{"id":43279,"date":"1954-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1954-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954"},"modified":"2016-01-17T19:34:27","modified_gmt":"2016-01-17T14:04:27","slug":"munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954","title":{"rendered":"Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: AIR 1955 Mad 467<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B A Sayeed<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: B A Sayeed<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>ORDER<\/p>\n<p> Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. <\/p>\n<p> 1. C. R. P. No. 1079 of 1952 arises out of an  order passed by the   learned District Munsif of Vridhachalam, refusing leave to the petitioner to file a suit in  &#8216;iorma  pauperis&#8217; on  the ground   that he has means to pay court-fee due on the plaint. In   the   order   relesing leave   to   sue   as a   pauper the learned District   Munsif  directed  the petitioner to pay court-fee on or before 31-1-1952.    This direction  was not  complied   with by  the petitioner and when   the  matter came  up   again  and after  giving further extension of time, the learned District Munsif dismissed   the  original   petition  for leave to sue in &#8216;forma pauperis&#8217;. No   appeal   or   revision has   beep preferred  against that  subsequent  order  dismissing the original petition for leave to sue  as a pauper.\n<\/p>\n<p>2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that the C. R. P. No. 1079 of 1952 is not competent by reason of the subsequent order rejecting the plaint in toto for non-compliance with the direction to pay court fee due on the plaint and which had not been taken on revision or appeal. He has invited my attention in support of his contention to a decision of my learned brother Panchapakesa Aiyar J. reported in &#8212; &#8216;Bommisetti Ramayanuna, In re&#8217;,  (A). The facts reported in that case arc exactly on a par with the facts obtaining in the present case and there appears to be no controversy at all with regard to those facts. Panchapakesa Aiyar J. has followed a Full Bench ruling of this court reported in &#8212; &#8216;Salyanarayanacharyulu v. Ramalingam&#8217;,  (B) and has applied the principle of that decision to the facts of that case.\n<\/p>\n<p>I have gone through the decision of the Full Bench and also the decision of my learned brother. In my view, the facts that arose for consideration in the Full Bench ruling, are not in &#8216;pari materia&#8217; with the facts that arise in the present civil revision petition and I do not think that the principle of that Full Bench decision could be made applicable to the facts of the present case. In the Full Bench decision the suit had already been numbered and registered and on objection being taken as to the correctness of the court-fee paid it was found that the suit had been undervalued and a large amount of deficit court-fee was ordered to be paid and it was not paid. Thereupon the suit was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The order passed in that case is one which comes directly under the definition of a decree contained in Section 2, Sub-clause (2), C. P. C. But in the present case, it cannot be said that what has been rejected is a plaint or a suit; for taking into consideration the special procedure provided for in the Civil  Procedure Code under Order  3.3 for applications for leave to sue in forma pauperis, it cannot be said that until and unless the application for leave to sue be been granted there is any plaint before the court to be numbered, registered or rejected. This would arise only when an order is passed under Order  33, Rule 8 which is not the case here. What is before the court until such a stage is reached is only an application for leave to sue.\n<\/p>\n<p>If a condition is imposed that in order to grant the application for leave to sue or to entertain the plaint filed along with the application as a suit, court-fee is to be paid within a certain date, ft cannot be said that the original petition has become converted into a plaint or a suit in order to attract the provisions of Order  7, Rule II. It is also fetching too much to say that simply because a small fee of Rs. 0-8-0 has been affixed to the application for leave to sue in &#8216;forma pauperis&#8217;, the court-fee that has been directed to be paid is an additional<br \/>\ncourt-fee on the plaint as if the plaint had already<br \/>\nbeen  numbered and entertained as  a suit. .\n<\/p>\n<p>Except the Full Bench decision which has been applied to the facts of the case before my learned brother, Panchapakesa Aiyar J, there appears to be no other authority cited before him on the point which has arisen for decision before me. Mr. Venkatesan the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited my attention to the following decisions reported in &#8212; &#8216;Secretary of State v. Jillo&#8217;, 21 All 133 (C); &#8212; &#8216;District Official Receiver v. Firm <\/p>\n<p>Sohan Lal Ramil Das , AIR 1940 Lah 446 (D) and &#8211;&#8216;Mahadev Gopal v. Bhikaji Vishram&#8217;, MR. 1943 Born 292 (E) where it has been held that before the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis is granted under Order 33, Rule 8, the application cannot be deemed to be a plaint in order to attract either the definition of a decree to the order that may be passed therein or the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11. I am inclined to agree with the rulings in these decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I, therefore, see no point in the preliminary objection taken by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n<p>3. Coming   to  the   merits of  the application for leave to sue in &#8216;forma pauperis&#8217; it has to be noted that  the petitioner is a deaf and mute person.    He is endeavouring to  recover the property which has been settled upon him by virtue of a deed of settlement referred to    in the  pauper application.   The evidence  with  regard to his  capacity to pay is   to the   effect   that he   has   two   other   small items   of property which are worth about Rs. 400 or Rs. 500. But it must be remembered that in these two items of properly which are said to be in his  possession he has got only a life interest.   He is in possession of the items by virtue of the settlement deed which clearly provides that he would not be entitled  to alienate or   otherwise   encumber   this   property but would be entitled only to a life interest.    It cannot be   said that   mere   possession   and enjoyment of   a life  interest  in these  two items  of properly would make him a person possessed of sufficient means to say the court-fee required on  the plaint which  he has   presented to   the   court.       The very fact   that these properties are not to be encumbered as recited in the deed of settlement under which he gets a life interest, would scare away any person who could be approached to lend any sum by way  of mortgage or otherwise.    The   learned District Munsif has not found in  clear terms that  the petitioner has   sufficient means to pay the court-fee due on the plaint. The   finding is not quite   satisfactory  for it  confines itself to the mere statement that he has means for   the   mere  reason   that ho  is   in possession and enjoyment of   two items   of   property  on   which   it will  clearly  be not  possible for  the  petitioner to raise any funds to pay the requisite court-fee.   Any person who could be approached for lending money would certainly  hesitate  to   advance  money on account of the fact that what the petitioner is possessed of is only a life interest in those items and his   powers   of   alienation   are  restricted  in   respect of the properties.    Therefore, it is too much to say that in cases   like these he  has  sufficient means to pay   and I do not  think  that  the rejection   of  his application  for leave to  sue in  &#8216;forma pauperis&#8217;   is light,      I  would, therefore,  set aside the order of the learned District Munsif and direct that the petitioner be entitled to the leave which he has asked for to sue in &#8216;forma pauperis. His application is allowed  and the  plaint  will   be   received,  numbered and registered. C.R.P. No. 1079 of 1952 is allowed. (4)    In regard to other C. R. Ps, (C. R. P. Nos. 1853 and  1863 of  1952) I  do not think that any orders   are   required   in   view   of   the order   passed In C.  R. P. No.   1079 of  1952.    They  are both<br \/>\ndismissed. Thesse will be no order as to costs in<br \/>\nany one of these petitions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954 Equivalent citations: AIR 1955 Mad 467 Author: B A Sayeed Bench: B A Sayeed ORDER Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J. 1. C. R. P. No. 1079 of 1952 arises out of an order passed by the learned District Munsif of Vridhachalam, refusing leave [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43279","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954 - 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\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954\" \/>\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=\"1954-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-17T14:04:27+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\\\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954\",\"datePublished\":\"1954-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-17T14:04:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954\"},\"wordCount\":1392,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954\",\"name\":\"Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1954-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-17T14:04:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954\"}]},{\"@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":"Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954 - 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\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1954-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-17T14:04:27+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\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954","datePublished":"1954-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-17T14:04:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954"},"wordCount":1392,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954","name":"Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1954-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-17T14:04:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/munian-vs-kesava-pandithan-and-ors-on-29-october-1954#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Munian vs Kesava Pandithan And Ors. on 29 October, 1954"}]},{"@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\/43279","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=43279"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43279\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43279"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43279"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43279"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}