{"id":254224,"date":"2010-03-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-29T23:03:55","modified_gmt":"2016-03-29T17:33:55","slug":"stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Stanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Stanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 72 of 2010()\n\n\n1. STANLY MOSES, S\/O. SAMUEL THOTTIYIL\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. JOY DAVID (INCORRECTLY SHOWN AS JOY DAVI\n3. REJINA CHRISTABLE, D\/O. SAMUEL THOTTIYIL\n4. NEENA GLADIS, D\/O. -DO-\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. PASTORATE COMMITTEE, CSI CHURCH,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH\n\n Dated :01\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                             THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.\n                           --------------------------------------\n                               R.S.A.No.72 of 2010\n                           --------------------------------------\n                      Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010.\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
               This Second Appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned<\/p>\n
Principal Sub Judge, Kozhikode in A.S.No.167 of 2006 confirming judgment and<\/p>\n
decree of learned Principal Munsiff-II, Kozhikode in O.S.No.977 of 2001.<\/p>\n
Appellants\/defendants are directed by judgment and decree of the courts below<\/p>\n
to surrender possession of the building situated in the suit property and to vacate<\/p>\n
the premises with their articles. According to the respondent suit property is in<\/p>\n
its possession where it had constructed a quarters for the use of watchman of<\/p>\n
its cemetery nearby. Father of appellants, Samuel was working as watchman<\/p>\n
of that cemetery. He was permitted to occupy the building in the suit property as<\/p>\n
a licensee in his capacity of watchman of the cemetery. He had undertaken to<\/p>\n
vacate the quarters as and when required. On the death of Samuel, appellants<\/p>\n
(his legal heirs) could not continue as a watchman of the cemetery. Thereon<\/p>\n
respondent wanted to appoint another person as watchman and required the<\/p>\n
appellants to vacate the quarters as per notice. Since they refused, respondent<\/p>\n
filed the suit. Appellants claimed that respondent has no right to file the suit and<\/p>\n
that the documents relied on by the respondent are all concocted. From 1967<\/p>\n
onwards ten cents of Government puramboke in                    survey No.103\/5 and the<\/p>\n
building thereon are in the possession of the late Samuel and after his death,<\/p>\n
appellants. A chapel was constructed in the adjoining land. Samuel constructed<\/p>\n
RSA No.72 of 2010<\/p>\n
                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
structure in the puramboke land and with the permission of the then vicar started<\/p>\n
staying there.      Courts below found against the contentions raised by the<\/p>\n
appellants and granted decree. Hence this Second Appeal urging by way of<\/p>\n
substantial questions   of law whether the suit itself is not maintainable for<\/p>\n
absence of publication under Order I Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure (for<\/p>\n
short, “the Code”) and in the absence of any transferable interest for the<\/p>\n
respondent as the property belonged to the Government, whether respondent<\/p>\n
could claim eviction of the appellants.        Learned counsel      contends that<\/p>\n
paramount title of the suit property vested with the State Government and hence<\/p>\n
respondent cannot seek eviction of the appellants. It is contended that Section<\/p>\n
20A of the Land Conservancy Act (for short, “the Act”) affected maintainability of<\/p>\n
the suit. According to the learned counsel the suit is filed by the church which is<\/p>\n
not a legal entity and hence in the absence of publication under Order I Rule 8<\/p>\n
of the Code the suit is not maintainable.       Learned counsel for respondent<\/p>\n
supported the judgment and decree of the courts below.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       2.     So far as maintainability of the suit for want of publication under<\/p>\n
Order I Rule 8 of the Code is concerned it is seen that respondent is a<\/p>\n
committee of the church and it has obtained authorisation from the church as per<\/p>\n
Ext.A9 to institute the suit. Therefore contention that suit is instituted by the<\/p>\n
RSA No.72 of 2010<\/p>\n
                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
church which is not a legal entity and it required publication under Order I Rule 8<\/p>\n
of the Code cannot be sustained. There is no reason to reject Ext.A9, authority<\/p>\n
granted by the church to institute the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       3.    Respondent has produced Ext.A1, certified extract of property tax<\/p>\n
demand register for the period from 1909 to 1953 in respect of the suit property<\/p>\n
to show that it has been paying revenue for the said property. Ext.A3 is minutes<\/p>\n
book of the respondent for the period from 1960 to 1967.          Ext.A3 and the<\/p>\n
relevant pages therein revealed as found by the courts below that when<\/p>\n
Manesha Valiyaveedu was the watchman of the cemetery from 1961 onwards<\/p>\n
and he was granted permission to occupy the quarters situated in the plaint<\/p>\n
schedule property in his capacity as watchman. Following his death in the year<\/p>\n
1967 his wife surrendered possession of the quarters to the church. Later came<\/p>\n
the appointment of Samuel, predecessor-in-interest of appellants and he was<\/p>\n
permitted to occupy the quarters situated in the suit property as revealed from<\/p>\n
Ext.A3(e) and (f) (at page 175 of Ext.A3) from 5.6.1967. Courts below found<\/p>\n
from the evidence that page No.175 of Ext.A3 contained the signature of Samuel<\/p>\n
and his wife (plaintiff No.1).   Ext.X1 revealed that Samuel was working as<\/p>\n
watchman of the cemetery of the church and was occupying the quarters<\/p>\n
attached to the cemetery (situated in the suit property).       Though appellants<\/p>\n
produced Exts.B2 to B8 that only revealed that Samuel was in occupation of the<\/p>\n
quarters in question. Courts below found from the evidence that the suit property<\/p>\n
RSA No.72 of 2010<\/p>\n
                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
was in the possession of the church, Samuel and his family were permitted to<\/p>\n
occupy the quarters situated in the suit property in connection with his work as<\/p>\n
watchman of the cemetery.\n<\/p>\n
\n
        4.    Though when this matter came up for admission sometime back<\/p>\n
learned counsel for appellants submitted that the        State Government has<\/p>\n
initiated proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act against the church for<\/p>\n
recovery of possession of the suit property, in fairness it is now conceded by<\/p>\n
learned counsel that no such proceeding is pending and that the proceeding<\/p>\n
pending is before the Sub Divisional Magistrate        relating to some alleged<\/p>\n
nuisance. Now argument of learned counsel is based on the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Land Conservancy Act, in particular Section 20A and Section 53<\/a> of the Indian<\/p>\n
Easements Act, 1882. Learned counsel would contend that so far as Section 53<\/a><\/p>\n
of the Indian Easements Act is concerned only the original owner of the property<\/p>\n
could grant any license while in this case the property belonged to the<\/p>\n
Government and hence respondent is not the original owner of the property and<\/p>\n
hence could not grant any license in favour of Samuel. Leaned counsel has<\/p>\n
placed reliance on the decision in Philip & others v. Skaria & others<\/a><\/p>\n
(1987 (1) KLT 213).\n<\/p>\n
RSA No.72 of 2010<\/p>\n
                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
        5.    I am afraid that the decision relied on cannot help the appellants.<\/p>\n
Section 20A<\/a> of the Act barred the jurisdiction of the civil court so far as the<\/p>\n
person in alleged unauthorised occupation and the Government is concerned<\/p>\n
but, did not in any way affect the right of the person having better possessory<\/p>\n
title to recover possession of the property from a trespasser. In this case<\/p>\n
evidence on record would show that the church is in possession and enjoyment<\/p>\n
of the property from 1909 onwards even if it is assumed to be the Government<\/p>\n
land. Therefore the church has possessory title in the suit property against the<\/p>\n
appellants subject of course to the paramount title if any on the Government if it<\/p>\n
is puramboke land as contended by the appellants. Possessory title is next to<\/p>\n
proprietary title    and hence there is    nothing illegal in the church granting<\/p>\n
permission to Samuel, predecessor-in-interest of the appellants to occupy the<\/p>\n
building in the suit property. None of the provisions of the Act would affect that<\/p>\n
right of the respondent. If that be so it was well within the power of the church<\/p>\n
to seek eviction of appellants after terminating the permission granted to them.<\/p>\n
        6.    Though it is contended by learned counsel for appellants that they<\/p>\n
are in possession of the entire suit property, that contention cannot be accepted<\/p>\n
in the light of the evidence on records as discussed by the courts below.<\/p>\n
“Possession” of the property is different from occupation of the building situated<\/p>\n
thereon in his capacity as watchman of the adjacent cemetery belonging to the<\/p>\n
RSA No.72 of 2010<\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span><\/p>\n
church, the grantor of license. Possession of the property remained with the<\/p>\n
church. Hence claiming to be in possession appellants cannot claim any better<\/p>\n
right than the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       7.     Having heard counsel on both sides and on going through the<\/p>\n
judgments under challenge I am not satisfied that any substantial question of law<\/p>\n
is involved in the Second Appeal requiring a decision. However, considering the<\/p>\n
submission of the learned counsel for appellants that appellants have no other<\/p>\n
place to go and have to find out alternative accommodation, I am inclined to<\/p>\n
grant them three months time from today to vacate the building situated in the<\/p>\n
suit property. Execution proceedings if any      already initiated will stand in<\/p>\n
abeyance for a period of three months from today.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       With the above direction the Second Appeal is dismissed in limine.<\/p>\n
       I.A.No.178 of 2010 will stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                              THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
\n                                                      Judge.\n<\/p>\n
\n
cks<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Stanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 72 of 2010() 1. STANLY MOSES, S\/O. SAMUEL THOTTIYIL … Petitioner 2. JOY DAVID (INCORRECTLY SHOWN AS JOY DAVI 3. REJINA CHRISTABLE, D\/O. SAMUEL THOTTIYIL 4. NEENA GLADIS, D\/O. -DO- Vs 1. PASTORATE COMMITTEE, […]<\/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-254224","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nStanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Stanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-29T17:33:55+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\\\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Stanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-29T17:33:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1388,\"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\\\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Stanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-29T17:33:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Stanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Stanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Stanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-29T17:33:55+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\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Stanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-29T17:33:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010"},"wordCount":1388,"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\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010","name":"Stanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-29T17:33:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/stanly-moses-vs-pastorate-committee-on-1-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Stanly Moses vs Pastorate Committee on 1 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254224","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=254224"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254224\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254224"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}