissory note was also<\/p>\n
A.S.No.157 & 169 OF 1996 – B
\n                                   :: 3 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n
examined on his side. Exts.A2 to A3 were also produced by the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
the case apart from Ext.A1. The defendants were examined as DWs1 and<\/p>\n
2.  However, there was no documentary evidence on the side of the<\/p>\n
defendants.\n<\/p>\n
      7. The court below, while considering the issue as to whether the<\/p>\n
promissory note was supported by consideration, noticed that the<\/p>\n
defendants did not have a case that they had had no business transaction<\/p>\n
with the plaintiffs as claimed in the plaint. More importantly in his chief<\/p>\n
examination itself defendant No.2 who was examined as DW1 in the case,<\/p>\n
candidly admitted that he had executed the promissory note in favour of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff. It was further conceded by him that the said promissory note<\/p>\n
was for a sum of Rs.2,05,000\/-. It was also admitted by him that the said<\/p>\n
sum included Rs.5,000\/- which he owed to the plaintiff earlier.        But<\/p>\n
according to DW1, the plaintiff did not pay him Rs.2,00,000\/- though the<\/p>\n
promissory note was executed by him. In short, defendant No.2 not only<\/p>\n
conceded the business transaction between him and plaintiff but also<\/p>\n
explicitly and candidly admitted execution of the promissory note. There<\/p>\n
was also no dispute with regard to the amount indicated in Ext.A1<\/p>\n
promissory note.\n<\/p>\n
      8. One contention raised by defendant No.2 before the court below<\/p>\n
was that the plaintiff had not produced the accounts in relation to the<\/p>\n
A.S.No.157 & 169 OF 1996 – B
\n                                    :: 4 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n
business transaction between the two. But the plaintiff had explained that<\/p>\n
after settling the accounts between him and the defendants he had not<\/p>\n
bothered to keep the accounts with him. The above explanation was found<\/p>\n
to be plausible and reasonable by the court below. It was further noticed<\/p>\n
by the court below that the defendants had not taken any steps against the<\/p>\n
plaintiff to get the promissory note revoked or cancelled, if in fact they<\/p>\n
hade not received the amount covered under the said promissory note as<\/p>\n
alleged by them.\n<\/p>\n
       9. The promissory note was admittedly executed in the year 1989.<\/p>\n
The suit was instituted in the year 1991. Before the institution of the suit,<\/p>\n
plaintiff had issued Ext.A2 lawyer notice to which defendants did not<\/p>\n
choose to send any reply. Even assuming that the defendants could not<\/p>\n
take any steps to get the promissory note revoked in the course of two<\/p>\n
years, they could have atleast sent a reply denying the liability to pay the<\/p>\n
amount covered under the       promissory note.   All these circumstances<\/p>\n
persuaded the court below, in our view rightly to hold that the contention<\/p>\n
raised by the defendants cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
       10. We have carefully perused the promissory note and considered<\/p>\n
the pleadings of the parties in the case. In our view, the court below was<\/p>\n
justified in granting a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is true that<\/p>\n
defendant No.1 had raised a contention that he had not executed the<\/p>\n
A.S.No.157 & 169 OF 1996 – B
\n                                   :: 5 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n
promissory note.     But PW2 the witness to Ext.A1 promissory note had<\/p>\n
corroborated the case of the plaintiff. Moreover, as could be seen from the<\/p>\n
evidence on record, defendant No.1 and 2, father and son, had been living<\/p>\n
under the same roof. Though defendant No.1 had contended that he had<\/p>\n
handed over several blank papers to his son for certain purposes, it was not<\/p>\n
explained by him as to what those “purposes” were. There was also not<\/p>\n
even a suggestion that his son had fabricated the document in order to<\/p>\n
cause loss to him. His only contention was that he was bed ridden with<\/p>\n
rheumatism and therefore his affairs were being looked after by his son.<\/p>\n
      Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and<\/p>\n
having perused the evidence available on record, we do not find any<\/p>\n
illegality in the impugned decree and judgment. There is no merit in any of<\/p>\n
the contentions raised by the appellants.      Appeals fail and they are<\/p>\n
accordingly dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                        (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                    (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)
\njes<\/p>\n
A.S.No.157 & 169 OF 1996 – B
\n                                :: 6 ::\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                        A.K.BASHEER & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
\n                                           A.S.No.157 & 169 OF 1996 – B\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                         – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                           JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
                                                    Dated 22nd July, 2009<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Stanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM AS.No. 157 of 1996() 1. STANLEY JOSE … Petitioner Vs 1. NUAL AND OTHERS … Respondent For Petitioner :. For Respondent :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER The Hon’ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN Dated […]<\/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-250576","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nStanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 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\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Stanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-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=\"2009-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-17T02:08:45+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\\\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Stanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-17T02:08:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1227,\"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\\\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Stanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-17T02:08:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Stanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 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":"Stanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 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\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Stanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-17T02:08:45+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\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Stanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-17T02:08:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009"},"wordCount":1227,"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\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009","name":"Stanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-17T02:08:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanley-jose-vs-nual-and-others-on-22-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Stanley Jose vs Nual And Others on 22 July, 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\/250576","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=250576"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250576\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250576"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250576"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250576"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}