{"id":27940,"date":"2010-05-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010"},"modified":"2014-09-09T18:37:00","modified_gmt":"2014-09-09T13:07:00","slug":"george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"George vs Mathew on 26 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
George vs Mathew on 26 May, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nSA.No. 756 of 1996()\n\n\n\n1. GEORGE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n1. MATHEW\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.C.RAMAN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :26\/05\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                      HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                       ------------------------\n                        S.A.No.756 Of 1996\n                        ----------------------\n               Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010.\n\n                          J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
      The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.310 of 1988 on the file of<\/p>\n
the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, are the appellants. The suit<\/p>\n
was filed by the first respondents\/plaintiff for declaration of title,<\/p>\n
recovery of possession and perpetual prohibitory injunction. The<\/p>\n
trial court decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff has got title<\/p>\n
to plaint A, B & C schedule properties and also allowed to recover<\/p>\n
plaint A,B & C schedule properties.        The prayer for grant of<\/p>\n
injunction was also allowed. The trial court ordered recovery of<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule property from defendants 1 & 2 and recovery of<\/p>\n
possession of B & C schedule properties from other defendants.<\/p>\n
The other defendants did not chose to file appeal before this<\/p>\n
Court. Therefore the dispute at this state relates only to plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property. In the appeal preferred by the defendants 1<\/p>\n
to 4 as A.S.No.2 of 1991, the learned Sub Judge confirmed the<\/p>\n
decree and judgment passed by the trial court.            Parties are<\/p>\n
hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff and defendants as arrayed<\/p>\n
in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
S.A.No.756 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                   ::2::\n<\/p>\n
      2.   The plaintiff claimed title to plaint A schedule property<\/p>\n
on the strength of Exts.A1 & A2 deeds. The appellants disputed<\/p>\n
the title of the plaintiff.    According to the appellants plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property do not form part of the property covered by<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 & A2 and they further contended that they are in<\/p>\n
continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule<\/p>\n
property and that the plaintiff never acquired possession of plaint<\/p>\n
A schedule property. As the defendants 1 & 2 disputed the title<\/p>\n
of the plaintiff over plaint A schedule property, the trial court<\/p>\n
proceeded and examined the issue as to whether the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
entitled to a decree as prayed for. The trial court examined the<\/p>\n
witnesses and rightly observed that the defendants 1, 3 & 5<\/p>\n
disputed the plaintiff’s title to plaint schedule properties, the onus<\/p>\n
is on the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff is the title holder of<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule properties.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   On the side of the plaintiff PW1 was examined and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. DWs 1 to 5 were examined on the<\/p>\n
side of the defendants and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked.<\/p>\n
Commission report and plan were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a).<\/p>\n
S.A.No.756 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                ::3::\n<\/p>\n
      4.    PW1 testified before the court that in the year 1982<\/p>\n
when he was hospitalized the defendants trespassed into plaint A,<\/p>\n
B & C schedule properties and reduced them into their unlawful<\/p>\n
possession.     At the instance of the plaintiff an advocate<\/p>\n
commissioner was deputed to identify the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
properties.   A Taluk Surveyor was also deputed to assist the<\/p>\n
advocate commissioner. Plaint A, B & C schedule properties are<\/p>\n
shown as plot Nos.1 to 4 in Ext.C1(a). Ext.C1(a) will disclose the<\/p>\n
fact that plaint A, B & C schedule properties form part of the<\/p>\n
properties covered by Exts.A1 and A2. Though defendants 1, 3 &<\/p>\n
5 disputed the plaintiff’s title to plaint A, B & C schedule<\/p>\n
properties, they have not stated in the written statement as to<\/p>\n
how they acquired title to B & C schedule properties. Appellants<\/p>\n
in their written statement contended that plaint A, B & C schedule<\/p>\n
properties are in their possession by virtue of Exts.A4 and B2 and<\/p>\n
the first defendant is in possession for an on behalf of the second<\/p>\n
defendant. The trial court observed that the defendants 1 & 2<\/p>\n
never applied nor asked the commissioner to measure out the<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule property on the basis of Ext.B2 sale deed<\/p>\n
S.A.No.756 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                ::4::\n<\/p>\n
No.1135 of 1983 to show that plaint A schedule property form<\/p>\n
part of the said document.     At the same time the trial court<\/p>\n
accepted the report and plan prepared by the commissioner and<\/p>\n
concluded that the property covered by Ext.C1(a) form part of<\/p>\n
the property covered by Exts.A1 & A2. The trial court also noted<\/p>\n
that the plaintiff had produced Ext.A6, copy of the survey plan to<\/p>\n
show that the locational lie of the property shown in Ext.C1 and<\/p>\n
Ext.A6 are same.\n<\/p>\n
     5.    Trial court held that Ext.C1(a) shows that       plaint<\/p>\n
schedule properties covered by Exts.A1 & A2 do not form part of<\/p>\n
Ext.B2 as contended by the appellants. Trial court also concluded<\/p>\n
that though defendants 1, 3 & 5 filed objections to Exts.C1 and<\/p>\n
C1(a). The objections were not substantiated. On facts, trial<\/p>\n
court also concluded that the evidence tendered by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
regarding the alleged trespass is true.      The trial court also<\/p>\n
examined the question as to whether the plea of adverse<\/p>\n
possession set up by the appellants and other defendants are<\/p>\n
true. The trial court concluded that the plaintiff has established<\/p>\n
his title to the plaint schedule properties and the defendants<\/p>\n
S.A.No.756 Of 1996<\/p>\n
                                ::5::\n<\/p>\n
failed to prove any right over plaint A, B & C schedule properties<\/p>\n
and further held that the evidence tendered by the defendants is<\/p>\n
not sufficient enough to hold that they had perfected the title to<\/p>\n
the plaint schedule properties by adverse possession and<\/p>\n
limitation. In the appeal preferred by the defendants 1 to 4, the<\/p>\n
appellate court re-appreciated the evidence and held that no<\/p>\n
grounds are made out by the appellants to interfere with the<\/p>\n
findings recorded by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
      6.   I have examined the rival contentions of the parties<\/p>\n
with reference to the oral and documentary evidence and grounds<\/p>\n
raised in the second appeal. I do not find any reason to interfere<\/p>\n
with the conclusions and findings recorded by the trial court<\/p>\n
which was confirmed by the appellate court. No question of law<\/p>\n
much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration<\/p>\n
in the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, dismissed.<\/p>\n
There will be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             HARUN-UL-RASHID,
\n                                                    Judge.\n<\/p>\n
bkn\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court George vs Mathew on 26 May, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM SA.No. 756 of 1996() 1. GEORGE … Petitioner Vs 1. MATHEW … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN For Respondent :SRI.C.RAMAN The Hon’ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID Dated :26\/05\/2010 O R D E R HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ———————— S.A.No.756 Of 1996 […]<\/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-27940","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nGeorge vs Mathew on 26 May, 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\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"George vs Mathew on 26 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-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=\"2010-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-09-09T13:07:00+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"George vs Mathew on 26 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-09T13:07:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":978,\"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\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010\",\"name\":\"George vs Mathew on 26 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-09-09T13:07:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"George vs Mathew on 26 May, 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":"George vs Mathew on 26 May, 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\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"George vs Mathew on 26 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-09-09T13:07:00+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"George vs Mathew on 26 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-09T13:07:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010"},"wordCount":978,"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\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010","name":"George vs Mathew on 26 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-09-09T13:07:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/george-vs-mathew-on-26-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"George vs Mathew on 26 May, 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\/27940","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=27940"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27940\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27940"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27940"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27940"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}