{"id":78295,"date":"2009-01-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009"},"modified":"2015-02-19T01:15:46","modified_gmt":"2015-02-18T19:45:46","slug":"ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Ansari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Ansari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRP.No. 25 of 2009()\n\n\n1. ANSARI, KANKALIL VEEDU\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. SULEKHA BEEVI, W\/O.KOYAKUTTY\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. MUHAMMED SHEREEF, S\/O.KOYAKUTTY,\n\n3. RAMLATH, D\/O.KOYAKUTTY, DO.DO.\n\n4. IRSHADA, D\/O.KOYAKUTTY, DO.DO.\n\n5. RASHEEDA, D\/O.KOYAKUTTY, DO.DO.\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.RAMADAS\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :20\/01\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n               K.P. Balachandran, J.\n            --------------------------\n                C.R.P.No.25 of 2009\n            --------------------------\n\n                       ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
    Revision petitioner is the petitioner in E.A.<\/p>\n
No.176\/07 in E.P.No.127\/93 in O.S.No.161\/83 on the<\/p>\n
file of the Munsiff’s Court, Kayamkulam.  The said<\/p>\n
application was filed by the petitioner praying<\/p>\n
that the proceedings in E.A.No.27\/94 be dropped.<\/p>\n
The said EA was dismissed. Hence this revision<\/p>\n
petition.\n<\/p>\n
    2. E.A.No.27\/94 was an application filed by the<\/p>\n
tenant of the building in the scheduled property in<\/p>\n
O.S.No.161\/83 at the time of eviction for re-<\/p>\n
delivery of the building, as, instead of ordering<\/p>\n
symbolic delivery, actual physical possession of<\/p>\n
the building in the scheduled property, which was<\/p>\n
occupied by him, was delivered over to the decree<\/p>\n
holder. According to Koyakutty, who filed E.A.No.<\/p>\n
27\/94, he was a building tenant under the decree<\/p>\n
holder  in  O.S.No.161\/83  on   the  file  of   the<\/p>\n
Munsiff’s Court, Kayamkulam even before execution<\/p>\n
CRP 25\/09                  2<\/span><\/p>\n
of the mortgage in favour of the judgment debtor in<\/p>\n
the case; that therefore, only symbolic delivery<\/p>\n
could be effected and that inasmuch as actual<\/p>\n
physical possession of the scheduled building was<\/p>\n
also delivered over, the building, which was in his<\/p>\n
occupation as a tenant, has to be re-delivered to<\/p>\n
him.     The execution court allowed E.A.No.27\/94 and<\/p>\n
ordered re-delivery.    That was confirmed in appeal<\/p>\n
also by the Additional District Court, Mavelikara<\/p>\n
in A.S.No.165\/95.\n<\/p>\n
     3. It is submitted that petitioner and one Suni<\/p>\n
Rasheed got assigned the rights of the decree<\/p>\n
holder and got themselves impleaded as additional<\/p>\n
appellants in A.S.No.165\/95. However, while A.S.No.<\/p>\n
165\/95 was pending, Koyakutty died and his legal<\/p>\n
representatives     were  impleaded   as   additional<\/p>\n
respondents 2 to 6 in that appeal. The appellate<\/p>\n
court, which dismissed the appeal confirming the<\/p>\n
order     on  E.A.No.27\/94,  held   that  the   legal<\/p>\n
representatives of deceased Koyakutty are entitled<\/p>\n
CRP 25\/09                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
to move the executing court for re-delivery of the<\/p>\n
property.   Accordingly, in E.A.No.27\/94, additional<\/p>\n
petitioners 2 to 5 were impleaded and they were the<\/p>\n
son and daughters of deceased Koyakutty, as, in the<\/p>\n
meanwhile, the widow of Koyakutty also passed away.<\/p>\n
     4.   It is the case of the petitioner that<\/p>\n
himself and Suni Rasheed, who got assignment of the<\/p>\n
decree schedule building during the pendency of<\/p>\n
A.S.No.165\/95    before    the    District    Court,<\/p>\n
Mavelikara, got themselves impleaded as respondents<\/p>\n
12 and 13 in E.A.No.27\/94 and raised contentions<\/p>\n
that three of the legal heirs of deceased Koyakutty<\/p>\n
had assigned their inherited tenancy right to him<\/p>\n
by virtue of Release Deed No.2083\/07 and that<\/p>\n
therefore, he has become a statutory joint tenant<\/p>\n
along with the petitioners in E.A.No.27\/94 and<\/p>\n
hence, the order for re-delivery in E.A.No.27\/94<\/p>\n
has become inexecutable and also filed E.A.No.<\/p>\n
176\/07    seeking  for   an   order   dropping   the<\/p>\n
proceedings in E.A.No.27\/94.\n<\/p>\n
CRP 25\/09                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
     5.   The execution court, which considered the<\/p>\n
application filed by the petitioner, observed that<\/p>\n
the three persons, from whom the petitioner got<\/p>\n
assignment, posing themselves as the legal heirs of<\/p>\n
deceased tenant Koyakutty, are not the persons<\/p>\n
impleaded as the legal heirs of deceased Koyakutty<\/p>\n
in A.S.No.165\/95 and in E.A.No.27\/94; that there<\/p>\n
had been no adjudication of the rights of the<\/p>\n
executants of the said documents in favour of the<\/p>\n
petitioner; that even if the executants of the<\/p>\n
documents are also the legal heirs of deceased<\/p>\n
Koyakutty, it cannot be said that the order in E.A.<\/p>\n
No.27\/94 has become inexecutable; that the effect<\/p>\n
of the alleged assignment, if at all, is only to<\/p>\n
enable   the decree   holders not  to  implead  the<\/p>\n
executants of the said assignment deed and that the<\/p>\n
assignment, however, in no way affects the right to<\/p>\n
get re-delivery ordered vide E.A.No.27\/94 in favour<\/p>\n
of additional petitioners in E.A.No.27\/94, who are<\/p>\n
impleaded as the legal heirs of deceased Koyakutty<\/p>\n
CRP 25\/09                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
and consequently, dismissed E.A.No.176\/07. It is<\/p>\n
the said order passed by the execution court on<\/p>\n
E.A.No.176\/07, refusing to drop the proceedings in<\/p>\n
E.A.No.27\/94, that is assailed before me in this<\/p>\n
revision.\n<\/p>\n
     6.  It is vehemently contended before me by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner that when right<\/p>\n
of at least a few of the legal heirs of the<\/p>\n
original deceased tenant is got executed in favour<\/p>\n
of the petitioner, he becomes a co-owner along with<\/p>\n
the other legal heirs of deceased tenant Koyakutty<\/p>\n
and therefore, the order in E.A.No.27\/94 has become<\/p>\n
inexecutable. I am not prepared to accept the<\/p>\n
contention and repel the same. When re-delivery was<\/p>\n
ordered in favour of the original tenant and a few<\/p>\n
of his legal heirs, who continued in occupation of<\/p>\n
the scheduled building, prosecute the petition for<\/p>\n
re-delivery, the decree holder cannot overreach the<\/p>\n
order of re-delivery by getting assignment from<\/p>\n
some other alleged legal heirs, even if they are<\/p>\n
CRP 25\/09                6<\/span><\/p>\n
the real legal heirs, but are not in occupation of<\/p>\n
the building and pray for petition for re-delivery<\/p>\n
being dropped.    Such of the legal heirs of the<\/p>\n
original   tenant,  who  are  in  actual   physical<\/p>\n
occupation of the building, in continuation of the<\/p>\n
occupation   of   the  original   deceased   tenant<\/p>\n
Koyakutty, are entitled to all the rights which<\/p>\n
deceased Koyakutty had to the exclusion of other<\/p>\n
legal heirs, who are not in occupation of the<\/p>\n
tenanted premises. The order of re-delivery in E.A.<\/p>\n
No.27\/94 is, therefore, executable and the court<\/p>\n
below has rightly dismissed E.A.No.176\/07, praying<\/p>\n
for an order dropping the proceedings in E.A.No.<\/p>\n
27\/94.\n<\/p>\n
     This revision petition is devoid of any merit<\/p>\n
and is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
20th January, 2009       (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
\ntkv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Ansari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 25 of 2009() 1. ANSARI, KANKALIL VEEDU … Petitioner Vs 1. SULEKHA BEEVI, W\/O.KOYAKUTTY … Respondent 2. MUHAMMED SHEREEF, S\/O.KOYAKUTTY, 3. RAMLATH, D\/O.KOYAKUTTY, DO.DO. 4. IRSHADA, D\/O.KOYAKUTTY, DO.DO. 5. RASHEEDA, D\/O.KOYAKUTTY, DO.DO. For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAMADAS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-78295","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAnsari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 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\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ansari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-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=\"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-18T19:45:46+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ansari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-18T19:45:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":932,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Ansari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-18T19:45:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ansari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ansari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 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\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ansari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-18T19:45:46+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ansari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-18T19:45:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009"},"wordCount":932,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009","name":"Ansari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-18T19:45:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ansari-vs-sulekha-beevi-on-20-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ansari vs Sulekha Beevi on 20 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78295","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=78295"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78295\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78295"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78295"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78295"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}