{"id":52241,"date":"2003-03-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003"},"modified":"2019-04-13T06:24:45","modified_gmt":"2019-04-13T00:54:45","slug":"sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"Sri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 07\/03\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM\nand\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM\n\n\nWrit Petition No.11982 of 1999 and Writ Petition No. 1714 of 2003\n\n\nW.P. No.11982 of 1999\n\nSri Premananda Trust\nPremananda Ashram\nMelapachakudi Village\nFathima Nagar\nViralimalai - Via\nPudukkottai District\nrep. by its Managing Trustee\nDhamayanthi Mathaji.                            ..  Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The District Collector\n   Pudukkottai.\n\n2. The District Collector\n   Tiruchirappalli.\n\n3. The Tahsildar\n   Tiruchirappalli.\n\n4. The Branch Manager\n   Indian Overseas Bank\n   Main Branch\n   Tiruchirappalli - 2.\n\n5. Swamy Premananda\n\n6. The Branch Manager\n   State Bank of Mysore\n   Tiruchirappalli - 2.                                 ..  Respondents\n\n\n\nW.P. No.1714 of 2003 :\n\nSri Premananda Trust\nPremananda Ashram\nMelapachakudi Village\nFathima Nagar\nViralimalai - Via\nPudukkottai District\nrep. by its Managing Trustee\nDhamayanthi Mathaji.                            ..  Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1. The District Collector\n   Pudukkottai.\n\n\n2. The District Collector\n   Tiruchirappalli.\n\n3. The Tahsildar\n   Kulathur at Keeranur\n   Pudukkottai District.\n\n4. The Tahsildar\n   Tiruchirappalli.\n\n5. The Inspector of Police\n   Crime Branch C.I.D.\n   Pudukkottai.\n\n6. The Branch Manager\n   Indian Overseas Bank\n   Main Branch\n   144, West Boule Ward Road\n   L.L.A. Building\n   Tiruchirappalli - 620 002.\n\n7. The Branch Manager\n   Punjab National Bank\n   Sethurappatti Village\n   Fathimanagar Post\n   Tiruchirappalli - 621 316.\n\n8. The Branch Manager\n   State Bank of Mysore\n   153-A First Floor\n   \"V\" Complex\n   West Boule Ward Road\n   Tiruchirappalli - 620 002.\n\n9. The Branch Manager\n   Indian Overseas Bank\n   Nachalur\n   Tiruchirappalli - 639 112.\n\n10.The Branch Manager\n   Canara Bank\n   Innamkulathur\n   Tiruchirappalli - 621 303.\n\n11.The Branch Manager\n   Indian Overseas Bank\n   No.1\/108, North Car Street\n   Viralimalai - 621 316\n   Pudukkottai District.\n\n12.The Branch Manager\n   Indian Bank\n   No.2\/15, East Car Street\n   Viralimalai - 621 316\n   Pudukkottai District.\n\n13.Swamy Premananda                                     ..  Respondents\n\nPRAYER :    Writ  Petitions  under  Article  226  of the Constitution of India\npraying to issue Writs of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\nFor Petitioner :  Mr.  S.  Kasirajan\n\nFor Respondents :  Mr.  A.  Navaneethakrishnan,\n                Addl.  Public Prosecutor.\n\n                Mr.  P.  Santhosh Kumar\n                (For R-5 in WP.No.11982\/99)\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
P.  SHANMUGAM, J.\n<\/p>\n
                These two writ petitions, in effect, seek for the same relief.\n<\/p>\n
                2.   In  the  first  writ  petition,  petitioner  prays  for a
\ndirection to re-transfer a sum of Rs.36,40,000\/- to the  petitioner  Trust  by
\nquashing the  order  of  the  Tahsildar  dated  9.12.1988.  In the second writ
\npetition, petitioner seeks for a mandamus  to  forbear  the  respondents  from
\ntaking  away  from  the Trust, the sum of Rs.61,30,00\/-, being the fine amount
\npayable by Swami Premananda.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  The facts of the case are stated hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
                Swami Premananda, a Sri Lankan national, came to India in  the
\nyear 1983  and set up an ashram called Premananda Ashram near Tiruchy.  Inside
\nthe ashram, he had set up educational institutions with hostels separately for
\ngirls and boys.   According  to  the  petitioner,  the  ashram  was  imparting
\nreligious discourses,  yoga classes and technical education.  While so, on the
\nbasis of a criminal complaint against Premananda, Crime No.1183  of  1994  was
\nregistered  on 17.11.1994 under Sections 142, 376 and later under Sections 302
\nand 201 of the Indian Penal Code before the  Pudukkottai  Police  Station  and
\nSwami Premananda  was  arrested  on  19.11.1994.    Twelve charges were framed
\nagainst Premananda and six others by the Sessions Court, Pudukkottai  in  S.C.
\nNo.7 of 19 96.  The charges were that during the period between 1990 and 1994,
\nPremananda  (A-1)  committed  rape  on  13  girls  and that accused\/A-2 to A-7
\nassisted and abetted the acts of A-1.  It was also alleged that one Ravi,  who
\ntried  to  expose the misdeeds of A-1, was done to death and was buried in the
\nashram itself.  One Divya Devi, the second accused in the case, could  not  be
\nsecured and was declared as a proclaimed offender and thereafter, the case was
\nsplit up.     The  Sessions  Court,  by  a  judgment  dated  20.8.1997,  found
\nPremananda\/A-1 guilty of rape of 13 girls as well as the murder  of  Ravi  and
\nsentenced  him  for life imprisonment on both charges, directing the sentences
\nto run consecutively.  The  Sessions  Court  also  imposed  a  total  fine  of
\nRs.66,40,000\/-  on  Premananda  which  was  directed to be paid to each of the
\nvictim girls at the rate of  Rs.5,10,000\/-  and  the  life  sentences  on  the
\ncharges of  rape  were  directed to run concurrently.  The said conviction and
\nsentence was confirmed by this Court insofar as  Premananda  is  concerned  in
\nCriminal  Appeal  No.895  of 1997 by a judgment dated 12.12.2002, except for a
\nmodification in reference to one of the victim girls.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  Swami Premananda had deposited various sums  amounting  to
\nRs.89,4 8,037\/07 in seven banks in his name with ‘either or survivor’ facility
\nwith Divya  Devi,  who  was the absconding accused in the criminal case.  Just
\nprior to the criminal complaint, a Trust by name Sri Premananda Trust is  said
\nto  have  come  into  existence  with a corpus fund of Rs.501\/-, wherein Swami
\nPremananda is designated as the Managing Trustee for life.  The Sessions Court
\ndirected the distribution of the fine amount of Rs.66,30,000\/- to  the  victim
\ngirls.  A  day  after  Premananda  was  convicted  and  sentenced,  i.e.    on
\n21.8.1997, he is said to have expressed his desire that nothing belongs to him
\nand that everything belongs to the  Trust.    When  Premananda  moved  a  bail
\napplication in Crl.M.P.  No.6328 of 1998, by order dated 26.2.1998, a Division
\nBench  of this court stayed the recovery of fine to the extent of Rs.30,00,000
\n\/- and observed that the rest of the fine, if paid, shall be dealt with by the
\nSessions Court in the manner ordered in the judgment.  However, Premananda did
\nnot remit the rest of the amount and his application for stay of recovery  was
\ndismissed  by  a  Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 15.9.1998 in
\nCr.M.P.  Nos.7023 to 7025 of 1997 and Cr.M.P.  Nos.5291, 5649, 5651,  6024  of
\n1998.   The  Division Bench, apart from directing the amount already frozen to
\nbe invested in the respective banks, also directed Premananda to  deposit  the
\nbalance  amount  of  fine  of  Rs.36,40,000\/-  within one month and if no such
\ndeposit was made, liberty was given to the Government to  proceed  further  in
\naccordance with law and attach the bank accounts shown in Items 6 and 7 of the
\ncounter affidavit  therein.    As  the  amount  was  not  deposited as per the
\ndirection of the Division Bench  of  this  court,  the  Collector  of  Tiruchy
\ndirected  the  Tahsildar  in  his  order  dated  8.12.1998  to attach the bank
\ndeposits to the tune of Rs.36,40,000\/-.  It is against the said notice of  the
\nTahsildar  dated 9.12.1998 Writ Petition No.11982 of 1999 came to be filed for
\na direction to re-transfer  the  attached  amount  of  Rs.36,40,000\/-  to  the
\npetitioner\/Trust.  The present Managing Trustee of the Trust, who claims to be
\nthe petitioner herein, had filed the following three suits :
\n(1)     O.S.  No.116 of 2000 } On the file of the Sub-court,
\n        Filed on 28.10.1999 } Pudukkottai.\n<\/p>\n
–       For a declaration that the savings bank and fixed
\n        deposit amounts in the various bank accounts belong
\n        to the plaintiff and for possession of the amounts.\n<\/p>\n
(2) O.S.  No.117 of 2000 } On the file of the Sub-court,
\n        Filed on 4.10.1999 } Pudukkottai.\n<\/p>\n
–       For a declaration in reference to the immovable
\n        properties.\n<\/p>\n
(3)     O.S.  No.1076 of 1999 } On the file of the Sub-court,
\n        Filed on 6.12.1999 } Tiruchirappalli.\n<\/p>\n
–       For a declaration that the savings bank and fixed
\n        deposit amounts in the various bank accounts belong
\n        to the plaintiff and for possession of the amounts.\n<\/p>\n
All the three suits were decreed ex parte on 19.3.2001, 7.6.2001 and 13.7.2001
\nrespectively.   Petitioner  now  claims  in these two writ petitions that they
\nhave got right over the amounts now in deposit and freezed based on the decree
\nof  the  civil  court  and  the  respondents  cannot  take  away  the  sum  of
\nRs.61,30,000\/-  to  meet  the  fine  amount and to pay the compensation to the
\nvictim girls and hence the second writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  Both these writ petitions were directed to be  posted  and
\nwe   have   heard   the   counsel  for  the  petitioner  on  the  question  of
\nmaintainability of the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  The points that arise for consideration are :\n<\/p>\n
                (i)     Whether the  petitioner  has  come  with  clean  hands
\nbefore this court ?\n<\/p>\n
                (ii)    Whether the relief sought for is an abuse of the power
\nof this court ?\n<\/p>\n
                (iii) Whether the decree obtained in the two suits namely O.S.
\nNos.116  and  117  of 2000 before the Sub-court, Pudukkottai and the suit O.S.
\nNo.1076 of 1999 on the file fo the  Sub-court  Tiruchirappalli  is  valid  and
\nenforceable ?\n<\/p>\n
                        (a)  Whether  the  suits  suffer  from  suppression of
\nmaterial facts ?\n<\/p>\n
                        (b) Whether the court fees paid is proper ?\n<\/p>\n
                (iv) Whether the prayer under Article 226 of the  Constitution
\nof India is maintainable ?\n<\/p>\n
                7.   From  the  materials on record, it is clear that when the
\nashram was founded by Premananda, it was his individual endeavour and  he  has
\nalso  been  running  it by appointing his own men and women and had designated
\nMathajis and Swamis.  It is only 8th July 1994, a Trust by name Sri Premananda
\nTrust was created with a corpus fund of  Rs.501\/-.    Apart  from  this,  till
\nPremananda was  convicted  as  per  the  judgment  in S.C.  No.7 of 1996 dated
\n20.8.1997, the money was lying in the name of Premananda and the properties of
\nthe ashram were owned by him in his personal capacity.  It is only a day after
\nthe conviction, i.e.  21.8.1997, he is said to have sent a resignation  letter
\nand  expressed  his  desire that all the properties belong to the Trust as per
\nhis affidavit in W.P.  No.11982 of 1999.  Till  date,  no  records  have  been
\nproduced  to  show  that  there  was  transfer of funds or the properties from
\nPremananda to the Trust.  Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is trying
\nto make believe that the Trust, by itself, has taken over the money  lying  to
\nthe credit of Premananda and also the properties.  In the first writ petition,
\nit  is  stated  that Premananda, by a release deed, had transferred the entire
\nproperties to the Trust and that by a letter, he is said to have expressed his
\ndesire that everything belongs to the Trust.  Therefore,  admittedly,  the  so
\ncalled  expression of mere desire or the release deed are not valid and cannot
\noperate as a valid transfer or acquisition of the properties and the funds  by
\nthe Trust.\n<\/p>\n
                8.   The  plaintiff failed in his attempt by raising a similar
\ncontention before the Division Bench in the criminal  miscellaneous  petition,
\nwherein  the Division Bench, by its order dated 15.9.1998, while approving the
\nfreezing of the amount, directed the remaining fine amount  of  Rs.36,40,000\/-
\nto be  paid  or  recovered.  Thus, the amount to the tune of Rs.66,40,000\/- is
\ncovered by the order of the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  The petitioner\/Trust had moved W.M.P.  No.17051 of 1999 in
\nthe first writ petition for an order of injunction restraining the respondents
\nfrom distributing the accrued interest arising out of the attached  amount  of
\nRs.36,40,000\/-.   A learned judge of this court, by order dated 3.8.2000, held
\nthat the Division bench had issued directions, which is a judicial order.   It
\nis  not  open  to  the  petitioner  to  seek for any interim order, and if the
\npetitioner has got any grievance,  he  has  to  move  the  Division  Bench  by
\nimpleading himself for suitable directions, if any.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In  paragraphs  11  of W.P.  No.11982 of 1999, the petitioner has
\nstated as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “I submit that challenging the conviction in S.C.  No.7 of 1996 on the
\nfile of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, the 5th  respondent  herein
\npreferred an  appeal  before  this Hon’ble High Court in C.A.  No.897 of 1997.
\nPending appeal, the 5th respondent herein has moved the following applications
\nbefore this Hon’ble High Court.<\/p>\n
\n\n                1) Crl.M.P.  No.5291\/98 - Stay the      sentence    of    fine\nimposed on the petitioner       in S.C.  No.7\/96.\n                2) Crl.M.P.  No.5649\/98 - to implead    Tahsildar,   Keeranur,\nPudukkottai District.\n<\/pre>\n
                3) Crl.M.P.  No.5650\/98 – to stay the   proposed  auction   by
\nthe Tahsildar to recover        the fine imposed on the petition.\n<\/p>\n
                4) Crl.M.P.  No.5651\/98 – to enlarge the        petitioner
\neither on bail or interim bail  pending C.A.  No.897\/97.\n<\/p>\n
                5) Crl.M.P.  No.6024\/98 - to implead the        Asst.\nCommissioner of Income Tax,     Investigation-I, Tiruchirappalli.\n\n<\/pre>\n
        While  disposing  all  these  applications,  a  Division Bench of this
\nHon’ble High Court in its order dated 15.9.1998 directed  the  5th  respondent
\nherein to  deposit  the balance amount of fine i.e.  Rs.36,40,000\/- within one
\nmonth from the date of receipt of this order.  Failing  which,  the  state  is
\nfree  to  proceed  further  in  accordance  with  law  and  to attach the bank
\naccounts.”\n<\/p>\n
The  plaintiff  is,  therefore,  aware  that  the  amount  to  the   tune   of
\nRs.66,40,000\/- is covered by the order of the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
                11.  By going through the plaints filed before the Sub-courts,
\nit is seen that the subject matter of the  suits  is  only  the  savings  bank
\naccount  and  fixed deposits running to several lakhs, totalling approximately
\nRs.90,00,000\/-, besides the immovable properties.  The suit  is  valued  under
\nSection  28 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1985 and the
\ncourt fee of Rs.200\/- paid in each of the suit.  On the  face  of  it,  it  is
\nclear  that  the  amount  and the property in question are not Trust property.
\nThey stand in the name of Premananda, the defendant in the suit, who  remained
\nexparte.   Section  28  of  the  Act can be invoked only if there is a dispute
\nregarding the right of management.  Admittedly, Premananda  is  said  to  have
\nresigned  and has also expressed his desire that all the properties be that of
\nthe Trust.  Therefore, there is no question of any dispute or recovery of  the
\namount from the rival trustee.  Bald allegations are made to the effect that a
\nfalse  case  has  been  made against Premananda, the defendant in the suit and
\nthat the defendant has left the services of the ashram and that  a  new  Board
\nhas  been  constituted and that they have decided to bring and consolidate the
\nentire properties, both movables and immovables and that they  have  got  more
\nlegal rights  to  enjoy  the  properties (money).  According to the plaintiff,
\nthey apprehend that the defendants may attempt to deprive the  plaintiff,  who
\nare  the  actual  account  holders  of  the money, from getting possession and
\nenjoyment of the various bank balances by adopting illegal methods.  While  at
\none  stage  the plaintiff proceeds on the footing that Premananda has released
\nthe properties and expressed his desire disowning the properties, on the other
\nhand, it is pleaded in the plaint that the Trust has decided  to  protect  the
\nproperties from  being  squandered  at  the  hands of defendants 1 and 2.  The
\nplaintiffs have not disclosed the order passed by  the  Division  Bench  dated
\n15.9.1998,  though they have referred to the same in paragraph 18 of the first
\nwrit petition.  If the same were referred in the  plaint  and  if  the  orders
\npassed  by  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  were placed before the
\nSub-court, the court would not have granted the decree atleast to  the  extent
\nof Rs.66,40,000\/-.  The plaintiffs are barred from raising the same here since
\nthey are party  to  the order in W.M.P.  No.17051 of 1999 in W.P.  No.11982 of
\n1999.  Premananda and Kalananda are  parties  to  the  order  dated  15.9.1998
\npassed in  Crl.M.P.    No.5291, 5649 to 5651, 6024 of 1997 and 7023 to 7025 of
\n1997 filed in Criminal Appeal Nos.897, 895 and 89 6 of 1996, but they remained
\nex parte in the suit.\n<\/p>\n
                12.  If the plaintiffs have to seek for a declaration that the
\norder  passed  by  the  Division Bench is not binding on them, the suit should
\nhave been valued under Section 25(d) of the  Court  Fees  Act  and  not  under
\nSection 28.  Thus, there is a clear suppression of vital materials and a fraud
\nplayed on  the  Sub-courts.    The Sub-courts, without considering whether the
\ncourt fee paid is proper, whether  the  suits  are  maintainable  in  law  and
\nwhether  the  plaintiff  has  been properly represented, have simply passed an
\nexparte decree in the suits.  A decree passed in abuse of the process  of  the
\ncourt  or  by  practice  of fraud on the court is a nullity and its invalidity
\ncould be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be  enforced  or  relied
\nupon.   We  are also of the view that the necessary and proper parties, namely
\nthe Tahsildar and the District Collector and  the  Banks  concerned,  are  not
\nimpleaded  in the suits; they have already ordered the freezing and attachment
\nof the various accounts and have been deliberately omitted to be  included  in
\nthe suits.\n<\/p>\n
                13.   We, therefore, proposed to give notice to the counsel as
\nto why the decrees should not be declared as a nullity and hear his  arguments
\non the said point.\n<\/p>\n
                14.  After notice, the matters was heard on 21.2.2003.\n<\/p>\n
                15.   The  petitioner  is aware of the fact that the Principal
\nSessions Judge, Pudukkottai, while convicting Swami Premananda,  has  directed
\nrecovery  of  the fine amount and that the District Collector, Pudukkottai had
\nissued notice and initiated recovery proceedings and  has  attached  the  bank
\naccount.  All these have been explicitly stated and admitted in paragraphs 11,
\n12 and 13 in  W.P.    No.11982 of 1999.  W.M.P.  No.17051 of 1999 filed for an
\ninterim injunction from attachment had been  dismissed  by  a  learned  single
\nJudge by an  order  dated  3.8.2000.   The plaints in O.S.  Nos.116 and 117 of
\n2000 on the file of the Subcourt, Pudukkottai refer to the sentence imposed by
\nthe Principal Sessions Judge in S.C.  No.7 of  1996  and  the  total  fine  of
\nRs.66,40,000\/-  directed  to  be paid, but the facts set out above in the writ
\npetition have been conveniently omitted to be mentioned therein.   This  is  a
\nclear, deliberate  suppression of material facts before the Sub-court.  In the
\nplaint in O.S.  No.1076 of 1999 on the file of the First Additional Sub-court,
\nTiruchy praying for a declaration and possession in reference to certain fixed
\ndeposits, they have chosen to refer to the attachment proceedings.  The plaint
\nhaving been filed subsequent to the filing of  the  writ  petition,  they  are
\nfully  aware  of the orders of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench
\nas well as the notices issued by the District Collector and the Tahsildar, but
\nthey have deliberately omitted to implead the  necessary  and  proper  parties
\nnamely  the  Tahsildar  and the District Collector, Pudukkottai in the plaint.
\nW.P.  No.11982 of 1999 was filed on 12.7.1999, the affidavit having been sworn
\non 28.4.1999 at Tiruchy.  The suits O.S.  Nos.116 and 11 7 of 2000 were  filed
\nin October,  1999.    The  value  of the suits has not been stated even in the
\ndecree, but a court fee of Rs.200\/- is paid.    Whereas,  the  value  is  O.S.
\nNo.1076  of  1999  is  shown to be Rs.84,86 ,598\/- and a court fee of Rs.200\/-
\npaid under Section 28 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  The Supreme Court,  in  S.P.    CHELGALVARAYA  NAIDU  VS.
\nJAGANNATH [1  994  (1)  S.C.C.    1],  hals  held  that  a  decree obtained by
\nnondisclosure of vital document amounted to fraud on court and  hence,  liable
\nto be set aside.  Their lordships observed as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
        “A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing
\nsomething by  taking  unfair advantage of another.  It is a deception in order
\nto gain by another’s loss.  It is a cheating intended to get an advantage.   A
\nlitigant,  who  approaches  the  court,  is bound to produce all the documents
\nexecuted by him which are relevant to the litigation.  If he withholds a vital
\ndocument in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be  guilty
\nof playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.\n<\/p>\n
        One who  comes  to  the  court, must come with clean hands.  A person,
\nwho’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court.  He  can
\nbe summarily  thrown out at any stage of the litigation.  A judgment or decree
\nobtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of
\nlaw.  Such a judgment\/decree – by the first court or by the  highest  court  –
\nhas  to  be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior.
\nIt can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.”\n<\/p>\n
                17.  In GOWRI SHANKAR VS.  JOSHI  AMBA  SHANKAR  FAMILY  TRUST
\n[A.I.R.  19  96  S.C.    2202],  while referring and approving the judgment in
\nCHENGALVARAYA NAIDU’s case referred above, the Supreme  Court  held  that  the
\nquestion whether there is a bonafide purchase subsequent to permission without
\nnotice  is  immaterial  if  the  trustees  had  obtained  an order suppressing
\nmaterial facts.  In KIRAN SINGH VS.  CHAMAN PASWAN [A.I.R.  1 954 S.C.   340],
\na  Constitution  Bench  of the Supreme Court has held that it is a fundamental
\nprinciple that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction  is  a  nullity
\nand  that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to
\nbe enforced or relied upon, even  at  the  stage  of  execution  and  even  in
\ncollateral proceedings.   A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or
\nterritorial or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of  the  action,
\nstrikes  at the very authority of the court to pass a decree and such a defect
\ncannot be cured even by consent of parties.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  Applying the principles set out above, we find  that  the
\npetitioners  in  the  case  on  hand have obtained a decree by suppressing the
\nmaterial facts and by committing a fraud  on  the  court  and  therefore,  the
\ndecrees so obtained are liable to be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
                19.   The counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of
\nthe Supreme Court in KRISHNA SINGH VS.  MATHURA AHIR [A.I.R.  1980 S.C.   717]
\nand contended that the property belongs to the Trust.  The question that arose
\nfor  consideration  in  the  said  case  and  the  facts  therein are entirely
\ndifferent from the case on hand.  In our case,  the  money  and  the  property
\nstands  in  the  name  of an individual and therefore, the submission that the
\nproperty belonging to the Math is in fact attached to the office of the Mahant
\nand passed by inheritance to no one who does not fill  the  office  cannot  be
\napplied to this case.\n<\/p>\n
                20.    The  Sessions  Case  against  Swami  Premananda  having
\nattracted wide publicity, it was a sensational case.  It is very difficult  to
\nunderstand as to how the Sub Judge of the same place would have been oblivious
\nto  the  case  and has omitted to notice the fine imposed and the direction to
\nrecover the fine amount.  Inspite of the averment made in the  plaint  to  the
\neffect  that  the  Board  of Trustees had decided to bring and consolidate the
\nentire properties, both movable and  immovable,  including  the  various  bank
\nbalances  standing  in  the  name  of defendants 1 to 4, the Sub-court has not
\nbothered to find out the documents under which  such  a  transfer  could  have
\ntaken  place  and  the  question  whether  by  a  unilateral resolution of the
\nsubsequent Board of Trustee, without the direction of Swami Premananda to  the
\nbank  and a letter, the amounts could have been transferred in the name of the
\nTrust without impleading the Bank concerned was not considered at  all.    The
\nlearned  Sub Judge ought to have taken into consideration all these facts when
\nsuch a vast amount running to Rs.90 lakhs is sought to  be  declared  and  its
\npossession  ordered  before  passing  an  exparte  decree  in  favour  of  the
\npetitioner.  We are constrained to observe that  the  learned  Sub  Judge  has
\nmiserably  failed  to  apply  his judicial mind and discretion properly before
\npassing an exparte decree of this nature.  It is crystal clear that  the  suit
\nis  a  collusive one and is filed only to get at the various bank accounts and
\nto keep it out of the reach of the recovery proceedings, the fine imposed  and
\nthe direction  issued by this court.  The learned Sub Judge ought to have gone
\ninto the question whether Section 28 of the Act will apply in the  absence  of
\nany  dispute  between  the  present  Trustees  before  valuing the suits under
\nSection 28 of the Act and the maintainability of the  suit.    The  suits  are
\nfiled  on  behalf  of the Trust without being represented by all the Trustees;
\nthe Trust is not a legal entity on its own; the reference to the total fine of
\nRs.66,40,000\/- has been made and it is admitted that the amount stands in  the
\nname of Premananda; and a court fee is paid under Section 28 of the Court Fees
\nAct as though there is a dispute in the management of the Trust.\n<\/p>\n
                21.  A  learned  Judge  of  this court, in A.S.M.  ABDUL RAHIM
\nSAHEB VS.  MADRAS WAKF BOARD [1965  (1)  M.L.J.],  has  taken  the  view  that
\nSection  28 will be attracted only if there is a dispute between the plaintiff
\nand the rival trustees to the office of the Trustee.  A Division Bench of this
\ncourt, in MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM CHETTIAR VS.  VENKATACHALAM  CHETTIAR  [1979  (1)
\nM.L.J.   398], has held that if the fee paid by the plaintiff is sham, nominal
\nand dishonest, the court  had  power  to  direct  the  plaintiff  to  pay  the
\nappropriate court fee after valuing his claim in the property.  Such valuation
\nof the plaintiff’s claim should, no doubt, be based on the plaint allegations.
\nA  careful  reading  of  the plaint allegations in this case would reveal that
\nthere is and there cannot be a dispute between the plaintiff on the  one  hand
\nand the defendants on the other.  As a matter of fact, in W.P.  No.11982 of 19
\n99,  it  is  averred  by the plaintiff that Swami Premananda had expressed his
\nwillingness to hand over his position  of  Managing  Trustee  and  that  by  a
\nrelease   deed,   had   transferred   the  entire  properties,  including  the
\ncontributions, to the Trust.  Conspicuously, the alleged release deed  or  the
\nalleged  letter  did  not  form  part  of  the suit and in any event, that was
\nsubsequent to the conviction by the Sessions Court.\n<\/p>\n
                22.  For all the above reasons, we are  clearly  of  the  view
\nthat the exparte  decrees in the suits O.S.  Nos.116 of 2000 and O.S.  No.1076
\nof 1999 were obtained by abuse of the process and a  fraud  committed  on  the
\ncourt  and  therefore, they have no effect or consequence and they are non-est
\nin law for the following reasons :\n<\/p>\n
                (1) The subject matter, viz.  The amounts in O.S.   No.116  of
\n2000 and O.S.  No.1076 of 1999 are covered by the orders of the Division Bench
\nof this court.\n<\/p>\n
                (2) The petitioner is aware of the same.\n<\/p>\n
                (3) The petitioner has suppressed these facts and the positive
\ndirection passed  by  the  Division Bench and the dismissal of the W.M.P.  for
\ninjunction.\n<\/p>\n
                (4) The petitioner has not impleaded the necessary and  proper
\nparties, viz.  the District Collector, the Tahsildar and the respective Banks.\n<\/p>\n
                (5) The petitioner has not paid the proper court fees.
\n                (6)  The  petitioner  has  misled  the  civil  courts  on  all
\naccounts.\n<\/p>\n
                23.  Lastly, the prayer in the writ petitions as such  seeking
\nfor  a  re-transfer  of  the  attached amount in the light of the order of the
\nDivision Bench dated 15.9.1998 cannot be granted.  The petitioner cannot  seek
\nindirectly what  he  cannot  achieve  directly.  The second writ petition also
\nwill go contrary to our direction contained in the judgment  in  the  criminal
\nappeal as  well as the order passed by this court on 15.9.1998.  The prayer is
\nin the realm of contract of a civil nature.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  For the above reasons, both the writ petitions are liable
\nto be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed.  No costs.   Consequently,
\nthe connected W.M.Ps.  are closed.\n<\/p>\n
ab<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nInternet :  Yes<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The District Collector
\nPudukkottai.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The District Collector
\nTiruchirappalli.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Tahsildar
\nTiruchirappalli.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Branch Manager
\nIndian Overseas Bank
\nMain Branch
\nTiruchirappalli – 2.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Branch Manager
\nState Bank of Mysore
\nTiruchirappalli – 2.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Tahsildar
\nKulathur at Keeranur
\nPudukkottai District.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Inspector of Police
\nCrime Branch C.I.D.\n<\/p>\n
Pudukkottai.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Branch Manager
\nIndian Overseas Bank
\nMain Branch
\n144, West Boule Ward Road
\nL.L.A.  Building
\nTiruchirappalli – 620 002.\n<\/p>\n
7.  The Branch Manager
\nPunjab National Bank
\nSethurappatti Village
\nFathimanagar Post
\nTiruchirappalli – 621 316.\n<\/p>\n
8.  The Branch Manager
\nState Bank of Mysore
\n153-A First Floor
\n“V” Complex
\nWest Boule Ward Road
\nTiruchirappalli – 620 002.\n<\/p>\n
9.  The Branch Manager
\nIndian Overseas Bank
\nNachalur
\nTiruchirappalli – 639 112.\n<\/p>\n
10.The Branch Manager
\nCanara Bank
\nInnamkulathur
\nTiruchirappalli – 621 303.\n<\/p>\n
11.The Branch Manager
\nIndian Overseas Bank
\nNo.1\/108, North Car Street
\nViralimalai – 621 316
\nPudukkottai District.\n<\/p>\n
12.The Branch Manager
\nIndian Bank
\nNo.2\/15, East Car Street Viralimalai – 621 316
\nPudukkottai District.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Sri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07\/03\/2003 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SHANMUGAM and THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM Writ Petition No.11982 of 1999 and Writ Petition No. 1714 of 2003 W.P. No.11982 of 1999 Sri […]<\/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-52241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003 - 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\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-13T00:54:45+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=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-13T00:54:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":4336,\"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\\\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003\",\"name\":\"Sri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-13T00:54:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003 - 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\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-13T00:54:45+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-13T00:54:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003"},"wordCount":4336,"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\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003","name":"Sri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-13T00:54:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-premananda-trust-vs-the-district-collector-on-7-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Premananda Trust vs The District Collector on 7 March, 2003"}]},{"@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\/52241","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=52241"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52241\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52241"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}