{"id":6349,"date":"2009-06-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-06-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009"},"modified":"2014-04-28T23:19:46","modified_gmt":"2014-04-28T17:49:46","slug":"smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009","title":{"rendered":"Smt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Smt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Bopanna<\/div>\n
  (By\ufb02gi: sv_.R~HvLE:.C;D1: I-EUDLAMANE,ADV.)\n\nIN THE HIGH C()UR\"I' op KARNATAKA AT BANGiaLC\u00a7I\u00a7}i;-   \n\nDATES Tms THE 23rd DAY OF ,._}_UNE'    \nBEFORE 1' _ a4':    V\nTHE HQIWBLE MR. JU'51\"*\u00a5\u00a3?E: A'5f'*0\u00a7'\ufb023'\u00a7 \u00a5\\a}'3'L'\\...'. \nREGULAR sacowo APEAIJ 1% is\n\nREGULAR SECON  .N\u20acJ_;'._1?'~]\\f1f200?\n\nBETWEEN :     V\n\nTHARA s;a'E*f*\u00a7:y}\" _ , V 'V _ \nSINCE DECEAS_E'_D NQ9: \"\u00a5\u20ac,I\u00a7P\u00a7<?I:}SS}31I~f'"\u00a37}3D\nBY :,.\u00a52;gP:f2;v:,LA1<:r.Nc;...'j2.&-.3,.-- " \n\n1 NAVE'Ei\u00a2C\u00a7iiAN\u00a7:\u00a7m*\u00bb. S}\u00ab:\u00a7;*i*1*Y A  \nACEEID__AE3O'E\u00a3*'T!}_I'YEARS...___ . '\n\n2 M SATE$CHAP\u20aci\u00a7:3;A--\u00a7vH-E???\nAGED ';:3<3t,J'r 3.? YEARS'\n\n, ._E 3{)'i"I-I ARE AGRICUi,.'I'UI?1ST\n-  R \/st;-% B\u00a3tVAGUTH'LE"'HOU SE\n KAD\u00a7;;SHW.ALYA VILLAGE\n =BAprru*..e=u,1'A1,uK\n L) K. 1;:\u00bb;s'rR;iT;\n\n     RAMADAS RAI\n\n' 'S\/C) LATE M RAMANNA SHETTY\nADULT', R\/A ATHRABAIL HOUSE\nPERNE VILLAGE 85 POST\nESANTWAL TALUK, E} K E)iS'I'RiCT\n\nJ\u00bb\n\n'I'\n\n\n\n2 B GOPALAKI~2I8HNA RAI\nsxo LATE M RAMANNA SHETTY\nADULT, c\/0 VIJAYA BANK\nMAYO HALL BRANCH\nPUBLIC U'\u00a7'ILlTY BUILDING H   ' 4\nM G ROAD, BANGALORE   \u00bb K'~$SPG!~!_!2EN'!.'S.\n\n{By Sri: SANATH KUMAR sHE'r'1'Y,ADv.};__  A'\n\nTHESE APPEALS ARE F'ELED*\u00a7_)fS.1GG'OP'\"C--?C AGAINST\nTHE JUQGMENT 35 DEGREE mp i23._3.o';*..;?AssED. .1115: REA. Nos.\n5\/01 85 6\/o1REsPEcT1v\u00a7;L*z.' ON\"'I'H'$--- _FILE._OF THE': ADDL.\nDiS'I'RICT JUDGE, D.K., MA\u00abNGA_LE>RIa;; gIi)I\"\u00e93l$:iIS::\"2.!_NG THE APPEAL\nAND CONFKRMING THE Junemiwr AND DEGREE [rm\n7.122000 Passaxxrn os....2:2\/93 ,or~:'r'rHE,---'\u00a3\u00b01LE <3? me\nPRLCIVIL JUDGE .(sm_31~:) MA].*~Z'GALOF.?.E, L';1s':.s.-z;'ss11~zs:%FT.% \n\n   are considered together and disposed .\n\n o:f by  judment.\n\nJ\n\n'a\n\n\n\n2. 'i'he appellants are the piainti\ufb01e in\n\nO.S.No.212\/1993. '\u00a7'he suit was \ufb01leti \n\ndeclaration in respect of the suit schedule \u00a7I'0p\u20acI_'\u00a7.i6'S\u00ab\"' \n\ntheir claim on :2 WELL dated 25.3.1971 said...t\u00a7'j~'h;1\u00a7\u00e9{*1\u00a7\u00a2e;i'5\n\nexecuted by late M.Ramam1a Shetty;   \n\nplainti\ufb01 and the father of p1ai11ti_\ufb01's 2  of 'V\n\npiainti\ufb01e was that the defendatj;'tsrhave beet: to\nclaim title to the pmpertg eveftttsit-\u00a7eeVVV'tt\u00a7tey c\u00e9iirtie  know\nabout the said WILL.    that the\n\ndefendants haeg\u00e9  A  to change the\n\nrevenue1v;entt'ie\u00e9L'\u00a73:(7.d,_t:i*:e  proceedings relating thereto.\nThe  _ the:e\ufb015t*e:_\"'ee\ufb01'tended that they being the\n\nabsoigta. o\u00a7vnei*s..,ei\" the seuittecheciule properties in View of the\n\n V. '\"s.:-ii;:1V'ILL; ai\"'e\u00ab&entit1Veud\u00abfor the declaratien as prayed in the\n\nu':111it.& . V\n\n3.\" fi'AI'i,.e defendants in the Wzitten statement made 2.\n\n ,  claim apart from disputing the WILL propounded by\n\n  plaintiffs. It was also contended that the properties in\n\nJ\n\n'-\n\n\n\n \n\nquestion were not the absolute properties and had stated\n\nwith regard to the properties having belonged to the mother\n\nof the defendants late Muthakke. That apart, the defeiid-eii2.ts~v.,\n\ncontended that the said fate Reeeenne Shetty whejis  A'\n\nfather of the defendants had executed'    \n\n23.10.1987<\/pre>\n
 and under the said WIi;L <\/p>\n
suit schedule properties equaiij’._vtC-…eH his four’
\nthe plain\ufb01\ufb01s 2 and 3 and d%efef:e1ae#;s 1′ “and  The
\nproperties which were    Shetty in<\/p>\n
the name of been kept in her name in
\nthe said WILL. _ Thus  sought for dismissal of<\/p>\n
the suit. and u the counter claim. The facts<\/p>\n
    that the relationship between the<\/p>\n
   inasmuch as the first plaiilti\ufb01’ is the<\/p>\n
seeondd wife’   Ramanna Shetty who had married her<\/p>\n
  ‘after the death of his \ufb01rst wife viz, Muthakke. The plainti\ufb01e<\/p>\n
   are the sons born through the \ufb01rst plainti\ufb01’ and<\/p>\n
 .._\ufb01’det’ez1dants 1 and 2 ape the sons bom through the \ufb01zst wife.<\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
In View of the rival contentions, the trial Court<\/p>\n
framed as many as six issues which react as hereunder: ; <\/p>\n
E)<\/p>\n
Whether plaintiffs pnove that late M.
\nShetty has executed :21 East will dated:
\nWhether defendants prove _that._Iate <\/p>\n
Shetty has executed la:  Wi_lI”~  1″\n<\/p>\n
25.19.1987′? V
\nWhether plaintiffs pxttivetf that 2 thggs ‘  the
\nabsolute <3wr:e;4$~,_of  :.'g\u00a7\ufb02:T;and 'B' ectivedule<\/p>\n
properties as per Wit}   3.?\n<\/p>\n
 ‘pztovve that they are entitled<\/p>\n
‘ “vfertt1\/4t’-\\ s\ufb01\u00e9gre  in the suit properties?<\/p>\n
”  W1:1et}1er’V’:1;>\u00a3aiVt1tiffs are to be directed to give
\n2 ‘ aeeeunts vrtet\u00e9strdirag income from the date sf death<\/p>\n
father iate M. Ramanna Shetty?\n<\/p>\n
xgvhat reiiefs the parties are entitled?<\/p>\n
 Ieoieter to discharge the bl.1}f’d\u20ac11 east on the parties,<\/p>\n
u x V’ the seeoztti ylain\ufb01\ufb01 examined himself as F”W.1 and 3. witness<\/p>\n
.”‘tA*_.D’\u00a712;enI\u00a7ataram was examined- as PW.2. The documents at<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
‘5<\/p>\n
Ex13.s.P1 to P51 were marked. The \ufb01rst defendant examined<\/p>\n
himself a$ DW. 1 and the witnesses Sri Annappa Naik <\/p>\n
N.K.Sadashivaiah were examined as DWS2 <\/p>\n
documents at Exhs\ufb02l to D7 were marked.<\/p>\n
6. The trial Court on ;analyeQi1_1\u00a7’_V3:A.11e e\u00a7if:1\u00e9\u00a3*.ce VV<\/p>\n
(iismisse\u00e9 the suit 3.13.6. decreeti.e\u00a2’L:.\ufb013.e    S its
\njudgment and decree dated ?’. 1&.2;’2i\u00a7'(V}’\u20ac3’VV\\is.’h_ere1,\ufb013;<:i;er  one-<\/p>\n
faurth share to the defe\u00a31de\u00a2nise._Veie;'  in the WILL<\/p>\n
date\u00e9.  :0;.:1\u00a73*;V was dgemea and in e\ufb02ect the plaimes
\nwere a1sc e1:;1it1ed   on their behalf under the<\/p>\n
saw wreeze me  claw inning to be aggrieved by the said<\/p>\n
 '.}'edg\ufb011e.m:\u00ab."eprefenec3  Aappeals before the Lower Appellate<\/p>\n
 the dismissal of the suit and the ether<\/p>\n
hei\ufb01ig_44egain,.e_t' deereeing of the counter claim. The said<\/p>\n
'e:.ppea}s" VSa%\u00e9,re registered as RA N035 and 6 of 2801<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
"a<\/p>\n
'7. The Lower Appellate Court on re–appreciatio1:1 oftjze<\/p>\n
materials by its judgment dated 22.3.2007 has .<\/p>\n
both the appeals. The plainti\ufb02s are therefore   M<\/p>\n
Court in these two appeais against the  <\/p>\n
and judgment rendered by the  % V __ V\n<\/p>\n
8. Heard Sri S.R.Hegde  1eai’:;e<t:._:ee113;:\u00a73e1
\nfor the appellants and  K.\n<\/p>\n
Counsel for the 1’espon(ien;’ts.f’ _ <\/p>\n
9. TI:1;::_ ieferred to in the same rank as<\/p>\n
assigxmd\u00bb to  before”  trial Court for the purpose of<\/p>\n
 ee3;:zvetz1.ie\ufb01&:’e  clarity.\n<\/p>\n
”   ‘teamed counsel far the plainti\ufb01s would<\/p>\n
  ‘e\u00a7\u00a5\ufb02tend’*tt’i\u00e9;t at the outset, since the defendants themselves<\/p>\n
    on a subsequent WILL ti) contend that by the<\/p>\n
  WILL, the earlier WILL ciated 25.3.1971 Ieiieci on by the<\/p>\n
  u has been revoked, the further proof of the said<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
WILL does not arise. In that context, the question. is as to<\/p>\n
whether the W\u00a7LL dated 21.10.1987 has been proved <\/p>\n
defendants in acoordance with law. In this    _<\/p>\n
counsel would contend that the W\u00a5LL re\ufb01ed.  V   ”  <\/p>\n
defendants is shrouded with s\ufb01spieie\ufb01;   <\/p>\n
defendants had not nelied on ‘vefien <\/p>\n
change of mutation exxt\ufb01es “i’he    on
\nsubsequently in the Sl1\ufb01t.’~..’_ ._  to the
\nsigxatime available iu the    in the<\/p>\n
WILL reigied _0iidefefi\u20aciants_’is shaky and not sixniiar to
\nthe signeitige of  Shetty. ‘That apart, Late<\/p>\n
Ramanna 1She4\u20act3z,VWas.{wex1d:Iy wise ami was aware that there<\/p>\n
 V. ’13: 3’:1d”e~\u00a7eqiiiz”e.t11ent o\u00a7A’H\u00e9taWm  p paper for the WELL and as such<\/p>\n
‘$21; ‘ii;;cu 1136 made the WILL on a plain paper in<\/p>\n
his’   and had further deposited the same. it =<\/p>\n
  is also cexg\ufb01ezlded that the \u00e9ate on which the eecond WILL is<\/p>\n
   been made is a NARAKACHATURDASHE day, on<\/p>\n
  day, he could not have made the WILL. it is \ufb01lrther<\/p>\n
   \u00b0’eo113:ended that when these and the other suspicious<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
‘*1<\/p>\n
circumstances were raised, it was ineumbe:\u00a7i””o:;v— _<\/p>\n
propounder of the WILL to remove the euspieion,  dd <\/p>\n
instant case, the defendants have failed tode 5;;  em  .’<\/p>\n
the Courits below were not justi\ufb02ed. _  ”  .V ; d
\n1 1. On the other ha.nd,__”~1ea1ned   for “the<\/p>\n
defendants contended that at  the pmhab\ufb01i\ufb01es of
\nmaking the second  is evident<\/p>\n
from the vexy sequence Qf”eve:\ufb01s i’\u00a31,\u00a3\u00a7;$I}i1v}LCh’V’\u00a3?laS ihe mother of<\/p>\n
the ciefe:1Y1daI2’_fdAsA’  f1gI:’$’;~\u00a7’VvyVife_’ of Ramanna Shetty died in
\nthe year A1’9S\u00a33_andV_d}:1e”}\u00a7ed._:’ii1:ai’r’ied the \ufb01rs’: pIai1:1i3’\ufb01’ in the<\/p>\n
year 1960   sueh fhed WILL which was executed in<\/p>\n
 V. ‘\u00a3;he  5I9?1,.&that  providing cmly Rs.6,000\/ ~ each to<\/p>\n
‘:1___~.e   there were other properties cannot he<\/p>\n
of ‘1;~e\u00a2;%; W131.’ ‘ : ‘3–.V.i1′{1x’tZ1er when Ramanna Shetty himself had<\/p>\n
jpined ‘t1;1e71. defendants alse in execution of a mertgage<\/p>\n
“%ia:d$e;e\ufb01en, the action of having excluded the defendants to<\/p>\n
 right to property in the f1I’St WILL was met the<\/p>\n
u “WiI1(}\u20acp\u20acI}{‘.i\u20acI3.t decision of Ramanna Shetty. As such on<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
“0<\/p>\n
Ii}<\/p>\n
xealjsirzg at a subsequent distaut point <31' _<\/p>\n
appropriate WILL hae been mack: proyjiding equalijlightl ever; u " = <\/p>\n
the irmoperty to all his children and the   VT AA<\/p>\n
more nature}, In this backgxfeiuxg\u00e9, x\ufb01ze\ufb01 th\u20acI7\u20ac' 1'\u00a7'::7.4$V':.Va
\nWiLL in existence and when   '\ufb01ireggpun\u00e9e\u00e9
\nthe same before the  their
\niauxrien by exeminixzg the if\u00e9\ufb01imess and the
\nscribe. Hence,  ae t1e_e:V.fdecument, it was
\nproved in  Vwith rtzganfi to the<\/p>\n
suspieic\u00e9us ___sought to be made out by the
\nplaintiif, 2:13;; evideneeer  would disclose that even the<\/p>\n
admitted  that point in time contain the<\/p>\n
 V. \u00b0sign\u00e9itt.\u20acire'S'A:ixiVV'aAAshal\u00e9jeiii\u00e9lnner. Though the fabricatien of the<\/p>\n
  the piain\ufb02\ufb01s have not proved the same.<\/p>\n
O\ufb01  t3:1c::ae_ both the Courts below have analysed<\/p>\n
  Vibe evidegee and have came is an appropz\u00e9ate \ufb01nding of fact<\/p>\n
  V'\u00a7'\u00a7Li1d:;:\u20ac$\u00e9'A_\u00ab$uch according to the learned ceunse} the judgments<\/p>\n
 not call for interference, nor is there any substantial<\/p>\n
u fques\ufb01on of law far consideration.<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
'\u00a5<\/p>\n
I1<\/p>\n
12. in the background of the co11tentio:1sV.\u00ab.1)g1~\u00a7sV$ete*”‘,:’Le”<\/p>\n
perusal of the judgment of the tug’ \u00a7 Court.wou1d   M<\/p>\n
as already noticed, the issues were   binxview
\nthe similar riva} contentions raisecis   <\/p>\n
The essence of the suit was t}:ze 1*ig}_z.i:_%c1aj me\u00a71 by<\/p>\n
under the WILL dated. 25,3;—-19′?*’-1. ‘–~.._ m’,””t3;1m\u00a2..v~’\u00e9110r1nal<\/p>\n
circumstance, the  of the<\/p>\n
said WiLL were reqtgireei-I6″  \u00abjg accordance<\/p>\n
with law’, Ho\u00a7n%e9\u00a7ze:r,_  tbeinsfant case, :13; was not a mere
\ndenia} by {he  the ciefendants by way of<\/p>\n
counter  pie\ufb01eugfrlded the subsequem WILL dated<\/p>\n
 .2’1,1G’;i.98′”:* beipg  WILL and since it was stated that<\/p>\n
  been revoked, the burdezu. was 03 the<\/p>\n
\u00e9efeiueieuts  on them by issue No.2. In this pegazd, it<\/p>\n
 seen ” the first defendant had examined himself as<\/p>\n
  ‘.'”witI:1 regard to the right claimed in respect of the<\/p>\n
 under the said WILL. Ftxrther, the WILL was<\/p>\n
  \ufb01equixed to be gxroved as contemplated under Seetien 68 of<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
the Evidence Act and as such one cf the attes\ufb01r; g:’*wi.t\u00a7j\u00a2:;*\u00a7\u00a7Se$”‘ ‘<\/p>\n
viz, Sri Annappa Naik was examm ed_&$ DW.2′  u u<\/p>\n
an: N.K.Saciashiva2’ah was examned’:as:’_:)w.3′;’.  <\/p>\n
bmugixt on record that the 0t1:1t\u00a7?;f_v\u00a7’at.7\u00a7t;=:stj1i’g
\nWILL viz., Sri subba;3ra%’_Bhand.g\u00a7A- this
\nregard, the certi\ufb01cate   The WILL in
\nquestion had b\u20acEn.v.Ij1ark\u00a7td”\u00a2’%S:’vE\u00a7\u20ac;.  insofar” as
\nthe requiremc\ufb01i ” of  uc:>f”i;.he document, on
\nnoticing the  indicate that the
\nexacutioi\ufb01 A’   a perusal of the
\njudmen\u00a3’\u00ab:\u00a7ga\u00a5dij3g.A’vi{IA1%\u20ac  of the evidence even if<\/p>\n
COI1Sid\u00a3I3Ei’d  \ufb01ic’  bf: the contentions urged by the<\/p>\n
. V.  c(3\u00b0::11’sgI for  \u00e9\u00e9ppellant, it would not indicate any<\/p>\n
  7;: at ;\u00a7<\/p>\n
 “I3.  Vjother question raised with mgard to the<\/p>\n
*Vsuspi\u00a7iir;ai?.3\u00abV \u00e9ifcumstance of the subsequent WILL being<\/p>\n
 _   e\ufb01bci i3 that the signature of the {estate}:<\/p>\n
 Shetty is shaky 31:1 the saiai WILL-dated 21.10.1987<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
“5<\/p>\n
as cosczpared to {he si\ufb02ature in the earlier   .<\/p>\n
25.03.1971 regarding which there is V1:}\u00a73>$cIio1is”d-ie$}:21\u00a7{fx\u00e9. \ufb01fiz” “‘ ‘V<\/p>\n
the ouizsei, the evidence of the sczibe\ufb01 {DW3} <\/p>\n
that he has i\u00e9enti\ufb01ed the signature  <\/p>\n
as Ex.[}2(a). He has also stateei’ he  the
\ncontents to the   He  further
\nstated that the testatofs  –‘”@V;;\u00a7;f:A1\u00bbi.\u00a71_’\u00ab(3onditioz1 was
\nalright, but 1315 ‘\ufb01ggxgg   as such his
\nsignature    of the said witness
\nhas meta:  ”  ellxanner in the cross-\n<\/p>\n
examinatgbg\u00e9 ”  “fact, the PW. I hjmseif has<\/p>\n
admitted. tha{”  “age, Sri Ranaanna Shetty had<\/p>\n
   and the \ufb01ngers were shaky. In<\/p>\n
 {he said oral evidence, as rightly pointed<\/p>\n
out   counsel for the defendants, the V613!<\/p>\n
‘2\u00a5,ocumen1f.ei. reiie\u00e9 on by the plain\u00e9\ufb01s containing the<\/p>\n
   at Exhs.P42{a), P43(93. 1944(3) 8a(b), P45(a)T 6:. (b)<\/p>\n
 .___””.iazoVi;Id indicate that in the year $986 itself, the signatures<\/p>\n
  ‘4 become shaky andje very admitted documents would<\/p>\n
*0<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
indicate that the signature cannot be disputed znezely<\/p>\n
becauee it is not simikar to the signature appeazing <3;-\u00a31: ._<\/p>\n
i.e., the eariier WILL dated 2s.3.19?:. Refexegiee  *<\/p>\n
made to the document at Ex.D4 which~\u00bbi3._a\u00ab 'dfVIVatfer,{_1ey  <\/p>\n
executed it: favour of the first  <\/p>\n
document age'. the same Wou.ld'\u00bbi;9;di\u00a7:ate the  <\/p>\n
In addition, the rejoindexj noticeV__d:.e1*t\u00bb.e;;1'u1vS.4;.199:1_AAis\u00a7;i1ed on
\nbehalf of the plain\ufb01\ufb01s  P13 itself would<\/p>\n
indicate that the piain. ' \u00a7eA"'\u00a7.:'.xeIfp..sel'ge\u00a7';  the fact<\/p>\n
that since N_o\u00a7e\ufb01iher_  Ramanna Shetty was not well
\nand was   'bf his \ufb01ngers though mentally<\/p>\n
he was a gumig   It is further stated that hence<\/p>\n
  }::e"g1s}zsx.$;a1i<)"*ia a\ufb01ie to e.1'V@ ;v)roperijg since August 1987. In fact<\/p>\n
 \ufb02_1e' ifaave also referred to these aspects of the<\/p>\n
matte}; to Vr:s::'1'1L'J%{:'1Vio the conclusion that the document cannot<\/p>\n
  'be t\u20acI'Bft!:fC\u00a7 3 as suspieieus merely because the signature<\/p>\n
   shaky. Such oonciusien being based on the evidence<\/p>\n
' .._ "ava%il:ab1e an record is neither perverse 120$' eonhaxy to law.<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
'c<\/p>\n
14. At this stage itself, it is necessmy to noti e.”‘the<\/p>\n
application filed by the plainti\ufb02sj appellants ‘_” <\/p>\n
Court under Order XXVI Ruie 10A read with Sec’t:i:\u00a7):1jV’_151  ‘<\/p>\n
CPO to refer the document Ex.DC2;’A\u00a7.V.e;;\u00ab \u00abthe <\/p>\n
21.10.1937′ for scientific ipveseaga\ufb01my reg;-\ufb01xing ” <\/p>\n
signature on me alleged W\u00a7LLVb3rc:’L:c0mp&h:imgc
\nat Ex.P42 to P45. On pe;r;;sing,.i_fC%ii\u00e9;\u20ac,\\;1s  in the
\namdavit accompanying L.  keeping in
\nView the Ieasonvs’    “‘\u00a7.\u00a7ou1a be clear<\/p>\n
that,  tr_>fP45 are also slightly shaky
\nand in  uex\u00e9rent,’  at Ex.D4 being a document<\/p>\n
admitted by tee  icasmuch as though the same was<\/p>\n
   t\ufb01e.defe\ufb01\u20aci.\u00e9i\ufb01ts, it was produced in the Court by<\/p>\n
  \u00e9vissiie of appropriate notice and in the said<\/p>\n
jlwhich is not disputed By the plainti\ufb01’, the<\/p>\n
 outxight shaky and the same cougaled with the<\/p>\n
  Qgimission in the rejoinder notice as state\u00e9 above would leave<\/p>\n
   no jroom for doubt so as to require sciexzti\ufb01c investigation. In<\/p>\n
ifsuch chcumstance, when comparison as pexmrissible under<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
Section 73 of the Evidence Act itself woulri be su\ufb01_ig::iei1t,~   A’ <\/p>\n
unaeoeesaxy to grant the prayer. That ayart,   <\/p>\n
been made by the plainti\ufb02s either bhefote  <\/p>\n
before the Lower Appellate Court  opi’ti’io\u00a7:t’ of  V’<\/p>\n
expert and as such it is too iatetthe {iay “seek for tench<\/p>\n
prayer. ‘_ _ _’ V A\n<\/p>\n
15. Thezefoxe, insofar’ – ae__   suspicious<\/p>\n
cireumstaneee with zgegas\ufb02t    the document,<\/p>\n
apart fmm the  the evidence, the Lower
\nAppe\ufb02ate   the evidence and on<\/p>\n
no\ufb01cirtg the let\u00e9galtpositiott\u00e9 has a\ufb01lmed the \ufb01ndings, which is<\/p>\n
  aoc:e\u00a7t\u00e9t>Iet’ to A.  and no \ufb011I’th\u20ac}C\u00b0 investigation is<\/p>\n
  ” V<\/p>\n
3 “I6.  other cilcumstanoe which was attempted to<\/p>\n
 ‘ be  with Iegaxd to the stamp paper \u00a5:>eing dated<\/p>\n
  on Atagslgblie hoiitiay has also been dealt with comprehensively<\/p>\n
 below and in my view, apaxt from the correct<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
‘5<\/p>\n
conclusion reached by the Courts beiow on that aspect,<\/p>\n
when the defendants have psoved the execution<\/p>\n
document and have dispelied the other   _<\/p>\n
circumstances, they cannot be expected to a$1S’x3′;’\ufb011;:” of u <\/p>\n
the testator having purchased or executed’ t_j.he–_ .d<\/p>\n
a particuiar day. Yet anothexr o_ii’cuij1s_danee  ddto\ufb02beb<\/p>\n
pointed out by the ieained  :11″:  that
\n \ufb02y when the    for \u00e9h\u00e9uge of
\nmutation entry after the dead;  Shetty, had not<\/p>\n
relied one the  …oz1iyf subsequently the WILL is<\/p>\n
propounded  into being of the WILL<\/p>\n
is suspicious. ‘V111.  the fact which is not in dispute ‘<\/p>\n
 ‘is that $aid~.;I1utatioi1 proceedings had cuEmm’ ated in writ<\/p>\n
 that stage, the WILL was relied on and<\/p>\n
the exlplanafioiiibeing that the same could have been relied<\/p>\n
 only” .,;3.i1er having knowledge of the same cannot be<\/p>\n
   aside. Flnther as stated above, when the WILL is<\/p>\n
   in accordance with law, the burden was heavier on<\/p>\n
V  , ijthe piaintziffs io prove that the WILL is a forged document as<\/p>\n
J<\/p>\n
‘B<\/p>\n
hand Wouid not admit of similar situation Which: 1 ”<\/p>\n
noticed in the decided cases. In fact, in \u00bb.*I;1\u00a2:   dd<\/p>\n
testator has divided the property id t\ufb01e. <\/p>\n
well as the defendants and theid\u00e9izs-..3qo  hot
\nnatural. Even in the cage of
\nREDDY AND OTHERS d(2\u00a7b0d(i)L_  on by the
\nIeamed counsel sfog”  suspicious
\ncixtzumstanccgsd   the manner of
\ndispositions    and as such
\nthis   fhcddh there were co\ufb01cuxxent
\n\ufb01ndings. A”‘r_};1’c:  above would indicate that<\/p>\n
this Cgurf; has 1V1\u00a7>t”.;=icc\u00a3\u00a7\u00a7;>t{?,;c.l the validity of tha WILL dated<\/p>\n
. V.  \ufb01lemly  the concmrent \ufb01ndings rend\ufb01red,<\/p>\n
1b_12f_{)Ii daf1a1y’sing’_i’i;he situation, has same: to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that 1116  \ufb01ndings in the present facts are neither<\/p>\n
  Venvneous her perverse. Hence the said decisions would net<\/p>\n
  V’ vgfdssistance to the piaintiffs to persuade me to take 3.<\/p>\n
 …WxrieV\ufb01;=s2* di\ufb01\u00e9mnt from that which has been taken by the Courts<\/p>\n
ifbelow. Infact the decision in the case of PADMAVATHI vs<\/p>\n
i<\/p>\n
”5<\/p>\n
RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY Arm ANOTHER (1999  <\/p>\n
whczrein {his Court had accepted the Eater     b <\/p>\n
distributed the properties equaiiy  <\/p>\n
against the exclusion of the othor hoiis profego\ufb01noe \u00a30 ax\ufb01y V<\/p>\n
one in the earlier WILL, relied   for<\/p>\n
the defendants would be; mom  V fo._the foois oh hanci.<\/p>\n
18. Gonsidgiilg   101:’ ‘tirxe matter, I am
\nof the opi:1;ion ‘   do not project any<\/p>\n
substazivti\ufb02\ufb01  of_:AV”La}v– for consideration. The
\nconcurztani: ..oj3i1:Iiox:i$V by the Courts below by way<\/p>\n
of \ufb01nd\ufb01lig of  and do not call for intcrforence.<\/p>\n
 . Heooe apfxsals a1oo'”1ioble to be disposed of at the stage of<\/p>\n
1eu;i\ufb01isSioJ;iL”\u00ab._&Ho:ic\u00a2_i~:it is ordered as follows:<\/p>\n
    ..(;.>.8_D_’.E.\u00a7
\nI) ” 1 Misc. Civil No.8-438\/2(){}9 is dismissed.
\n ._ i\u00a7f) RSA Nos.1713\/2097 and 13141209? stand<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
mg The palms’ to tmr {heir own Costs-‘.<':i:i1   <\/p>\n
appcais.   .\n<\/p>\n
  A <\/p>\n
Akcf 13%<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Smt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 2009 Author: A.S.Bopanna (By\ufb02gi: sv_.R~HvLE:.C;D1: I-EUDLAMANE,ADV.) IN THE HIGH C()UR”I’ op KARNATAKA AT BANGiaLC\u00a7I\u00a7}i;- DATES Tms THE 23rd DAY OF ,._}_UNE’ BEFORE 1′ _ a4′: V THE HQIWBLE MR. JU’51″*\u00a5\u00a3?E: A’5f’*0\u00a7’\ufb023’\u00a7 \u00a5\\a}’3’L’\\…’. REGULAR sacowo APEAIJ 1% is REGULAR SECON .N\u20acJ_;’._1?’~]\\f1f200? BETWEEN […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 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\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-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=\"2009-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-28T17:49:46+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-28T17:49:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009\"},\"wordCount\":2608,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009\",\"name\":\"Smt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-06-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-28T17:49:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 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:\/\/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":"Smt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 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\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-28T17:49:46+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 2009","datePublished":"2009-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-28T17:49:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009"},"wordCount":2608,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009","name":"Smt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-06-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-28T17:49:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-thara-shetty-vs-sri-b-ramadas-rai-on-23-june-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt Thara Shetty vs Sri B Ramadas Rai on 23 June, 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:\/\/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\/6349","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=6349"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6349\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}