{"id":62000,"date":"1971-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971"},"modified":"2018-08-26T00:28:15","modified_gmt":"2018-08-25T18:58:15","slug":"chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971","title":{"rendered":"Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court<\/div>\n
Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: AIR 1973 AP 149<\/div>\n
Bench: G R Ekbote, A K Rao<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment of Venkatesam in  A. S. No. 37 of 1962.  The learned Judge has allowed the appeal preferred by the defendants 1 to 5 to this Court from the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O. S. No. 44 of 1959 which decreed the plaintiff’s suit.  The plaintiff, who filed the suit died,  and his legal representatives were brought on record.  The appellant herein is one of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.  O. S. No. 44 of 1959 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge,  Kavali was filed by the deceased plaintiff for a declaration of his title to the plaint ‘ A ‘ schedule properties and for delivery of possession of the same with profits.  In order to entitle him to the relief which he claimed, the plaintiff made the following averments in the plaint.\n<\/p>\n
  2.   The plaintiff is the reversioner to the estate of one Atmakaru  Venkatasubbayya, who died possessed of the plaint schedule properties in the year 1883.  On the death of Venkatasubbayya without issue, his widow Venkatasubbamma, succeeded to the properties and died on 11-7-1953 in the plaintiff’s house.  Venkatasubbamma was Venkatasubbayya’s sister’s daughter.  The plaintiff was the sister’s son of the said Venkatasubbayya.  The plaintiff claimed that on Venkatasubbamma’s death, he became entitled to the properties as the reversioner to the estate of Late  Venkatasubbayya as his sister’s son and that there were no other or nearer heirs than the plaintiff to  Venkatasubbayya’s  estate when the succession opened on 11-7-1953 consequent upon the death of the widow.  It was also alleged that  Venkatasubbamma, the widow of  Venkatasubbayya, who was also the plaintiff’s sister, executed an unregistered will dated 1-7-1953 bequeathing all the properties to the plaintiff.  Venkatasubbamma filed  O. S. No. 246 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court,  Ganigiri against defendants 6 and 7 in the suit for rent and possession in respect of item 1 of the plaint  A schedule.  During the pendency of the suit,  Venkatasubbamma died.  Thereupon the plaintiff filed  I. A. No. 803 of 1953 for being impleaded as the local representatives of the deceased plaintiff  Venkatasubbamma putting forward his sole reversionary right and also as a legatee under the will of  Venkatasubbamma dated 1-7-1953.  The present defendants 1 to 5 had filed  I. A. No. 902 of 1953 to be impleaded as local representatives.  It was their contention that  Narayanappa, the father of the last male-holder  Venkatasubbayya had taken in adoption their grandfather one  Ramaswamy before the birth of  Venkatasubbayya and as such there were the persons entitled to come on record by virtue of their nearer relationship to the deceased.  These two I. As.  Were enquired into by the Court and it was held therein that the present defendants 1 to 5 were the legal representatives and they were impleaded as such.  A revision was preferred by the present plaintiff against the order  in those  I.  As. And the same was dismissed.  The plaintiff, therefore, was obliged to institute the present suit for establishment of his title to the plaint  A  schedule properties.  The plaintiff in the present case had denied the adoption of  Ramaswamy by  Narayannayya.\n<\/p>\n
  3.  The defendants had filed written statements and contested the plaintiff’s claim.  While emphatically denying that the plaintiff was the sister’s son of the last maleholder, they set up the case of their grandfather  Ramaswamy being adopted by  Nrayanappa.\n<\/p>\n
  4.  The trial Court framed appropriate issues.  The most important issue was ” whether the plaintiff is the nearest reversioner to the estate of the late  Atmakuru  Venkatasubbayya. ”  The Trial Court, on a consideration of the documentary and oral evidence placed before  it, came up to the conclusion that it was established that the plaintiff was the nearest reversioner to the estate of the late  Venkatasubbayya and decreed  the plaintiff’s suit and passed a decree declaring the  plaintiff’s title to the plaint  A  schedule properties and directing delivery of possession of the same by the defendants and also decreeing mesne profits against defendants 1 to 5 in respect of item 2 of the plaint  A schedule properties.  The claim regarding profits in respect of in respect of item 1 of the plaint  A schedule was dismissed.  Aggrieved by that decision, defendants 1 to 5 preferred an appeal to this Court.  Venkatesam,   J. who heard the appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and allowed the appeal, resulting in the dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit.\n<\/p>\n
  5.  In this appeal, the learned  Advocate-General appearing for the legal representative of the plaintiff had questioned the correctness of the judgment of  Venkatesam,  J. who held that the plaintiff had not proved that he was the nearest reversioner to the estate of late  Venkatasubbayya.  The Learned Advocate General submitted that his case as to the establishment of the plaintiff’s reversionary right to the estate of late  Venkatasubbayya stands or falls depending upon the Court’s acceptance or rejection of  Ex.  X-10.  He submitted that if  Ex. X-10 is rejected as Venkatesam,  J. Had done, then the other material in the case would not afford him any great assistance to prove the case of the plaintiff’s reversionary rights.\n<\/p>\n
  6.  So the only question that falls to be decided by us is whether the evidence on record is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff has proved his relationship to late  Venkatasubbayya as his siater’s son.  If we are of the view that the plaintiff has not established that particular relationship which he claimed, it would follow that the suit has to be dismissed.  It will then be unnecessary to go into the question whether  Ramaswamy, the grandfather of the defendants 1 to 5, was adopted by  Narayanappa, the father of  Venkatasubbayya, before  Venkatasubbayya was born.  The nature of the present suit is one of in  ejectment and it is well settled that he can succeed only on the strength of his own title.  It is not obligatory on the defendants to plead and prove all the possible defects in the plaintiff’s title.  In  Moran  Mar Bassellios  Chatholicos  v.  Most  Rev.  Mar Poulese  Athnasius.<\/a>  ( AIR  1954  SC  526 ), what has already been well settled has been reiterated by the Supreme Court wherein they had observed that the plaintiff in an ejectment suit must succeed on the strength of his own title and that could be done by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus which is on him, irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not.   Even if the title set up by the defendants is found against, in the absence of establishment of the plaintiff’s own title, the plaintiff must be non-suited.\n<\/p>\n
  7.  Ex.  X-10 is the trump-card in the plaintiff’s pack.  Among other things, the trial Judge had accepted the genuineness of  Ex.  X-10 and he relied upon it strongly along with other pieces of evidence which are all of a less compellable character to find that the plaintiff was  Venkatasubbayya’s sister’s son and the nearest reversioner to his estate.  Venkatesam,  J.  Had elaborately considered the question of the genuineness of  Ex X-10 and has come to the conclusion that  Ex. X-10 could not be deemed to be genuine and could not be relied upon as established viz., that the plaintiff is the sister’s son of  Venkatasubbayya.  The sheet anchor of the plaintiff”s case  Ex.  X-10, which is in Telugu, has been translated into English and it reads thus :\n<\/p>\n
  ”  Petition submitted by  Atmakuru  Seethamma, resident of Chandrapadu village, Pellur Taluk, within the jurisdiction of  Raja  of  Venkatagiri to Mohammad  Rahmthulla Saheb, Divanji of  Venkatagiri Samasthanam.\n<\/p>\n
  I have got three daughters, namely Lakshminarasamma,  Venkamma and Ademma and one son  Venkata Subbaiah.  As my father is dead my mother Peramma has been living with m and in order that I may not be troubled she herself has been attending to my cultivation and other works.  As per the Sanad which was given to Narayanappa, my husband  Velugoti Bangaru Yachamanyanim Garu , Raja of  Venkatagiri one Kachchela of Valigada land and wet land of the seed extent of ( illegible ) Irasas under the tank in the aforesaid village.  As you are a just ruler and a friend of the poor and helpless, I pray that in respect of the aforesaid Veligada Kachchela and the wet plot used for raising seedlings ( patta ) may be granted in favour of my son  Venkata Subbayya.  I  also request that the Sanad which was so kindly granted may also be recorded in the name of  Venkatasubbayya.”\n<\/p>\n
  Ex facie, this document purports to the more than 30 years old and what is strongly urged is that the presumption under  Section 90 of the Evidence Act should be drawn in favour of its genuineness and the due execution.  Section 90 of the Evidence Act may now usefully be extracted :\n<\/p>\n
   ” Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from and custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. ”\n<\/p>\n
  The scope and effect of  Section 90 of the Evidence Act has been the subject matter of numerous judicial decisions and can be said to be no longer in doubt.   By enacting  Section 90 the Legislature sought to do away with the strict rules of proof which are enforced in the case of private documents, by giving rise to a presumption of genuineness with regard to documents reaching certain age.  In other words, documents thirty and more years’ old prove themselves.  The foundations for the presumption are the age of the document, its unsuspicious appearance, the production from proper custody and other circumstances.  The words ” may presume ” in  Section 90 have been difined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act which states :\n<\/p>\n
   ” Whenever it is provided by this  Act that the Court may presume a fact, it may either regard such  Act as proved, unless and untill it is disproved, or may call for proof of it . ”\n<\/p>\n
  Even if all the requirements of the section are found, it is clear that a discretion is left in the Court either to dispense with proof in favour of the document.  The presumption enacted in  Section 90 is permissive and the Court according to the circumstances of each case, may or may not raise it.  The discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.  The exercise of the discretion should be in consonance with law and justice and courts are enjoined to observe great caution in exercising the discretion under this section.  Ordinarily when once the trial Court exercises its discretion, the appellate Court will be slow to interfere with that discretion.  But that is not to say that the first appellate Court has no right to interfere with the discretion of the trial Court in the matter of drawing a presumption under  Section 90 of the Evidence  Act, if it is satisfied that the discretion was improperly exercised.  The first appellate Court has undoubtedly a duty to scrutinise with care and caution the available evidence on record and the circumstances bearing on the case and come to its own conclusions.  The language of  Section 90 is worded in general terms and it was designed to meet situations varying in character, where passage of time might have obliterated the proof of genuineness of a disputed document.  A wrong exercise of the discretion under this provision is likely to strengthen the hands of forgers.  In every many cases, it may be most dangerous to draw the presumption that the document is genuine, merely because it is 30 years’ old according to the recitals in the document and also is produced from proper custody.  Where the trial Court fails to approach the case correctly, it is of utmost importance that the appellate Court should set matters right.  Whether a document is produced from proper custody or not is a matter for juducial satisfaction and it ought to be founded on the evidence on record.  The factum of proper custody cannot itself be the subject-matter of any presumption and it should be satisfactorily proved.  On an analysis of the provisions of  Sec. 90 and its interpretation judicially, we may deduct the following propositions :\n<\/p>\n
  1.  That the presumption applies to documents proved to be 30 or more years old ;\n<\/p>\n
  2.  The document must come from proper custody ;\n<\/p>\n
  3.  The presumption is discretionary and in cases where a document is exfacie suspicious, the Court may very well refuse to make the presumption and call upon the party to offer other proof forthwith ;\n<\/p>\n
  4.  The presumption can only be applied to documents which bear the signature of the writer or of witnesses and the presumption cannot be drawn in the case of unsigned or anonymous papers; and  <\/p>\n
  5.  The extent of presumption relates only to the signature, execution or attestation of a document that is to say, its genuineness.  The drawing of the presumption does not connote the idea that the contents of the documents are true or that they have been acted upon ;\n<\/p>\n
  6.  The presumption applies only to original documents and not on any copy thereof, certified or otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
  8.  Bearing these principles in mind, we will examine the positionin relation to  Ex. X-10.  We will now consider that may be called the internal evidence regarding  Ex.  X-10.  A superficial look at  Ex. X-10 gives the impression that it may genuine.  The paper is ancient.  The writing looks old.  It bears certain postal seals.  The postal stamp is of the days of the East India Company.  But when we scrutinise the document, we find that two quarter-sheets of old paper were joined together and that the ancient postal stamp was affixed over the centre of such joining.  A look through the magnifying glass in Court by us left us in no manner of doubt that two separate quarter-sheets of paper were joined together and on that the postal stamp was affixed.  The postal seal on the stamp itself is not clear to show the place of origin.  Another postal seal just immediately to the left of the postal stamp is not clear, though it might be ‘ Nellore ‘.  On the document we find three more postal seals purporting to be those of Naidoopet, Nellore and  Venkatagiri.  These three seals are in brown ink.  All these seals contain the month of August, but when we come to the year, the Naidoopet seal contains the year as 187, presumably the missing portion may be ‘ O ‘.  But the Nellore seal does not contain any year except probably ‘ 70 ‘.  What purports to be Venkatagiri seal shows the year 1870.  We are not prepared to say how these different seals happened to be on this document and whatever favourable impressions these old postal seals might have created in our mind the telling fact that the postal  stamp was affixed on two pieces of paper joined together destroys such impression.  We have no doubt on a scrutiny of the document in holding that the contents of the document were engrossed on two separate pieces of paper joined together.  But for the manner in which the postal stamp was affixed the fabrication would have easily passed muster.  As the document itself is so suspicious and renders itself to a charge of concoction the first requisite viz. The unsuspicious character of the document is absent, before the presumption contemplated by  Section 90 of the Evidence  Act. Could be drawn in its favour.  On the top of the document we have a seal purporting to be that of  Venkatagiri  Estate.  There is some writing immediately by the side of the seal to the right in different handwriting from the rest of the document showing the date  13-8-1970 and the words  ” Venkatagiri “.\n<\/p>\n
  9.  The document purportsto be from  Atmakuru  Seethamma resident of  Chandrapad  Village, Pellur Taluk within the jurisdiction of the  Raja of  Venkatagiri.  It is addressed to  Md. Rahamthullah  Saheb  Diwanji of  Venkatagiri  Samasthanam.  From its nature it is a petition.  There is no signature of Atmakuru  Seethamma or her thumb-impression, but only a Nisani of  Seethamma.  It does not purport to be in anybody’s handwriting.  The presumption under  Section 90 cannot be drawn obviously because the document does not purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person while no doubt it purports to bear the mark of  Seethamma.  It does not enable us to draw any presumption.  Atmakuru  Seethamma the sender of this petition, it is stated is the widow of  Narayanappa and the maternal grandmother of the plaintiff and mother of  Venkatasubbayya the last male holder.  The document contains a prayer beseeching the Maharaja of  Venkatagiri to grant a  Sanad or Ptta in favour of  Venkatasubbayya.  It was stated therein, that previously the Sanad was in favour of  Narayanappa and that a Sanad might be granted and the lands recorded in the name of  Venkatasubbayya.  A reference in this case is made to the fact that the petitioner  Atmakuru  Seethamma, had three daughters, viz.,  Lakshjinarasamma,  Venkatamma and  Ademma and one son  Venkatasubbayya.  It was also recited therein that as her father was dead, her mother Peramma had been living with her to help her in the matter of cultivation and other works.  One fails to understand why the need for this petition had arisen.  If a Sanad was granted to  Narayanappa, ordinarily there is no need to ask for another Sanad in favour of his son  Venkatasubbayya.  It is alaso to be seen that Venkatasubbayya would have been a minor of very tender age at that time.  The application was not made on behalf of  Venkatasubbayya, minor represented by the guardian mother.  It also passes one’s comprehension why in this petition the request for a Sanad in favour of  Venkatasubbayya the fact of the existence of the three daughters and their names were mentioned.  It also appearsto us to be irrelevent to have made any reference to the mother of  Seethamma in this petition.  A reading of the contents of this petition leave no manner of doubt in our minds that the contents were specially introduced with a view to show  that  Nrayanappa had left three daughters and a son  Venkatasubbayya.  It is not disputed that the plaintiff is the son of Ademma.  The plaintiff wants to say from these recitals that  Ademma is the sister of  Venkatasubbayya and therefore he is the nephew of  Venkatasubbayya, who under the Hindu Law Inheritance Amendment  Act, is the nearest reversioner to the estate of  Venkatasubbayya.  The letter significantly is not directed to  Venkatagiri.  If this was really sent by post, one would expect that the destination of the letter is  Venkatagiri.  On the other hand we find that it was written at the back of  Ex. X-10.  ” This letter shall be given by the Venkatagiri office writer to Mohammad  Rahmathullah Saheb,  Divan  of  Venkatagiri  Samasthanam. ”  Ordinarily, when a letter is intended to be posted to a particular person at a particular place, one would clearly indicate the addressee’s place.  The strange manner in which this address is written also strengthens our suspicion regarding the authenticity of  Ex. X-10.  The document in our opinion is a tell-tale concoction.  We have given the document and its contents our very close attention and that features pointed out above by us clinchingly demonstrate the falsity of the document.  The internal evidence afforded by  Ex.  X-10 being such as it is, does not persuade us to think that the document is a genuine one.  That apart, we are clearly of opinion that it cannot be said  that the document has come from proper custody.\n<\/p>\n
  10.  On the question of proper custody, we have to bear in mind the Explanation appended to  Section 90 of the Evidence Act.  As per the Explanation documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the  person with whom, they would naturally be, but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a ligitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such origin probable.  In order to prove their case that  Ex.  X-10 has come from proper custody, the documents relied on are Exs.  X-11,  X-14,  X-16 and X-17.  Ex.  X-17 is a letter dated 13-8-1961 from the Thasildar of  Venkatagiri to the Sub-Collector Ongole, wherein it is mentioned that the document was traced in the records of the old defunct estate of the Taluk and hence it was sent as it did not relate to the Taluk.  It is an admitted fact  that the Venkatagiri  Zamindari was abolished and taken over by the Government on 7-9-1949 and all the records of the estate must have been handed over to the Government.  One wonders why this document alone was in the office of the Tahsildar of  Venkatagiri.  It does not  appear that  any other documents which might have been left out by mistake or inadevertence were sent to the  Sub-Collector,  Ongole.  What was stated is that Ex. X-10 was traced in the old records.  Why was it suddenly traced  and on whose instance was it traced ?  This first document  Ex.  X-11 which started  a chain of correspondence ultimately leading to the production of  Ex.  X-10 in Court raises any amount of suspicion and makes one wonder whether in fact it was not planted in the Thasildar’s office and started on its journey, owing to a scheme hatched by the plaintiff and his advisers.\n<\/p>\n
  11.   Ex.  X-12 is the endorsement of the Sub-Collector  Ongole, in connection with Ex. X-11 and is dated 26-8-1961 whereby it was forwarded to the Thasildar,  Ongole, for necessary action or report.  On this there is also another endorsement, presumably by the Thasildar, that the document did not contain the details of the lands covered by the Sanad and hence classification of the land was not known.  There was an added recommendation that the file may  be closed and eventually it was closed on 19-9-1961.  Before the closure of the file , it would appear that  a copy application ,  Ex.  X-13 was made by one  B. Lakshminarasimha  Rao, son of the plaintiff on 7-9-1961.  In the description of the document of which a copy was required, it was stated :\n<\/p>\n
   ” A petition of  Atmakur  Seethamma, wife of  Nrayanappa, for the transfer of  Sanad in favour of her son  Atmakur  Venkatasubbayya regarding  Chandrapadu  lands ( Pelluru Taluk )\\,  Ongole Taluk in the year 1970. ”\n<\/p>\n
  In Col. (4) of  Ex.  X-13 the purpose for which the copy was required was mentioned thus :\n<\/p>\n
   ” For reference, please note.  The petitioner,  Atmakur  Seethamma is my father’s grandmother.  The public copy is needed for my personal reference and for filing before any office if required. ”  By the time of this application, the present suit which was filed on 25-3-1958 was pending.  Obviously, one would have thought that the application for the copy of  Ex. X-10 was made with a view to produce it in the present suit.  It is difficult to understand why he was chary of mentioning the purpose.  This application  Ex. X-13 was returned by the Sub-Collector and it was represented to the Thasildar with an application.  Ex.  X-14 dated 12-9-1961.  The endorsement that appears on this application Ex. X-14 shows that the document Ex. X-10 did not contain the signature or thumb-impression of the applicant ( Seethamma ), nor did it bear the signature of the scribe.  It was also noted that the Thasildar of  Venkatagiri who sent it ( under Ex. X-11 )did not despatch the connected correspondence or as to how the application evidenced by Ex. X-10 for transfer of  Sanad was disposed off.  The Thasildar in this endorsement also made reference to Board Standing Orders and that the application did not answer the description of a document for which a certified copy copuld be granted and in any case that the authority to issue a certified copy vested only with the Collector.  The Tahsildar made a remark that the document was traced and carefully sent which indicated that there was something behind it.  The Tahsildar, therefore, felt that he could not grant the certified copy and referred the question to the Sub-Collector.  The Sub-Collector by his order, Ex. X-17  dated 23-9-1961 had rejected the copy application.  These above referred to documents indicate that the plaintiff was not successful in obtaining a certified copy of the document.  It was later that Ex. X-10 was produced through  P. W. 7  into Court on 11-10-1961 after the defendants closed their evidence.  One is inclined to think that the plaintiff originally wanted to satisfy himself with the production of the certified copy of  Ex. X-10 from the authorities and as he failed to secure the certified copy, he kept quiet as he dare not summon for  Ex. X-10 and after the defendants had closed their evidence and finding himself in desparate straits to prove the relationship has summoned the courage to sent for  Ex. X-10  with its tell-tale characteristics of fabrication.  What is referred to above in connection with Ex. X-10 makes the inference irresistible that Ex. X-10 musu have been planted in the office of the Tahsildar, Venkatagiri and to lend support ti its existence and its official custody various attempts were made by the plaintiff to obtain a certified copy alone without daring to summon for the original.  It is curious that the Tahsildar who ” traced ” it and despatched it under Ex. X-11 was not summoned.  It is even more curious that Lakshminarasimha  Rao, the son of the plaintiff, had not examined to show how and in what manner he came to know about the existence of Ex. X- 10 and what made him to applyfor a certified copy of the same through ineffectively.  As stated by us earlier, there is no reason why when all the estate records were handed over on the abolition of the Venkatagiri Estate, this document alone remained in the office of the Tahsildar, Venkatagiri to be ultimately traced.  It cannot be said that Ex. X-10 was in proper custody at the time it started on its journey under  Ex. X-11 on 13-8-1961 and ultimately landed itself  in Court as on Exhibit on 11-10-1961, through the person of P. W. 7.  It had certainly not come from the care of a person with whom it would naturally be.  If the document had been produced from the particular Government office which had custody of all the records of the abolished estate of Venkatagiri, then we might probably have been inclined to think that it had come from proper custody.  But, on the other hand, the evidence of P. W. 7 makes it clear  that patta transfer applications of the type Ex. X-10 are preserved in Taluk Office only for three years.  He also stated that the Government had handed over all the documents relating to Pellur Taluk to the Taluk Office, Ongole, on 7-9-1949 and yet for 12 years nearly, the document,  Ex. X-10, was in lone hiding in the Taluk Office,  Venkatagiri.  To our minds, there has been a shabby attempt on the part of the plaintiff to prove the proper custody of  Ex. X-10.  The question of genuineness of  Ex. X-10 need not be dwelt upon in any greater detail.  We unhesitatingly agree with  Venkatesam,  J. That the presumption invokable under  Section 90 of the Evidence  Act, is not attracted to Ex. X-10, therefore, must be held to be not genuine.  The learned Judge was quite right in interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial Court which acted upon the presumption under  Section 90 in relation to the genuineness of  Ex. X-10, in view of all the external and internal evidence bearing upon Ex. X-10 and its authenticity.  Once we have come to this conclusion, in accordence with the submission made by the Advocate-General at the opening of his arguements, the plaintiff’s case must fail.  We will, however, refer to certain aspects of evidence which were touched upon during the course of arguements.\n<\/p>\n
  12.   Ex. A-1, B-1, B-12 and B-13 which were referred to during the course of arguements, merely afford evidence of negative character.  A consideration of these documents would merely show that  Venkatasubbayya did not have any sisters.  Ex.  A-1 is an  Inam Statement made by Seethamma, the mother of  Venkatasubbayya, who was the last maleholder in respect of the suit lands.  In  Col. (5) regarding the description of the family then existing, it was noted that it consisted of  Venkatasubbayya and his mother  Seethamma.  In the pedigree attached to the statement, we find that  Narayanappa, the husband of  Seethamma, was shown to have only one son viz.,  Venkatasubbayya.  There is no reference to any of the daughters of  Narayanappa I. E., Sisters of  Venkatasubbayya, in this  Ex. A-1.\n<\/p>\n
  13.   Ex.  B-1 is the Inam Fair  Register extract in respect of the suit lands.  In that name of the owner was shown as  Atmakuru  Venkatasubbayya, aged four years.  Under  Col. (8) ” surviving heirs of the present incumbent. ” it is noted ” mother ” evidently referring to  Seethamma.  There is no reference whatsoever to any of the sisters of  Venkatasubbayya.  What was sought to be argued was that the non-mention of the names of the sisters in  Ex. A-1 and B-1 might have been due to the fact that the Karnam might not have given the names of the family heirs.  But there is no substance in this explanation when we see that it was  Seethamma and not the Karnam that gave this statement.  The defendants filed  Exs. B-12 and B-13.  Ex. B-12 is an Inam Settlement relating to Kareti Village and in Col. (5) of  Ex. B-12 we find the names of family heirs also mentioned such as the sister and daughter of one  Velamuri  Venkata  Narayanappa.  Under  Col (6) also, we find the names of certain family heirs mentioned.  Likewise in Ex. B-13, the names of the wife and daughter one  Rama Bhotla were mentioned.  No doubt  Exs. B-12 and B-13 do not relate to the suit lands or to Narayanappa’s family.  These two documents merely show that whenever there were family heirs, they were also mentioned.  It is from this angle that the non-mention of sisters of  Venkatasubbayya in  Exs. A-1 and B-1 assures some importance.  That is to say, if  Venkatasubbayys had sisters, Seethamma the mother, who gave the statement, would not have failed to disclose the names of her daughters.  The learned Judge in the judgment had observed that in a case of the present nature, not much weight could be attached to oral evidence and greater weight should be attached to the documentary evidence in the case.  We are inclined to agree with him.  The learned Judge had thoroughly scrutinised the oral evidence in the case.  He referred in great detail to the evidence of  P. W. 1. the plaintiff, and found that on his evidence he should not hold that he was the sister’s son of  Venkatasubbayya.  P. W. 2’s evidence was rejected by the trial Judge and  Venkatesam,  J. Agreed with him that the evidence of  P. W. 2 did not go to establish that plaintiff’s mother was the sister of  Venkatasubbayya.  We see no reason to take a different view of the matter.  As the positive oral evidence sought to be let in was rejected by the learned Judge.  It is not necessary to consider the oral evidence adduced on the side of the defendants, which on the question of the reversionary right of the plaintiff, is merely of a negative character.\n<\/p>\n
  14.  Our attention was drawn to  Ex. A-18 which is an unregistered will dated 1-7-1953 executed by  Venkatasubbamm, the widow of  Venkatasubbayys, bequeathing the suit properties to the plaintiff.  But this is a document post litem motem inasmuch as  Venkatasubbamma had already filed  O. S. No. 246 of 1951 to which we had already referred and the efforts of the plaintiff to get himself impleaded as a legal representative of  Venkatasubbamma.  The learned Subordinate Judge had placed no reliance on  Ex. A-18 as it contained statements made subsequent to the disputes and could not be admitted under  Section 32 (5) of the Evidence  Act and that the plaintiff could not rely upon  Ex.  A-18.  The learned Judge of this Court agreed with that view and we think rightly.\n<\/p>\n
  15.   It is also significant that in the plaint the plaintiff badly stated that he is the sister’s son of  Atmakuru  Venkatasubbayya and succeeded to his estate as the sole surviving nearest reversioner and heir after the death of  Venkatasubbamma.  When once we see that the plaintiff had made unsuccessful attempts to get himself impleaded in the place of the deceased  Venkatasubbamma in O. S. No. 246 of 1951 and he had also known the positive case of the defendants who resisted his I. A.  803 of 1953 one would have expected him to give particulars of the number of daughters  Narayanappa had.  The plaintiff, in particular, should have stated that he was the son of Ademma as was sought to be developed in the evidence.  The omission to give all the details of relationship to  Narayanappa’s family throws considerable doubt in one’s mind as to the truth of the relationship sought to be established by evidence without any foundation in the pleading.  As per the case of the plaintiff,  Venkatasubbayya had three sisters  Venkamma,  Lakshminarasamma and Ademma, the latter being the mother of the plaintiff.  It is not stated in the plaint whether the other two sisters of  Venkatasubbayya had any male progeny and if so what happened to them.\n<\/p>\n
  16.   In the view we have taken, it is not necessary for us to go into the question whether Ramaswamy, who is said to be the grandfather of defendants 1 to 5, was taken in adoption by  Nrayanappa, before the birth of  Venkatasubbayya, the last maleholder.\n<\/p>\n
  17.  In the light of  the discussion above, we have no hesitation  in upholding the judgment of our learned brother,  Venkatesam,  J. and in conferming the decree as passed by him by holding  that the plaintiff has failed to make out that he is the nearest reversionary heir to the estate of late  Atmakuru  Venkatasubbayya.\n<\/p>\n
  18.  In the result, the letters Patent  Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.  The court-fee payable on the memorandum of this appeal will be paid by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
 19. Appeal  dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andhra High Court Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971 Equivalent citations: AIR 1973 AP 149 Bench: G R Ekbote, A K Rao JUDGMENT 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment of Venkatesam in A. S. No. 37 of 1962. The learned Judge has allowed the appeal preferred […]<\/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":[10,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62000","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-andhra-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971 - 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\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971\" \/>\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=\"1971-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-25T18:58:15+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=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-25T18:58:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971\"},\"wordCount\":5744,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Andhra High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971\",\"name\":\"Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-25T18:58:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971\"}]},{\"@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":"Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971 - 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\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-25T18:58:15+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":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971","datePublished":"1971-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-25T18:58:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971"},"wordCount":5744,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Andhra High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971","name":"Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-25T18:58:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chakicherla-audilakshmamma-vs-atmakaru-ramarao-and-ors-on-30-november-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chakicherla Audilakshmamma vs Atmakaru Ramarao And Ors. on 30 November, 1971"}]},{"@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\/62000","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=62000"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62000\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}