{"id":35196,"date":"2008-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008"},"modified":"2016-07-03T03:20:52","modified_gmt":"2016-07-02T21:50:52","slug":"smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008<\/div>\n<pre>RSA No.2638 of 2007(O&amp;M)                            1\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                       RSA No.2638 of 2007(O&amp;M)\n                                       Date of decision: 5.12.2008\n\nSmt. Sarita Devi Jain                               ......Appellant\n\n                                Versus\n\nRam Mehar                                           ......Respondent\n\nCORAM:-      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG\n\n                         * * *\nPresent:     Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.\n\n\nRakesh Kumar Garg, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>             This is plaintiff&#8217;s second appeal challenging the judgment and<\/p>\n<p>decree of the Lower Appellate Court whereby her suit for specific<\/p>\n<p>performance of the agreement to sell dated 19.6.1992 has been decreed<\/p>\n<p>against the respondent to the extent of 1\/3rd share only of respondent in the<\/p>\n<p>suit property.\n<\/p>\n<p>             Briefly stated, the case of the plaintiff-appellant is that Chandgi<\/p>\n<p>Ram, father of the respondent, was a big land owner with Shamlat rights in<\/p>\n<p>Thok Jatan of Rohtak. He died intestate leaving behind the respondent as<\/p>\n<p>his sole legal heir. The respondent executed an agreement to sell dated<\/p>\n<p>19.6.1992 in favour of the appellant qua the suit land. The respondent had<\/p>\n<p>undertaken to get the requisite mutation qua the suit land sanctioned in his<\/p>\n<p>favour and to execute the requisite sale deed in favour of the appellant as<\/p>\n<p>per the agreement dated 19.6.1992. However, the respondent failed to<\/p>\n<p>execute the requisite sale deed in favour of the appellant despite repeated<\/p>\n<p>requests and a legal notice by the appellant.           Through the suit , the<\/p>\n<p>appellant sought a decree for possession of suit land by way of specific<\/p>\n<p>performance of contract of sale dated 19.6.1992 in his favour.<\/p>\n<p>             The respondents contested the suit by filing written statement.<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> RSA No.2638 of 2007(O&amp;M)                         2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>He raised preliminary objections, inter alia, pleading bar of limitation,<\/p>\n<p>absence of locus-standi, unlawful nature of impugned agreement dated<\/p>\n<p>19.6.1992, want of cause of action, ancestral nature of suit property,<\/p>\n<p>absence of proper valuation of suit, fraud in execution of impugned<\/p>\n<p>agreement etc. On merits, the respondent stated that rights of Shamlat<\/p>\n<p>Deh of Thok Jatan, Rohtak have not been determined separately because<\/p>\n<p>of absence of partition. The respondent pleaded that no one can claim<\/p>\n<p>exclusive possession over any part of joint land till partition takes place.<\/p>\n<p>The respondent denied that he was the only legal heir of Chandgi Ram and<\/p>\n<p>claimed that Chandgi Ram left behind two daughters, namely, Ram Pyari<\/p>\n<p>and Mahakali also. The respondent asserted that above-said Ram Pyari<\/p>\n<p>and Mahabir son of Mahakali (since deceased) along with him are owners-<\/p>\n<p>in-possession of suit land, in equal shares. The respondent admitted that<\/p>\n<p>he entered into an agreement of sale with the appellant to the extent of his<\/p>\n<p>1\/3rd share in suit land for a consideration at the rate of Rs.120\/- per sq.<\/p>\n<p>yard. The respondent alleged that taking advantage of his old age, infirmity<\/p>\n<p>and illiteracy, the appellant procured his thumb impression upon the<\/p>\n<p>impugned agreement to sell after fraudulently mentioning the price of land<\/p>\n<p>as Rs.12\/- per sq.yard. The respondent alleged that the contents of said<\/p>\n<p>agreement to sell were not read over to him. He denied having received<\/p>\n<p>Rs.23,200\/- from the appellant at any stage. The respondent prayed that<\/p>\n<p>the suit of the appellant be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>            The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 29.5.2002<\/p>\n<p>dismissed the suit of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial court,<\/p>\n<p>the appellant filed an appeal. While allowing the appeal to the extent of<\/p>\n<p>decreeing the suit of the appellant for specific performance of the contract<\/p>\n<p>to the extent of 1\/3rd share in the suit property, the Lower Appellate Court<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> RSA No.2638 of 2007(O&amp;M)                          3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>found that the respondent had inherited only 1\/3rd share of his father-<\/p>\n<p>Chandgi Ram whereas vide impugned agreement to sell dated 19.6.1992,<\/p>\n<p>the respondent is shown to have sold the entire share of his father-Chandgi<\/p>\n<p>Ram by showing himself as the sole legal heir of Chandgi Ram. Thus, he<\/p>\n<p>could not have sold the share inherited by his sisters and that being so,<\/p>\n<p>impugned agreement to sell dated 19.6.1992 should be enforced only to<\/p>\n<p>the extent of 1\/3rd share of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Still aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of<\/p>\n<p>the Lower Appellate Court dated 2.6.2006, the plaintiff has filed the instant<\/p>\n<p>appeal claiming that she is entitled to the specific performance of the<\/p>\n<p>agreement to sell in its totality on the ground that when the respondent had<\/p>\n<p>represented himself to be sole owner of the suit property he cannot be<\/p>\n<p>allowed to wriggle out of his promise made to the appellant.        Learned<\/p>\n<p>counsel for the appellant has also argued that once it is established that<\/p>\n<p>there was a valid agreement to sell, nothing more can be read into<\/p>\n<p>agreement and it was not open to the respondent to raise the plea of defect<\/p>\n<p>in title. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied upon a<\/p>\n<p>judgment of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/996586\/\">Hukum Chand v. Hari Singh<\/a> 2007(1) PLR 102.<\/p>\n<p>            I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Undisputedly, Chandgi Ram was the owner of the property in<\/p>\n<p>dispute, which was agreed to be sold by the respondent and after Chandgi<\/p>\n<p>Ram&#8217;s death, the same was mutated vide Ex.D-1 in the name of the<\/p>\n<p>respondent and his two sisters.     It could also not be disputed by the<\/p>\n<p>learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent had no authority to<\/p>\n<p>make the agreement to sell on behalf of his sisters. The argument as<\/p>\n<p>raised by the learned counsel for the appellant could help the appellant,<\/p>\n<p>only if the suit property was shown to be exclusively in the name of the<\/p>\n<p>respondent in the revenue record at the relevant time. Admittedly, the suit<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> RSA No.2638 of 2007(O&amp;M)                         4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>property was not recorded exclusively in the name of the respondent at the<\/p>\n<p>relevant time. Under the law, the respondent cannot be permitted to sell<\/p>\n<p>the property belonging to the others. The judgment cited by the learned<\/p>\n<p>counsel for the appellant is of no help to him. In this case, the respondent<\/p>\n<p>has no title vested in him to the extent of 2\/3 rd share of the property in<\/p>\n<p>dispute and therefore, he was not competent to alienate the same.<\/p>\n<p>            For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal.<\/p>\n<p>            No substantial question of law arises.\n<\/p>\n<p>            Dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<pre>December 5, 2008                         (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)\nps                                               JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008 RSA No.2638 of 2007(O&amp;M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2638 of 2007(O&amp;M) Date of decision: 5.12.2008 Smt. Sarita Devi Jain &#8230;&#8230;Appellant Versus Ram Mehar &#8230;&#8230;Respondent CORAM:- HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * [&hellip;]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-02T21:50:52+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\\\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-02T21:50:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":993,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-02T21:50:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-02T21:50:52+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\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-02T21:50:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008"},"wordCount":993,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008","name":"Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-02T21:50:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-sarita-devi-jain-vs-ram-mehar-on-5-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Sarita Devi Jain vs Ram Mehar on 5 December, 2008"}]},{"@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\/35196","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=35196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35196\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}