{"id":46856,"date":"2007-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007"},"modified":"2017-08-14T16:28:56","modified_gmt":"2017-08-14T10:58:56","slug":"saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Saraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Saraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA No. 1154 of 2006()\n\n\n1. SARASWATHI,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. PADMAKSHI,\n3. SANTHA,\n4. SHEELA,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. MANOHARAN, S\/O.KESAVAN,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.GOPAL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR\n\n Dated :09\/07\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.\n                    ...........................................\n                   R.S.A.No. 1154               OF 2006\n                   ............................................\n         DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JULY, 2007\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.109 of 1995 on the file of Munsiff<\/p>\n
Court, Paravur are the appellants. Respondent is the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Respondent instituted the suit seeking a decree for fixation of<\/p>\n
the boundaries separating plaint A and B schedule properties<\/p>\n
and for recovery of possession of the property in the possession<\/p>\n
of appellants after demolishing the huts in the plaint C schedule<\/p>\n
property. Respondent in the plaint contended that plaint A and<\/p>\n
B schedule properties were purchased by the respondent under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1 sale deed and since then he has been in possession of the<\/p>\n
property and the appellants trespassed into the plaint schedule<\/p>\n
property and they have no right to do so and therefore the<\/p>\n
boundaries are to be fixed separating plaint A and B schedule<\/p>\n
properties and respondent is entitled to recover possession of<\/p>\n
the property trespassed and reduced into possession by<\/p>\n
appellants. Appellants in their written statement contended that<\/p>\n
they are in possession of sixty cents of the property as per a<\/p>\n
mortgage of 1087 ME and the mortgage was not redeemed by<\/p>\n
the predecessor in interest to the respondent and therefore<\/p>\n
RSA 1154\/2006                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent is not entitled to the decree sought for.<\/p>\n
     2. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 on the<\/p>\n
side of respondent and DW1 on the side of appellants and<\/p>\n
Exts.A1 to A22 and Exts.B1 to B4, Ext.X1 and C1 and C2 held<\/p>\n
that Commissioner has correctly demarcated plaint A and B<\/p>\n
schedule properties in Ext.C1 and C2(b) plan and fixed the<\/p>\n
boundaries in accordance with the demarcation of properties as<\/p>\n
shown in     Ext.C2(b) plan.    Learned Munsiff also found that<\/p>\n
respondent is entitled to recovery of possession of plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property from appellants after demolishing the hut in<\/p>\n
plaint C schedule property. Appellants challenged the decree<\/p>\n
and judgment before District Court, Kollam in A.s.147 of 2001.<\/p>\n
Learned Additional District Judge, on reappreciation of evidence,<\/p>\n
confirmed the findings of learned Munsiff and dismissed the<\/p>\n
appeal. It is challenged in the second appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     3. Learned senior counsel appearing for appellants and<\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the respondent who appeared<\/p>\n
consequent to the notice issued before admission, were heard.<\/p>\n
Learned senior counsel argued that though courts below relied<\/p>\n
on the decree for redemption, there is no evidence to prove that<\/p>\n
delivery was taken pursuant to the decree and even though<\/p>\n
RSA 1154\/2006                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
under Ext.A7 decree and Ext.A6 judgment it was declared that<\/p>\n
respondent has been in possession of the property, appellants<\/p>\n
were never dispossessed pursuant to the decree for redemption<\/p>\n
and their possession was not disrupted and therefore respondent<\/p>\n
is not entitled to get the decree granted by the courts below. It<\/p>\n
was further argued that there is no evidence as to when<\/p>\n
appellants allegedly trespassed into the property and on the<\/p>\n
evidence courts below should have found that appellants have<\/p>\n
been continuing in possession under the original mortgage of<\/p>\n
1087 ME and respondent is not entitled to the decree sought for.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel also argued that in any case identity of the<\/p>\n
plaint A schedule property was not established and in such<\/p>\n
circumstances courts below should not have granted the decree.<\/p>\n
     4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent argued that<\/p>\n
in the light of Ext.A6 judgment respondent is not entitled to<\/p>\n
contend that they continued possession of the property as that<\/p>\n
was exactly the question decided in O.S.24 of 1966. It was also<\/p>\n
argued that once it is found that respondent has been in<\/p>\n
possession of the property and a decree declaring his possession<\/p>\n
was granted and the title of respondent is established under<\/p>\n
Ext.A1, it is for the appellants to establish that the title has been<\/p>\n
RSA 1154\/2006                   4<\/span><\/p>\n
barred by adverse possession and on the evidence courts below<\/p>\n
rightly found that respondent has title and is entitled to the<\/p>\n
decree for recovery of possession sought for. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
also argued that identity of the property has been concurrently<\/p>\n
found by the courts below and that factual finding cannot be<\/p>\n
interfered in exercise of the powers of this court under Section<\/p>\n
100 of Code of Civil Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
      5. On hearing learned counsel appearing for appellants, I<\/p>\n
do not find any substantial question of law involved in the<\/p>\n
appeal. As far as the identity of the plaint schedule properties<\/p>\n
are concerned, the trial court as well as first appellate court, on<\/p>\n
analysing the evidence, found that Commissioner has correctly<\/p>\n
demarcated the property in Ext.C2(b) plan. That factual finding<\/p>\n
cannot be interfered by reappreciating the evidence, as sought<\/p>\n
for by the learned senior counsel. The title of respondent to the<\/p>\n
plaint schedule properties under Ext.A1, as such, was not<\/p>\n
disputed. What was contended was that though Ext.A3 decree<\/p>\n
in O.S. 261 of 1956 was obtained, delivery of the property was<\/p>\n
not taken as delivery receipt was not produced and as there is no<\/p>\n
evidence to prove that delivery of the mortgaged property was<\/p>\n
taken, and it is to be taken that appellants continued in<\/p>\n
RSA 1154\/2006                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
possession. It was also argued that as there is no evidence to<\/p>\n
prove that appellants were dispossessed it is to be found that<\/p>\n
they continued their possession even after Ext.A7 decree and in<\/p>\n
such circumstances, courts below should not have granted the<\/p>\n
decree for recovery of possession. True, delivery receipt<\/p>\n
evidencing delivery of possession pursuant to Ext.A3 decree was<\/p>\n
not produced. But in the light of Ext.A6 judgment when the<\/p>\n
possession of respondent was declared by the court in the suit<\/p>\n
filed against appellants, they cannot be heard to contend that<\/p>\n
they continued in possession of the property. Under Ext.A6 and<\/p>\n
A7 decree and judgment in O.S.24 of 1966, competent court has<\/p>\n
already declared that respondent has title and possession to the<\/p>\n
property. Though it was challenged in A.S.255 of 1968, as<\/p>\n
evidenced by Ext.A8 judgment, Ext.A6 judgment was confirmed<\/p>\n
and that has become final. Appellants are therefore not entitled<\/p>\n
to contend that in spite of the decree granted in O.S.24 of 1966<\/p>\n
they continued their possession. If that be so, appellants could<\/p>\n
not have been in possession of the property when even A.S.255<\/p>\n
of 1968 filed by them was dismissed under Ext.A9 judgment.<\/p>\n
     6. Once respondent has established his title to the plaint A<\/p>\n
schedule property, it is for appellants to prove that the title is<\/p>\n
RSA 1154\/2006                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
barred by adverse possession.        In a suit for recovery of<\/p>\n
possession on the strength of title, plaintiff has no duty to prove<\/p>\n
in addition to his title that he has been in possession of the<\/p>\n
property within a period of 12 years as was the case with Article<\/p>\n
141 of the Limitation Act 1908. Under Article 64 of Limitation<\/p>\n
Act 1963, it is for defendants to establish that they have been in<\/p>\n
possession of the property for more than the requisite period<\/p>\n
and that too with the animus to possess against the true owner<\/p>\n
and therefore the title of plaintiff has been barred by adverse<\/p>\n
possession.   The courts below on appreciating the evidence<\/p>\n
entered a factual finding that appellants did not establish that<\/p>\n
they have perfected their title by adverse possession.        That<\/p>\n
factual finding also cannot be interferred.          There is no<\/p>\n
substantial question of law involved in the appeal.<\/p>\n
     Appeal is dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                           M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE<\/p>\n
lgk\/-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Saraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA No. 1154 of 2006() 1. SARASWATHI, … Petitioner 2. PADMAKSHI, 3. SANTHA, 4. SHEELA, Vs 1. MANOHARAN, S\/O.KESAVAN, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPAL For Respondent :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR The Hon’ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :09\/07\/2007 O […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-46856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSaraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007 - 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\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Saraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-14T10:58:56+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Saraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-14T10:58:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1213,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Saraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-14T10:58:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Saraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@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":"Saraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007 - 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\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Saraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-14T10:58:56+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Saraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-14T10:58:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007"},"wordCount":1213,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007","name":"Saraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-14T10:58:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/saraswathi-vs-manoharan-on-9-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Saraswathi vs Manoharan on 9 July, 2007"}]},{"@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\/46856","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=46856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/46856\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=46856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=46856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=46856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}