{"id":37304,"date":"2010-11-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-11-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010"},"modified":"2018-06-12T23:09:39","modified_gmt":"2018-06-12T17:39:39","slug":"p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010","title":{"rendered":"P N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
P N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Subhash B.Adi<\/div>\n
Qg\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 22\"\" DAY OF' NOVEMBER 2010\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HON'I:3LE MRJUSTICE SUB}-IASH 13.. ;;{i f  _\n\nREGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.g35\/2005\u00bb .{i'1jj\\j;Jj\"-f  \"\n\nBETWEEN\n\nSR1. P.N. RAGHU,  _\nS \/O. LATE B.N. NARAYANA SWAMY,\nAGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,  *\nR\/O. NO. 14, 6TH CROSS,\n\nMAGADI ROAD, _ ._ 5 1- ___ _ \nBANGALORE A 560 023.  ~  '     APPELLANT\n\n(BY SRLT. SESHAGIRI  .\"G\u00a7jE*fHA, ADVS.)\n\nAND\n\n1. SMT. sHARABj_AMMA;\u00bb..4 \nw\/ O- 4LA'FE\"B.N, RARAYANASWAMY.\nAGED\"'ABOmf BGYEARS.\n R\/O. N014', 6'?!--I CROSS.\nMAGAD1 ROAB;-~ \"\n\n  BANGALORE 560 023.\n\n  \n\n'  cANARA*'BANK,\n\n MAGAO1 ROAD BRANCH.\nMAG-Am ROAD.\nBANGALORE 560 023.\n\n    BAGBANNA,\n\nS \/ O. LATE NANJUNDAPPA.\nAGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.\nLAND LORD, BF-JGUR,\nBANGALORE NORTH\nTALUK~ 560 013.  RESPONDENTS<\/pre>\n
[BY SR1. S. CHENNARAYA RIEIDDY, ADV. FOR C\/RI.<\/p>\n
SR1. 1-“LS. RU KKOJ I RAO. ADV. FOR R2. R3 SERVED}<\/p>\n
THIS Rm IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R\/W O 41. ‘R
\nI OF’ CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE
\nDT.30.II_.04 PASSED IN O.S.NO.6i92\/92 ON THE FILE OF
\nTHE XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE. BANGALORE.
\nDISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PERPECTUAL INJUNCI”I.QI\\\u00a7.
\nPROIIIBITOR ORDER AND FOR PARTITION AND
\nPOSSESSION. ..\n<\/p>\n
S.SI*AR.rIj:EA\u00ab V.\n<\/p>\n
THIS RFA COMING ON FORHIIIa:ARIIsII;.~-IIIVISQ.Dgiif  <\/p>\n
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOVVING: ”<\/p>\n
JUDGMEN’f,_  ‘ 3<\/p>\n
This appeal is by Vthj\u00e9”\u00bb~.bp1eIintiff Jithe ‘V<\/p>\n
judgment and decree i.I*I~..Q.S.NO.ESn.,1  On the \ufb01le of
\nthe XXII Addl. City Civiliei<\/p>\n
2. The”;3.gI%–tieS__ w;i11~’be\u00ab. feife-rr_eV<:i' to as per their<\/p>\n
ranking. before  .. .C'CI,1i"t;\n<\/p>\n
3. ” I The’SI_1iI_fiSVfaifhpermaneiit injunction and for<\/p>\n
prohibitery uOI'(ie’I’S”‘I’eStfS.inin.g the Defendant: No.1 and<\/p>\n
v’i’}]’S.x” VVh’1=e:_preSeI1tat.iveS from alienating the Suit<\/p>\n
 at Item No.1 and also from<\/p>\n
wi’IhdI”a;WiII.g”‘ti1e Fixed Deposit mentioned in Item NOE<\/p>\n
H H ‘A   Def the  Schedule.\n<\/p>\n
 The Case Of the p1_ai:m;.iff is that,<\/p>\n
 .~B;N.Nara aIiaSw:\u00ab.1m . 801} Of Mestri Nana )3. had two
\n}<\/p>\n
wives namely, l\\\/iunibayamma and Sharadamma.<\/p>\n
Narayanaswamy died on 24-07-1965 intestate leaying<\/p>\n
behind only his two wives. He had no issues out..o”f
\nthe wives. He had three immovable properties  *
\nresidential premises bearing Nos..l4 and  <\/p>\n
60* Cross, Magadi Road, Banga1ore_’land”–4f’ <\/p>\n
agricultural land   ‘avillage,
\nUttarahalli Hobli, Bang_alore””f-lonth-\u00bbr._\ufb01l’aldka;  also
\npossessed movable   silver
\narticles etc. pA}l:i:VV’p:t.heVlll’self acquired
\nproperties”  the death of
\n Snt. lvlunibayamma and<\/p>\n
Smt. _S_hara4d’arnma’– managing all the properties.<\/p>\n
 “‘Fhe”iplair1t’ii’f wasltalkeri in adoption in 1975 as they had<\/p>\n
 the plaintiff being the nephew of<\/p>\n
Sharada_n’1rnaland also as Narayanaswarny was very<\/p>\n
 arid affectionate with the plaintiff, when the
\n sfplpaintniff was 4 years old. However, Sharadarnrna
\n detreloped bad character, fell into the company of<\/p>\n
” undesirable people and ran away from the house. Few<\/p>\n
months after on the advise of the elders, having regard<\/p>\n
to the family respect and for future security, she came<\/p>\n
back and joined Mtmibayamma. A partition took place<\/p>\n
between Munibayamnia and Sharadamma in tl_i”e._.y–ear<\/p>\n
1977. The said partition was registered. I11<\/p>\n
partition, house bearing No. 14. ESv%?1″‘C\u00bbross.’_” Ru<\/p>\n
fell to the share of Munibayamma”wh.iehv <\/p>\n
‘A’ schedule property. The   ‘B’ l’ V<\/p>\n
schedule bearing l\\i’o,i5, to. the”‘~~s\u00bbhare of
\nSharadamma, who is   was no<\/p>\n
partition in so..far_ as 4I_aCre_s’ of.Vl’a:idVVof ‘Kothanur Village.<\/p>\n
Both  arirjl”Sharadamma and the plaintiff
\niived  _V  bearing No.14. Both<\/p>\n
Munibayaniriia a.r1’c1 Sharadamma in order to safeguard<\/p>\n
llV'”-the-V.’pro’perty aiidV””‘t.’oV avoid future misuriderstanding<\/p>\n
 and to settle the property they<\/p>\n
eXe=C_t1t.ev_d  Will dated 22-3~1985 bequeathing<\/p>\n
 properties in favour of the plaintiff as a legatee. In
\n  svo-.far as the Kothariur property, 3 lakhs was kept in<\/p>\n
  …E?ixed Deposit in Canara Bank. However, the defendant:<\/p>\n
is now attempting to sell the remaining properties<\/p>\n
described in Item No.1. cietrimemal to the interest. of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff. In these circtimstances, t.he plaintiff was<\/p>\n
constrained to file the suit for injunction.<\/p>\n
5. During the pendency of the suit. the plaintiff<\/p>\n
also got the plaint. amended and Claimed <\/p>\n
become absolute owner of 3 items of <\/p>\n
neither Munibayamma or Sharatlllarnrriary <\/p>\n
title or interest in the suit propertyf-They hay-eindo lpoiiver
\nto alienate the property. Itedm._lll’No.1 ofythe ‘plaintiff
\nschedule property wasi__p’;.1t   itself  1977.<\/p>\n
The defe11dadn:tl5lhas\u00a7:i3no”right! ti’t\u00a3ev’or interest in the suit
\nschedule prpopertihf fell sick and became<\/p>\n
weak and  *contraet.ed\ufb02’ heart disease. Sharadamma<\/p>\n
 ._treatir1g= —- -~’Mur1ibayamma and Plaintiff;<\/p>\n
  the house property bearing No. 15, 6″:<\/p>\n
  Road. It came to the knowledge of<\/p>\n
7..\u00ab._l*Munibayamma that portion of the sale price was spent
\n  V.’-h},?._S’h.aradan3ma and the rest was deposited in Bank.
\n \ufb01pprehendirig some more alienation. Munibayamma<\/p>\n
\u00ab V executed an aigreemeiiti of sale in favour of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
on 25–10~l987. Under the said agreement, 4 acres<\/p>\n
rag’?\n<\/p>\n
landed property at Kothanur Village fell in the hands of
\nthe plaint.iff. Hence, he has desired to stay separately.
\nUnder’ the said agreement, Munibayamma also
\ngold, jewels worth Rs.6 lakhs between Smt.  ~
\nand the plaintiff and stated  ”\n<\/p>\n
take effect after the deathiip  T ”\n<\/p>\n
Munibayamma died on  of ” if
\nMunibayamrna, SharadammVa”*olo’pldportion ‘of  and
\nshe also made attempt property.\n<\/p>\n
Since the Defendant   2x-1:1 defendant<\/p>\n
and iytfyinegliivfto  the deposit in the
\nBank, hence he ::nadeflf’pa1-~ty. On these averments, the<\/p>\n
plaintiff songht fo.r’-afd.ec’r:ee of permanent injunction.<\/p>\n
 suilte-.u_n1mons were served on defendants<\/p>\n
  written statement. The defense of the<\/p>\n
de’fenda.ntse:’i._was that Narayanaswarny had two wives<\/p>\n
‘\u00bb.,,na.me1yV Munibayamma and Sharadamma and they were<\/p>\n
“‘i”_1n.an’a.ging the properties. However. they denied the<\/p>\n
  iritentioii of Narayanaswaniy to adopt the plaintiff and<\/p>\n
alleged that the plaintiff is not taken in adoption. The<\/p>\n
; 53
\nI (-\n<\/p>\n
defendants admitted that there was a partition betyveen<\/p>\n
Munibayanirna and Sharadamzna since the <\/p>\n
property at Koizhanur was the subject n1at.t.er_.uo’f  *<\/p>\n
it was not included in the partition.  <\/p>\n
contended that they wanted t.he.”‘pla.i_i”itifi”<\/p>\n
son. However, he did not  thern’ .inspilt~e”of’ first ”<\/p>\n
defendant’s love and…’ affet:tion–   He
\ncultivated bad habits   of the first
\ndefendant. It and first
\ndefendant  the properties in
\nfavouriof  they had retained
\nthe  during their lifetime. it<\/p>\n
is further th’at”‘the first defendant being the<\/p>\n
f if   suit schedule property bearing No.15,<\/p>\n
the same during the life time of<\/p>\n
Mniaibayaninila. The sale proceeds from the suit<\/p>\n
“property..tvvas used for improvement of the property and<\/p>\n
 .l’i”oVr=maii1t.enance of their family. The plaintiff had not<\/p>\n
 ~qLiest.ior1ed the alienation made by the first defendant<\/p>\n
and therefore Caniiet maintaiii the suit for bare<\/p>\n
injunction. They denied the aileged agreement: alleged to<\/p>\n
t<\/p>\n
have been executed by Muinibaiarnrna in favour of the
\nplaintiff is a concocted document. ‘1’ he sigriatiurelaof
\nl\\\/iunibayarnrna is a forged. After the
\nMunibayamrna with intention to  ”\n<\/p>\n
property during the iife of first
\nsuit. Late Naraya11aswamy.\u00bbi’l1_axd ” the
\nlands under the Land }has no
\nright whatsoever in revs’1:ie’ct’   agricultural land. The
\nBank deposit ijelongirig to the<\/p>\n
first deferidant.u”Iii\u00a7:\u00a7.:1  son cannot
\nquestion  in dealing with the<\/p>\n
suit   not entitled for any relief.\n<\/p>\n
He never  ‘possession of the suit schedule<\/p>\n
.”‘pro’p-erty”*.ar’1d question of his dispossession does not<\/p>\n
    allegations and others, they sought for<\/p>\n
disriaissai’oifi’.\u00bb’the suit. The Trial Court in pursuance of<\/p>\n
pleadings framed issues 1 to 5 and additional issues<\/p>\n
” , li.VVto-  as under:\n<\/p>\n
“i. Does plaintiff prove his lawful possession of the<\/p>\n
suit properties on the date of suit’?<\/p>\n
%’l’:~<\/p>\n
2. Does he prove that the 1%’ Defendant is trying<\/p>\n
to alienate the suit properties?\n<\/p>\n
3. Whether the suit in the pi~esen’t._:   ll<\/p>\n
maintainable’?\n<\/p>\n
4. Is plaintiff entitled  reliefs as<\/p>\n
5. What decree or order?ifj\u00bb’ 1 if V<\/p>\n
Additional
\n“l. the  that item No.2 of
\nif ” sjchledulelllllwas not put to the
\n partition was effected
\n_ henirevenl l\\JIiinfii3.,a”yamma and Sharadamma?
\n  plaintiff is entitled to 50% share
\n Tinljplaint ‘B’ schedule property?<\/p>\n
 the plaintiff became the absolute<\/p>\n
gov ‘  <\/p>\n
 of the item No.1 of the schedule
\n \/igfoperty’?\n<\/p>\n
A’  Before the Trial Court. the plaintiff got<\/p>\n
  himself examined as PW.l. He also examined<\/p>\n
ll”,Wlllzirayzmappa as PW.2 and Mimibyrappa as PW.8 and<\/p>\n
l0<\/p>\n
got marked Exs.P.l to P3. The first defendant got<\/p>\n
herself examined as DW,l, her brother as Defendant<\/p>\n
No.2 and Exs.D.1 to D.18 were marked<\/p>\n
evidence.\n<\/p>\n
8. The Trial Court on .appreciation of e_vide’;nc’e <\/p>\n
held that, the plaintiff has  thatffhe is in
\nlawful possession of  that
\nthe plaintiff has failed  defendant is
\ntrying to  the  property. The
\nplaintiff  suit item No.2 was
\nnot p1,i”t._in*   partition Was effected and<\/p>\n
he has  failed4l’ttot.p.i’ove that he has become the<\/p>\n
 oWner’~0f._suit item No.1 and accordingly<\/p>\n
 rasistssss  suit. It is against the said judgment and<\/p>\n
decree, ‘jplaintiff is in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
it  hf xLea.rned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
A plaintiff stibrnitted that though the suit was for bare
\ninjtinci,ion. however the plaint got amended the plaint,<\/p>\n
and plaintiff sought for partition and separate<\/p>\n
possession in respect of  schedule property. It is not<\/p>\n
5;\n<\/p>\n
in dispute that the suit schedule properties are the
\nproperties acquired by Narayanaswamy, the husband of<\/p>\n
first defendant and Munibayamma. In the written<\/p>\n
statement filed by Defendant No.1, she has
\nexecution of a registered Will dated 223- also’
\nnot in dispute that l\\\/lunibayamrriai-andu’–aSli.arad’a\u00a71nm:aa <\/p>\n
got divided the propertiessunpderhlregistered’yipartitiion <\/p>\n
deed dated 3.8.1977 and   properties
\nbecame their exclusivel’  __Mur1ibayamrr1a<\/p>\n
anticipating the harm “to the plaintiff<\/p>\n
after herwdenlised’:\u00a7ha\u00a71~.yA\u00a2xecutedlV an agreement dated<\/p>\n
25.l0.lVlQ.8:T\u00ab. Thoiigh_ll’thle-sdefendants have denied the<\/p>\n
agreen_1Vent,lhowever,A’the’\u00b0’plaintiff has specifically stated<\/p>\n
.lVl.”\u00ab.i.\u00a31  %,.A’-epleadingls”that by virtue of registered Will<\/p>\n
 r.e>’&e.etit.-ed\u00bb..yljyVhM:u1nibayamma and Sharadamma. after the<\/p>\n
death of.llVl..unibayamma. properties devolved on the<\/p>\n
K”‘~.__l”‘\u00bbplaintiff__AAas a legatee under the Will and for which
\nA  y:.”lSh\u00ab21Tr?’idan1ma has no right to prevent the plaintiff from
\n .,Vclaiming the property under t.est:amenta1’y succession.<\/p>\n
it He stibmitted that though the suit is for bare<\/p>\n
injunction, since the issue as regards to the title of the<\/p>\n
ti<\/p>\n
\u00a32.\n<\/p>\n
properties has been considered by the Trial Court, as<\/p>\n
there was no dispute of execution of Will by Defendant.<\/p>\n
No.1, it does not call for proving the Will in <\/p>\n
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act  *<\/p>\n
of evidence Act. He subrnitted..t~hat_  if<\/p>\n
produced by the defendant  <\/p>\n
the tax paid receipts havingcome into e.2;isteVnce”a’fter ”<\/p>\n
the suit is \ufb01led they not_.c’arry- any probative: value.
\nThe defendants have not anyf_\u00bbey’idence to show<\/p>\n
that they have..eier_cise3d   property after<\/p>\n
the dernliseifMtittibayanimauftiil”the filing of the suit.
\nAdmittedly the minor and defendant No.1<\/p>\n
was the culstodian-. ofithelllw plaintiff and the Will being a<\/p>\n
 “v;7egi’s.terecl. Will, afte’r”‘the death of Munibayamma, it will<\/p>\n
  ‘i4he:fplaintiff. He also submitted that in case<\/p>\n
of Willl.\u00a3’..iflVone of the testatoz’ dies, the legatee under<\/p>\n
 Willvsas against the interest of the deceased testator\n<\/p>\n
  -gets the right to acquire the property and this is well
\nW   ..se}ttled law in View of the judgment reported in AIR 1971<\/p>\n
A Mysore 143 [Leo Sequiera Vs. Magdalene Sequiera Bai<\/p>\n
and others] and AIR 1959 SC 71 [Kochu Govindan<\/p>\n
C 3<\/p>\n
\u00a33<\/p>\n
Kaimal and others Vs. Thayaiikoot Thekkot Lakshmi<\/p>\n
Amnia and others]. He further submitted that the<\/p>\n
question of proving the Will in accordance <\/p>\n
provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Suec_essio’nfAet’;~…_p’W.<\/p>\n
arises only where the execution ofthe Wililis <\/p>\n
However, Ex.P.1 having not   <\/p>\n
execution of the Will is notfdilspputed, th:erev~V_is’:.._noheed ” if<\/p>\n
for the plaintiff to see}: deeiiaraitoriy,relielfagaihst the
\ndefendant. It is in this leorite\ufb01c\ufb02the  has filed the<\/p>\n
suit for bare,  “sale of property<\/p>\n
bearingNodSivipwillfiigpnof–.djsentitl’efor affect the plaintiffs
\nrights tinder  right after the death of<\/p>\n
one of_Vthef’testator  is also not in dispute that<\/p>\n
 if   filing the sL1it;”‘i\\\/Iuiiibayaninia died. When the Will<\/p>\n
.is’.L1i1ariib’igijons and being registered and one of the<\/p>\n
testat.ors .is”;dead, there remains nothing to be proved by<\/p>\n
 plaintiff in so far as the properties of Munibayamma<\/p>\n
  is’e.o_ncerned. It is aiso clear from the Written statement<\/p>\n
…as well as the evidence of DWJ wherein she has<\/p>\n
V adrnitted the exeemioii of the Will. It is also admitted<\/p>\n
that before the Wili was executed, there was a partition<\/p>\n
by registered pa.rt.ition deed. These facts have been<\/p>\n
admitted, the plaintiffs right as far as the proper1;iesll*of<\/p>\n
Munibayarnma is concerned. Once, title is _pi:o\\?ed;’g:’~–t.h’\u00a7:._.1″.<\/p>\n
plaintiff is entitled for the decree arr\u00a7[g1.aanegnt~<\/p>\n
injunction. He furt.her snbmitted”\u00ab’th7a:t”<\/p>\n
Property is only a i3r0I3ert}:’.:’\\’~~?3pearii;g.  ‘B’ * if<\/p>\n
schedule property is eo.ncern’eo.Q_:*.it”~is  acr.es.:of land.
\nadmittedly, in respect no partition.
\nHowever, had a share in
\nthe  the suit for injunction
\nrestrajning”thveg  ihterfering or alienating
\nthe   not only rnaintainable, but<\/p>\n
the plaintiff hVav.iVrigA’pro’\\}ed his right, title and interest<\/p>\n
. V.  ~oVetrf:the’.sui.t sclieldiilfe property is entitled for a decree of<\/p>\n
if   injumrtion.\n<\/p>\n
 v:On the other hand, learned counsel<\/p>\n
3  appearing for the defenda.nt.s subrnitted that the Will
\n does not confer any right. on the plaintiff during<\/p>\n
  life time of the testator. in this regard. he relied on<\/p>\n
EX.P.1 and submitted that though both the wives of<\/p>\n
Narayan aswamy namely. Munibayarnma and<\/p>\n
g :1′?\n<\/p>\n
‘,.a—-I
\n‘Q-?’\u00a5<\/p>\n
s5<\/p>\n
Sharadamma had partitioried the properties amongst<\/p>\n
themselves, however in the Will which is subsequent to<\/p>\n
the partition, they categorically stated th_atVl_\ufb02..tll:.e
\nproperties are in their possession. They  .
\nright over the suit schedule p1’ope.rt_y dtiringpfthleirp”life.V W”<\/p>\n
time and no other person will havzeranyi   <\/p>\n
of death of one of the testatorsefihe’plaintiffto\ufb01jperfolrm
\nthe last rites. They had alsoffretained ” the right to
\nalienate the properties’ lifetime and the<\/p>\n
legatee would get the  under the<\/p>\n
Will only llafterfithe::f%;i’ea:th\u00a3of the testators and after
\nperforming  on this averrnent in<\/p>\n
the Will,  slubri:-JttedV””that when the testators have<\/p>\n
  disclosedltheirvrights in the Will, the ‘Nill will be<\/p>\n
‘rrf\u00bb:1vllC_C()I'(li11g to terms of the same. Plaintiff<\/p>\n
woulyd get.~th:eAproperties only after the death of the both<\/p>\n
 tesltatiors, and it is made clear in the Will. It is also
\n _fclpear_.uthat the testator had absolute rights to enjoy the
\n  properties and right: alienate during their lifetime.<\/p>\n
V Death of one test.at.or does not give right to the plaintiff<\/p>\n
to claim the properties. Defendant No.1 has infact sold<\/p>\n
:6<\/p>\n
item No.2 in the Will and this fact is not in dispute as
\nthe plaintiff himself has admitted in the pleadings and<\/p>\n
has not questioned the sale, this clearly amonntsito<\/p>\n
admitting that till the death. of <\/p>\n
plaintiff has no right to claim t.he.,p_rope’rty” <\/p>\n
Will. Further submitted that  l1itestia’:nleln”tafyi_i<\/p>\n
document is an intention ofthie testator to  of -. L’<\/p>\n
the property as they wish. Nolite.stat_nienltary_Hdoenrnent
\nwould come into force ::of the testator. If
\nthe testators _w\u00a2;re_ c1\u00a2a}i’i1it\u00a7l ‘as regards the
\ndisposal  anld”‘if”they have made it clear
\nthat they have  right to alienate the property<\/p>\n
and one of theV’pro’per’tyl has been alienated by one of the<\/p>\n
 V’  .i,esiat’oi:A”during tl”\u00a3e”‘i’i’fe time of another testator, it clearly<\/p>\n
  testators intended to enjoy the<\/p>\n
propertiesl’ijn’lthe manner they like and having made<\/p>\n
 ”!.hat the legatee would get the properties<\/p>\n
A  y:.”vbeqd.ethed only after the death of both the testator. the<\/p>\n
it   __plai1’1tiff will not get any right during the iife time of the<\/p>\n
V defendant No.1 who is admittedly one of the testator. He<\/p>\n
also submitted that Ex.P.1 discloses that the properties<\/p>\n
I9<\/p>\n
and not Narayanaswamy. Hence, submitted that only<\/p>\n
for the purpose of knocking out the properties\u00ab._f_lo.f<\/p>\n
Sharadamma. the plaintiff has filed the  <\/p>\n
injunction.   y<\/p>\n
12. He further reli’_ed..__.onf”~the V
\nexamination of PW–l and   in the
\nmarriage invitation   neither the
\nname of  name of
\n it shows the
\nname of. These documents
\nhave l:ieen– l  plaintiff and this evidence<\/p>\n
itself clearly  that the plaintiff was not<\/p>\n
 Mmiibyainnia and Sharadamma, but he<\/p>\n
   with his father even at the time of<\/p>\n
 and’V’t:’i_tlriereafter and even at the time of his<\/p>\n
“,marriage;;. In the examination–in–chief. he claims that
\n adopted in 1985 and he was four years. Whereas
\n  aecording to Ex.D1, by 1985, he was nearly 13 years.<\/p>\n
 Even without. looking” into the evidence of the<\/p>\n
defendants, the evidence of the piaintiff itself is<\/p>\n
20<\/span>
\nsufficient to hold that he does not get any right under
\nthe will nor he is an adopted son of Munibyarnma and<\/p>\n
Sharadamrna nor there is any agreement which confers<\/p>\n
any title. Though the plaintiff has only sought <\/p>\n
injunction, the trial court has rightly  V’<\/p>\n
additional issue and has also deeided  of-thev..<\/p>\n
property and submitted that the has <\/p>\n
the well reasoned judgment  for it<\/p>\n
interference.\n<\/p>\n
13. In the light of’ the  e.onteLn”t*ions, the point<\/p>\n
that arises  this appeal is as to;\n<\/p>\n
d ‘*-_i_’V’fhe’the’rA’ th:e’:\u00bbi.llplaintiff has proved his
\n‘case  has ‘become the owner of the
\n s-eliednle'”property under Ex.Pl, the will
\n   ;”‘e:n’titled for permanent injunction<\/p>\n
    defendants”?\n<\/p>\n
 ‘ -.A*;’Whetrher plaintiff prove the adoption”.<\/p>\n
 The facts, which are not in dispute are that,<\/p>\n
 _ ‘ Narayanaswamy had married l\\\/iunibaymma and<\/p>\n
  …_Sharadamma and the suit schedule property and other<\/p>\n
properties were acquired by Narayanaswaniy. He died<\/p>\n
properties. but they continued to enjoy jointly. “l’hey
\nalso make it clear that in case of death of
\nthem the other heir would get the  .\n<\/p>\n
deceased. From the partition deed it  K”
\nproperties of any one of the
\none on her death but must  in ” it
\nlight of the deed of.partitiion.”p’:~th{er’. intentvionf of the<\/p>\n
testators under Will is 1;eqt1’i19e.d..i\u00a5’t(i <\/p>\n
19. U:_r1d'”e1-__   the testators have made
\nit clear…t\u00abha’f;..y\/lythegg .._w\u00e9.ll .eir1j’oy._t_h\u00a7e properties till their
\ndeath, they hay*e’rightito__:ali.eriate on death of one of the<\/p>\n
testator the_Vddp1*ope_rtAies’.:o’f the deceased to go to other<\/p>\n
 __Thep.l_aintiff as legatee to perform the<\/p>\n
  last rites of both the testator and to enjoy<\/p>\n
 There is clear declaration of intention of<\/p>\n
”._both ‘;.testators that till the death of the last testator<\/p>\n
the pleiintifi” will not get any right to the properties. The<\/p>\n
  division of the properties has not given any right to the<\/p>\n
 plaintiff when the test.ator did not intend to create any<\/p>\n
interest: in the properties till their death, the plaintiff<\/p>\n
\u00bb\u00e9i”\/’L<\/p>\n
(w<\/p>\n
 of the will the properties have to be disposed of.<\/p>\n
does not get any right during the life time of defendant.<\/p>\n
No.1. In the entire Will the testators have refeitred<\/p>\n
themselves as “they” it makes it clear that  .<\/p>\n
intend to give the properties duriiigtheir l_ife’ 4′<\/p>\n
20. In this case, it is n-ot\ufb02theipro’perties–7urould  <\/p>\n
devolve on the another testato’I=\u00bb.:.o11   one
\nof the testator but it  both  testators
\nhave disclosed their   properties
\nshall be   it clear that
\nduring   enjoy and they have
\nmade   death, they have every right
\nto aliendteitlievlproiiertyliFtirther, it is made clear that<\/p>\n
thegnleiiztiff xivould get the possession only after their<\/p>\n
   performing the last rites. It is not a
\n   dying and another testator living
\n vvouid claim the right, but when he claim his
\n v:rigi:t.s tinder the Will, which clearly stipulates as to how<\/p>\n
‘  theyihave to be enjoyed. It only accordingly to the terms<\/p>\n
As
\nsuch, the trial court on proper int4erpret:at.ion of EXs.P1<\/p>\n
8: P2 and in the iight of the evidence has held that the<\/p>\n
3.’?\n<\/p>\n
Sharadarnrna were mentioned in the wedding invitation
\ncard. If the plaintiff was the adopted son.___ of
\nMunibayamrna and Sliiaradamrna. he could
\nomitted to show the name of Mtiiiibaya-rnmailri ll
\nSharadamrna. The evidence of the’
\nexamination clearly proves that
\nprove the alleged adoption. V l n V V 2<\/p>\n
22. Insofar as the giilegetdua\u00e9irelefnent lisconeemed,
\nthere is no material  less even<\/p>\n
documentary jeviizlehjilcelgangd-:~rightIvi,”-theft trial Court has<\/p>\n
held that  proved any agreement.\n<\/p>\n
Considerin’g_these* elvidenctellon record. the trial court by<\/p>\n
 well considered’ judgment has dismissed the suit.<\/p>\n
.   l.E3ve’nVon reconsidering the evidence on record,<\/p>\n
  error committed by the trial court in<\/p>\n
-‘dismissing the suit. Hence. there is no reason to<\/p>\n
 lijiziterferevvitli the judgment and decree of the trial court.<\/p>\n
 ll accordingly. I pass the following : @’<\/p>\n
K’<\/p>\n
order<\/p>\n
Appeal is dismissed. The parties to bear their 0x.=.%i1– “~\u00ab_ “*.<\/p>\n
costs.\n<\/p>\n
  ..  V. __ .\n<\/p>\n
JL.(1w~ 10)
\nSr1.(11 — end)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court P N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 2010 Author: Subhash B.Adi Qg IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22″” DAY OF’ NOVEMBER 2010 BEFORE THE HON’I:3LE MRJUSTICE SUB}-IASH 13.. ;;{i f _ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.g35\/2005\u00bb .{i’1jj\\j;Jj”-f ” BETWEEN SR1. P.N. RAGHU, _ S \/O. LATE […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37304","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nP N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 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\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-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=\"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-12T17:39:39+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-12T17:39:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3417,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010\",\"name\":\"P N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-12T17:39:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 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":"P N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 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\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-12T17:39:39+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 2010","datePublished":"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-12T17:39:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010"},"wordCount":3417,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010","name":"P N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-11-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-12T17:39:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-n-raghu-vs-sharadamma-on-22-november-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P N Raghu vs Sharadamma on 22 November, 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\/37304","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=37304"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37304\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37304"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37304"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37304"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}