{"id":81065,"date":"1984-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1984-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984"},"modified":"2016-09-12T20:05:39","modified_gmt":"2016-09-12T14:35:39","slug":"jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984","title":{"rendered":"Jagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Madras<\/div>\n
Jagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1985 12 ITD 317 Mad<\/div>\n
Bench: G Cheriyan, K Thanikkachalam<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
George Cheriyan, Accountant Member  <\/p>\n
1. These appeals are by the assessee. They relate to the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The assessee was one-third co-owner of Maharani Talkies. The value returned was Rs 2,27,000 for each of the assessment years for wealth-tax purposes. The WTO enhanced the value by 15 per cent to Rs. 2,61,000 for the first two years and to Rs. 3 lakhs in the last year. The assessee appealed and contended before the AAC that such enhancement should not have been made without the matter being referred to the valuer under Section 16A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1956 (‘the Act’), because the difference in value with reference to the value of the property of Maharani Talkies as a whole between that returned and that assessed would have been more than Rs. 50,000, though the value of the assessee’s share between that returned and assessed was less than Rs. 50,000 in the first two years. The AAC negatived the plea and held that the mandatory reference was not called for since the prescribed limit had to be construed with reference to the value of the assessee’s share alone.\n<\/p>\n
2. Before us, the learned Counsel submitted that the valuation of the property as a whole has to be made in the first instance and he further stated that in terms of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, where the assessee was a partner in a firm or a member of an AOP, the value had to be determined in the prescribed manner and that manner was set out under Rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, which called for the computation of the net wealth of the firm in the first instance and that being the case, whether a reference under Section 16A was called for or not, had to be decided with reference to the value of the entire property. This plea was opposed by the learned departmental representative, who submitted that the criteria had to be determined with reference to the value of the asset to be included in each case.\n<\/p>\n
3. We  have  considered  the rival   submissions.   The  decisions of  the Madras   High Court in CWT v.   Vasantha [1973]  87 ITR 17 and of the Andhra Pradesh High Court  in CWT v. Narendra Ranjalker  [1981] 129 ITR  203  are no  doubt  authorities for the proposition that in terms of Rule  2,  the net wealth of the firm has to  be  computed in   the   manner statutorily   called   for.   Therefore,   the  point may  arise  where the net wealth of the firm itself has to be computed in the first instance and at that stage the provisions of Section 16A are attracted.    The criteria for making such reference has to be determined at that stage itself.    The decision of the Supreme Court  in  the case  of Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO [1984] 145 ITR 485 is also authority  for the proposition that for valuing the net wealth of a firm, a reference under Section 16A could be made. However, it is not necessary for us to pronounce on the contention of the assessee with reference to the provisions of the rule, because that rule does not apply  in the present case  since the assessee is only a co-owner and a co-owner is  not  a partner in a firm  and  is also not a member of an AOP as far  as the facts of the present  case are  concerned.    The asset, which the assessee  in  the present case has,  is an   undivided  one-third share in the property.  What is to be valued is the value of such share. Maybe that such valuation  is to  be made with reference to the aggregate value of the property but from such value, appropriate discounts, etc., have to be made.    So  what  is being valued is eventually only the share of the assessee, which is undivided in a property. For the purpose of determining whether the criteria in Section 16A applies, what is to be seen is the value of the asset as returned and whether in the opinion of the WTO, the value of such asset exceeded the prescribed percentage. The asset as returned, the value  of which  is estimated,  can only be the undivided   share of the property and not the property as a whole and, therefore, in the case of the assessee co-owner,  who  is  not  a  partner or member of an AOP, the criteria has to be  determined with reference to the percentages prescribed having regard to the value of the assessee’s share only.   Therefore, for the first two   years, the   WTO was  not really bound to make the reference under Section 16A  since the difference in the value of the share did not exceed Rs. 50,000.   The learned Counsel at the hearing submitted that if we were taking this view for the first   two years, he would not press the argument for the last year where the value of the  share,  as estimated, exceeded that returned by more than Rs. 50,000.\n<\/p>\n
4.  On merits, the submission of the learned Counsel was that there was no warrant for making the  enhancement,  as done by the WTO, which was 15 per cent in the  first year and at Rs. 3 lakhs against Rs.   2.27 lakhs returned in the last year.   The theatre was stated to   be about 50 years old and in the interior of Washermanpet. The land value, it was submitted, may have been showing an increase, but it   was   contended   the building was getting older.    The learned  departmental representative pleaded for the estimates being upheld.\n \n\n5.  We ascertained that the   building was one  which  had been let out on lease.    The lease was for a period of 20 years and in  1975-76, there was still about  10 years to run.    The income receivable in terms of the lease was, therefore, fixed.    In valuing  commercial properties, income yield is a criteria.   With a long period still  unexpired of the lease and there being no prospect of increase in the income  and the  theatre building being very old, we consider that there was no  material to  enhance the valuation of the property at 15 per cent in the first two years as done by the WTO and to Rs. 3 lakhs in the last year.    We direct that the  value be taken  at Rs. 2,27,000, which is the value fixed in 1972 by the valuation cell.\n \n\n6.  Before parting with this point, we  may state that the learned departmental representative made a point that in respect of another theatre, that is Alankar Theatre, where the assessee had only one-fifth share, the assessee had agreed to an increase in valuation.    It was pointed out by the learned Counsel that the facts there  are materially  different.   There the assessee was  only the   owner of   the land  and the  super-structure   was built by someone else.    The property no doubt had been leased out but in 1976, it was finally decided by the  Supreme  Court that the entire property should revert to the assessee. There was, thus, no continuing lease as in the case of Maharani Theatre.    We consider that this is a  very distinguishing feature and,   therefore,   the fact of the assessee having agreed to  an increased valuation of the share in Alankar Theatre, will not stop the assessee from contending that there should  be no increase in the value of the undivided share in Maharani Talkies.\n \n\n7.  [This para is not reproduced here as it involves minor issue.)\n\n\n \n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal – Madras Jagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984 Equivalent citations: 1985 12 ITD 317 Mad Bench: G Cheriyan, K Thanikkachalam ORDER George Cheriyan, Accountant Member 1. These appeals are by the assessee. They relate to the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. The assessee was one-third co-owner […]<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-81065","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"\nJagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984 - 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\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984\" \/>\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=\"1984-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-12T14:35:39+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984\",\"datePublished\":\"1984-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-12T14:35:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984\"},\"wordCount\":843,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984\",\"name\":\"Jagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1984-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-12T14:35:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984\"}]},{\"@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":"Jagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984 - 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\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1984-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-12T14:35:39+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984","datePublished":"1984-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-12T14:35:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984"},"wordCount":843,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984","name":"Jagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1984-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-12T14:35:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jagannathdas-govindas-vs-fifth-wealth-tax-officer-on-26-october-1984#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jagannathdas Govindas vs Fifth Wealth-Tax Officer on 26 October, 1984"}]},{"@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\/81065","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=81065"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81065\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}