{"id":59205,"date":"2009-04-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-10-30T03:59:57","modified_gmt":"2015-10-29T22:29:57","slug":"mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nRSA.No. 331 of 2009()\n\n\n1. MOHANDAS, S\/O.VELAYUDHA PANICKER,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. VINESHKUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS,S\/O.VASU,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. PRADEESH, AGED 46 YEARS,S\/O. -DO-\n\n3. RAJASEKHARAN,AGED 62 YEARS,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SMT.M.J.RAJASREE\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :02\/04\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n               K.P. Balachandran, J.\n            --------------------------\n               R.S.A.No.331 of 2009\n            --------------------------\n\n                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
    The plaintiff in O.S.No.284\/97 on the file of<\/p>\n
the Munsiff’s Court, Chittur is the appellant in<\/p>\n
this Regular Second Appeal, he having lost his case<\/p>\n
concurrently in both the courts below. The suit was<\/p>\n
instituted by him for partition of the scheduled<\/p>\n
properties, inter alia, on the allegations that the<\/p>\n
scheduled properties and other properties belonged<\/p>\n
to Velayudha Panicker, the father of the appellant\/<\/p>\n
plaintiff, the third defendant and Vasu, the father<\/p>\n
of defendants 1 and 2; that on the death of<\/p>\n
Velayudha Panicker, the properties belonging to<\/p>\n
him,  excluding  the  scheduled  properties,   were<\/p>\n
partitioned  as  per  Deed  No.126\/1970;  that  the<\/p>\n
scheduled properties are co-ownership properties<\/p>\n
and the parties are in joint possession thereof;<\/p>\n
that defendants 1 and 2 created a partition deed in<\/p>\n
respect of the plaint schedule properties stating<\/p>\n
RSA 331\/09                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
that the same belong to them exclusively; that<\/p>\n
later     on they   have  admitted  that  the  plaint<\/p>\n
schedule items are co-ownership properties and that<\/p>\n
despite demands made by him, they are not amenable<\/p>\n
to   effect   a   partition  and  to  allot  separate<\/p>\n
possession of his share. Hence the suit.<\/p>\n
     2.     Respondents 1 and 2\/defendants 1 and 2<\/p>\n
resisted the suit contending that the appellant\/<\/p>\n
plaintiff has no title to claim partition of the<\/p>\n
scheduled properties; that it is incorrect to say<\/p>\n
that the scheduled properties belonged to Velayudha<\/p>\n
Panicker; that the properties belonged exclusively<\/p>\n
to the father of defendants 1 and 2, who is the<\/p>\n
brother of the appellant\/plaintiff; that it is also<\/p>\n
incorrect to say that the scheduled properties were<\/p>\n
omitted to be included in the partition deed; that<\/p>\n
the    scheduled   properties  are   not  in   common<\/p>\n
ownership and joint possession of themselves and<\/p>\n
the appellant\/plaintiff; that it is incorrect to<\/p>\n
say that defendants 1 and 2 admitted that the<\/p>\n
RSA 331\/09                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
scheduled properties are co-ownership properties;<\/p>\n
that the appellant\/plaintiff, who is on inimical<\/p>\n
terms with defendants 1 and 2, has filed the suit<\/p>\n
without any bona fides and that the suit has only<\/p>\n
to    be   dismissed.  The   third   respondent\/third<\/p>\n
defendant did not file any written statement.<\/p>\n
     3. On the above pleadings, the trial court<\/p>\n
raised necessary issues for trial and considering<\/p>\n
the evidence adduced at trial, which consisted of<\/p>\n
oral    evidence  of  PWs  1   and  2  and  DW1   and<\/p>\n
documentary evidence Exhibits A1 series and A2 and<\/p>\n
Exhibit B1 series to B5, dismissed the suit holding<\/p>\n
that the appellant\/plaintiff is not entitled to<\/p>\n
claim partition.   The appeal filed as A.S.No.148\/05<\/p>\n
before the first appellate court was also dismissed<\/p>\n
concurring with the findings of the trial court.<\/p>\n
Hence this Regular Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     4.   It is vehemently contended before me by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant that Exhibit A1<\/p>\n
is the certified copy of deposition given by the<\/p>\n
RSA 331\/09               4<\/span><\/p>\n
first defendant as DW1 in O.S.No.239\/87 before the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s Court, Chittur, wherein, he admitted that<\/p>\n
the scheduled properties are properties belonging<\/p>\n
in common and that therefore, the courts below are<\/p>\n
not justified in having dismissed the suit refusing<\/p>\n
the relief for partition.\n<\/p>\n
     5.   It is worthy to note that the appellant\/<\/p>\n
plaintiff is relying only on the admission made by<\/p>\n
the first defendant during cross-examination in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.239\/87, when he was examined as DW1.  He was<\/p>\n
examined   as  PW2 in  the  present  suit  and  was<\/p>\n
attempted    to be  contradicted  with  his   prior<\/p>\n
statements contained in Exhibit A1.    He admitted<\/p>\n
that he had made those statements before court, but<\/p>\n
explained that the admissions so made in 1989 were<\/p>\n
in relation to the properties owned in common by<\/p>\n
himself    and the  second  defendant,  which   was<\/p>\n
subsequently partitioned between them under Exhibit<\/p>\n
A2 partition.   The learned counsel made strenuous<\/p>\n
efforts to contend that the admission was not in<\/p>\n
RSA 331\/09                5<\/span><\/p>\n
relation to the properties owned in common by<\/p>\n
defendants    1  and   2,  which   was  subsequently<\/p>\n
partitioned between them under Exhibit A2, but in<\/p>\n
relation    to   the  scheduled  properties,   which<\/p>\n
according to the appellant, belonged in common to<\/p>\n
the appellant\/plaintiff, the third defendant and<\/p>\n
Vasu, the late father of defendants 1 and 2.      A<\/p>\n
detailed    probe  into   the  correctness  of   the<\/p>\n
explanation does not deserve to be made by this<\/p>\n
Court     in second  appeal  in  the  light  of  the<\/p>\n
admissions made by PW1 himself in his evidence<\/p>\n
tendered before the trial court, which is extracted<\/p>\n
by the trial court in paragraph 10 of the judgment.<\/p>\n
The deposition so extracted are to the effect that<\/p>\n
the scheduled property was purchased by his father<\/p>\n
Velayudha    Panicker  in  1945;   that  he  is   in<\/p>\n
possession of a copy of the said document and that<\/p>\n
there is no reason for his not producing that<\/p>\n
document    before  court.    Thus,  when  the  best<\/p>\n
evidence to establish title over the scheduled<\/p>\n
RSA 331\/09               6<\/span><\/p>\n
property, over which partition is claimed, is in<\/p>\n
the   possession  of  the appellant\/plaintiff,  but<\/p>\n
without   any  sufficient cause  to  withhold  that<\/p>\n
document, he does not produce it before court, he<\/p>\n
cannot bank upon the alleged admissions made by the<\/p>\n
first defendant in Exhibit A1, which were explained<\/p>\n
away by the first defendant when examined as PW2<\/p>\n
before the trial court after remand of the case<\/p>\n
from the first appellate court in A.S.No.35\/00.<\/p>\n
Obviously, for reason of non production of the<\/p>\n
document   in  the  possession of  the   appellant\/<\/p>\n
plaintiff   showing   title  over   the   scheduled<\/p>\n
properties   as   having  belonged   to   Velayudha<\/p>\n
Panicker, as alleged by the appellant\/plaintiff,<\/p>\n
adverse inference has to be drawn against him that<\/p>\n
there is no such document to establish title over<\/p>\n
the scheduled property.    There is absolutely no<\/p>\n
merit in this Regular Second Appeal and there is no<\/p>\n
question of law and much less, any substantial<\/p>\n
question of law arising for consideration by this<\/p>\n
RSA 331\/09               7<\/span><\/p>\n
Court in this Regular Second Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     In the result, I dismiss this Regular Second<\/p>\n
Appeal in limine refusing admission.<\/p>\n
2nd April, 2009          (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
\ntkv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM RSA.No. 331 of 2009() 1. MOHANDAS, S\/O.VELAYUDHA PANICKER, … Petitioner Vs 1. VINESHKUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS,S\/O.VASU, … Respondent 2. PRADEESH, AGED 46 YEARS,S\/O. -DO- 3. RAJASEKHARAN,AGED 62 YEARS, For Petitioner :SMT.M.J.RAJASREE For Respondent : No Appearance The […]<\/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-59205","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 2009 - 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\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-29T22:29:57+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\\\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-29T22:29:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":956,\"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\\\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Mohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-29T22:29:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 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":"Mohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 2009 - 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\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-29T22:29:57+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\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-29T22:29:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009"},"wordCount":956,"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\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009","name":"Mohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-29T22:29:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mohandas-vs-vineshkumar-on-2-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mohandas vs Vineshkumar on 2 April, 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\/59205","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=59205"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/59205\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=59205"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=59205"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=59205"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}