{"id":48065,"date":"2009-07-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009"},"modified":"2014-08-19T13:48:51","modified_gmt":"2014-08-19T08:18:51","slug":"purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Kerala High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 670 of 2008()\n\n\n1. PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SUMANGALA, W\/O.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. PUSHPALEKHA, D\/O.RAJAMMA,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. SEETHALAKSHMI AMMA, D\/O.KAMALAKSHI\n\n3. RAJALAKSHMI AMMA, D\/O.KAMALAKSHI AMMA,\n\n4. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, W\/O.BHASKARAN,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID\n\n Dated :31\/07\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                       HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.\n                     -----------------------------------\n                        R.S.A.No.670 of 2008\n                    -------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009\n\n                              JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>     The defendants 5 &amp; 6 in O.S.No.340 of 2003 on the file of<\/p>\n<p>the Additional Munsiff&#8217;s Court, Alappuzha are the appellants.<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in<\/p>\n<p>A.S.No.47of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sub Court,<\/p>\n<p>Alappuzha. The first respondent as plaintiff filed the suit for<\/p>\n<p>partition and separate possession. The trial court decreed the<\/p>\n<p>suit and preliminary decree was passed declaring that the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiff is entitled to 2\/5th share.            The appellants herein<\/p>\n<p>preferred the first appeal A.S.No.59 of 2006. The decree was<\/p>\n<p>confirmed. Hence, this second appeal. The parties are arrayed<\/p>\n<p>as plaintiff and defendants as in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.     It is the plaintiff&#8217;s case that the members of the family<\/p>\n<p>effected a partition vide deed No.1216 wherein B schedule<\/p>\n<p>property was allotted to the sakha of plaintiff&#8217;s grand mother,<\/p>\n<p>Muthumma. Plaintiff is the grand daughter of Muthumma. The<\/p>\n<p>plaintiff is the daughter of one Rajamma who is the daughter of<\/p>\n<p>Smt.Muthumma. The plaintiff&#8217;s claim is that she is entitled to<\/p>\n<p>R.S.A.No.670 of 2008<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>2\/5th share in the plaint schedule property. The defendants 5 and<\/p>\n<p>6 who are appellants herein contested the suit.         The other<\/p>\n<p>defendants remained absent. The appellants are claiming title<\/p>\n<p>over the entire property on the basis of 2 sale deeds executed by<\/p>\n<p>defendants 1 to 4.     They further contended that neither the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiffs nor their predecessors had obtained joint possession or<\/p>\n<p>co-ownership right. Whatever rights that the plaintiff has had<\/p>\n<p>over the property is lost by adverse possession, ouster and<\/p>\n<p>limitation.   It is further contended that the plaint schedule<\/p>\n<p>property is in the possession and enjoyment of the contesting<\/p>\n<p>defendants from 15\/9\/1988 on the basis of an agreement of sale.<\/p>\n<p>      3.   The trial court examined the rival contentions of the<\/p>\n<p>parties on the basis of oral and documentary evidence adduced<\/p>\n<p>by on both sides. PW.1, DWs.1 to 4, Exts.A1 to A5 and Ext.B1<\/p>\n<p>are marked, discussed and appreciated. It is not disputed in the<\/p>\n<p>case the fact that there was a family partition effected, vide deed<\/p>\n<p>No.1216 and that the B schedule property therein was allotted in<\/p>\n<p>favour of the sakha of plaintiff&#8217;s grand mother, Muthumma. The<\/p>\n<p>court after examining the evidence on record held that late<\/p>\n<p>Rajamma who is the mother of the plaintiff had obtained 2\/5th<\/p>\n<p>R.S.A.No.670 of 2008<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>share of the plaint schedule property and that she was in<\/p>\n<p>enjoyment of the property as a co-owner till her death. The<\/p>\n<p>plaintiff contented that the defendants 1 to 4 are not entitled to<\/p>\n<p>any share in the plaint schedule property and that she is not a<\/p>\n<p>party to the said sale deeds and therefore the recitals in the sale<\/p>\n<p>deed are not binding on her.\n<\/p>\n<p>      4.    The contesting defendants are the husband and wife.<\/p>\n<p>Their contentions were also considered. The very fact that the<\/p>\n<p>plaintiff is having 2\/5th share over the plaint schedule property<\/p>\n<p>cannot be disputed effectively. The sale deeds executed by the<\/p>\n<p>other sharers are not binding on the plaintiff nor will affect her<\/p>\n<p>share. The contention that the defendants have perfected title<\/p>\n<p>by adverse possession and limitation was negatived finding that<\/p>\n<p>there is no basis for such a claim and there is no evidence in<\/p>\n<p>support of the same.        The principle of ouster was correctly<\/p>\n<p>appreciated by the courts below and rightly repelled the<\/p>\n<p>contentions raised by the appellants. The court also relied on<\/p>\n<p>Ext.A4 sale deed and concluded that late Rajamma got share and<\/p>\n<p>therefore the plaintiff is entitled to claim 2\/5th share. The very<\/p>\n<p>fact that the plaintiff is not a party to Exts.A1 and A2 sale deed is<\/p>\n<p>R.S.A.No.670 of 2008<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                4<\/span><\/p>\n<p>not disputed and therefore the sale deeds are not binding on her.<\/p>\n<p>In the circumstances, the trial court decreed the suit. The<\/p>\n<p>appellate court also elaborately considered the contentions<\/p>\n<p>raised by the appellants and agreed with the findings of the trial<\/p>\n<p>court.\n<\/p>\n<p>     5.    The learned counsel for the appellant also contended<\/p>\n<p>that the procedure prescribed in Order 32 Rule 15 has not been<\/p>\n<p>complied with. I find that there is no merit or force in the<\/p>\n<p>contentions of the counsel for the appellant. The appellant did<\/p>\n<p>not raise any contention before the appellate court or trial court<\/p>\n<p>that the plaintiff is not of sound mind; if that be so, he cannot<\/p>\n<p>contend that an enquiry is warranted.       I have examined the<\/p>\n<p>contentions raised by the appellant in the light of the findings<\/p>\n<p>and reasonings entered by the courts below. I find that the<\/p>\n<p>findings arrived at on the basis of the reasonings stated in the<\/p>\n<p>judgment are correct and I fully agree with the findings. I also<\/p>\n<p>found that the grounds urged in support of the case set up in the<\/p>\n<p>memorandum of appeal are not sufficient to invoke this court&#8217;s<\/p>\n<p>jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. No question of law much<\/p>\n<p>less any substantial questions of law arises for consideration in<\/p>\n<p>R.S.A.No.670 of 2008<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                            5<\/span><\/p>\n<p>this second appeal. Hence, this appeal fails and accordingly<\/p>\n<p>dismissed in limine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                            HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>Skj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kerala High Court Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 670 of 2008() 1. PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL, &#8230; Petitioner 2. SUMANGALA, W\/O.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL, Vs 1. PUSHPALEKHA, D\/O.RAJAMMA, &#8230; Respondent 2. SEETHALAKSHMI AMMA, D\/O.KAMALAKSHI 3. RAJALAKSHMI AMMA, D\/O.KAMALAKSHI AMMA, 4. SANTHAKUMARI AMMA, W\/O.BHASKARAN, For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY For [&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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48065","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009 - 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\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-19T08:18:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-19T08:18:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":850,\"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\\\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009\",\"name\":\"Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-19T08:18:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009 - 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\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-19T08:18:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-19T08:18:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009"},"wordCount":850,"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\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009","name":"Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-19T08:18:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/purushothama-kaimal-vs-pushpalekha-on-31-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Purushothama Kaimal vs Pushpalekha on 31 July, 2009"}]},{"@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\/48065","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=48065"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48065\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}