{"id":61231,"date":"2010-10-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010"},"modified":"2017-07-04T21:11:32","modified_gmt":"2017-07-04T15:41:32","slug":"jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Jaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Jaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSA\/182\/2009\t 1\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSECOND\nAPPEAL No. 182 of 2009\n \n\n \n \n===============================================\n \n\nJAYDEVPRASAD\nRAMANLA THAKAR & 1 - Appellants\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nRAMESHCHANDRA\nBHAGVATICHANDRA THAKAR & 1 - Respondents\n \n\n=============================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMR KIRTIDEV R DAVE for\nAppellant(s) : 1 - 2.MR RAHUL K DAVE for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. \nMR\nBUCH for MR YASH N NANAVATY for\nRespondents. \n=============================================== \n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 19\/10\/2010 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
1.\tAppellants
\nhave preferred this Second Appeal under Section 100 of Civil
\nProcedure Code on the following substantial questions of law
\nformulated in the memo of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
 (A)
\nWhether the Courts below have erred in law by eliminating the entire
\nevidence of PW 1-2 as have not been cross-examined?\n<\/p>\n
(B)
\n  Whether the First Appellate Court has erred in holding that the
\nsuit is bared by O.23 R.4 of the CPC more particularly when the trial
\ncourt had hold contrary and there was no cross objection ?\n<\/p>\n
(C)
\n Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the suit for
\neasement is bad in law as the plaintiff has not produced the order of
\nthe previous suit more particularly when the plaint of the suit is
\ngot produced by the plaintiff ?\n<\/p>\n
(D)
\n  Whether the Courts below have erred in holding the issue of
\nres-judicata against the plaintiff when the onus was on the
\ndefendants ?\n<\/p>\n
(E)
\n Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the duct is of
\nGovernment when as the servient owner the defendants claims right and
\nownership over it ?\n<\/p>\n
2.
\n According to the appellants   original plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1
\nis residing in Lot B property and plaintiff No.2 is residing in Lot A
\nproperty of Gram Panchayat Nos.90 and 88 respectively. There is a
\n Jalia  ad-measuring about 2′   6  x 3′   6   on the
\nground floor on southern side of Lot A property and a ventilator on
\nthe first floor ad-measuring about 1′   6  x 1′   6  and a
\n Jalia  on the souther side on the ground floor of Lot B
\nproperty.  According to the plaintiffs, they have been using the same
\nsince last about 30 years for air and light without any obstruction
\nand thereby they have acquired easement by prescription but the
\ndefendants are trying to make construction of wall which would
\nobstruct their right of air and light through  Jalia .  Therefore
\nthe suit was filed claiming right of easement as mentioned
\nhereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
3.
\nThe plaintiffs also stated that earlier Regular Civil Suit No.280 of
\n1982 was filed  by plaintiff No.1 Jaydevprasad Ramanlal Thakar
\nagainst the defendants wherein it was stated that there is a naveli
\non the southern side of suit property belonging to the Government,
\nbut as the suit was not maintainable, it was withdrawn with the
\npermission of the Court and therefore a fresh suit was filed claiming
\nthe right of easement.\n<\/p>\n
4.
\n The defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing written
\nstatement at Exh.25 denying the averments made in the suit.  The
\ndefendants contended that there is an open land on the southern side
\nof plaintiffs’ property belonging to the defendants and it is wrongly
\ndescribed as  naveli .  A wall is constructed to protect their
\nprivacy.  There was no  Jalia  as claimed by the plaintiffs in
\nthe suit wall but new  Jalias  were put after  filing of the
\nsuit.  It was also contended that the  earlier  suit  was withdrawn
\nby the plaintiffs, therefore, the suit is barred by res-judicata and
\nestoppel and therefore the suit is required to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
5.
\n\t  The trial Court after considering  the documents produced by the
\nplaintiffs  recorded that the documents do not establish that there
\nwere  Ventilator  and  Jalia  in the suit property as alleged
\nand therefore dismissed the suit.  Being aggrieved by the said
\ndecision, the plaintiffs preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.106 of
\n1996 in the Court of learned District Judge, Bharuch.  The first
\nappellate court by judgment dated 30th June, 2005,
\ndismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by
\nthe trial court.  Therefore the present appeal has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
6.
\nI have heard learned advocate Mr.Dave for the appellants at length
\nand in great detail.\n<\/p>\n
7.
\nLearned advocate Mr.Dave has mainly submitted that the first
\nappellate court has not formulated the points for determination as
\nrequired under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC and therefore the impugned
\njudgment is required to be set aside.  He has also submitted that the
\nearlier suit filed in respect of easement right was withdrawn with a
\npermission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action and
\ntherefore there was no bar of res-judicata.  He has also submitted
\nthat the Courts below committed error in discarding the evidence of
\nplaintiffs’ witnesses only because they were not cross-examined by
\nthe defendants.  It was also submitted that the evidence adduced
\nbefore the trial court clearly establish that the plaintiffs had a
\nright of easement in respect of the property  and therefore the
\nfindings recorded by the Courts below are required to be set aside
\nand appeal is required to be entertained.\n<\/p>\n
8.
\nLearned advocate Mr.Buch  for the respondents has submitted that the
\nCourts below were justified in dismissing the suit as there was no
\nevidence to indicate that the plaintiffs had a right of easement.  He
\nhas also submitted that there was due compliance of Order 41 Rule 31
\nof CPC and therefore the appeal cannot be entertained and therefore
\nit is required to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
9.
\nIn the decision of  G.Amalorpavam and others vs. R.C.Diocese of
\nMadurai and others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 224, the Hon’ble
\nSupreme Court has held that if it is possible to make  out from the
\njudgment of appellate court that there is substantial compliance with
\nrequirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC, and that justice has not
\nthereby suffered then it would be sufficient compliance of the
\nprovision.  It is also held that where the appellate court has
\nconsidered entire evidence and discussed in detail and the findings
\nare supported by reasons  then though no point has been framed, there
\nis substantial compliance with provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.\n<\/p>\n
10.
\n  In another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
\nNopany Investments (P) Ltd vs. Santokh Singh (HUF) reported in (2008)
\n2 SCC 728, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when findings
\narrived at by first appellate court affirming the judgment of the
\ntrial court were neither cryptic nor base on non-consideration of
\narguments advanced by parties before it, there was substantial
\ncompliance of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.  In the
\ninstant case, it appears from the observations made by the first
\nappellate court that it considered the entire evidence led before
\nthe trial court and also the submission made by the learned counsel
\nfor the parties. Therefore, in my view, there was substantial
\ncompliance of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.  Therefore the arguments that
\nthe first appellate court committed error in passing the impugned
\njudgment without framing points for determination.\n<\/p>\n
11.
\nIt appears that the plaintiffs earlier filed a suit claiming same
\nrelief against the defendants but the suit was withdrawn and a fresh
\nsuit was filed on the same cause of action.  According to the learned
\nadvocate for the appellants, the earlier suit was withdrawn with a
\npermission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, but the
\nobservations of the first appellate court indicate that no evidence
\nwas produced before the trial court to indicate that the earlier suit
\nwas withdrawn with a permission to file a fresh suit on the same
\ncause of action.  Therefore the courts below were justified in
\nholding that the suit was barred by principle of res-judicata.\n<\/p>\n
12.
\nIt also emerges that after recording of the plaintiffs evidence, the
\ndefendants did not cross-examine the plaintiffs’ witness and
\ntherefore their right  to cross-examine the witnesses was closed.
\nThereafter the defendants right to cross-examine the witnesses was
\nreopened but the plaintiffs’ witnesses did not remain present for
\ncross-examination.  Therefore the evidence of plaintiffs’ witness
\ndoes not carry any weight in support of plaintiffs’ case and the
\ntrial court was justified in dismissing the suit as there was no
\nlegal evidence in support of the plaintiffs’ case.\n<\/p>\n
13.
\nIn view of above, no substantial questions of law as formulated by
\nthe appellants arise for determination by this Court. Therefore the
\nSecond Appeal cannot be entertained and hence it is required to be
\ndismissed  and accordingly it is dismissed.  Notice issued earlier
\nstands discharged with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
(
\nBANKIM N. MEHTA, J. )<\/p>\n
syed\/<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Jaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010 Author: Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SA\/182\/2009 1\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 182 of 2009 =============================================== JAYDEVPRASAD RAMANLA THAKAR & 1 – Appellants Versus RAMESHCHANDRA BHAGVATICHANDRA THAKAR & 1 – Respondents =============================================== Appearance […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-61231","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010 - 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\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-04T15:41:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-04T15:41:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1339,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Jaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-04T15:41:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Jaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010 - 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\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-04T15:41:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-04T15:41:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010"},"wordCount":1339,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010","name":"Jaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-04T15:41:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jaydevprasad-vs-rameshchandra-on-19-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jaydevprasad vs Rameshchandra on 19 October, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61231","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=61231"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/61231\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=61231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=61231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=61231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}