{"id":44694,"date":"2008-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008"},"modified":"2018-02-10T15:39:33","modified_gmt":"2018-02-10T10:09:33","slug":"saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"Saiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Saiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/1082\/1980\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 1082 of 1980\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 1083 of 1980\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature: \n\n \n\n \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI\n \n \n=========================================================\n<\/pre>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n
To be
\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the
\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
Whether
\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n<\/p>\n
=========================================================<\/p>\n
SAIYADNA
\nMOHMED BURHANUDDIN – Appellant(s)<\/p>\n
Versus<\/p>\n
ANJUM
\nS\/O AKHTARHUSSAIN MOHMADSAFI – Defendant(s)<\/p>\n
=========================================================<\/p>\n
Appearance
\n:\n<\/p>\n
MR
\nMB GANDHI for
\nAppellant(s) : 1,
\nMR AJ MEMON for Defendant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,
\n1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.3.1,1.3.2\n<\/p>\n
– for Defendant(s) : 1.2.6 –\n<\/p>\n
2.
\n=========================================================<\/p>\n
CORAM
\n\t\t\t:\n<\/p>\n
HONOURABLE
\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI<\/p>\n
Date : 18\/07\/2008 <\/p>\n
ORAL
\nCOMMON JUDGMENT <\/p>\n
1.\t\tThese
\ntwo appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated
\n28.07.1980 passed in Civil Suit Nos.  1495 of 1974 and 1531 of 1975,
\nwhereby both the suits were dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
2.0.\t\tThe
\nshort facts of the case are :-\n<\/p>\n
2.1.\t\tThe
\nappellants original plaintiffs had filed a Civil Suit No. 1595 of
\n1974 and Civil Suit No. 1531 of 1975,  respectively against the
\ndefendants for possession of land bearing Survey No. 488-B-21 and
\nMunicipal Census No. 1264-1-21, admeasuring 15 feet x 19 feet,  and
\nland bearing Survey No. 488-B-21 and Municipal Census No. 1264-1-21,
\nadmeasuring about 20 feet x 12 feet, in the City Civil Court,
\nAhmedabad. The learned Judge, after hearing the respective parties
\nand considering the evidence on record, dismissed both the suits.
\nHence, the present First Appeals.\n<\/p>\n
3.0.\t\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
M.B. Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that
\nthe appellant-plaintiff has right to file the present suit through
\nthe Power of Attorney Holder of the trustees of the
\nappellant-plaintiff trust. In  support of this submission Mr. Gandhi
\nhas strongly placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered
\nin the case of Saiyadna M. Burhanuddin Saheb v. Taraben Mohammed
\nShafi Ibrahimhakim<\/a> heirs of S.I. Hakim, reported in 2006 (2) GCD pg.
\n1055,  wherein the learned Single had relied on the decision of
\nthe Full bench and in para 11 and 12 has held as under :-\n<\/p>\n
?S11.\tMr.Gandhi,
\nthe learned advocate submitted that the decision of the Full Bench of
\nthis Court in the matter of  Atmaram Ranchhodbhai (Supra) has no
\napplication to the facts of the present case. He submitted that the
\nfacts of the case before the Full Bench were peculiar and altogether
\ndifferent and have no similarity, even remotely, to the facts of the
\ncase on hand. He submitted that the Full Bench was considering the
\nmatter on a reference being made by learned Single Judge of this
\nCourt on two questions ?  (1) whether some only out of several
\nco-trustees can effectively determine a tenancy by giving notice to
\nquit and (2) whether a suit to evict a tenant can be filed by one or
\nmore co-trustees without joining other co-trustees in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Full Bench has
\ntaken into consideration that both questions are of frequent
\noccurrence in cases arising under the Rent Act and even under the
\ngeneral law of landlord and tenant, it was felt necessary that they
\nbe considered properly and law on the subject should be finally
\nsettled. The Full Bench necessarily considered the duties, functions
\nand powers of trustee and held that the same cannot be delegated to
\nco-trustee. The Full Bench decided in categorical terms that,
\n?STrustees cannot give even by unanimous resolution authority to
\nanyone of them to be managing trustee.?? Mr.Gandhi, the learned
\nadvocate submitted that in absence of any specific provision to this
\neffect, if such occurrence is allowed, it will amount to rewriting of
\nthe document from which power flows to the trustees. He submitted
\nthat it is a matter of which judicial notice can be taken that the
\ntrustees derive their power from ‘the trust deed’ and in the cases
\nwhere there are more than 1 trustees, it is for the settler of the
\ntrust to decide as to what power he wants to confer on the trustees
\nwhether he wants any one of them to act as a managing trustee or not.
\nIf the trust deed does not provide for a post of a managing trustee,
\nall the trustees acting unanimously also, cannot confer the status of
\na managing trustee on any one of themselves. He submitted that the
\nfact ?  situation of the case on hand is different then the one
\nwhich was under consideration of the Full Bench and therefore, the
\nsaid decision has no application to the facts of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tThis Court having
\nfound substance in the submissions of Mr.Gandhi and being convinced
\nof the fact that the decision in the case of Atmaram Ranchhodbhai
\n(Supra) has no application to the facts of the case on hand, holds
\nthat the Courts below have erred in holding that in light of the
\naforesaid decision (in the case of Atmaram Ranchhodbhai (Supra)), the
\nsole trustee could not have appointed an estate manager and that the
\nsuit filed by the estate manager is not maintainable. ?S<\/p>\n
3.1.\t\tMr.\n<\/p>\n
Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the
\ndecision of this Court rendered in First Appeal No. 967 of 1979
\ndated 18th March, 2004, [Raziabenu v. Shaikh Rajabali
\nMohmadali] wherein, same principle has been laid down.\n<\/p>\n
3.2.\t\tAs
\nagainst that Mr. A.J. Memon, learned counsel for the respondents has
\nsupported the impugned award and submitted that suits filed by the
\nappellant-original plaintiff through its Power of Attorney Holder and
\nwho had ceased to be  the appellant-original plaintiff’s Power of
\nAttorney, it would not be open to such Power of Attorney Holder to
\npresent the suits on behalf of the appellant-original plaintiff. In
\nsupport of his submission he has placed reliance on the decision of
\nthe Apex Court rendered in the case of I. Sheikh Abdul Kayum &
\nOrs. v. Madrasai Hakimia & Coronation High School, Society &
\nOrs. Reported in AIR 1963 SC pg. 309
\nwherein the Court has held that the Trustees cannot transfer their
\nduties, functions and powers to some other body of men and create
\nthem trustees in their place unless this is clearly permitted by the
\ntrust deed, or agreed to by the entire body of beneficiaries.\n<\/p>\n
4.0.\t\tHeard learned counsel
\nfor the respective parties. The main contention raised in the appeals
\nis that whether the appellant-original plaintiff has right to file
\nsuit through its Power of Attorney Holder?  Having perused the record
\nof the case, it transpires that <\/p>\n
the suit in question was
\nfiled for eviction of the original defendants on the ground of
\ntrespassers and unauthorized possession, on revocation of their
\nlicense. The explanation to Section 47 of the said Act makes it clear
\nthat the appointment of an attorney or proxy to do an act merely
\nministerial and involving no independent discretion is not a
\ndelegation within the meaning of this Section. To preserve the
\nproperty from trespass or unauthorized occupation is merely
\nministerial act and therefore, it was open to the original plaintiff
\nto have delegated power to file the suits against the original
\ndefendants. The plaintiff is the sole trustee of the Trust property.
\nIn view of the principle laid down in  First Appeal No. 967 of
\n1979 dated 18th March, 2004 and also in the case of
\nSaiyadna M. Burhanuddin Saheb v. Taraben Mohammed Shafi
\nIbrahimhakim<\/a> heirs of S.I. Hakim (supra), wherein, this
\nCourt has also taken into consideration the Full Bench Decision which
\nis rendered in the case of Atmaram Ranchhodbhai v. Gulambusein
\nGulam Mohivaddin & Anr. Reported<\/a> in 13 GLR pg 828, I am of
\nthe opinion that the suits filed by the Power of Attorney Holder on
\nbehalf of the sole trustee is maintainable in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n
5.0.\t\tIn the premises
\naforesaid, the appeals are allowed. The cabins which have been raised
\nby the respondent-original defendants on the land bearing Survey No.
\n488-B-21 and Municipal Census No. 1264-1-21 shall be removed.  No
\norder as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[K.S. JHAVERI,
\nJ.] <\/p>\n
\/phalguni\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Saiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 2008 Author: Ks Jhaveri,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/1082\/1980 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1082 of 1980 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1083 of 1980 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44694","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSaiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 2008 - 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\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Saiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-10T10:09:33+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\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Saiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-10T10:09:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1307,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008\",\"name\":\"Saiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-10T10:09:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Saiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 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:\/\/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":"Saiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 2008 - 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\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Saiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-10T10:09:33+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\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Saiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-10T10:09:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008"},"wordCount":1307,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008","name":"Saiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-10T10:09:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saiyadna-vs-anjum-on-18-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Saiyadna vs Anjum on 18 July, 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:\/\/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\/44694","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=44694"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44694\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44694"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44694"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44694"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}